Waltham Forest News RSS Feed Send your news, pictures & videos


Parliamentary candidates for Walthamstow debate public service cuts

WALTHAMSTOW: Parliamentary candidates debate public service cuts WALTHAMSTOW: Parliamentary candidates debate public service cuts

CUTS to spending in education and the health service were some of the key issues debated by parliamentary candidates this evening.

Hosted by Waltham Forest Trades Council, candidates from four political parties presented their arguments to about 60 residents at Quaker Hall, in Jewel Road.

Walthamstow candidates included, Farid Ahmed standing for the Liberal Democrats, Daniel Perrett for the Green Party, Nancy Taffe for the newly-formed Trade Union and Socialist Coalition, and Leyton and Wanstead Labour candidate, John Cryer.

There were no parliamentary candidates from the Conservative Party or from UKIP.

Residents called on candidates to give their views on cuts to public services and strike action by public sector workers. All candidates said they supported workers' right to strike.

One resident asked candidates for their views on education, including trust schools and academies.

John Cryer said he fully supports state schools and that the “crumbling” schools of more than ten years ago have disappeared because of Government investment.

But he said he is concerned about academies because of a lack of “accountability”.

Ms Taffe responded: “I find it amazing that we have a politician saying he supports state schools, when we have a history of privatisation of services.”

Mr Perrett argued tuition fees should be abolished and higher education funded by higher taxation on high-incomes.

Mr Ahmed said teachers spend too much time dealing with paperwork which is a “great strain” on their time.

Health visitor, Norma Dudley, asked the candidates for their views on NHS Waltham Forest's proposals to introduce more health services, such as minor surgery and blood tests, at 'polyclinics' in the community.

Mr Ahmed praised the services at Whipps Cross Hospital and said: “If you take away acute services like that it will be a tragedy for our community.

"There's an argument that certain services can be provided in the community, but that decision should be left to doctors and nurses and not thrust upon them.”

Mr Cryer said more services, such as blood testing in surgeries could make life easier for patients, but it could become too centralised.

Mr Perrett said he was “disturbed” by possible cuts to the health service.

Ms Taffe said that although an efficiency saving looked good to executives on paper, the cuts would be the “death” of the health service.

Other issues raised by residents varied from freedom of the press, to Palestine and how to tackle racism in Waltham Forest.

Click here to follow the Waltham Forest Guardian on Twitter

Comments(11)

myopinioncounts says...
8:58am Fri 16 Apr 10

Cut treating anyone not entitled to use the NHS!
That should save quite a bit!

Techno2 says...
9:56am Fri 16 Apr 10

Were we told why Stella Creasy did not turn up?

Walthamstow_resident says...
10:43am Fri 16 Apr 10

There is a massive amount of money wasted by Waltham Forest council.

Just a few examples...

Get rid of the monstrous TV screen in the centre of Walthamstow just below the bus station.

Stop visits to New York by council employees.

Stop production of the freebie Waltham Forest News. News should be reported by an independent newspaper e.g. Waltham Forest Guardian.

We do not need three councillors for every ward. This is an obvious case of jobs for the persons. Just one councillor per ward is sufficient.

I am sure Waltham Forest residents could add many more examples of waste.

Get rid of the waste and put the money into front line services, particularly the police and education

April Showers says...
11:29am Fri 16 Apr 10

While I don't agree with Walthamstow_resident about the 'Big Screen', which is actually a 2012 Live Site in conjunction with LOCOG and the BBC which probably cost the borough little or nothing other than paying the electricity bill, I do agree about 'jollies' to New York. But I wholeheartedly agree about the number of councillors. I'm on record as saying I think we're long overdue a root-and-branch reform of London councils (something that hasn't happened since 1965) but, in the short-term, and especially with the imposition of the 'strong leader and cabinet' system after the elections, having 60 councillors will become even more of a nonsense. Currently there are 20 wards so one councillor per ward should be more than enough to provide a strong leader, cabinet, and a scrutiny panel, at an annual saving of well over half a million pounds and no significant loss of democracy, which is pretty much lost already!

Robert19 says...
3:26pm Fri 16 Apr 10

Um Attractive as it sounds I suspect the idea of a single member ward will lead to even more difficulty in getting good candidates to stand. Unlike MPs ward councillors have minimal support to carry out their duties. If they run a weekly advice surgery, deal with constituents' case work, liaise with local organisations, carry out street surveys etc as good and conscientious councillors do, then I think that is much too much for one person to deal with and have some kind of home life or even work life. Also not all councillors are conscientious as we know. If you are stuck with one that isn't then you will not get representation or support from them and there is no alternative councillor to go to.
Can I also comment on council officers going on 'junkets' to America. I accept Secretary of UNISON Dave Knight's comments about giving social workers decent salaries and conditions, but there is a crisis in social work largely due to the red top press crucifying them at every available opportunity. This leads to even worse services as the offices are full of short term agency staff and from anecdotal evidence from teachers there is very poor to no support to vulnerable young people in this borough. Agency staff cost between a third and a half of their salaries again in fees to employ - which does reinforce Dave Knight's point. However I believe the crisis is more critical than this and to recruit staff direct in the employ of Waltham Forest is win win both in cost and continuity of care. What is the difference to staff going to Australia to recruit primary teachers as happened a few years ago when there was a shortage in local schools and what is happening to recruit social workers now? Is it because teachers are more popular and their absence is more immediately obvious? In the medium term better salaries for social workers is the solution, but what is happening in Local Government means this is not likely for the next few years.

fabster says...
4:16pm Fri 16 Apr 10

I'm in agreement with Robert - where I've not had a response from one Councillor, I've been able to seek advice & help from another, or a 3rd as was my case. Having more than one Councillor is beneficial, even if at face value, this sounds like a luxury. I think it actually provides us with a more robust form of local representation.

The biggest waste which needs to be cut is that silly 'newspaper' which pretends to be news. It really has no business in brainwashing us. Having worked in a printing press, there's no doubt the cost of printing at such a large format, with 4 colour editorials on every page, we are talking tens of thousands a pop given the distribution quantities.

Techno2 says...
4:28pm Fri 16 Apr 10

Robert19 wrote:
Um Attractive as it sounds I suspect the idea of a single member ward will lead to even more difficulty in getting good candidates to stand. Unlike MPs ward councillors have minimal support to carry out their duties. If they run a weekly advice surgery, deal with constituents' case work, liaise with local organisations, carry out street surveys etc as good and conscientious councillors do, then I think that is much too much for one person to deal with and have some kind of home life or even work life. Also not all councillors are conscientious as we know. If you are stuck with one that isn't then you will not get representation or support from them and there is no alternative councillor to go to. Can I also comment on council officers going on 'junkets' to America. I accept Secretary of UNISON Dave Knight's comments about giving social workers decent salaries and conditions, but there is a crisis in social work largely due to the red top press crucifying them at every available opportunity. This leads to even worse services as the offices are full of short term agency staff and from anecdotal evidence from teachers there is very poor to no support to vulnerable young people in this borough. Agency staff cost between a third and a half of their salaries again in fees to employ - which does reinforce Dave Knight's point. However I believe the crisis is more critical than this and to recruit staff direct in the employ of Waltham Forest is win win both in cost and continuity of care. What is the difference to staff going to Australia to recruit primary teachers as happened a few years ago when there was a shortage in local schools and what is happening to recruit social workers now? Is it because teachers are more popular and their absence is more immediately obvious? In the medium term better salaries for social workers is the solution, but what is happening in Local Government means this is not likely for the next few years.
It is too much for one person, unless you happen to be in the High Street ward, where neither Liaqat Alil (Labour) or Johar Khan (LibDem) would regularly attend their surgeries, leaving a great deal of the non-contentious, non-glamorous casework (i.e. not involving photo opportunities) to be covered by James O'Rourke alone.

fabster says...
4:44pm Fri 16 Apr 10

Techno you beat me to it!
I was going to say something along the lines that its too much for some when they are too distracted building a property portfolio and building a career in investment consultancy to be bothered with local issues

devilsmojo says...
5:04pm Fri 16 Apr 10

What is this Palestine you speak of? Who is its leader? Its foreign minister? Defence minister? Does it have, or has it ever had, diplomatic relations with other countries? An army? A functional democracy? Civil liberties? Freedom of the press? Acceptance of the fact that genocide is NOT allowed?

April Showers says...
10:27am Sat 17 Apr 10

I'm not going to get embroiled in that one, devilsmojo, a poisoned-chalice if ever there was! But to pick up on Robert19's response to my suggestion of one councillor per ward, I think that being the sole ward representative would concentrate a councillor's mind. At the moment they can pass the buck to the other two whereas under my system there would be no hiding place for slackers. The remedy for dealing with a recalcitrant councillor (as at present, by the way) would be a complaint firstly to the Party Whip/Leader/Chief Exec and ultimately to the Standards Committee. I agree that councillors are entitled to a private life, although they are not working 'pro bono' as in the past, they are now paid, albeit not a king's ransom. Resdents' expectations of councillors as all-round problem-solvers are probably too high and councillors need to manage them better. In many instances casework would be better passed to other agencies such as MPs, AMs, CAB, Credit Union, debt counsellors, police Safer Neighbourhood Teams etc etc. But the most obvious channels are WFDirect and the council's own officers, who all have email addresses and telephone numbers and are well paid to do a job of work. Also, councillors should focus strictly on council matters and not try to solve the problems of the world (what was that vote about Kashmir all about?) and in most cases act as a conduit for chanelling enquiries to relevant council departments and individual officers. I suspect the reason some councillors are overwhelmed is partly that they are on an ego trip, partly because they think it will increase their chances of re-election but mainly because they don't manage their workloads realistically. Less is more I believe. As to Waltham Forest News, we could lose that without much pain - in the digital age the council's website could be much-improved to fill the gap.

Leyton Boy says...
10:55pm Sat 17 Apr 10

I would love to know how the Lib Dems can afford to pay for their leaflets to be delivered across the borough. My understanding is that campaign budgets are restricted to £10,000 during the short campaign. It seems very strange that the Libs can afford these delivery people who were out in my street today. Wondering how Farid Ahmad can justify this kind of thing. They were not members or volunteers. The guy I spoke to told me he was being *paid* by the Lib Dems to deliver.

click2find

Most popular






About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree