Our new, part-time, interim, temporary Monitoring Officer, Peter Large, on loan from Westminster City Council (hours to be negotiated), clearly looking forward to his association with Broken Barnet. Pic courtesy of Nutsville.com.

So ... as our former Monitoring Officer would begin all her remarks ... So: where were we?

Ah yes: our former Monitoring Officer, see? Gone, but not forgotten. Gone where, Mrs Angry, I hear you ask? Not sure, but it is 'by mutual consent'.

All the best things happen by mutual consent, don't they? In the bedroom, in the boardroom, in the free world, where life continues without the bondage of contractual obligation, or the frisson of fear that comes from that imbalance of power between partners, personal, or corporate.

Between the boundaries of Broken Barnet, however, the ties that bind are usually stretched tight as tight can be, and consent is neither sought, nor granted. When push comes to shove: off you go.

Bye bye.

Who knows what happened in the case of Ms Maryellen Salter, sometime Monitoring Officer, now replaced by an 'interim' MO, although not replaced, we are told, until Thursday, 9th October, after the most almighty reaction to the events that led to that damning report, by Claer Lloyd-Jones, into the collapse of governance and legal services in this benighted borough.

Of course we like 'interim' consultants, here in Barnet.

We like them a lot, and we recruit them as often as possible, for our senior management posts, via the discreet offices of a third party - an agency, so as to confound the investigative zeal of the local blogosphere.

These interims and consultants blow into town, wafted on a cloud of mystery, landing at NLBP, staying as long as possible, on terms and conditions beyond the scope of public scrutiny, before moving on to pastures new - very often, it seems, to Haringey, to work for former Barnet CEO, Mr Nick Walkley, the real architect of One Barnet, the massive programme that outsourced most of our council services .

Walkley is of course also the man who oversaw the restructuring of the governance and legal services department here, with a post of Monitoring Officer newly defined, for some reason, with no requirement for any legal qualifications - which is how we ended up with an auditor instead of an experienced lawyer, with predictable and disastrous consequences.

Mrs Angry can guess what you are wondering: will Ms Salter end up in Haringey too ... or is it true she has just accepted a post as the events manager for a local micro-brewery?

Who knows?

We do know, however that our new Monitoring Officer, or rather the 'interim' MO, comes with an interesting CV: from Westminster Council, tripping with ease from one former Tory 'flagship' authority to another: both fine examples of Tory councils, of course, with many similarities.

A keen interest in social engineering, for example, from accusations of 'gerrymandering' in Westminster in the eighties, to the social cleansing housing 'regeneration' of Broken Barnet in 2014 - and an enthusiasm from both Conservative run authorities for milking endless streams of revenue from hapless residents exhibiting the gross impertinence of trying to park their cars on the streets where they live, work, and shop.

Mrs Angry gets an awful lot of blog visits from Westminster City Council these days.

Welcome, new friends.

Hope you enjoy the new entente cordiale, between your authority and ours.

The entente between your authority and the Barnet blogosphere, we must warn you, will be strictly limited, on an interim basis, and may be less than cordiale, at times.

But here is a curious thing. About our new Monitoring Officer.

Our new Monitoring Officer is not our Monitoring Officer, exactly, - and he is not leaving Westminster City Council.

We are sharing the attentions of Mr Large with his current employers. Despite the claim made in a statement last week that the new MO had been seconded to Barnet, which rather implies that he is working exclusively for us.

Yes: despite all the criticisms levelled at Barnet by Claer Lloyd-Jones' report in regard to our shared legal services, we have now engaged a part time Monitoring Officer - and on a temporary basis only.

We find ourselves, in short, in the position of, say, an MP's wife who wakes up to find her husband in the papers for further extra-marital misbehaviour, having been told, following an unfortunate incident involving paisley pyjamas, that it will never happen again, darling.

I feel so betrayed, don't you, readers? And as always, yes, as always, the last to know.

Mrs Angry understands that, rather astonishingly, the appointment of Mr Large to his role in Barnet was not divulged to Labour group members in Westminster, until the day after the deal was agreed, and that the news only emerged through other sources, which, if true, would be a pretty extraordinary state of affairs, would it not?

It seems Westminster's MO has been helping Barnet, 'assisting' us, for a period of two weeks before an 'urgent' situation arose, ie on the 9th October, which suddenly required the immediate appointment of Mr Large to a formal, if rather limited, role in Barnet.

Oh. Why was it sudden? Did they not foresee the outcome of a report that delivered such a damning indictment of our legal services and governance? Or did they really not predict the level of censure and criticism that the report has provoked? Clearly, by sitting on the report and sneaking it into tomorrow night's committee, they had hoped to keep it quiet for as long as possible, but still ...

And then: it seems Westminster opposition members have been reassured that their Monitoring Officer's Saturday job in Barnet will not 'impact' his duties at Westminster City Council.

Really?

So ... either Mr Large is:

a. not exactly rushed off his feet at WCC, or:

b. has no intention of working up a sweat on our behalf, here in Broken Barnet.

What on earth is going on?

Does anyone actually know?

Questions that must be asked:

When, exactly, did Maryellen Salter leave her role as Monitoring Officer?

How long has she been absent?

In her absence, who was the nominated deputy, as required by the law? Or were we just bumbling along, taking informal advice and 'assistance' from Mr Large? What was HBPublic Law's role during this period?

Is the truth that Barnet, criticised by Ms Lloyd-Jones for being in a position now where it does not know what it does not know, has been operating without anyone formerly confirmed in what is a statutory role?

Does such a possibility not raise the risk that further legal and governance decisions have been wrongly actioned?

How can a failure in competence on the scale identified by Ms Lloyd-Jones' investigation be addressed by an authority relying on a part time Monitoring Officer?

Why was the appointment of Mr Large only made at the end of last week, a week of intense media speculation, but apparently little political reaction from the Tory leader and his group?

If members of Westminster City Council was not aware of the arrangement, why not, and why were such negotiations kept secret?

Was Richard Cornelius aware of the appointment and involved in the decision, or was he - yet again - presented by a fait accompli by his senior management team?

How much longer can the Chief Executive remain in post?.

Ditto the Barnet Tory 'leader'?

Who wants to start a sweepstake?

As Mr Reasonable explains here:

http://reasonablenewbarnet.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/a-critical-week-in-barnet.html

... there are tonight two council meetings during the course of which a restructuring of senior management will be discussed, supposedly to make savings, but actually creating more pointless and costly senior posts, with the usual self aggrandising job titles.

As Mr R suggests, there is a better case, now, for deleting the post of Chief Executive, and merging his functions with that of the Chief Operating Officer (sorry, Mr Naylor: without any unwarranted increase in salary). Will this happen? Probably not. But that is not to say that the current CEO is safe in his post.

Tomorrow night sees the Policy and Resources Committee to which Claer Lloyd-Jones' devastating report will be submitted.

So, yes: another interesting week ahead, in Broken Barnet ...

Three wise monkeys: Barnet's Chief Executive, the Tory 'Leader', and the new Monitoring Officer (interim/for the duration).

So, yes: about Tuesday night - and absent friends: a face missing at the committee table, and a new one, slightly red in the face, looking as if he wished he were back in what must seem like the parish council tedium of Westminster City Council: here is Mr Large, the new, secondhand, seconded, pre-used, part-time, interim, temporary Monitoring Officer.

Mrs Angry greeted him cheerfully, when it was her turn to sit at the table, recognising his face from a long search on google image, looking for a nice pic for yesterday's blog, and finding a suitable shot of him sinking his weary head in his hands, which may well be a position with which he finds himself familiar, in the time he spends here, in exile, in Broken Barnet.

Not that he will spend much time here, as we discovered: but we are jumping ahead of ourselves.

This meeting was the Policy and Resources Committee, to which had been submitted the condemnatory report into Barnet's governance and legal service, written by Claer Lloyd-Jones.

No public statement had been made by the council about the findings of the report, or indeed that the investigation had been concluded: it was hidden in the agenda of this meeting, as if it were just another routine matter, of no consequence.

The significance of this report, of course, is immense, and no amount of obfuscation and denial by our Tory members can disguise the devastating consequences of the failures identified by Ms Lloyd-Jones.

But denial is, predictably, perhaps, the tactic adopted by Cornelius and his colleagues, in the face of all reason.

There was clear indication of this line of defence at a meeting the night before, held to discuss the renumeration of senior officers. The Labour leader tried to raise a point about the post of Monitoring Officer, and ask that the role should be filled by a qualified person. A reasonable, if somewhat restrained suggestion to make, one might think.

The Tory leader bristled at this unwarranted exhibition of political challenge.

This will be, he muttered dismissively, something we discuss tomorrow night. He unbent a little, and graciously admitted that he had 'some sympathy with what you are saying'. Further comments provoked a tut-tutted response: we must not assume what tomorrow's committte will decide, he said, pursing his lips.

There are, he observed, rather mystifyingly, levels of sophistication here ...

Are there, thought Mrs Angry, looking round the room?

The Labour leader ploughed on dutifully, pushing for clarification over the qualifications of the next MO.

There was, she sensed, a certain amount of turbulence, around that role ...

Turbulence, thought Mrs Angry. Indeed there is.

Or you might go further, if you were less polite, and say there is a sense of being f*cked over, good and proper, by a conniving, lazy, incompetent Tory administration, being led by the nose by their own senior management team. Around that role.

But, see: this is why Mrs Angry did not pursue a career in diplomacy, or the hospitality industry, and prefers to be in the eye of the storm, rather than standing by with a clipboard, at the edge, noting the change in weather.

Cornelius may have hoped for a similarly oblique exchange of opinions at P&R. If so, he must have been gravely disappointed.

Public questions he attempted to deflect with his usual assumption of innocent misunderstanding, or by a tight lipped refusal to comment. Not much he could do about questions from opposition members, especially the new ones, whose approach is somewhat more direct than he is used to, but he had carefully prepared the ground, or so he thought, by demanding absolute silence from his own Tory colleagues on the committee.

There they sat, deputy leader Dan Thomas, a sullen faced Tom Davey, Reuben Thompstone, and the inscrutable Sachin Rajput, trying to stay awake, but failing, all of them bound by the rule of omerta, agreed, and signed in blood, no doubt, at the Tory group pre-meeting before the main event.

A trio of uncharacteristically silent Tory councillors: Rajput, Thompstone and Thomas

The older but no wiser Anthony Finn was unable to keep his mouth entirely shut, sadly, and sometime actor/councillor David Longstaff also blurted something out at one point, but generally the feeling from the Tory side of the table was one of a sulky agreement to close their eyes, swallow hard, and pretend they were not there, in the hope that the ordeal would soon be all over.

This is never going to be over, Tory councillors of Broken Barnet: at least, not until we say so, see. Open your eyes: yes - it's all going horribly wrong, isn't it?

Public question time is meant to be for, well, the public: but reporter Anna Slater, from the local Times, used her initiative, supported, on the night, by new information for supplementary questions, and submitted queries that, for some reason, she felt would not have been answered through the usual press channels.

She was probably right, and in fact the information chiselled out of the Tory leader and his officers by the range of questioners was pretty surprising, especially in relation to the interesting chain of events which led to the hiring and then the - not firing - but departure of the former Monitoring Officer on a basis of, what was it again ... mutual consent?

We learned from the questions submitted that Ms Salter was one of only two people who applied for her post. Both were internal applicants. Only two were shortlisted. Both were 'assessed' at an ''assessment centre' through a process involving 'a meeting exercise, written exercise, behavioural interview following Wave and Hogan psychometric testing and a technical interview'.

Mrs Angry would like to have been a fly on the wall, during the behavioural interview, wouldn't you, readers?

Following this process, we were told, one candidate withdrew and the other was deemed suitable to move through to the officer interview panel.

Oh. Deemed suitable. Doesn't say on what basis.

The ability to use a pencil, that sort of thing, probably.

Wonder why one candidate withdrew? And then: how many were invited to a final interview panel? One, of course. Hmm.

How many of these people had a legal background?

One.

Ok, so we know that was not Ms Salter, so the person who withdrew was someone who did have a legal background, and was better qualified for the post. What a shame this person withdrew. Especially as it was now confirmed, rather startlingly, by Andrew Travers, the Chief Executive, that that person was none other than the former head of governance, and Monitoring Officer, Jeff Lustig.

Mrs Angry was amazed that the Chief Executive was happy to name this person so openly, but of course he must have taken legal advice before doing so, and - oh.

Maybe not.

Why did the former Monitoring Officer suddenly withdraw from the process of application for his own job, a job which he clearly has undertaken for many years, with admirable skill, and for which he was very obviously the only really suitable candidate?

Could it be related to the modification of the post as one with no legal requirement?

Why would you remove that requirement, anyway?

All a great mystery, is it not?

But a lucky outcome for Ms Salter, or so it must have seemed at the time.

Back to the public questions. Mrs Angry had bunged in three, at three minutes before the deadline. The art, for the lazy blogger attending committee meetings, of course, is really in the supplementary questions, and in trying to disturb the composure of the chairwoman, in this case, the Tory leader. Pointless, but satisfying, as a form of sport.

Mrs Angry tries her best to disturb the composure of Mr Travers and Cllr Cornelius

Q: In view of the unprecedented level of criticism levelled at the standard of governance and legal services in this authority, does the Chief Executive still retain the full confidence of the Chair, and the Conservative administration, and if not, have they asked for his resignation, or has he offered to resign?

A: Yes
N/A
N/A

Oh dear. Rather short on information, wasn't it? Mrs Angry took her place at the table.

She confessed herself to be rather astonished by the fact that the Chief Executive - no offence, Mr Travers, she murmured, soothingly, in his direction, in case his feelings were hurt -that the Chief Executive still enjoyed the full confidence of Councillor Cornelius.

What would happen if, say, it was discovered that the caretakers of the Town Hall had, since April 2013 or thereabouts, been in the habit of leaving the doors and windows of the building unlocked, and open to intruders, every night (which they would not, and here Mrs Angry must take the opportunity to say how very polite and conscientious they are). Would they not be instantly dismissed?

And yet: here we were, with a Chief Executive who had allowed the authority to proceed without the protection of an adequate legal service, or rule of governance, and still he retained his job, and the support of the Tory leader. And despite the fact that, as the response to Q 35 makes clear:

As Head of paid Service, the Chief Executive is ultimately responsible for all officer activity.

He is surely responsible, ultimately responsible, for all serious failures by those officers, therefore, and yet ... Maryellen Salter carries the can, and the more senior officer, who has a legal duty to ensure compliance with all statutory requirements, goes scot free.

Hmm. Cornelius made one of his pained faces, the one that looks as if he might be suffering from prolonged constipation, but usually signifies a determination to avoid answering an awkward question.

In this instance, he decided to go further than merely avoiding a response, and produced an observation which was quite breathtaking in its display of indifference to the significance of Ms Lloyd-Jones' findings:

Mistakes will happen, he said, shrugging his shoulders.

Very expensive mistakes, observed Mrs Angry primly, eyebrows raised over the rim of her glasses.

Meh. What does expense matter, when it is the poor taxpayers of Broken Barnet who will pick up the bill, and not R. Cornelius and the gang of eejits sitting around the Tory end of the table?

Worse was to come.

The consequence of all this of course, said Cornelius smugly, was that there were more Conservative members on committees ...

Mrs Angry throught she must have misheard this comment, but no: he repeated it later in the evening, and it is captured on film, for your benefit.

In other words, the Tory leader is not at all bothered by the findings of the Lloyd-Jones report, or the failures that are identified, because as a result of the whole cockup, the Tories emerged with a stronger political presence on all committees, and are able to push through their shabby agenda of further privatisation and cuts in vital services. Result.

Next question:

Q: The report has very serious implications for a long sequence of decisions sanctioned by the Monitoring Officer and HBPublic Law: since the findings of the report were known, has the authority taken steps to ensure the legal basis of any of those decisions, but in particular:

• all decisions made by the new committee structure which were said to be lawful, despite the non constitutional basis in which they were made?

• the dispensations Tory members have arranged from the Monitoring Officer to hide their pecuniary interests rather than declare them at council meetings

• the constitutional basis of the working groups and failure to extend the rights of members of the public in regard to council meetings

• the dismissal of certain allegations made before the decision to put other charges before the Mayor's panel hearing

A: Decisions of the Monitoring Officer were supported by legal advice, including external legal advice from leading counsel. There is no intention to revisit those decisions.

Another pretty extraordinary response: no intention to check that no other serious mistakes have been made?

Mrs Angry suggested to the Tory leader that this was absolutely incredible. This damning report, she said, confirms that you have exposed the authority to considerable risk as a result of serious failures, and your incompetence.

What was described as the 'shambles' of the full council meeting is only one instance: what about, for example, the dispensations that you required an unqualified Monitoring Officer to give Tory members so they could hide their pecuniary interests?

Was he happy that that was lawful advice, and that some of his Tory colleagues might face criminal investigations, if not, bearing in mind that failing to declare a pecuniary interest can be a criminal offence? (Earlier in the year, incidentally, Mrs Angry and Mr Mustard were surprised to hear from the MO that councillors were apparently not required to notify her of interests accrued after 28 days from the date they had been elected, when it was discovered a member had not added such an interest to their own register entry. A declaration was subsequently made, however).

Perhaps 'hide' is an exaggeration: or perhaps it is not - a nominal admission is made, but certainly by allowing those councillors to then take part in proceedings, the impression will be given to most onlookers that there was no personal benefit that might raise a conflict of interest.

Cornelius made another face, and interrupted to say that the dispensations did reveal that people 'had a property', that the point of the dispensation was to allow members to take part in debate, and to - ha ha - 'use their experience wisely' ...

That remark, as you might expect, was met with a certain amount of ribald laughter amongst the public seats. And of course the current Mayor, Hugh Rayner has plenty of experience as a landlord that he feels enables him to do just that, does he not?

Ah: so the dispensations were not so as to ensure Tory members could take part in votes and decisions from which they would, ordinarily, in the absence of such dispensations, automatically be barred, but merely so as to bring a deeper level of experience to the heady intellectual debate that we enjoy in the long moments of any Barnet committee meeting.

One would hope that no member would willingly mislead residents as to their own interests, but the question here that must be addressed is whether the authority's own advice on this matter is sufficiently robust and will protect members from accusations of wrongdoing, by taking part in such meetings.

Mrs Angry reminded Councillor Cornelius that it is on record that Ms Salter stated it was only assumed that the dispensations were constitutional, and that no one knows if they are indeed lawful, and the authority therefore may have been exposed to serious risk.

Oh: hello - here is the new Monitoring Officer (interim, on loan from Westminster) Mr Large, who thought the Localism Act did allow for dispensations, but interestingly, he said 'he would be looking at that', which suggested that there was, at the very least, an element of doubt as to the lawfulness of the use of these waivers, and he stated he would not allow any member to 'hide' any interests. Hiding, or setting to one side: one must keep asking the question -how can the granting of dispensations to cover these interests not be in conflict with the principle of full disclosure?

What is the point of the localism act requiring members to make declarations of pecuniary interests, or risk prosecution, and yet allow them to opt out of the restrictions that should apply once they had done so, in some form - simply because they want to?

How does this serve the notion of transparency, and probity in public office?

We don't know, and we need to be told, and we should have been assured of the legal status before any were allowed.

And the point is that this is only one of the many questionable decisions sanctioned in the period scrutinised by Ms Lloyd-Jones's report: how many other dubious actions approved in this time now lie open to challenge?

And on the subject of transparency, Mrs Angry's last question:

Q:The findings of the report by Ms Lloyd-Jones, commissioned in June, have been known since August, yet no public statement was issued in the form of a press release, and nothing known until October, when the matter was slipped into a report to this meeting. How is such an action compliant with the requirements of transparency and accountability to the residents and taxpayers of this borough?

A:The full report of Ms Lloyd-Jones is being presented to the first available Policy and Resources Committee meeting.

Mrs Angry came back to the table to ask about, yes, that thing again, the concept that is so hard for our Tory members to understand, the principle of transparency, and how it is best served by sneaking this report into the meeting and not making any statement beforehand to the residents and taxpayers of this borough? It seems to me, she continued, that is not what transparency is meant to be. She did not see how any of the Nolan Principles were being served in the way they had conducted themselves in the course of the last two administrations, and it seemed incredible to her that they could regard such a serious report to be of so little relevance it doesn't deserve a formal statement to the press.

Cornelius, again, wasn't bovvered. The report should be presented to councillors first, of course. Councillors could then ask Ms Lloyd-Jones, (who was sitting in the front row, next to Mrs Angry) about the report. As it happened, it would appear that for the Tory members, this was a complete waste of time, as they had nothing to ask, which is pretty astonishing, you might think.

Mrs Angry suggested that residents would therefore have to make up their own minds about the whole matter, and sat down. As she did so, you may note from the footage, the Chief Executive, arms gripped defensively across his chest, made some sort of disparaging remark to his boss. (He is his boss, is he? Sort of.)

After the public questions, it was time for Ms Lloyd-Jones to address the committee. She explained her background as a lawyer, and part time judge, and said that she had been a Monitoring Officer and worked with non legally qualified MOs, and was open minded on that subject - although later she agreed that the majority of MOs were indeed qualified lawyers.

Her job, she said, was to hold a mirror up to the council. Mrs Angry had a horrible vision, then of Medusa, and being turned to stone, rather in the manner of the Tory councillors sitting around the table, rigid with unease, looking on, in brooding silence.

We heard about the risks raised by the recent arrangements in law and governance: the loss of corporate memory, and the development of a state of ignorance in which the council could be described as one that 'doesn't know what it doesn't know'.

Time for a contribution from Andrew Travers, the Chief Executive in whom the Tory leader, as Mrs Angry was assured, retains the utmost confidence, so why he now was prevailed upon to make a somewhat limited, ritual form of 'apology' at all, is rather mysterious.

He accepted the conclusions of the report, he said. Big of you, thought Mrs Angry. And then: he would repeat the previous apology in regard to these 'shortcomings'. Not sure what previous 'apology' had taken place, or where, but his comments now did not really conjure up the impression of a man overwhelmed with regret, or any sense of personal failure.

Shortcomings, of course, are nothing serious, and besides ... mistakes will happen, as the Tory leaders so blithely informed us.

Back to questions for Claer Lloyd -Jones. The sole contribution from the Tory ranks consisted of a couple of barking comments from Anthony Finn, the sometime chairwoman of various committees, who believes that the point of scrutiny is not to be critical, but to make 'positive remarks'. The very idea of a report like this must be anathema to him, therefore.

Finn thought that all sorts of people had held the post of Monitoring Officer, including, he claimed, surveyors, and ... communists. Erm? All that was needed in the post, he said was A Clear Head.

Oh, how we chortled. We can only surmise that in the course of those behavioural interviews, Ms Salter was identified as having A Clear Head, and Mr Lustig began to wonder what the hell he was doing there in the first place. Am I right, Jeff?

Labour's Ross Houston was not convinced by Councillor Finn's suggestion. He thought that perhaps, were he to be having his tonsils removed, he might prefer to have a qualified doctor, rather than someone with, yes, A Clear Head.

A clear headed Councillor Finn

One interesting remark by Ms Lloyd Jones suggested that the fiasco over the wrongly designed committees, which required a legal opinion, which may or may not have been conclusive anyway, proved the value of an in-house legal service. she also observed that sharing legal services with Harrow could create conflicts of interest.

Cornelius reminded everyone that we had, at taken external advice. Indeed: and it is hard to see how the current arrangements, buying in legal advice from HBPublic Law and from external counsel, can possibly be cost effective, compared to in-house provision. It is rather like a family in poverty demonstrating their commitment to austerity measures by deciding to abandon their kitchen, and live on a diet of takeaways, isn't it?

Perhaps the most telling performance from the opposition councillors came from new Labour member, Paul Edwards. Paul may be a new member, but is a former union convenor of many years experience, and well versed in the art of politics. He is also refreshingly direct in his approach, and unlike some of the longer serving members, has not been brainwashed into the misapprehension that senior officers must not be challenged by councillors, because it is 'not fair'. The truth that has escaped some of the more traditionally minded members is that the council is being run by the senior management team, to their agenda, and any resemblance to the ideological idees fixes of the elected Tory group is entirely coincidental.

Councillor Edwards had a question first of all for Claer Lloyd-Jones. He produced two documents, two reports from 2013, one of which had been submitted to an Audit Committee, and both of which addressed the need to have in place a system of contract monitoring in regard to the issues now highlighted as being of concern, but these reports had not been implemented. Had she seen them? She had not.

Claer Lloyd-Jones, left, and Councillor Paul Edwards, right

How very odd, that officers had not thought to present these documents to her.

The questions - from Labour members only - continued at length. Ross Houston noted that it was crazy, in his opinion, not to have in house resources. Claer Lloyd-Jones reminded us that the deputy Monitoring Officer (yes, apparently there was one), ie Jessica Farmer, from HBpublic Law was legally qualified. Ironic, you might think, that the deputy MO had the qualifications her senior lacked.

But here is an even more interesting conundrum.

The opposition members tried hard to tease out the timeline of events leading to the departure of Maryellen Salter. Mrs Angry is not awfully confident that the timeline presented as the official version is entirely credible. Yes, shocking, is it not?

Ms Salter's employment with Barnet finished, we are told, last Thursday, the 9th October. Yet she had not been at work since some time earlier in September. Her absence was not due to suspension, nor gardening leave. During her absence, which was apparently only leave, a range of dispensations in her name was presented to Full Council, on 23rd September.

Why was Jessica Farmer's name not on that report? If, as Travers claimed in response to a public question, that Ms Farmer was the nominated deputy (which is a statutory requirement), should her name not have been on all such documents? Were those dispensations valid?

When did Ms Farmer take over as the duties of deputy, in the absence of Ms Salter? Why did Ms Salter's out of office response not explain that Ms Farmer was currently acting on her behalf, or give a return date? As another new Labour councillor, Alon Or Bach explained, her out of office message as late as 5th October gave no mention of any delegation of her duties.

Why is Ms Farmer not acting as deputy now, and why did we, in a sudden panic, last Thursday, have to acquire the part-time services (only two days a week, we heard) of Mr Large, from Westminster Council?

Why did the Chief Executive of Westminster Council say Mr Large's role in Barnet would have no impact on his responsibliities in Westminster? Is his role then purely nominal?

Back to Paul Edwards, and the issue of the withheld documents: why did officers not share these with Ms Lloyd-Jones? They raised issues of serious risk which were really pertinent.

Well, said Andrew Travers ... they tried to make sure all relevant documents were available to her. There was no attempt to conceal anything.

Councillor Edwards said he was not suggesting there had been concealment, but why had they not shown them to her? These recommendations had never been implemented.

Cornelius remarked that he thought Paul Edwards was making a statement, rather than asking a question.

The annual meeting, he conceded, had been 'a poor show'. He admitted that he originally had not considered that the MO would be someone who was not legally qualified.

Mr Shepherd, the People's Mayor, could contain himself no longer. He tried to help the Tory leader out, in his own way.

You can always be your own doctor, or solicitor, he suggested, suddenly keen to think about the benefits of self-help, and keeping A Clear Head. Like Mr Shepherd himself, who has perfect clarity of thought, and could make a fair stab at being a Monitoring Officer: especially as Cllr Finn has spoken so warmly of a former communist in the role.

I know a fool when I see one, he said,monitoring the group of Tories sitting like sulky schoolboys at the far end of the room, and there are plenty of them sitting round the table.

Cornelius was feeling emboldened now, and launched into a further preposterous rebuttal of the findings of the report.

The arrangement with HBPublic Law, he said, was working very well. Yes, there were shortcomings, but, he observed, standing on the bridge, saluting, like Captain Edward Smith, as the icy waters rushed into the third class quarters down below - we must keep this in perspective.

All that's happened, he repeated, as the rest of the room looked on, wondering where the lifeboats were, and how many of us would fit in, all that's happened is that there are more Conservatives on committees ...

In life, in death, O Lord, muttered Mrs Angry, her hands clasped in prayer, Abide with me.

Resting thespian, and grateful councillor David Longstaff was singing from the same hymnsheet.

He wanted us to admire the recent award handed to HBPublicLaw by the Law Society. Councillor Longstaff was apparently unaware of this article in the Barnet Press, in which it is reported:

After being contacted by The Press, a spokeswoman for the Law Society said it had been contacted by Ms Lloyd-Jones and was in the process of reviewing her report on the council.

Alon Or Bach queried the timeline of events, and the circumstances in which Mr Large had come to be appointed as an interim MO. Andrew Travers was obliged to come up with an explanation, of sorts, and as he did so, Mrs Angry noticed the mutinous Tory councillors regarding him with close attention. One might easily have concluded, from their body language, that they were as much in the dark as anyone else.

Alon Or Bach

The Labour leader proposed some suggestions to go down as amendments to the Tories' proposed recommendations in response to the report. These were all perfectly reasonable amendments:

That legal services are brought back-in house
That the vacant Monitoring Officer post must be filled by a legally qualified person, and this must be specified in the job description and job advert
That pending legal services being brought back in-house the recommendations of the external report that strengthen Barnet’s legal and governance arrangements are agreed
That high-level in-house legal support is introduced in Barnet pending legal services being brought back-in house
That all decisions taken since Barnet ceased to have a legally qualified Monitoring Officer are reviewed

Too reasonable, of course, for our Tory members. Cornelius would not support bringing legal services in house. And the deputy leader, Dan Thomas, suddenly found his voice, right at the end of the meeting, and said that he did not see the need for an all encompassing review of decisions taken.

Well, what a surprise!

Alison Moore reminded them of issues such as the dispensations, the leaders panel: all things that must be reviewed, and so for that reason, she said, she would ask her colleagues to move the report to Full Council.

Cornelius looked less than pleased, because of course he has difficulty in forcing all his Tory colleagues to turn up to Full Council, and sooner or later, he is going to find he has not got a majority present, and Labour will be able to vote through their own motions and amendments. Oh dear.

Which is why the next day it was announced that the extraordinary council meeting to consider Labour's vote of no confidence in his leadership will take place at the end of Full Council, when there might be a chance all his members have managed to stroll along to the Town Hall.

Providing, of course, that all of them do vote against the motion, of course ... otherwise - we could end up with a new leader, altogether, couldn't we? Always useful, of course, to have a nominated deputy, just in case.

Despite the publication of a damning independent report by lawyer Claer Lloyd-Jones into the state of Barnet's legal and governance services, and the departure 'by mutual consent' of the former Monitoring Officer, Maryellen Salter, Tory leader Richard Cornelius has stated there will be no review of any decisions made during her time in office, or as a result of advice taken from Barnet's outsourced legal service venture with Harrow's HB Public Law.

So many decisions taken, so many actions sanctioned, without the assurance of an acceptable standard of legal oversight - such complacency, Mrs Angry would suggest, may well prove to be ill founded.

One of the more controversial issues which was handled by the former Monitoring Officer was the curious matter of an allegation made, in April this year, that a Labour councillor had acted improperly in taking part in a meeting when in arrears with her council tax payments.

This member was West Finchley councillor Kath McGuirk, a long serving member known and admired for her outspoken opposition to the Tory administration. She was treated appallingly, in fact: the baseless allegations were made public, and she was vilified by local Tories, portrayed as a 'taxdodger', and her reputation irredeemably damaged. Worse still, immediately after an interview with the Monitoring Officer, her case was referred to the police, and this was also publicised by the council.

That there was no substance to the allegations, and was, in fact, in credit with her payments, and an error made in the course of a typical cockup by the council, and Crapita; and that the police did not pursue the case, must have come as a great disappointment to Councillor McGuirk's political enemies.

But this was not the end of the matter.

In June local Labour AM Andrew Dismore submitted a complaint to Barnet's Monitoring Officer in the form of allegations about his business activities as a landlord, and the declaration of pecuniary interests at council meetings. Rayner admitted in an article in the local press herethat he had earlier acted incorrectly in regard to contracts that tenants had been obliged to sign, and it later emerged that another Tory councillor had 'pre-signed' a document for him as a witness. He denied that he had acted wrongly in regard to the other allegations.

It might be considered appropriate that if Labour's councillor McGuirk was instantly referred to the police for a relatively minor alleged offence, any serious allegations concerning the Tory Mayor should have been referred to the police too, as a matter of routine. But they were not.

Rayner's case was sent to the leaders' panel, a body that replaced the previous standards' committee, an emasculated, impotent process which not only has no powers of sanction, but is politically weighted, so that Tory members ultimately decide the outcome of any case under consideration.

Rayner was cleared of all charges.

http://wwwbrokenbarnet.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/a-blurred-line-or-bucket-of-whitewash.html

Shortly before he had been due to appear before the panel, Councillor McGuirk was informed that a complaint had been received about her in regard to the matter of the council tax payment, and would be referred to the group leaders' panel.

The complaint, we discovered from a letter sent to a local paper, was from one Myles Longfield, a sometime Conservative Future and local activist from Finchley & Golders Green Conservative Association, who had stood - unsuccessfully - no less than three times against Kath Mc Guirk in local elections, here in Mrs Angry's home ward of West Finchley.

Here is naughty Myles getting into trouble with local MP Mike Freer, who for some reason became rather peeved when his fellow Finchley Tory had his picture taken with William Hague:

Interesting Freudian slip, 'absolved from seeing other people' ...absolved? And amusing that any local Tory would think the firmly Labour voting ward of West Finchley could be a target for them ...

By some extraordinary coincidence, this complaint against the Labour councillor by a political rival, which had already been proven to be based on a totally false premise, was going to be referred to the very same meeting at which the Tory Mayor's charges would be heard - a meeting, incidentally, which Andrew Dismore had clearly stated he could not attend as he was abroad.

It was pretty evident that local Tories hoped the sideshow of false allegations against the Labour councillor would detract from the enormously damaging publicity engendered by the allegations faced by the Tory Mayor.

Fortunately Kath Mc Guirk by now was supported by the best possible legal representation, Frances Randle, from Steel and Shamash, the Labour party solicitors, and was therefore able to defend herself, and avoid being exploited as a distraction from the main event of the farcical Rayner hearing - the outcome of which was predictable, seeing him cleared of all charges, with a speech ready prepared in his pocket to perform at the end of the proceedings.

After strong objections and a robust response from her legal advisors, Kath's case did not go to the same hearing as the Tory Mayor.

To be falsely accused of 'taxdodging', and subjected to a police referral on a spurious basis is bad enough; even when cleared of the charge, and proving the mistake is due to the council's own incompetence is bad enough - to find yourself the subject of another process of investigation by the same people, as a result of well timed complaint from a political activist, and to find that complaint deemed not to be vexatious by the unqualified Monitoring Officer who had so enthusiastically discharged some of the serious allegations raised in a dossier of evidence by the (legally qualified) complainant and Assembly Member Andrew Dismore ... is a curious thing, is it not?

Perhaps some of these decisions, and others, in the light of the Lloyd-Jones report, will now be challenged: but in the meanwhile, last Monday night Kath Mc Guirk found herself facing the kangaroo court that is the group leaders' panel, to answer the allegations submitted by a complainant who did not even have the grace to show up at the proceedings.

Complainant Myles Longfield, photobombed by a former Finchley MP

Young Master Longfield may have chosen to stay away, but the seats were packed with supporters who had come to show solidarity with Kath: her mother and daughter, fellow councillors, activists and friends.

When Rayner attended his panel hearing, he was completely on his own.

Councillor McGuirk could very well have decided not to recognise the validity of the panel, and refuse to co-operate, but in contrast to the complainant, she showed great courage in attending the hearing, and robustly rebutting - yet again - the charges against her.

In keeping with the soviet style show trial traditions of justice, in Broken Barnet, the Group Leaders' Panel has made two significant changes in format from the previous standards committee it replaces. Replacing the right to legal representation, and the right of independent members to vote.

This masterly disregard for the demands of natural justice, and a fair trial, is of course the mark of everything we have come to know about our Tory members, and their attitude of contempt for the Nolan principles, or the policy and principles of localism.

Councillor McGuirk was denied the right to legal representation, while of course the case for the prosecution had the 'benefit' of advice and direction from our outsourced legal services at HB Public Law, the joint venture with Harrow, whose failings were identified in the Lloyd-Jones report this month.

At the table on Monday night, therefore, were Jessica Farmer, who heads HB Public Law, and her colleague Linda Cohen.

Not sitting at the table, for some reason, was the new (interim) Monitoring Officer, Mr Large, whom we have borrowed, on request, like an out of print library book, from Westminster City Council.

Also not sitting at the table, but sitting between Kath Mc Guirk and Mrs Angry, was Frances Randle, from Steel and Shamash, keeping her Steely eye firmly focused on the proceedings.

Also present were Tory leader (interim) Richard Cornelius, the aspirational, but currently deputy leader Daniel Thomas, a rather bewildered looking Joan Scannell, and from Labour leader Alison Moore, deputy leader Barry Rawlings and a token Independent Person, Tanya Ossack, also rather bewildered, as she had been at the previous panel hearing.

When the Tory Mayor had faced his own show trial, Ms Ossack raised some good questions, but it became clear that she was not perfectly familiar with the case, as she had not been the Independent Person consulted originally by the Monitoring Officer in regard to the charges.

It was then discovered by Andrew Dismore that correspondence with the original Independent Person, Stephen Ross, whose views are supposed to be sought by the MO, had not been included in the dossier of papers published for the meeting.

http://www.dismore4hendon.co.uk/just_one_day_after_rayner_hearing_council_disclose_crucial_email_relevant_to_the_case

Was that because of the view by Stephen Ross - that was disregarded - that all, and not some, of the allegations levelled at the Mayor should be investigated? The (legally unqualified) Monitoring Officer ignored this view, despite the objections of the (legally qualified) complainant, Andrew Dismore.

On with the hearing, then.

Or maybe not a hearing so much as an attempted lynching, as it was clear the entire process, so far, was not only politically motivated, but run with as much regard for the law and natural justice as any random act of reprisal as you might find in the outlaw territory of Broken Barnet.

Thankfully, help was at hand from the stranger just arrived in town, fresh from the city: Ms Randle, armed with not so much a trusty six-shooter, as a copy of the Localism Act, 2011.

The panel began with some observations by the Labour leader. She objected strongly to the refusal of the Monitoring Officer to consider Myles Longfield's complaint as vexatious, 'a political tit for tat', as she put it, from a known political opponent, and over an issue already referred to and dismissed by the police. Where was the public interest in pursuing this still further?

Linda Cohen thought that the MO would have investigated this matter. The involvement of the Independent Person would have acted as a 'filter'.

Mmm, thought Mrs Angry, all very well, as long as the 'filter' is not cast aside, as in the previous panel hearing ...

The process, we heard, did not go as far as a public interest test, at this stage, and it was up to the MO to decide whether or not the complaint was frivolous, or vexatious, and should go forward. Mmm, once again: should that decision be in the hands of a legally unqualified MO, do you think?

The Labour leader pointed out that it was clear the issue concerning Cllr McGuirk's situation regarding her student daughter's status was entirely 'a paper exercise', and that it was the case that in fact the council owed her money, and not the other way round.

A fairly absurd debate now took place between deputy Labour leader Barry Rawlings, and Jessica Farmer, on the referral by the MO to the police of complaints regarding allegations made against councillors.

Barry thought it might be the case that in the final stage, a complaint might be referred.

Ms Farmer said So ... it might be the police, then the panel procedure.

Erm, thought Mrs Angry: really? What happened in the case of the serious allegations regarding the Mayor, which were not referred at all?

Alison Moore reminded the meeting that this course had already been pursued, in the case of the Labour member. She also asked how much the proceedings and pursuit of this complaint had cost.

Richard Cornelius pointed out that the panel could not refer any matter to the police. In truth, thought Mrs Angry, the panel can do f*ck all about anything any councillor does, and it is a complete waste of time, but still ...

The deputy Tory leader, Dan Thomas, tried arguing, half heartedly, that it might be said the previous case, ie the charges against Hugh Rayner, were 'vexatious'.

Tanya Ossack's turn to speak. She did not know the 'ins and outs' of the politics, but she didn't really see that the code was breached in this case.

Ah.

Barry Rawlings suggested that the panel, in that case, should voted as to whether or not to proceed with the hearing?

Even the Tory leader was, by this point, reading the writing on the wall: he said he would like to have 'a quiet word outside'.

'A Quiet Word' is of course the favoured remedy in all awkward situations, in Broken Barnet, when it becomes apparent that some sort of cockup by the Tories has been revealed, in all its naked ugliness, and they think Labour will be open to their indecent suggestions. Sometimes, to be fair, this remedy is all it takes to bring an end to the matter, and move on.

Councillor McGuirk, however, had something to say, and sat at the table to make her contribution.

As briefed by her legal advisor, Frances Randle, she pointed out a statutory requirement, according to the Localism Act, that access should be extended, at a certain point in the proceedings, to the Independent Person, in regard to the member facing such charges.

This right had not been extended to her, in defiance of the Act, and clearly invalidated the whole process to which she had been subjected, quite apart from the flagrant injustice of the pursuit of what was clearly a vexatious request of no substance.

Time for that Quiet Word, then.

The panel slipped out of the room, and unlike the case of the Mayor, were absent for only a matter of minutes.

It was clear that they knew there was no case to answer.

They dressed it up in the guise of a two point resolution - that members should 'sort out' their council taxes, in good time (no mention of crapita being obliged to do the same) and although there had been a technical breach ( caused by the council/crapita cocking up the bill) this could be dealt with by referring it back to the party leader (who has already dealt with the issue that isn't an issue anyway).

A face-saving announcement for the Tories or so they fondly wished, but a total vindication for Kath McGuirk, met with jubilation by all of her comrades, friends and supporters.

Despite the celebrations, the truth remains that as a result of this persecution, someone who had committed no wrongdoing had had to go through the distress and embarrassment of two protracted public investigations, apparently on the basis of a process promoted by political enemies, and overseen by an unqualified Monitoring Officer.

The Tories sat at the table, deflated, then slipped out of the room, unnoticed.

A shabby affair, from beginning to end, and one which has predictably backfired.

The other significant question that it raises, however, is this: what does the handling of the two Group Leaders' Panel hearings say about the decision making of the now departed Monitoring Officer, and the quality of legal advice supplied to her by HB Public Law?

We return to the catalogue of problems highlighted by Claer Lloyd-Jones in her report, and must ask: how can the Tory leader state, as he did to Mrs Angry last week, with such glib assurance, that there was no need to review any of the decisions and actions authorised on behalf of the council, since the time Jeff Lustig left, and the new arrangements and Monitoring Officer were in place?

What degree of risk of legal challenge has this created, and from whom, and at what cost to us, the residents and taxpayers of Broken Barnet?

What will happen, for example, in the case of the curious decision by the former MO to allow our Tory councillors 'dispensations' from the restrictions that should restrict their involvement in meetings where they may have a pecuniary interest?

This was based on an 'assumption' that these waivers are constitutionally permissable. No one seems to know if they are in fact lawful, and in the wake of the Lloyd-Jones report, it would seem clear that this is another action that was not supported by an adequate standard of legal advice - or risk assessment.

Richard Cornelius has sought to minimise the implications of the report, however, and boasted that the only outcome of any significance is that there are now more Tory councillors on the new committees.

In response to Mrs Angry's question, he was happy to confirm that he has full confidence in the Chief Executive, as Head of Paid Service, and at the next Full Council meeting, he tells us with gleeful enthusiasm that he intends to vote for himself, in defiance of the opposition's motion of no confidence in his abilities.

At the same time Cornelius and Travers exhibit an apparent lack of concern for the almighty cockups identified in the Lloyd-Jones report, the blame has been dumped on the head of suitable scapegoats, while they, who are paid so generously to bear the responsibility for what went wrong, clearly think they can carry on as if nothing has happened.

But something did happen, as the events behind the decisions taken in regard to the two panel hearings clearly demonstrates, and the consequences, Mrs Angry cheerfully predicts, will continue to haunt our Tory friends, whether they like it, or not.

Mrs Angry also cheerfully predicts that this time next year, neither the Tory leader, nor his Chief Executive is likely to be in office.

And that may not be the only major change in the order of things here, in the political landscape of Broken Barnet, where nothing is ever quite what it seems, and the direction of travel, as our senior officers would put it, may sometimes take us very far from our intended destination ...

Smiler with a knife: Tory 'leader' and Totteridge councillor Richard Cornelius, who began his career in local politics because ... his local library was threatened with closure.

It is a truth universally acknowledged, in the Rotten Borough of Broken Barnet, that if a thing ain't broke, it soon will be.

Just as soon as your scheming Tory councillors and their nominal servants, the senior management team, and the parasitical cluster of consultants that plague this council, get their sweaty fingers on it, pull it apart, and throw it in the arms of the outsourcing companies that drive slowly past the gates of North London Business Park, 'looking for business'.

Over the last few years, we have seen our local public services pimped, trafficked, or abused and neglected, prepared for privatisation and put up for grabs to any would be profiteering punters.

Tory members have been persuaded to allow this by dangling the lure of easy savings, and 'better' services for less cost to residents, and taxpayers. It is a convenient lie: for whose convenience, it is for you, gentle reader, to judge.

After the sell off of so many council functions to Crapita, via the One Barnet programme, the new Tory administration has continued marketing our public services, with a degree of desperation bordering on the hysterical, perhaps promoted by the sense of time passing, and the possibility of the end of life of the new regime, sooner rather than later, should the Tories lose their narrow margin of control over the council.

Make hay, while the sun shines, as the saying goes, or perhaps, more aptly, the (Easycrem Crapitorium) grave's a fine and privatised place, but none, we think, will there embrace, should Labour somehow take over and attempt some sort of adminstration loosely based on the principles of social justice, and all that sort of thing (miracles can happen), rather than one in which the borough is run for the benefit of free enterprise, and the promotion of brillant careers.

Apart from straightforward privatisation, our Tory councillors are set on wreaking more havoc on the borough's remaining public services by cutting budgets, and reorganising the structure of existing provision, all in the name of 'essential' savings.

Up for the chop now, to the fury of many residents, a number that is about to rapidly increase as the reality of what is planned sinks in, are the borough's much loved libraries, and a number of much needed, high performing nurseries.

Last Tuesday night saw a meeting of the Children's, Education, Libraries and Safeguarding Committee to which reports were to be presented outlining a set of proposals that spell disaster for our library service, and the provision of nursery care for many families in Barnet. More on this subject in the next post, which will include a full report of the meeting itself: here let us remind ourselves of the context of the specific threat to libraries.

There is no other way of putting it: what is planned by your Tory councillors amounts to nothing less than the total destruction of Barnet's library service.

Barnet libraries provide a service that was once the pride of this borough, and repeatedly assessed by national surveys to be one of the best and most cost effective public library systems in the UK.

I say was once the pride of the borough, when the Conservative administration included members with some understanding of the value of a public library system, the necessity of a public library system, of the importance of reading, literature, education and information.

Those days are long gone, along with the departure of any old school Tories with some vestige of interest in culture, the arts, or the idea of a library as a refuge and resource for the communities in which they stand: they have been replaced by the gibbering fools sitting on the benches in Hendon Town Hall who see value only in financial terms, and a library as a building surplus to requirements; an asset to be disposed of - a prospective property development.

The money that they now say that they 'must' save from the libraries budget is in fact relatively modest, by Barnet standards: £2.85 million. Compare this sum to the countless millions to be spent this year, for example, on private consultants - literally countless. And yet the amount the Tories want to slash from the libraries budget, from a service that is always assessed as excellent value for money, represents an astonishing60% of the entire budget.

Apart from the money thrown at the consultants who feast like leeches off this council, and its contractors, and end up being billed to us, the taxpayers - how many millions of pounds in council tax are we wasting on the so poorly scrutinised contracts with Capita, or the parking contract with NSL?

Because we are, readers, we are: we are giving away wad loads of cash to the shareholders of Crapita simply because our council is handing it over without challenge, even when costs are being hiked up, or performance not reaching an acceptable standard.

Another source of revenue which would easily have prevented, at only a tiny cost to each resident, is via council tax.

Why does the Tory council cut council taxes just before an election - just before cutting vital respite care for disabled children - rather than making a modest increase that will protect the services which people want, and need?

The looming threat to libraries is there for ideological reasons, rather than on the basis of funding: the money is there, if they want to allocate it. But they don't: they want to get rid of as many council functions as possible, sit back, continue to rake in all their allowances and watch as the shareholders of a private company benefit at the expense of the people they have been elected to represent.

But they have miscalculated, yet again, the reaction that they will get from their latest attempt at marketing our public services.

People do want and need their libraries. Even those who do not necessarily use them feel strongly that they should be there for those who need them: the existence of a local library is strongly rooted in the psyche of the middle classes, the normally loyal Tory voters, here in Broken Barnet.

Libraries are not just- as a Barnet officer would put it - 'nice to haves': they provide an essential service, and are central to the life of any civilised society, not just for leisure or the promotion of reading, essential for the development, literacy and education of children, students, older citizens, and for access to IT resources for less advantaged members of society.

Imagine the impact on a job seeker, living in fear of the loss of benefits, compelled to seek work online, with proof of a minimum of applications necessary to prevent 'sanctions' from target driven job centre staff, with no access to a computer other than a library: where does he go, when the library goes?

Imagine a child in love with reading, whose parents can't afford to buy her books from Amazon, or Waterstones, or the teenager sharing cramped accommodation with siblings, and with nowhere to study: when the library shuts, where do they go?

The elderly residents whose trips to the library give them a sense of connection and welcome break from the isolation of their lives: what about them?

Well, as a former senior officer once said, sitting in a meeting facilitated by occupier Phoenix, in the library reclaimed by squatters: libraries should not be places where old people go to keep warm, should they?

Well - yes, in Mrs Angry's view, they should. Elderly citizens should feel welcome to go and do just that, and the council should recognise that a library provides more value than you can measure in monetary terms, or statistics, and its worth should not be subject to materialist standards of performance at all.

The earliest confirmation of the direction of Tory policy in regard to libraries became evident before the local elections, when leader Richard Cornelius dared to appropriate the creation of 'community' libraries at Hampstead Garden Suburb and Friern Barnet as Tory 'successes', and a model for the future, the occupation and defiance by squatters and activists who forced the Tories to a humiliating retreat on the closure of the latter, simply airbrushed out of history. Let's revisit that period of history, shall we?

Garden Suburb Library, a tiny vanity venture in an old shop, has always been a white elephant, peeping from behind the shelves of Barnet Libraries. But no Tory administration had ever dared to shut it, simply because it is situated in the heartland of their electoral base, in an area that is hugely wealthy, and supplies enormous amounts of support, financial and otherwise, for their party.

The highly influential Hampstead Garden Suburb Residents Association is feared and fawned over in equal measures by the Tories as a consequence. Live in a road in the suburb? Want a CPZ? Your wish is their command: the very idea of strangers parking outside your house - such impertinence! Highways officers instructed: CPZ approved and installed in record time. Nothing is too much trouble.

No matter how much support the voters of this inconceivably affluent area generally extends to local Tory policy, however, when it came to their own branch library, of course, the Suburbanistas were up in arms, aiming their protest loud and clear at their elected representatives.

The suggestion of a threat to their darling little library in a shop provoked outrage, and unsurprisingly resulted in a swift resolution, and gushing support, from the council, with funding to match, as long as the retired JPs and headteachers were prepared to take their turns playing librarian. Celeb Suburb resident Jonathan Ross came to open it: marvellous, all so easily arranged, and no need for the intervention of squatters, and any of that nonsense.

Ah: yes, Friern Barnet library. The People's Library: the library that would not die. Remember this?

Different story in Labour dominated Friern Barnet of course, an area which is populated by ordinary families, many of whom rely on this community resource as an essential part of their lives. They didn't want it closed, but their views were of no interest to Tory councillors. Their views were of no value, is the truth.

Friern Barnet branch was shut, despite the protest from residents, some of whom, as the poster in the picture reminds us, staged a sit in, on the day of closure, to mark their fury at what had been done.

The building was immediately put on the market: it was soon rumoured that the property was to be sold for development as a mini supermarket, and flats.

Fate intervened, with the arrival of Phoenix and his fellow squatters, who occupied the building, invited local residents and campaigners to come back and reopen the library.

http://wwwbrokenbarnet.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/friern-barnet-library-rising-from-ashes.htm

Residents moved in, filled the shelves with donated books, ran workshops, and activitiesand continued to defy the council. The story received so much media interest, from all around the world, that the Tories were forced into an ignominious retreat, agreeing that the People's Library should be allowed to continue, albeit with minimal support from the council, and outside of the borough's library system.

http://wwwbrokenbarnet.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/the-library-that-lived-this-is-what.html

To claim the credit for what remained from their own actions was preposterous, and even offensive. But it suited their purpose, for what was to come next.

Friern Barnet Community Library continues, bravely: proof of the power of direct action, and a tribute to the residents and activists who fought so determinedly, and continue to give their time to keep the doors open, and the shelves full, despite the uncertain future it inevitably faces.

But let's be clear about one thing. Friern Barnet community library, and Hampstead Garden Suburb Library: they are not public libraries, and worse still, have been used by the cynical Tory leadership of Barnet Council, as predicted by Mrs Angry, to prepare the ground for the devastation of a ground assault on the entire library service, with all the implications for the loss of professional librarianship - and the loss of jobs for a workforce who only two years ago barely survived a cull instigated by the previous Tory administration.

And what was to come next was this: a set of proposals that present a choice of three options from which Barnet residents are asked to choose the way in which their library service will be destoyed. Not asked, of course, if they want their library service destroyed, or given any suggestion that there will be any alternative to the very principle of devastating cuts, closures, downgrading of service,

You can read the reports submitted to this week's committee meeting here, as well as the public questions and answers. Be warned that the library proposals appear to have been written by a visiting alien from Mars, who has never visited a public library, and apparently barely grasps the concept of literacy:

http://barnet.moderngov.co.uk/mgChooseDocPack.aspx?ID=8016

You may prefer to read the rather more informative report commissioned by

Barnet Unison from Professor Dexter Whitfield . There you will find a useful explanation as to why, as is always the case with Barnet, an in house option has not been included in the consultation put before members and residents:

The three options for the future of the library service exclude in-house provision. The ‘Community leadership of libraries’ option is in practice an outsourcing option, because only four small libraries will be offered to be community operated, whilst core libraries will be outsourced to a social enterprise or private contractor.

An in house solution can never be allowed to reach the committee table, of course, because it does not fit the agenda of interested parties - 'stakeholders' in the outcome of any decision in favour of outsourcing - and because Barnet Tories are easily persuaded, by those stakeholders, to support the privatisation of any public service for reasons of their half-baked principles of private = good, public = bad - as well as the always unchallenged promise of 'savings'.

According to the Whitfield analysis:

Case for in-house provision

There are five important reasons why an in-house option should be part of the options
appraisal - long-term future of the library service will be more secure and sustainable; to retain skilled and experienced staff; avoid procurement and transaction costs; maintain the quality of employment such as terms and conditions, pensions, health and safety and to tackle inequalities and social exclusion; investment in the library estate will have to be borne by the Council and will ultimately be cheaper and most effective in-house; and to avoid the risk of contractor and/or market failure.

This report summaries the Tories' proposals of three equally terrible options:

Option 1:

Maintain the full reach of the existing library network. The existing library network would be maintained, but focused on four ‘core’ libraries – Chipping Barnet, Hendon and two new libraries at Church End and Colindale. Other libraries would reduce in size to about 540 sq.ft. Opening hours would increase by 50% across the network. Libraries would be outsourced to an employee or community owned mutual, community trust or private contractor.

Annual impact compared to current service:

Option 2:

Maintain the depth and quality of service provision within a consolidated library network. Eight libraries – the four ‘core’ libraries in Option 1 plus East Barnet, Edgware, North Finchley and Golders Green would form a consolidated library network. Full range of activities and staffed for 60% of current opening hours and provide access to 95% of Barnet population within 30 minutes. Libraries would be outsourced to an employee or community owned mutual, community trust or private contractor.

Annual impact compared to current service:

Option 3:

Community leadership of libraries. East Finchley, Mill Hill, South Friern and Edgware would be offered to be run as community libraries, but reduced in size to approximately 540 sq.ft., as would the Burnt Oak library. The East Barnet and Childs Hill libraries would close. Eight libraries – Hendon, Burnt oak, Chipping Barnet, Church End, Golders Green, Colindale, North Finchley and Osidge would provide the core statutory library network and staffed for 50% of current opening hours. Libraries would be outsourced to an employee or community owned mutual, community trust or private contractor.

Annual impact compared to current service:

In other words: here is our sociopathic Tory council once more holding the lives of our public library services hostage: this time they are prolonging the exquisite torture by asking you which way you want them to kill the service: quickly, with a knife; slowly, by dismemberment, and smothering it with the kindness of strangers, ie volunteers?

They don't mind, as long as they feel they are in control, rather than you, the residents and taxpayers they pretend to represent.

All the options have one thing in common: a commitment to outsourcing - and of course the use of volunteers.

Very keen on voluntary work, our Tory councillors. Except in their own case as elected members, where instead of performing the role of representatives with a sense of honour and civic duty, they do it for the allowances, and perks, like free parking, and the chance to take turns playing Mayor.

They are also awfully keen now on the idea of using unqualified people in key posts. This might be thought to be because it is cheaper, but it is not clear that argument has worked in the case of the unqualified Monitoring Officer, whom we must assume to have been well rewarded with a six figure salary, despite her apparent lack of suitability for the post. Still, as Tory councillor Finn, said, you don't need legal qualifications for such a job, just 'a clear head'.

This is the new idea, now, on the Tory benches. Degrade the value of qualifications, and hollow out the detail of job descriptions, undermine the professional status of any post, in order to devalue the wage bill, no matter what impact it may have of standards of service.

You don't need nursery teachers, make do with cheaper staff: who's to notice? A three year old? Meh. Can't be much involved in looking after a few stroppy toddlers, can there?

Librarians? Who needs them? So what that it takes four years to gain the professional qualifications? Just get some old boy at a loose end to come in for a couple of hours to shelve a few books, and tell him to google it if anyone asks for help with research, or finding an out of print edition, or suggesting suitable books for a child with learning difficulties ...

And outsourcing libraries? It was always going to happen, wasn't it, here in Capitaville?

Since Capita moved in, not only has the IT provision to councillors been appalling, with continual failures and interruptions to email services, the computer system in libraries has been constantly in trouble, with residents infuriated by being unable to use the pcs that are supposed to be available in their local branches. This happens so often, branches have laminated notices at the ready, to stick on the library doors to warn users when the system is down. The lack of interest in fixing these persistent IT problems is really quite remarkable and yet ... predictable.

Yes, it is true that Capita famously walked off with a £16 million handout from residents for investment in IT infrastructure, despite the fact it was supposed to be an 'upfront' capital sum for us, but ... who's counting?

Me, actually, although no one wanted to listen at the time I raised it.

Is that money being used as promised? Why are the library computers being allowed to fall into such a state, and upset users? Is it anything to do running a service down to the point where it becomes more acceptable to outsource it, with the promise of lovely new resources, albeit in limited locations? And how many of the present budget cuts would the £16 million giveaway to Capita have covered? Five times the amount they claim we need to save from the library service, that's for sure.

Let's look more closely at the three options.

The Tories and their senior management team think they have been awfully clever, and protected themselves from the worst of the reaction to their iniquitous plot to inflict such widespread, irreparable and yet totally avoidable damage to our precious libraries.

Remember the Highways expenditure, which the council's own report, commissioned from law practice Sharpe Pritchard, was confirmed as diverting more money to wards that were Tory held? The expenditure which saw an astronomical amount of funding inexplicably spent on the most marginal ward, just before the election?

Here they are, now, proposing drastic cuts in library provision which will protect Tory areas from the worst of the impact of their assault, and leave the least advantaged parts of the borough making do with whatever is left over from the carve-up.

Except for Option 3, which has been carefully crafted in order to lure support from what they have always - until now - perceived as a malleable opposition.

Unfortunately, this perception has been endorsed by an ill worded press release and one or two comments which appear to agree with the Tory plans to create more 'community libraries', using volunteers to keep libraries going, in the face of 'inevitable' cuts: pre-empting, of course, the outcome of any nonsultation by the council with residents over which of the three types of library killing they prefer.

These remarks came as a surprise to the newer, and rather more radically minded Labour members who are pushing the direction of the opposition towards a position of, well - opposing things, rather than agreeing with them - not to mention union representatives desperate to protect the jobs of library staff facing yet again, for the second time in two years, the loss of their livelihoods.

Option 3 offers the prospect of exactly what the Tories hoped Labour would think the lesser of three evils: the encouragement of community libraries, and in this case, in marginal areas, wards where there are significant or increasing numbers of Labour voters, as well as the Labour stronghold ward of East Finchley, represented by Labour leader Alison Moore.

Of course our Tory councillors have overlooked the fact that the Labour group no longer feels it a natural course of action to accept that there is a lesser evil, a less unpalatable option, rather than just a Tory agenda. They do not accept the premise that these 'efficiencies' are necessary in the first place.

The two libraries that would close, in Option 3, would be East Barnet (recently won by Labour) and Childs Hill (one seat held still by the remaining Libdem councillor Jack Cohen). Of the remaining libraries, well: most of these lucky survivors are in Tory wards.

Of all the startling proposals contained within the Tory plans, there is one that is presented with such disarming simplicity that it quite takes away the breath: the suggestion that so many libraries may well be reduced in size, to an oddly exact specification - 540 square feet.

Let us say that again: only 540 square feet: libraries to have a reduction of 93% in size. More details here ...

540 square feet is small. Boy is it small: very, very small: about the same as the ludicrous toy library in Hampstead Garden Suburb, the one in the shop that they always wanted to close, but did not dare, and wanted to close because: it was ... too small.

This proposal will create a faux library system, a facade: a theatrical backdrop, with token branches brandishing a few paperbacks a few days of the week, an exercise merely to pay lipservice to the statutory requirement to make a certain level of library provision, without any of the provision that actually is required.

All the decades of work to make Barnet Libraries the brilliant public library system it was, the careful planning, the years of investment, the evolution of new roles in a changing society, the embrace of income generation, the outreach programmes, community involvement, children's activities and workshops, the already manically edited book stock: all to be thrown away, in another example of our cultural heritage stolen from us, destroyed, or sold to the highest bidder. This proposal is absolutely contemptible.

But there is more - Options 2 and 3 propose something else that is truly appalling: the introduction of opening hours which would not be staffed.

At all.

Yes, you read that correctly.

They are seriously suggesting that it would be acceptable for libraries to be open to the public for only40% or even 50% of their opening hours, not only without any qualified staff available - there would be NO staff available.

And yes, you read that correctly, too.

This idiotic report suggests that members of the public can attend their unstaffed local libraries, gaining access with a pin number & card, and then use 'self service technology' to help themselves to books. And we are told:

This approach to library opening could be enhanced by a remote voice or video information and advice service allowing interaction with library staff in other libraries.

Just imagine how enhancing it will be, readers, to find yourself living in Broken Barnet, in 1984, rather than 2014, standing in an empty library, devoid of staff, and books, but blessed with the attentions of a remote voice ...

But there is more good news:

The technology could be implemented to:

1. Extend opening hours.
2. Mitigate a reduction in staffed opening hours.
3. Move to an entirely unstaffed opening model.

If only we could sack all our Tory councillors, and replace them with virtual technology, moving to an entirely unstaffed council chamber, at least on the Conservative side of the room. Think of the efficiencies to be had. We might even be able to afford another cut in council tax.

Oh. One drawback, though, in the open library plan. It would be feasible, we hear,

'but some sites would be challenging to enable and would require significant capital investment' ...

Ah. Yes. And of course the ludicrous proposal that libraries can be shrunk by 93% would also cost considerable capital investment to deliver, required in order to alter the buildings and current arrangements.

Having said that, Barnet's Tory councillors have always been happy to throw good money at any half baked scheme, in order to, erm ... save money, if an ideological argument is there to distract their wandering minds from the absence of any economic gain.

The Unison report raises question after question in response to this gobsmackingly stupid proposal:

• Where does this leave safeguarding children and vulnerable adults?
• What happens if a member of the public is taken ill, collapses, or has an accident?
• What happens if someone is attacked?
• Will the building become a target for theft?
• What happens if there is a suspect bag or package?
• How will quarrels between members of public be resolved and prevented from escalating? (The risk of assault is a real, it is not uncommon for staff to come between people arguing over PCs for example. Such disputes have escalated to assault in other libraries, this risk is increased without staff).
• What happens if there is a flood, fire or electrical problem and the building is not safe?
• What happens if a group of noisy, rowdy people are disturbing other library users?
• Libraries and their staff provide a place of safety for vulnerable people, they will be put at risk in a staff-less building.
• How will fixtures and fittings be protected?
• What is there to prevent people just taking stock without issuing it?
• What happens when computers, printers and photocopiers break down and do not work?
• What happens when the printer or photocopier run out of paper? Or toilet paper and soap?
• How will print release be operated? There will have to be some method of putting charge on reader’s ticket, because a lot of people will not pay for prints without it.
• What happens if heavy rain or snow may make access to the building unsafe, water
logged or slippery?
• How will the supply of copying paper be controlled?
• Public having to use library card and pin number to get access goes against free open access too. Many people cannot remember their pin number so they will not to be able to gain access.

It seems quite incredible that the idea of so called 'open' libraries could be seriously put forward as a proposal, with no proper risk assessement, or equalities impact assessment - but it has.

Only in Tory Barnet could there be conceived a proposal like this, of a public resource stripped down to the barest skeleton, a parody in terms of scale, delivery, stock and resources, finally reaching the logical conclusion - a fully dehumanised environment, bereft of personal contact; a service point with no service, a cut down, cut back, cost cutting library with no librarians, and only a handful of books; no staff, no interaction, no heart, and no soul.

The perfect option, in short, for a public library system, in Broken Barnet.

This is all part of the new Britain, determined once more by the rule of privilege, where the new Conservative elite, grandsons of the old Conservative elite, want to keep the feckless poor in their place, and prevent them from getting ideas above their station.

And reading, and education for all represents a threat to that aspiration.

They don't want us to be able to question their right to rule over us.

They don't want us to be educated, to think.

Reading is dangerous: it must be stopped. It has been stopped, in prison, and now the rest of the underclasses must lose their right to self education: it's too risky. Reading might make us think, or make us stronger, and less accepting of the role of compliant wage slaves they want us to perform.

They don't want us to have access to information, or technology that might help us find a job, if we are unemployed, and retain our right to benefits.

They don't want us to wander into a library, to have a chat with a familiar face behind the counter, and sit down, and read a free newspaper, and keep warm.

They want us to be denied the benefit of education, and deprived of the joy of reading, and the chance to escape the materialist boundaries of their world, into the world of the imagination.

We must be humiliated, estranged from our community, alienated from each other, and controlled by them, the culture-averse Tories who know only the value of profit, property and possession.

Here in Broken Barnet, however, we think for ourselves, and are not easily persuaded to fall in line with such a philosophy.

And if anyone knows what the power of resistance and community campaigning can do, it is the people of this borough.

To do otherwise is unthinkable, in truth: we owe it to the people whose public services are being robbed from them, and given to the profiteering pirates holding us to ransom: we owe it to ourselves, and to our children.

Let's get going, shall we?

On Tuesday evening your councillors will be debating the library plans, as well as the nursery proposals, at a Full Council meeting - Hendon Town Hall, 7pm. You have the right to attend, and if you care about the future of these services, you really should be there; come early to get a seat.

In the meanwhile, please email your local councillor to let them know what you think of the proposals - and sign this petition.

We are the hollow men
We are the stuffed men
Leaning together
Headpiece filled with straw. Alas!

Last week's meeting of Barnet's Children's Education, Libraries & Safeguarding Committee was always going to be a lively one, and the council was well prepared with a double sized room for public seating, and extra security staff prowling the corridors of the Town Hall.

Another sign that this meeting was more than usually interesting was the degree of discomfort evident on the faces of the Tory councillors who entered the room quietly, and slipped into their seats alongside Labour members, senior officers, and independent members, all three of whom, it must be said, gave Mrs Angry very disapproving looks throughout the meeting, in response to her unasked for comments.

One of these independent members used to be the headteacher at the primary school attended by Miss Angry and her brother, so he may well have been feeling a bit twitchy for good reason, to be fair.

The room was packed with residents angered by two issues on the agenda: the truly appalling library proposals, as described in the previous blogpost, and another highly controversial matter: the cuts in nursery provision, which will affect classes at four nurseries in the borough, including Moss Hall, a well respected nursery school here in Finchley, many of whose parents were in attendance at the meeting, furious and having already launched a determined campaign against the plans. The council wants to cut funding, and to amalgamate four nurseries into one school, with one headteacher and deputy headteacher.

Three of the nurseries, Brookhill Nursery School in Brookhill Road, East Barnet, Hampden Way Nursery School in Hampden Way, Brunswick Park, St Margaret's Nursery School in Margaret Road, New Barnet, have agreed to merge. This might seem a logical move - if one accepts the necessity in the first place for such a drastic measure - as these three nurseries are in the same part of the borough, in adjoining wards.

Moss Hall Nursery, in West Finchley, which will see the council subsidy it receives slashed by 50% over the next two years - will not be joining this merger. Hard to see how or why a school so far away from the other three could be joined to the others, anyway.

Headteacher Perina Holness has tried to negotiate with the council, recognising the need for a decrease in the subsidy, which Tories claim must be cut because it derives from an underspend on other funding which will be lost. Ms Holness's suggestion of a 25% cut accompanied by fundraising by the nursery has been rejected. She says Moss Hall do not want to be amalgamated with the three other nurseries because of the staff cuts that will result, with the loss of several posts, headteacher and deputy headteacher, three classroom teachers and five nursery nurses.

This nursery is rated 'outstanding' by OFSTED, and has a good reputation for accommodating the needs of children with learning difficulties. It is the sort of nursery which every parent wants their child to attend, and consider themselves very lucky if they do gain a place.

A success story, in short, but of course, this being Broken Barnet, subject to the laws which govern our Tory council: take something that works perfectly well, and serves the community, and destroy it by withdrawing funding, while boasting in the run up to the local elections of your 'gesture' of a cut in council tax: the council tax that goes towards all those boring things like ... education, and nursery schools.

But here is another interesting thing. Just as the library cuts seem to be tailored to a political agenda, as were the handouts from the infamous Highways budget last year, here we find again budget cuts to nurseries targeted in such a way as any political fall out will be on Labour held wards - overlooking the sole surviving Tory councillor in Brunswick Park, Lisa Rutter.

Looking at the location of the nurseries (and trying to negotiate the terrible ward maps on the council website, in order to guess where the boundaries are) it seems Brookhill and St Margaret's are in East Barnet ward, and Hampden Way in Brunswick Park.

East Barnet Ward, you may recall used to be represented by three Tories, including the hugely unpopular Robert Rams, who was in charge (apparently) of libraries and museums, They were replaced, much to the Tories' astonishment, (although not to Mrs Angry, who predicted this would happen) by three Labour councillors, Rebecca Challice, Phil Cohen, and Laurie Williams.

Brunswick Park had one Labour councillor, from a by election, Andreas Ioannides, and gained two more, in the process losing the Tories one of their dominant members, Andreas Tambourides.

Moss Hall is in West Finchley, a traditional Labour stronghold, galling to MP Mike Freer and the local Finchley & Golders Green Tories, not least because it is also the location of their HQ, Margaret Thatcher House.

Ah, but: here is the thing. Moss Hall might be in a Labour ward, but it is one of those schools that middle class parents are desperate to find for their children, and that includes a fair few Tory voters in Finchley.

Oh dear. A slight miscalculation, from someone. A very loud and well championed campaign is directed at saving the nursery from destruction, of the sort that must have local Tories, especially Mike Freer, sweating with fear.

http://www.change.org/p/save-moss-hall-nursery

At the meeting last week, Freer's election rival, Labour's Sarah Sackman, was present, and has pledged her support to the nursery, and indeed she did wonders to help the plight of two schools for disabled children whose vital respite care schemes were threatened by Tory cuts.

Mrs Angry looked awfully hard, but did not see Mike Freer at the meeting, even though, behind the scenes, he has been promising to help campaigners, and was reportedly keen at one stage to broker a deal so he could make a statement before the meeting. The terms of this deal, however, were not acceptable to the nursery or campaigners.

Of course Freer is in a difficult position: he rarely, if ever, criticises his the policies of his Tory colleagues on Barnet Council - and why would he, when everything they do and say is programmed by his fatuous easycouncil philosophy, and neo Thatcherite agenda?

Mrs Angry understands that some Tory councillors have suggested that parents from Moss Hall should fund their child's place at the nursery. Good idea. Let's start charging parents at state primary schools, too, and - oh, no doubt we soon will be, anyway.

More open in his support and criticism of the plans than Freer, is Tory councillor Brian Salinger, who happens to be chair of Governors of Moss Hall, and therefore inclined to be rather cross about the threat to what he knows very well is a brilliant nursery school.

True, if this were a nursery school with no connection to him, he would be unlikely to kick up much of a fuss, but you can't be sure: he takes an unpredictable stand on some issues, and is something of a loose cannon in the party, although generally a good boy when it comes to voting. Just occasionally he finds himself in the need to visit the gents, at such times, rather than abstain, or vote against his party whip. So things might get interesting, in these days of such a slender minority for our Tory administration.

But back to last week's meeting.

This was, Mrs Angry realised, with a sinking heart, chaired by possibly the most aggravating chairwoman of all Tories, ie Reuben Thompstone, who is a young man who acts with a degree of pomposity remarkable in anyone under the age of 73, and delivers his rather comical demands for silence, and obedience to his rule, in a clipped antipodean accent that tends to drive Mrs Angry to further and further acts of impertinence, for no particular reason she can think of.

(Why oh why, Mrs Angry often wonders, looking at most of our younger Tory councillors, do some sons and daughters decide not to rebel against their parents, but try to be just like them, and act so middle aged, and so conventionally? It is grossly unnatural.

FFS, young people of Broken Barnet, don't join Conservative Future, and spend your weekends canvassing for Mike Freer. You might end up like Myles Longfield. Or in a blue t shirt on a stage with Grant Shapps, looking like one of the undead.

Listen to Mrs Angry. Resist the urge to take out a subscription to the Daily Telegraph. Go out and get pissed. A lot. Go to festivals, not the Tory conference. Get a tattoo, (unless you are a child of Mrs Angry, in which case, never return home) Have lots of (safe) sex. Don't get married. Don't have children when you are still a child yourself, and most of all, please don't stand as a Tory councillor and sit in moral judgement on others, when you have no idea of the terrible things that life can throw at some people, and leave them in need of your help, and your compassion).

Anyway.

Next to him was someone out of sight, whose mumbling voice at first she mistook for Cllr Dean Cohen, but turned out to be James Mass, who looks and sound like a Head Boy trying to impress the Headmaster, Mr Thompstone, at a school assembly (actually Reuben Thompstone is a teacher, and Mrs Angry's offer of a crisp fiver to any pupil who can let her know his nicknames at school still stands, and Tombstone doesn't count, as it is too obvious. And not rude enough).

Mr James Mass, in fact, is 'Lead Commissioner - Family & Community Well-being', for Barnet Council.

Well-being, in Capitaville, being, well: not so much well, as ill -being, ill conceived, malevolent policies designed to tear families apart, and destroy all sense of community.

And here is a funny thing, according to Linkedin, Mr Mass, before arriving at the gates of the demi-paradise that is Broken Barnet-Capitaville, worked for - no, no, not Capita, of course not. Mr Ian Harrison, the Director of Education- he did, though. But Mr Mass, he of the mumbling voice, he used to work for ...iMPOWER, the iMPLEMENTATION partners of the One Barnet privatisation of our public services, who were the happy recipients of millions and millions of pounds of cash from Barnet taxpayers. iMAGINE Mrs Angry's surprise, when she realised that!

After the disclosure of interests - ha, in which Labour councillors dutifully did just that, and no Tories did anything of the sort, (did they have dispensations?) except the Chair, who revealed solemnly that he was a member of Golders Green library, which amused Mrs Angry, who used to work there, and wondered how he will enjoy squeezing into his library when it is reduced by 93% in size?

Seventy five public questions, almost all on libraries and the nurseries. All excellent, well reasoned written questions. Responded to by the usual evasion, and half truths, and the verbal supplementaries provoked even less satisfactory responses.

In fact, due to a combination of the notoriously bad sound system, chosen apparently for the purpose of disrupting all attempts at communication between councillor and council officer, and councillor and member of the public, and all the variations between, and the mumbling of Mr Mass, no one in the audience could hear much of the responses, which was probably a blessing, but it made some of them very cross, even more cross than they already were, which was very, very cross indeed.

CAN - YOU - E-NUN-CI- ATE? demanded one particularly irate man half way down the seating area, e-nun-ci-at-ing with admirable diction, and an understandable amount of fury. He was obliged to repeat his demands more than once throughout the evening, because the answer to that unwarranted public question, it would seem, was - no, he could not.

Naughty Labour Councillor Dr Devra Kay loudly observed,with perfect diction, from the audience, that he would never make a nursery teacher.

Excellent, intelligent questions from a range of members of the public, and from Perina Holness - and oh, here was a familiar face. The Chairwoman welcomed 'Councillor' Kate Salinger. She pointed out wrily that she was 'just an ordinary member of the public, these days' - she lost her seat in Coppetts to Labour, despite her support for the People's library.

The Tories were trying to claim the nursery cuts were sanctioned by an earlier Task & Finish group. Councillors, her question asked, what you have before you is NOT what was recommended by a very hard working group of your peers ... Please explain to me why the work of the T&F group is now being ignored and what is the educational justification for it?

The response was of course a waste of time, but the real impact from her question was evident in the faces of those former colleagues, who sat squirming with embarrassment in the face of her fiercesome gaze.

Questions about the library cuts were equally unwelcome, and the resulting tide of dissatisfaction frome residents began to work up to a crashing wave of unrest, and when the Chairwoman abruptly stopped public questions at exactly 30 minutes, and would not extend the time, people were very angry. Uh oh.

Retain your decorum, demanded Cllr Thompstone. Mrs Angry tittered, remembering with fondness this post from three years ago:

http://wwwbrokenbarnet.blogspot.co.uk/2011/11/little-more-decorum-please-oh-feck-off.html

In fact Thompstone was obliged to make his command for 'decorum' no less than four times throughout the evening: so many times, indeed, that after the meeting, chatting to a couple of members of Mill Hill Residents Association in the corridor, one of them said he had been puzzled, at first, as to why a Barnet councillor would feel he had to keep referring to the Herts authority, Dacorum.

(Mrs Angry imagines Decorum/Dacorum would be the sort of area more suited to our Tory councillors, in fact, being populated by natural born conservative voters, rather than the stroppy lot of ungrateful residents, here in Broken Barnet: with well behaved women, no doubt, who don't go and heckle councillors at meetings, but stay at home and make jam (successfully, unlike Mrs Angry) and respectable men who spend their evenings down the Rotary club, or quietly in front of the tv, sipping hot milk, in slippers, dressing gown, and paisley pyjamas).

Moss Hall campaigner Nikki Roberts now came to the table to address the committee, being graciously allowed three minutes to do so - it used to be five, but in typical style our Tory councillors decided it was a good idea to cut down on such dangerous engagement with their electors.

Nikki present a petition which already had more than 3,000 signatures. She explained how the nursery had tried to be reasonable and negotiate with the council, and fundraised, and - then she was cut off by the Chairwoman, because it was time for members to ask questions.

With his usual impeccable good manners, Labour's Ammar Naqvi's question to her was, would she please continue her speech, which she did.

Tory deputy leader Dan Thomas was ill at ease. He said, avoiding eye contact with anyone in particular that it was a very emotive issue. Not comfortable with emotive issues, our Tory councillors.

His colleague, self confessed Thatcherite Helena Hart had a Few Points about libraries, she said in her usual rather doleful tone. Saving £2.85 million, she remarked, with touching pathos, 'was never going to be an easy option'. She raised concerns about the amount of money to be spent on consultation - £200,000, or so Mrs Angry has in her notes - that can't be right, can it?

So Councillor Hart did not like the proposals that would effect Edgware and Golders Green Library. 'Completely unpalatable'. Oh dear. Is that because they are Tory wards, and, erm ... she is a member for Edgware? Does that mean the cuts that will cause such devastation in other libraries are acceptable, Councillor Hart? If so, what makes your library any different?

She thought there should be a 'mix and match approach', rather than sticking to the strictly defined three options, and so did Cllr Thomas. That way, no doubt, will appeal to all Tories wanting to make sure their own libraries escape the chop.

Ammar Naqvi made a very astute observation now, pointing out that the proposals were based on a straw man argument ... well, thought Mrs Angry: the Tories wanted a hollowed out council, and now their headpieces almost certainly are full of straw, so yes: this is the inevitable line of logic, for a Tory member ... We were being presented with a false choice, he continued, with so many disparate services being pushed together and then this grouping used to justify a budget cut across all of them.

Labour's Anne Hutton said she wanted to invite a union representative to speak. A unioin rep sat at the table. The Chairwoman said he would not allow it. SHAME! Why not? An argument ensued as to whether or not it was constitutional. Labour said it was, the Tories said not. RUBBISH, announced a voice easily identifiable by the scouse accent of Councillor Paul Edwards.

They're scared, said Cllr Dr Kay. Officers looked on blankly: despite the Lloyd-Jones report, clearly the vacuum of knowledge in legal and governance matters continues. The union rep left the table, without speaking.

Don't call a lawyer - cos you got none, declared the People's Mayor, Councillor Lord Shepherd, gleefully, from the public seats.

Or call a lawyer from Harrow, and see how quickly they can get here, he advised, trying to be helpful. Alright, no, he wasn't.

It's only 45 minutes away, he estimated, after some thought, no doubt working out the bus routes, and timetables.

In fact he was wrong, there was a lawyer from HB Public Law sitting at the table, apparently as a token gesture, rather any practical use. But no Monitoring Officer, as our part time, interim, seconded, secondhand Mr Large was presumably at his day job in Westminster, rather than here for a try out of the zero hours contract we've cooked up for him here in Broken Barnet. Or maybe he does a pizza delivery round on a moped on Tuesday nights.

Anyway, just to show willing, and give him something to do, when he is on Barnet time, Mrs Angry has written to ask Mr Large to look it up in the constitution, as a sort of initiation test, to get him into the swing of things.

On to nurseries, now.

Oh God. Time for Kate Kennally to speak.

Nothing fills Mrs Angry with more dismay than the prospect of a prolonged speech from this senior officer, now the Strategic Director of, ha, Communities, and who seems entirely unable to express a single sentence without resorting to the sort of corporate bilge these people feel they must regurgitate in order to demonstrate their grasp of any given issue.

In fact such abuse of language does the complete opposite, demonstrating the strawheaded emptiness of Barnet policy, and more besides: it is the language of commerce and profit - remember the suggestion that low paid care workers for the disastrous Your Choice Barnet, which tries and fails to make profit from the care of disabled residents, being told to take a 9.5% cut in pay and her comment that they were merely 'taking a haircut, in the market place of care'?

In this last of meeting places
We grope together
And avoid speech
Gathered on this beach of the tumid river

Bla bla bla. New models of delivery. (This is the new, approved buzzword, used instead of ... shh ... outsourcing, mass privatisation, One Barnet etc ...). She then resorted to another usual tactic: a po faced attempt to make listeners feel guilty about daring to criticise a council policy she must defend, by raising terrible consequences should that policy not be put into action - in this case, an impact on children with special needs due to budget restraints. Raise council tax, suggested Barnet Alliance campaigner Barbara Jacobson, from the audience.

Ah. Now time for Tory councillor Brian Salinger to come to the table. His colleagues on the committee visibly became uncomfortable, expressions fixed, and wary. They were right to be wary. Salinger laid into the plans for Moss Hall, pulling no punches. As the councillor of many years spoke, the young deputy leader Dan Thomas, who usually seems icy cool in his demeanour, reddened, and looked deeply embarrassed.

Salinger began, unless Mrs Angry misheard it, by accidentally referring to Kennaly as 'Councillor'. An interesting slip, and telling, in an administration where the senior officers do indeed take on the role that should be the responsibility of elected members, creating and directing policy and decisions, as we saw in the DRS joint venture fiasco, despite such officers being, as he put it now, with no little contempt, 'unelected and unaccountable' ...

Silence. His fellow Tories looked on, mortified.

Are you still a Tory, Brian? asked Mrs Angry, thoughtfully, chewing the end of her pen, sitting just behind him.

Very much so, he batted back, automatically, but clearly with some reservation. He stepped down.

Who was that masked man? asked Bob Jacobson, as Salinger passed him by.

Labour's Rebecca Challice announced that they wanted to refer the matter to Full Council: not all nurseries involved had been fully consulted, and it would be wrong to vote that evening. The Tories were not pleased, of course, because the library issue had also been referred there - and both were now exposed to the danger of an unpredictable outcome.

Kate Kennally launched another interminable speech, this time reading from notes: bla bla bla, relentless drive - sorry - focus - on efficiency, overarching business plan, direction of travel, yadiyadiya ... Later on she started talking mysteriously about a critical mass, although it was not quite clear whether that was a reference to (James) Mass, who is above criticism, of course.

Labour's Anne Hutton commented that there was plenty of money wasted by the council which could be made available, setting up academies, on consultants - and senior officers. Ouch.

Independent member Simon Clifford spoke, unlike his two colleagues, for some reason, who remained silent all evening.

Ms Kennally said she was happy to have a conversation with him 'out of here'. I'm sure you are, thought Mrs Angry, but for the purposes of transparency, we would prefer that conversation was in public.

Two incendiary issues, then, deferred to tonight's Full Council, at the end of which, of course, there will be a vote of no confidence in the Tory leader, Richard Cornelius, in the aftermath of the Lloyd-Jones investigation into the failure in governance and legal services.

It promises to be a night to remember.

Standing ovation for the victory over nursery cuts won by Labour Cllr Rebecca Challice

A packed Town Hall, last night, for the Full Council Meeting, as was expected, with the proposed savage cuts to Barnet libraries and nursery provision on the agenda, followed by an 'Extraordinary' meeting held to debate Labour's motion of no confidence in the Tory leader, Richard Cornelius, in the aftermath of the highly critical Lloyd-Jones report into the failure of governance, and legal services.

All Barnet Full Council Meetings are pretty Extraordinary, to be fair: an ungainly combination of pantomime and farce, played out to an audience of unruly residents, cramped into a tiny public gallery, overlooking the council chamber, separated from their superiors by a safety glass wall, for fear, one imagines, of projectiles, or being spat upon - or at least close contact with the electorate they so despise.

So many residents turned up last night the council was obliged to open up an overspill room, which itself overflowed- hundreds of people, many of them parents at Moss Hall, one of the nurseries affected by the cuts.

Hidden away at the end of the same corridor, as one of Mrs Angry's spies noted, was an emergency bunker for our paranoid elected members, should the apocalypse dawn, and their ungrateful residents do what they could hardly be blamed for, jump over the glass wall, and take over the council.

Outside the building two police vans waited, in case of trouble, and inside extra security officers prowled the corridors, and monitored events in the public gallery, peering anxiously through the glass in the doors, and once or twice coming in to stand, rather pointlessly, arms folded, when the yelling was loudest. And there was a lot of yelling. And not all of it from Mrs Angry.

The proceedings were filmed by an Occupy London activist, and streamed live on Bambuser, and also filming was a documentary film maker who works for the BBC. Barnet, once again, is in the news, and once again, all because of the political lunacy that prevails in the administration nominally run by our council's Tory party. Nominally, of course, because this is now the London Borough of Capita, and subject to the rule of private enterprise, and senior officers, rather than our elected representatives. It's just that, as yet, only a few Tories have cottoned on to this; and one of them, as we will see, was the cause of a major humiliation for his own party, later on in the proceedings.

Hugh Rayner is of course the perfect Mayor of Capitaville, bringing, as he does, the exact level of dignity in office that you would imagine might be appropriate to such a role.

He opened the proceedings, and asked his chaplain to say a few words. The Pastor obliged, and asked the Almighty to bestow upon the meeting 'the peace which surpasses all understanding', as well as the gift of wisdom, and clarity of thought.

Oh dear. It would seem that God was not listening to our entreaties, and there was to be no peace, understood or not, precious little wisdom, and on the Tory side of the chamber, at least, as usual, no detectable sign of any clear thinking.

No Full Council meeting can begin in this borough without tributes to someone who has escaped the boundaries of life in Barnet into a better one, possibly via the newly expanded services at the Hendon Easycrem facility, and almost certainly marked with a funeral or memorial service attended by the former Tory member Brian Coleman, who seems to spend all his time at such events, or tweeting remarks for or against the obituaries of the great and good, that exclusive club to which he will never belong.

These tributes serve to prolong the nuisance of having to get on with council business, and also compels members of the public to be upstanding, and bow their heads, in the way our Tory members wish we would do as a natural course of action, in their presence.

This time we were told of the sad passing of sometime Barnet Tory MP Sydney Chapman, whose service to the area was marked by the naming of a road in Hadley Green, Sydney Chapman Way, regularly altered by local dissenters to ' Sydney Chapman, No Way'.

Veteran Tory and former MP John Marshall stood to speak about Chapman. He liked trees, we heard, and planted 26 million of them. Not all in his own garden, one imagines. He was very welcoming to young new MPs, and keen to 'show them the ropes'. He showed them where the bars were. It wasn't clear what else he did, especially for his constituency, but he seems to have been well liked, an old school Tory, and, as Labour's Kath McGuirk pointed out, unlike the rest of his Conservative colleagues on Barnet Council, he was a staunch supporter of the ArtsDepot, and indeed, the arts. Across the chamber, our culture averse Tory members looked on, indifferently, creatures from another time and place.

No way, now to avoid the inevitable. Time to tackle the first of the incendiary items now gingerly lifted out of the box, and laid before members. Tory councillor Reuben Thompstone stood by, matches in hand, and then - whoosh.

Nurseries. What can you say, to justify cutting funding to early years provision? Well, of course you can't, and even if you could, the insufferable complacency of Reuben Thompstone should automatically bar him from trying. He justified taking the money away by saying to do otherwise would have an impact on children in 'deprived parts of the borough'. This was a novelty, of course, hearing an admission from a Barnet Tory that there are deprived parts of the borough, but shameless using this as a pretext to cover their ruthless budget slashing.

Labour's Rebecca Challice is a new councillor for East Barnet - one of the youngest councillors, if not the youngest councillor in the country - and she is a real asset to the party: bright, charming, and tactful, and her background as a carer, and Chair of the local carers' centre gives her a maturity and sense of compassion that some of the younger Tory members would do well to emulate.

Two of the nurseries under threat are in her ward - which fell to Labour in May, to the shock and dismay of the Tories who had previously held it and had not foreseen the loss - and she had formulated a sensible amendment to the Tory motion, asking for the decision to be deferred, and more thorough consultation undertaken.

Rebecca had thoughtfully given up her right to speak, her maiden speech as a councillor, to her amendment,so as to allow the vice chair of governors of St Margaret's nursery to address the chamber, for three minutes. He did so now, a short but effective speech, remarking on the 100 year history of the school, the outstanding OFSTED reports, the lack of consultation over the cuts, the impact of the loss of key members of staff, the questions not addressed, the decisions made in haste - involve us, he asked.

He received thunderous applause, which annoyed the Mayor, who complained about the length of it, as of course only token signs of approval and dissent may be expressed by members of the public, in the chamber of democratic debate, where our elected representatives speak on our behalves.

Time for Tory Brian Salinger to speak. Salinger, of course, is the Chair of Governors of Moss Hall, and had already spoken furiously against the proposals affecting his nursery at the meeting last week, from which Labour members had moved the issue, despite the disapproval of the Chair, Cllr Thompstone. He repeated his objections to the proposals, pointing out with great impatience that the problem was not, as his fellow Tory had insisted, a matter of subsidy, but due to the core funding of early years provision, which formula was, he barked NOT FIT FOR PURPOSE!

Salinger rubbished the idea of amalgamating Moss Hall with the three other nurseries, far away in East Barnet - how could they share staff? No one had seen a budget so they could not tell if it was financially viable, or not. Children, he observed, did not get a second chance at their education - and he moved his own amendment to his own party's proposal.

All very good, but one has to ask if he would have bothered taking this rebellious stand if the nurseries concerned did not include the one with which he is associated.

Labour's Anne Hutton thought the nursery proposals typical of the Tory attitude that so long as something saves money in the short term, that's alright.

Thompson's responses were bizarre. He observed, rather rudely, that some nurseries may be or fifty years old, or a hundred years old: some older than Cllr Salinger (ooh, get you) and said that to oppose the cuts would lead to an impact on less advantaged areas, like Burnt Oak, and Colindale.

This was too much for Mrs Angry. She retorted, from her seat in the public gallery, that he had never worried before about these areas, or their disadvantaged residents.

West Hendon! yelled Jasmin Parsons, one of the residents and activists from a housing estate and community about to be destroyed by the luxury new development by the Welsh Harp.

Mapledown! yelled Mrs Angry.

Reuben Thompstone watched by fellow Golders Green member & environment chair Dean Cohen, who allocated the astronomical sum of £1.1 million to be spent on their ward's pavements & roads in the year before the election, while Labour wards went without - nearly half the money needed to 'save'all our libraries.

There now proceeded what can only be described as a laughably inept handling of the vote for the motion, and the amendments. No one knew what was going on, including the members of both parties, and those councillors who had submitted amendments. Yet again, there appeared to be no one in the chamber with a grip on procedure, and yes, our new interim, part-time, pre-used Monitoring Officer was present, as well as the Chief Executive, who sat there in his usual decorative role, as is the custom at these meetings, and is part of the onerous duties which earn him a larger salary than the Prime Minister.

Despite the findings of the Lloyd-Jones report it seems that Barnet still has no one in place to oversee the management of governance and prevent these cock-ups: why not?

It was hard to follow the sequence of voting, but at the end of it, after a moment of disbelief, a wave of euphoria broke over the heads of the opposition: Rebecca's amendment had been carried, thanks to one Tory rebel - and that's all it takes now. For the first time in many years, Barnet Tories were defeated in a vote, and their scheming, shameless assault on nurseries in Labour wards thrown out - or at least sent back to the drawing board.

A Tory rebellion: Brian Salinger votes with Labour

It was a moment of exquisite pleasure to observe the faces of the Tory leadership - and wonderful to see this moment of triumph won by a new Labour councillor, marking a change in the strength of opposition politics in Broken Barnet, and a huge psychological blow for the Tories.

The Moss Hall parents and protestors were jubilant,of course, and left the Town Hall in a state of noisy excitement, celebrating their successful campaign. Successful so far, of course - a word of warning to them that the Tories are unlikely to leave the matter there.

Next up: libraries. A more sober mood fell on the chamber. Labour's Anne Hutton responded to the pathetic Tory defence of their proposals, that is to say that these savings had to be made, and identified, and Labour had agreed to that principle and now they were 'playing party politics'.

This was a theme throughout the evening, and to be frank, the tactic of accusing Labour of having agreed to all the Tories' nefarious plans is partly the opposition's fault, or at least the party's leaders. Until now the opposition has been too keen to engage in cooperative dialogue, seeing itself as (and please excuse the term) 'holding the ring' with the administration. Critics within and outside the party, however, see this as part of the problem in Barnet, the opposition institutionalised, and tricked into endorsing the Tory agenda.

The new intake of Labour councillors will not be associated with such traditions, hence the new tough love policy of non cooperation with working groups, the tawdry kangaroo court of the leaders' panel, and so on. And the Tories, poised on a precipice with their majority of one, are panicking at the prospect of not being able to continue to dupe their trusting Labour colleagues into facilitating their ghastly regime.

Labour is not playing 'party politics' , said Anne Hutton - this is about caring for our libraries ... she gave some examples of how other London boroughs made provision for libraries, while facing the same economic challenges. Croydon has thirteen libraries, Camden twelve; Hillingdon has rebuilt and refurbished all its libraries. There must be an holistic approach to the library service, and we must take our time to consider the way to do this properly, including looking for alternative sources of funding that we can tap into, to make a library service fit for the 21st century.

Tory Reuben Thompstone said breezily that this was a consultation, this is just the beginning.

Of the end, for you, thought Mrs Angry, with fond memories of the spectacular end of former library member Robert Rams' brilliant career, now evaporated, and leaving as much trace behind him as the invisible library he built, or didn't build, in North Finchley.

The subject of libraries was put aside for a while as other items came up for debate: ah, the Lloyd Jones report.

Barnet Council, said Labour leader Alison Moore, has been made a laughing stock by the failures identified in the report, bringing the council into disrepute. It was not, as the Tory leader has implied, a trivial issue, but had caused a total meltdown. Claer Lloyd-Jones' report was a damning indictment.

Tory leader Richard Cornelius said he thought Ms Lloyd-Jones' report was perfectly clear, Clearer than Alison Moore's speech. And that was that, of course. No harm done, motion lost. Back to business as usual.

Question time now, put back in order to deal with the nursery issue earlier in the evening. Always good for a laugh, of course, and entirely pointless, and plenty of opportunity for the Tories to do that thing so reviled by Reuben Thompstone, playing party politics. Playing internal party politics, perhaps, was Tory Brian Salinger, who asked some awkward questions - real questions, rather than the can the leader confirm how wonderful we are variety usually posed by Tories. Hmm, thought Mrs Angry. Is Brian Salinger warming up to a leadership challenge? He has been leader before, of course, and was deposed in favour of Mike Freer, in a plot engineered by Brian Coleman. He has never quite got over it, and certainly that would liven things up a bit, wouldn't it?

Almost lost amongst the variety of questions was one from Labour's Councillor Charlie O'McCauley, from Burnt Oak, and who wanted to know what the borough did to celebrate Black History Month, an issue of personal significance to him, and countless other residents, of course. The Leader dutifully replied that there had been a number of events and activities held in - oh, held in Barnet's libraries ... wonder if they will be taking place in this borough, ever again, once those libraries have been shut, flogged off, or shrunk in size by 93%?

Charlie referred to the role that a former resident of the borough has played in the abolition of slavery, that is to say William Wilberforce, who lived in Mill Hill, and - as you would know, readers, if you came to Mrs Angry's sell out talk for Finchley Literary Festival on Dickens and the borough - built the church on the Ridgeway, after falling out with the Rector of Hendon, who was a vicious, profligate snob, and came from a long line of plantation owners in Jamaica).

The Tory leader smiled and boasted of course he knew that, and William Wilberforce, he declared, was a good Tory.

Erm: no, he wasn't, as John Marshall, the only Barnet Tory who has ever read a history book -no, ever read a book -informed him, on the quiet.

Of course Wilberforce was a man who followed his own conscience, and judged each issue on its own merit, an idea beyond the comprehension of a Barnet Tory councillor.

Right winger and unapologetically politically incorrect Brian Gordon, whose contribution to Black History Month this year, or any year, is unknown, but once 'blacked up' in fancy dress as a form of entertainment at an old folks party, in a 'tribute' to Nelson Mandela, had a very important question: on the subject of the Edgware Smell.

This 'appalling stench' is apparently from a composting plant out of the borough, and nothing to do with our Tory run council. The malodorous air in the council chamber of Broken Barnet, on the other hand, most certainly is.

More important than any other questions were two posed by Labour's Paul Edwards, on the subject of payments to Capita. More important, in the end, than anything else that was discussed that night, or all year, because the truth that lies beneath this question and answer, whatever it is, puts into perspective all the cuts and closures and loss of services and job losses, sold to us on the basis of the need for 'savings'.

Q14.

Would the Leader confirm how much the council has paid to Capita to date under the CSG and Re contracts, whether this is in line with the payments profile for both contracts, and if not, how much does it vary by for each contract?

Written answer:

Under the CSG and Re contracts, the council has paid £47.6m (CSG) and £16.1m (Re) by the end of September 2014. These payments are in line with the published payments schedule. The CSG and Re contracts will provide a financial benefit to the Council of £165m through savings and income over 10 years. CSG services now cost £6m less per year.

This answer of course regurgitates the official version that the Tories, senior officers, consultants and Capita stick to, whatever challenge is made to their calculations and projections. The figures are nonsense, because they only tell you part of the overall spread of payments and 'savings', and the 'landscape', as our officers would put it, is never a constant view, but changes with the passing of the season, and out fo the corner of the eye. And this response tells us nothing in terms of hard facts: in line? Prove it. Give us the figures. Which of course we cannot access as the costing that the contract was based on was 'commercially sensitive', and therefore redacted from publication or disclosure.

Have those costs been hiked up, do you think?

Are we paying more than we are saving?

What about the 'gainshare' payments that we have to hand over to Capita, if they say they are saving a certain amount of money and are therefore entitled to an extra fee: are we scrutinising the claims and challenging the figures?

Councillor Edwards' supplementary question asked:

Would the leader confirm that the figure of £63.7m given in his answer does not include the £14.8m paid in 1 July 2013 for and quote “interim measure to provide critical services”? Nor does it include the £16.1m paid to Capita as part of the CSG contract for IT and back office infrastructure, whatever that might mean.

So in fact the LBB has actually paid over £94.6m to Capita since the Council outsourced services to this company, £31m more than in your written answer. Would the leader kindly explain this difference?

Was there an intelligible answer? What do you think?

Mrs Angry was watching the Chief Executive, during this part of the Q&A. He seemed curiously ill at ease - or ill humoured.

Later on in the session Cllr Edwards asked another question about Capita:

Q44

On the 8th October the Telegraph’s ‘Questor’ reported that: “INVESTORS have been ignoring the warning signs at outsourcing group Capita [LON:CPI (Other OTC: CPICQ - news) ] as they chase returns and growth. Capita’s return on capital has slumped. Last year the company saw pre-tax profits fall by a total of £260m, with £146.7m related to losses on disposing and closing businesses. The overall conclusion and advice it has given to Capita shareholders is to SELL! In the context of Capita’s falling pretax profits and its slump in return on capital, and the advice to Capita shareholders to sell, would the Leader like to explain what risks he believes there maybe that Capita may not be able to deliver on its ten year contractual obligations to Barnet Council?

Typically absurd answer by the Leader:

Many Labour Members complained at Capita’s past profitability, so should now be pleased that contracts must now be less lucrative for them. I am confident they will continue to deliver improved services for us.

The Tory leader's confidence, of course, is boundless, especially, as we shall see later, in his own abilities, even when all evidence to the contrary is laid out before the world in the pages of the Lloyd-Jones report. In regard to Capita, however, as Cllr Edwards pointed out, his confidence was not widely shared, including, it seems, amongst his own Tory group. He then proceeded to quote a tweet from Ocotber 30th by the globe trotting young councillor Danny Seal in which he complains about the awful IT service for councillors by 'Crapita'.

Watch this clip: it's rather amusing ...



Oh dear.

In his supplementary question Paul asks again about the famous £16.1 million of capital investment that you may recall Mrs Angry kicking up a stink about, when it transpired that the so called 'upfront investment' we had been categorically told, over and over again, was the reason we needed to outsource in the first place, was in fact going to be paid for not by Capita, but by us to THEM, in the form of an interest free loan!

Will we ever get a sight of the real state of the balance sheet? Not if any of the interested parties can help it, you may be sure.

QT over, another issue Mrs Angry has been writing about for some time now: the disgraceful actions of the council over the Edwardian park keeper's lodge in Victoria Park, whose tenants were evicted some years ago, since when the property has stood empty as our sweaty palmed Tory councillors found, to their dismay, that they cannot sell off the building and keep the dosh, as there are covenants that restrict the sell off of the house, and mean that any profit must be used for the benefit of the park.

We must keep a sharp eye on that, mustn't we, because of course, at this meeting, despite a brave speech by local Labour councillor Jim Tierney, who reminded us of the 114 year history of the lodge, to no avail, as of course they agreed to approve the sale of the property, as heritage, in Broken Barnet, built or otherwise, is only an asset to be disposed of, not protected.

Back to libraries.

Anne Hutton repeated her plea for a consideration of alternative forms of funding, such as Arts Council England, and the holistic approach to service provision, rather than a hatchet job. Falling on deaf ears, of course.

Deputy Tory leader Dan Thomas burbled on about Totteridge Library, for some reason (the library closure that propelled the Tory leader into his glorious political career, because obviously it was in his back yard, and clearly the back yards of everyone else matter not at all.

Then he said, ooh, look over there, Labour run Brent ... they closed libraries, you know - and was heckled by the public gallery, so he turned to the Labour group in Barnet, and accused them of not telling the Tories how else they can find the money they say they need, which they don't need at all, and why do they need help to run the council anyway, but he ended by rabbiting on about 'fairness', and 'real budgets, not fantasy'.

Behind Mrs Angry in the public gallery some familiar faces began to chant a warning:

OCCUPY THE LIBRARIES! OCCUPY THE LIBRARIES! OCCUPY THE LIBRARIES!

Who could blame them? In Broken Barnet, direct action seems like the only real option to many people, disillusioned by the lunatic Tory administration, and what has been, up til now, a passive opposition.

Up til now, comrades. Keep the faith.

Time for the sole surviving Libdem councillor, Jack Cohen, to speak. As usual his was the voice of reason.

The library consultation was a sham, he said.

They have been trying to close the library in his ward of Childs Hill for forty years. But how funny that they should be trying again now, after gaining two Tory councillors in the ward.

And how shortsighted that was. As Reuben Thompstone sat below him, smiling complacently, Jack reminded everyone that the Brent Cross development meant there would be thousands of new residents in the area - and no library. What were they doing with the Section 106 money, if not for this sort of thing?

Time for Labour's Ammar Naqvi to speak, another maiden speech. He made an eloquent, elegant speech about the role libraries had played in his life, helping him become the person he is today. A library, he said, isn't simply a building with books in it. It is a welcoming, community space, where people can come together and grow. A library is a vehicle for social mobility, he observed, a pathway for personal development ... yes, thought Mrs Angry, and you might expect a real Tory, who really believes in aspiration, and helping people to work their way out of poverty, and a life limited by disadvantage, to support that ideal, and do everything they can to protect such a vital resource for self improvement.

But not, Mrs Angry, in Broken Barnet, where even what passes for Conservative principles must come second to the dominance of the market place, and the price of everything as a commodity, and not an intrinsic, immeasurable value.

Anne Hutton told us an interesting anecdote now: from when the Tories had persuaded Labour to take part in their off the record 'working groups'. A certain Tory councillor, commenting on the proposals to 'shut a few libraries' shrugged and commented coolly that, so what, all that would happen was some residents would 'squeak a bit'.

The only sort of library volunteers approved by Mrs Angry: former occupiers of the People's Library

Well, the Tories voted through the library report, of course. PHILISTINES, yelled a furious man in the public gallery. He is absolutely right, of course.

Remember this, citizens, when the first by-election comes along, or even the general election. Barnet Tories want to kill your library service, and all the councillors voted for these proposals to go forward.

Yes, there will be a nominal consultation.

You will be asked to make a choice that does not exist, but suits their predetermined agenda.

You will not be asked if you accept the basic premise that any cuts are necessary.

It is up to you, if you object to what they are planning, to make your voice known, and take action, now to save your local library. They can find the money, if they want to.

Ask Councillor Cohen where he found the money to spend nearly half of the money they say they need on his own ward's pavements, in the months before the local elections.

Ask the Mayor why so much money was spent on his ward of Hale, in the same period, on pavements, and roads, and on all the other Tory wards.

Ask the Chief Executive why we spend so much money on private consultants, and hand over so much of taxpayers' hard earned cash to Capita, when they are supposed to be saving us money.

On to another subject: a very serious and sensitive subject, and an issue championed by another new Labour councillor, Reema Patel, who has challenged new plans by our Tory members to oblige the victims of domestic violence to declare themselves homeless, before being rehoused. An amendment has now been won, thanks to her sterling efforts, but housing spokesman Tom Davey clearly was not pleased by her campaign.

Davey is perhaps the most politically extreme of all the Tory councillors, despite, or rather because of, his youth, someone who revels in making controversial and provocative comments, such as expressing the desire to see Barnet exclusively populated by the 'well off', and making disparaging remarks about those who rely on council services.

Speaking now, and denigrating Reema's campaign, he chose to talk in a low, cold, and quiet voice, a contrast to his usual rentagob grandstanding, but just as calculated, clearly meant to sound calm and reasonable, but having the effect of sounding rather patronising - and worse, which in the context of the subject under discussion, was unfortunate.

Even more unfortunate is the fact that only five years ago, Davey thought it was amusing to joke about violence against women, as revealed here in Political Scrapbook, earlier this year.

http://politicalscrapbook.net/2014/04/vile-facebook-messages-of-social-cleansing-tory-councillor/

Smacking my bitch up? Just a joke.

Reema, who is an extremely bright lawyer, activist and speaker, despite her profound hearing difficulties, is clearly deeply emotionally invested in the issue she had worked so hard to resolve. She spoke now about the terrible challenges faced by women affected by domestic abuse, whether in terms of physical violence, or, as might also be the case, a partner's controlling behaviour, such as - restricting access to a bank account. It takes immense courage, she said, for a victim to summon up the courage to leave, and here was a moment of opportunity - why wait until physical abuse had occurred to do something?

After the condescension of the housing spokesman, we were treated to the tetchy response from another man, David Longstaff, telling us how grateful we should be for Barnet Tory policy on this subject.

Labour's Kath McGuirk was pretty furious, and remarked that the victims of domestic violence in this borough had been made to pay the price of a shortage of housing.

The People's Mayor, Mr Shepherd, had his own contribution to make, of course, and remarked that in his possibly politically incorrect view, the Tories who were pontificating on the subject of violence against women might be sorted out by a good handbagging from Mrs Thatcher.

Trouble is, thought Mrs Angry, they would have enjoyed it too much. Anyway, they would only have been asking for it, wouldn't they? There's a joke for you, Councillor Davey.

The evening had been long, and still continued: time now for the bit they wanted to put off to the very end, the Extraordinary meeting, to discuss a vote of no confidence in the Tory leader.

Back again to Alison Moore, and Barnet being A Laughing Stock, and in a State of Chaos, and brought into disrepute, and incurring Avoidable Public Criticism.

As she spoke, Chief Executive Andrew 'Blackhole' Travers, slumped back in his seat and looked rather cross. Perhaps he prefers Unavoidable Public Criticism. But of course he is only the Head of Paid Service, and yes, earning more money than David Cameron - (remember when he was just another interim consultant, earning £1,000 a day?) - so nothing that goes wrong can possibly be his fault, as his duties consist only of sitting at his desk, counting paperclips, and throwing darts at pictures of Mrs Angry.

Oh dear, More tactless remarks, from Alison Moore. Incompetence, on a grand scale. And (I'm cutting this short here, as I'm sure you get the general picture, and we were all knackered by now) No Confidence in the Leader. Or the Deputy Leader. So there.

The Tory Leader stood up, full of Confidence in the Leader. Brimming over with it, in fact. He thought the Leader was marvellous. He did graciously agree, however, from his position of absolute innocence, to apologise on behalf of those who were responsible.

Who? yelled Mrs Angry. Who? Make them stand up, and say sorry.

He said then, apropos of nothing, that he had had a letter from Hilary Benn, and that we should all 'wake up'. Erm. And anyway, as he had noted the local press had been keen to report, he was going to vote for himself.

You're in Private Eye, as well, Cllr Cornelius, Mrs Angry pointed out, helpfully.

Here, in case you haven't seen it, Richard:

Jack Cohen remarked that, as the saying goes, a man who can smile when things are going wrong has thought of someone else to blame.

Cornelius always smiles, of course, even as the knife is under the cloke.

Paul Edwards suggested the council was being run by boy racers, who crash the car, but emerge unscathed: another apt analogy.

Deputy leader Dan Thomas thought Labour were playing 'cynical political games' (if only) and that we should stop concentrating on the negative.

Accen-tuate the pos-itive, agreed Mrs Angry. El-im-in-ate the negative.

Cornelius won the vote, of course, albeit by the help of his own vote, and nominally at least,retains the full confidence of his group, just as the chief executive retains the confidence of the Leader.

But, as a comment written and underlined in Mrs Angry's scrawled notes from the meeting suggest - the Tories are losing their grip.

They lost a vote tonight, with one member bailing out. It only takes another disaffected Tory, or one who is absent by accident, design, illness or lateness, for them to lose another, and then: they are only one by election away from losing control of the council.

They have launched into another deeply unpopular set of proposals, and if they continue with the library cuts, or continue with cuts in nursery provision, they will lose bucketloads of Tory voters. This will affect not only their position, but the chances of local Tory MPs trying to get elected in May.

Oh dear. Never mind, Tory councillors of Broken Barnet.

You might be up a Laughing Stock, and incurring Avoidable Public Criticism, and, let's be brutally honest, stranded way, way up Shit Creek, without a paddle, but still ... never underestimate the power of positive thinking.

Earlier this week, Mrs Angry and her friend, like so many other Londoners, thought they might stroll on down to the Tower of London, peep over the wall and take a look at the poppies in the moat, placed there to commemorate the 888,246 lives lost in the First World War.

The number of people disembarking from the tube station and trying to make their way to the Tower was simply overwhelming: tetchy police officers struggled to manage the traffic and pedestrian crossing as the crowd pushed its way over the road, and that was before the queue had even been reached.

Looking down over the wall, and seeing the tide of crimson flowers spill out of the Tower, and into the valley of the moat, it was impossible not to be moved by the significance, as well as impressed by the success of the idea on its most material level as an installation, a piece of conceptual art, but one, unlike the pieces you might find across the river in the hall of Tate Modern, that speaks to the citizen with little interest in art, conceptual or figurative.

After seeing the poppies, we had lunch in the brasserie across the road. The manager told us, while we were waiting for a table, about her childhood in rural France, and memories of picking poppies, and rushing home through the fields to give them to maman, only to find, to her dismay, the petals had already dropped.

Such is the ephemeral nature, and fleeting beauty of the poppy, flower of the blood soaked battlefields, lying dormant in a scarred landscape, brought back to life by generations of ploughing the mud where deadmen's bones still lie, and unexploded ammunition hides, waiting a hundred years and more to find its target.

As curiously moving as the ceramic poppies planted in the moat, was the sight of the long, long queue of people looping around the Tower, waiting patiently for the opportunity of walking past the moat and seeing the poppies just a little bit closer. Why were they there, and why is it that still the losses of a war that began one hundred years ago now, still fascinates and disturbs us so much?

Well, of course it is true that so many families lost relatives, and like mine, have stories and old photos of grandfathers and great uncles who did not return from the trenches.

One of those 888,246 commemorated in the field of poppies around the Tower was my great uncle, John Cross, who lies buried in a tiny graveyard in a village near Cambrai.

Another great uncle, Percy Garnish, died after the war from the effects of being gassed, having served as a sapper at Hooge, Ypres, and many other battles. A decorated shell case he brought back used to have pride of place in our house, when I was a child, the places he had served at engraved on the brass casing: I have it now, and sometimes wonder, looking at it, whose lives were ended by the 18 pounder missile it once contained.

Percy's brother brother Ernest, in the 'Buffs', lost his mind, from shellshock, and died two years later in a military asylum, his family left in penury, and his younger children consigned to an orphanage.

Two of my grandmother's cousins, brothers Bernard and Tom Penman, brothers in arms: miners who enlisted in the Durham Light Infantry, died within a month of arriving in France, only two days apart, in May 1915, in the dugouts at Sanctuary Wood, also at Hooge. Tom was twenty years old: younger than my own son, but Bernard was only seventeen: a child. Their mother never recovered from the loss of her two sons, as you might expect.

And my grandfather Tommy Nicholson: he spent three years in the trenches, or rather dragging gun carriages around the battlefields, as a bombardier in the RFA, and came back a broken man, a heavy drinker, traumatised and brutalised by his experiences, no longer the naive young volunteer who sent this postcard to his sweetheart, my grandmother, from his training camp in Aldershot.

These are not unusual stories, and yet it has taken a century, and three or more generations, to mourn those who lost their lives, in the war to end all war, the war that ended nothing, and began a whole new era of more efficient ways of killing people, and endless profit for arms manufacturers, and misery for mothers, wives and children.

There are several war memorials in Barnet, and a number of services were held this morning to mark Remembrance Day.

Here in Finchley we have a ceremony at the Finchley United Services Club, in Tally Ho, opposite the Arts Depot.

A small memorial, with not many names on it, sits outside, in honour of 'Men of Finchley', who lost their lives in the two world wars.

It would seem no women are commemorated here, which is odd, as there must have been servicewomen from Finchley in the armed forces at least in the Second World War, and it would be surprising if none of them died; but then as the minister who took led the prayers remarked, other women, the mothers, wives and children of the fallen, were as much victims of war as the men who did not return home, or those who did, injured, or suffering from the psychological impact of their time in battle.

The minister observed that the soldiers we remember today were fighting evil, and injustice. Mrs Angry reflected that in war, evil and injustice are foreign enemies, outsiders: but it is true to say that at all other times, those enemies are closer at home, and now evil and injustice are being used as weapons against our own people, by our own government, in a war against the poor, and disadvantaged: a civil war.

We must, said the minister, make sure we fight for the things our fallen heroes gave their lives for. How true that is: and the obligation that legacy leaves us with cannot be ignored, can it?

This ceremony, apparently overseen by local Salvation army members, was well attended, the busy roads as usual blocked off by police, allowing a marching band and parade of young local army, air and sea cadets, as well as scouts, to arrive at the Club, drums beating, feet stomping.

A number of veterans were there, wearing their berets and medals, to honour their fallen comrades - and a touching number of ordinary residents came too, simply because they wanted to be present.

High above, in the flats above the Artsdepot, others came onto their balconies to watch, and shopkeepers left their businesses to do the same.

Wreaths were laid, perhaps the most touching from a man wearing an array of medals, holding the hand of a small boy, in a new, black suit too big for him, maybe in honour of a lost, and much loved grandfather.

Local Labour councillors Kath McGuirk, Alan Schneiderman, Alon Or Bach, Arjun Mittra, Anne Hutton, and Geof Cooke were present, along with Sarah Sackman, who is standing against local Tory MP Mike Freer in next year's election.

Rather surprisingly, it must be said, Freer himself was not there, and indeed the only Conservative representative at this service was the rather disgruntled looking councillor Eva Greenspan, representing the Mayor. Disappointing, as the local Conservative HQ, at Margaret Thatcher House, is only just across the road, and Church End has three Tory councillors, Greenspan being only one of them.

The Mayor was not present, of course, because he was elsewhere, at a ceremony in Hendon. We know this because there was a story on the local Times' website about his participation, which appears now to have disappeared, or been modified, and which informed us that amongst the commemoration organised by our council, Barnet's Mayor was keen to honour the fallen 'with a fleet of council refuse trucks, displaying the words “Pause To Remember". Here is the picture, in case you can't find it now:

Nothing, really, could speak more eloquently of the grossly insensitive nature of the Tory administration, here in Broken Barnet, could it, than that they think it appropriate to use refuse trucks to ask us to 'pause to remember' the fallen heroes of two world wars?

Sometimes, just sometimes, readers, it is impossible for this blog to match the unconscious satirical output of the subjects we so keenly observe, here in this borough.

Let's end with a more dignified tribute, shall we?

Mrs Angry's grandfather spent the beginning of his war at Laventie - a village situated right on the frontline, with its own Rue du Paradis, and a Rue d'Enfer, a place populated by poets and artists, it seems. Robert Graves spent time there, as well as poet and composer Ivor Gurney. Art is, or so we thought, until the poppies were planted in the moat of the Tower of London, the indulgence of the intellectual middle classes. War is for the working classes, to do or die: poetry comes with the conscripted sensibility of the intellectual, of course.

Mrs Angry went to Laventie a few years ago, to make some kind of personal connection that might help her to understand the enigma that was her troubled grandfather. It was a memorable visit.

Was the 'broken church', now rebuilt, the one described by Ivor Gurney, which her grandfather recalled seeing destroyed, the graves split open, showing him the thing that appalled him more than anything else he saw on the battlefield - the corpse of a young mother, in her shroud, with her newborn baby: an image horribly replicated, Mrs Angry noted, in Gaza not so long ago? Maybe it was - or maybe it will serve the same purpose, anyway.

But Laventie, most of all, I think is to soldiers
The Town itself with plane trees, and small-spa air;
And vin, rouge-blanc, chocolats, citron, grenadine:
One might buy in small delectable cafes there.
The broken church, and vegetable fields bare;
Neat French market town look so clean,
And the clarity, amiability of North French air.
Like water flowing beneath the dark plough and high Heaven,
Music's delight to please the poet pack-marching there.

The town itself is the subject of an iconic image of that war, by Eric Kennington, now in the Imperial War Museum - and also the inspiration for the poem by Gurney, whose own time in the trenches made him a great artist, but at a terrible cost: the loss of his sanity, and an early death, in an asylum, like my great uncle. Let the poet speak for him, and all the others who left no trace, no written record, no picture, no composition, no memory of their own war.

Laventie

One would remember still
Meadows and low hill
Laventie was, as to the line and elm row
Growing through green strength wounded, as home elms grow.
Shimmer of summer there and blue autumn mists
Seen from trench-ditch winding in mazy twists.
The Australian gunners in close flowery hiding
Cunning found out at last, and smashed in the unspeakable lists.
And the guns in the smashed wood thumping and grinding.
The letters written there, and received there,
Books, cakes, cigarettes in a parish of famine,
And leaks in rainy times with general all-damning.
The crater, and carrying of gas cylinders on two sticks
(Pain past comparison and far past right agony gone,)
Strained hopelessly of heart and frame at first fix.
Cafe au lait in dugouts on Tommies cookers,
Cursed minnie werfs, thirst in 18 hour summer.
The Australian miners clayed, and the being afraid
Before strafes, sultry August dusk time than Death dumber —
And the cooler hush after the strafe, and the long night wait —
The relief of first dawn, the crawling out to look at it,
Wonder divine of Dawn, man hesitating before Heaven's gate.

Remembrance Day 2014

888,246

After scraping back into power in May, Barnet's Tory councillors and senior management team, as predicted, gleefully set about targeting even more council services with a range of proposed new 'models of delivery', claiming that radical change was necessary in order to achieve immediate as well as sustainable long term savings.

The truth is, of course, that radical change is necessary only for certain interested parties, in order to create further opportunities for outsourcing, and favoured by our empty headed Tory councillors because they have been persuaded by their senior management, and the cohort of private consultants who feast off public sector privatisation, that there is no alternative, and the savings that such contracts will deliver are 'guaranteed'.

For Barnet Tories, whose clockwork brains are geared by an ideological mechanism inherited from another era, where anything organised within the public sector is inherently bad, this is an appealing proposal, and the lure of guaranteed savings enough to satisfy any doubts that might occur to anyone with any intelligence, or scruples.

This ready excitement over more and more privatisation encourages the dear little heads of our Tory members to overlook one of the most obvious dangers lying in wait, hidden in the road ahead: the political pitfalls of their policies, once approved.

We saw this with the parking contract, and now we are seeing it once more with their library proposals. And yet again they are set on a mission to infuriate the middle classes, their own electoral heartland, with a reckless determination, on a course designed by their senior officers, working to an agenda of their own, disinterested in, and indifferent to, the political fallout.

http://wwwbrokenbarnet.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/honey-i-shrunk-libraries-barnet-tories.html

The consultation period for the library proposals has begun, and there is now a survey on the council's website which residents and library users may undertake. It is important that, if you care about the future of Barnet libraries, or even expect to see anything like a library service survive the cull planned by your Tory council, you take part in the consultation process, as well as protest loudly, now, about the atrocious plans lying on the table. But please read on, and consider the clever traps lying in wait in this survey, before taking part.

http://engage.barnet.gov.uk/consultation-team/library-review/consult_view

Just to remind you, here are the three options explained in an easily accessible format, by resident and Libdem activist Alasdair Hill, who has also started a petition you might like to sign, as well as the Labour one - see links to both below.

Option One:

Only four remaining 'core' libraries, shrink the rest in size by the percentages shown below. Outsource the service. Three of these in traditionally Tory wards, one in an area being 'regenerated'/developed.

Option Two:

The same lucky four, plus four others, three in traditional Tory wards, one previously Tory that was unexpectedly won by Labour in May. No staff available for 40% of the opening hours. Service outsourced.

Option Three:

The one where Tory plotters think the Labour opposition will be duped into accepting cuts presented as 'community leadership of libraries'. This is a plausible lure, but only for anyone stupid enough to want libraries run by volunteers, outside the public library system, and without professionally qualified staff. Eight libraries open only staffed for 50% of opening hours. Service dumped and outsourced, dressed up as a community initiative.

This is the only option, funnily enough, that preserves some semblance of library provision for staunchly Labour East Finchley, the ward represented by the Labour leader, and situated near the Strawberry Vale estate, the worst area of social deprivation in the entire borough, and only just outside the top ten per cent most deprived areas in the country.

What is clear from all of these options is this: the variations that they present prove the point of the whole exercise is not logical, or based on any independent analysis of need, but designed to be subject to political influence, and pressure from residents.

The flaw in their calculations is that although they have protected their own political core of Chipping, Church End and Hendon from the worst of the destruction, the changes there will be enough to infuriate thousands of their own voters, and elsewhere will be even more successful at losing much needed support.

Throughout the consultation document we read hints that they will not stick to these three definitions, and may end by 'striking a balance' of various proposals contained therein. Let Mrs Angry translate: depending on the level of panic exhibited by nimbyst Tory councillors worried about any closures or loss of service in their own ward, the final plans, presented as a compromise, will be approved - or so they hope, by the council.

Already two Tory councillors have publicly exhibited misgivings about - can you guess - their own local libraries being closed or radically affected.

At the CELS meeting at which the proposals were presented, long serving councillor and self confessed Thatcherite Helena Hart, member for Edgware, expressed her dismay at the impact on her local library, and for some reason the one in Golders Green.

At a recent residents' association meeting in Mill Hill, Sury Khatri, who has criticised the One Barnet outsourcing procedure, after agreeing to it, reportedly declared his opposition to the plans for Mill Hill library.

Both Tory councillors voted with their colleagues shortly afterwards when the report was moved to Full Council.

Mrs Angry has written to both councillors to ask why, and will publish any responses that may ensue. She suggests all readers with Tory members write to them and demand answers from them as to their position on your local libraries: hold them to account.

It is necessary to warn anyone who takes part in the Barnet Libraries'nonsultation to be scrupulously, forensically, careful how you respond to this survey, as a significant number of the questions have been cynically devised to produce data which they will use to endorse their proposals, even if that is not your intention - by offering you a loaded set of options which presupposes your acceptance of their definition of the context of these plans. Questions 7,8,23,25,26,41, for example, need careful negotiation.

They have made the survey as long and as difficult as possible, as well, in the hope, no doubt, of deterring residents from sticking the course and submitting their views.

Please stick the course, and submit your views.

In regard to any dubious questions, the only way to respond, in order to avoid being used as a stooge, in Mrs Angry's view, is to leave them unanswered, and fill up the comment section with your reasons. Remember that the purpose of this exercise is to trick you into producing data that they can use to endorse one of their three options. There is an assumption that you accept one of those options, or a combination of the three, is necessary.

That said, you should take part and ignore their proposals: tell them what you think, and what you want.

Before taking part in the survey, you will be asked to read the accompanying consultation document which you can find here - do read it, but wear Mrs Angry's blogger branded x ray specs, which filter out Barnet's interesting representation of the 'facts' and the context in which these devastating proposals are being made.

A recent court ruling on consultation has confirmed that it is unlawful for local authorities to engage in this process without providing proper information, or giving regard to alternative options to the proposals themselves.

Here we see lip service paid to these requirements, for example, with carefully placed phrases such in support of a 'genuine dialogue' - yeah, right: and in rubbishing the radical idea that a rise in council tax might actually save some of our public services from the depradations of our Tory councillors' slash and burn policies.

Terrible warnings are given of depending on such a strategy, and baleful predictions, which they have kept quiet before now, of a necessarily huge rise in council tax on the way, the revenue from which is already allocated.

They do not, of course, explain that their self confessed political 'gestures' in freezing and then cutting council tax pre-election is another cynical act which deprived vital services of funding, and brought us to the point where they now claim such drastic savings are unavoidable, or that there are many areas of extravagant waste and spending, such as on the million pounds consultancy bills, within the budgets they approve which could easily cover the library cuts - if the political will was there.

The Consultation Document begins with a telling admission:

In the most recent library user customer survey, nearly 90% of users were satisfied.

As we have often observed, this is the first rule of Broken Barnet: something ain't broke, so we are going to destroy it anyway, because there is profit in it, somewhere, for someone.

It is clear, in fact, if you are, as advised, reading this tosh wearing Mrs Angry's x ray One Barnet bullshit glare resistant specs, that the financial argument for what is being presented as an indisputable truth, that the Tory proposals are being forced by the need to make cuts in budget, is absolutely not the real driver for their scabby plans.

The volume of cuts being imposed on libraries is breathtakingly severe in scope: 60% of total budget.

This is not sustainable, in any service, which is why it is being applied - the service, as it stands, must not be allowed to survive.

The real reasons, readers, are twofold.

One is an obstinate loyalty to the half baked philosophy that lay behind Mike Freer's 'easycouncil' idea, the sort of ill defined, instinctive mistrust of any public service ethos that appeals to the neo thatcherite eejits of the Barnet Tory group.

Income generation is one thing, and it should be noted that from very early on, Barnet Libraries have always embraced the need for to create revenue, which is what helped it to be one of the best value for money services in the country - but this is never enough to satisfy our Tory masters, who cannot understand any sort of service that does not take place behind a shop front or on a market stall, and think there must be an incremental drive for more and more commercial activities, until the original function of the service is entirely obliterated.

What is curious, however, is that there is no costing for any of the proposed new revenue requirements, or estimations, just as there is no mention of what will surely be substantial need for capital investment, in the name of making 'savings', should many of the truly devastating recommendations be put in place, such as shrinking the size of libraries by 93%, or adapting them for different use - what they refer to as the 'reconfiguration' of buildings.

As for the new ideas for sources of revenue:

The document suggests 'meeting room hire, renting parking spaces, providing collection points such as Amazon Lockers, advertising and some increases to fees and charges'.

Libraries already hire out rooms, in fact, but renting out parking spaces? Providing any libraries are left at all, have you thought through the equalities impact on removing the few spaces there are already for those residents with mobility problems? Nope. Didn't think so.

Don't have a problem with sponsorship or advertising, if they promise to drop the rest of the idiotic plans. Something tasteful. Wonga. William Hill. British American Tobacco. Would residents squeak a bit about that, do you think, Cllr Tom Davey?

Amazon lockers? Yeah, whatever: a company selling books, rather than lending them, and paying minimal taxes, would seem the appropriate installation to have in a Tory Barnet library, wouldn't it?

Jesus: to think we complained about the last lot of library proposals. Come back, Robert Rams, you and your invisible flagship libraries - all is forgiven.

Or maybe not.

Here is another odd claim, hidden away: that an in house solution has no additional savings potential. This is absolute nonsense, a creative approach to such things as sponsorship, or finding alternative forms of funding is perfectly possible - and does not require any reduction in staffing, or any other deeply damaging assault on the standard of service provision.

One new source of income generation is commendable, however: the idea that substantial levels of revenue can be screwed out of fines for children who - wait for it - bring their library books back late. Yes, really. See Question 15.

Mrs Angry remembers the fine box in Edgware library, when she was a child, glass topped, and sunk into the wooden counter, with a slot and a brass chute down which your coins would have to roll, making a satisfying chink, as they dropped inside. Sadly, because the infant Mrs Angry was a prodigious reader, and would usually have read all the three books borrowed on Saturday morning by Sunday afternoon, so did not have any overdue books, she never had the chance to try out the fine box herself, and was obliged to watch other, more naughty children perform this shameful ritual, with a secret envy.

In our new age of austerity, of course, the children of Broken Barnet must be put to the wheel, and have applied to them the same merciless programme of punishment as their errant mums and dads, who so wilfully incur parking fines by daring to park their cars in what turn out to be the wrong places, at the wrong times, caught by a warden short of his targets for the day, which do not exist, but must be met.

Quite right that the children of our borough should be targeted too, little cash cows of the future, groomed for a life of exploitation in the profiteering paradise of Capitaville.

Mrs Angry warmly approves of this sort of initiative, naturally, and has suggested in her response that Capita's bailiff company, Equita, could be instructed to pursue these juvenile delinquents, in the case of non payment of library fines, visiting their homes, and shouting through the letter box threats to confiscate their toys, should they refuse to cough up.

Oh, yes, and: hidden away in the consultation is a reference to possible optional charges, subscriptions: the two tier service that 'easycouncil' was all about. No doubt that will apply to the proposed 'open', DIY libraries.

There won't be much inside them, of course, as the book stock will have been decimated by then, but still: here is a smart card to let you in - £2o charge to let you out, after losing your mind talking to a holographic librarian, and searching the shelves in vain for something to f*cking read, in the virtual outsourced, hollowed out, cleaned out libraries of Broken Barnet.

The other motive for the new proposals, the second reason is - pure speculative greed. The library service is being ripped apart by a fatal budget cut of 60%, because it must be outsourced, and because the buildings are an asset waiting to be stripped, laid bare, and used for capital gain. Don't be distracted by all the crap about the need for 'new models of delivery' and 'savings': yes, they like the sound of that, but the real motive is pretty clear.

There are numerous references to the redevelopment of library sites. This idea is casually used in the context of possibly providing income for whatever is left to provide a service, once the Tory councillors have destroyed most of it, by whichever option they finally choose. The development of closed libraries, of course, is not spelt out, but coyly included, obliquely, and no commitment made at all that any capital made from the sale of such properties will return in any degree to the library service, for example:

'Alternatively income might be secured by redeveloping the current library site ...

Might be.

New libraries might be provided in the same areas, or nearby.

Or they might not.

Which do you think might be more likely, readers? Is there a degree of certainty comparable, say, to the promise of an invisible library, in North Finchley, which necessitated the closure of Friern Barnet library? Is a broken promise, in Broken Barnet, more likely than not? If so, how reliable is a 'might be', a possibility left trailing in the air, with no promise at all?

And how much do you think our Tory council secretly has already estimated it can make by the sale of so many of our library buildings?

We will never know exactly, because such information will be redacted on the grounds of commercial sensitivity.

Library buildings will, if we allow these plans to go forward, be shut, the book stock removed and dumped, the staff made redundant, the properties put up for sale.

In some cases, no doubt, developers already have their eyes on sites that just might provide some much needed unaffordable luxury housing, which will get the seal of approval from the same set of Tory councillors who sold off the site in the first case.

And the people of this borough will be left with a handful of libraries, no professional library service, and a few bookshelves in a community centre, stuffed with a few yellowing secondhand paperbacks.

If you don't like the sound of that, and you want to retain the wonderful library service we have now, make sure you fight for it, and make your voice heard.

Take part in the consultation - carefully.

Sign the two petitions

Email your local councillor.

Email your MP.

Write to the local press.

Write to the national press.

Join other residents, of all backgrounds and all political persuasions who are united in determination to oppose these terrible proposals, and fight back, to save Barnet Libraries.

There is a meeting on 26th November which any residents interested in fighting for their local libraries are urged to attend:

It's now or never.

Here lies a dilemma for our Tory councillors.

Support the destruction of our library service, and commit political suicide, on the brink of a general election, hanging as they are within one by election of losing control of the council - and another long drawn out, bloody battle such as you would expect, in Broken Barnet where there is a pride in our heritage, historical, cultural, and literal, however much the Tories try to stamp it out, or sell it off, and a tradition of organised resistance, determination - and defiance.

https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/no-to-closure-of-barnet-libraries

Labour's petition

Camden leader Sarah Hayward addresses Barnet Labour's new Housing Commission

Earlier this year, you may recall, the new Mayor of Barnet, Tory councillor Hugh Rayner, faced a number of allegations of wrongdoing in relation to his role as a local landlord - as well as reported failure to declare pecuniary interests regarding to these business activities.

Rayner admitted to some mistakes in the way his contracts with tenants had been worded, and in presenting a document to one individual with a witness signature that had been 'pre-signed' by a fellow Tory councillor, but denied the other charges, and was anyway cleared of all allegations - at a hearing held before a politically weighted panel.

The case touched a raw nerve with our Conservative members, however, a significant number of whom are also landlords, and who then proceeded, in a highly controversial - and many would say disreputable move, to direct the now departed, and legally unqualified Monitoring Officer to award them dispensations so as to allow them to take part in meetings from which their interests would ordinarily prevent them from engaging, and voting on decisions.

Bad enough, you might think, all this, in terms of damage to the reputation of the Barnet Tory group. They couldn't possibly make themselves look any worse, could they?

Well, of course they could. Never underestimate the ability of our dunderheaded Tory councillors to fail to learn from their mistakes, and move forward. Regressive tactics, and compounding of past failure: that is their area of expertise.

Tory housing policy in Barnet is easy enough to summarise: it rises from a position of utmost submission to the advances of any would be developer, to the point of utter contempt for the very concept of social housing: and somewhere in between lies a culture of incomprehension, or perhaps more properly, an expression of studied indifference, to the need for affordable housing.

Unfortunately for some of the residents of Broken Barnet, the ones who may be in need of affordable or social housing, the housing spokesperson for Barnet Tories is Tom Davey, a young councillor whose swivel eyed, right wing views have clearly not evolved since his student days, which would be regrettable in any elected representative, but deeply concerning in someone given responsibility for such a key policy area, in a time of economic hardship, and the increasing housing crisis in the greater London area.

Davey is of the opinion, as you can see in the clip below, that the undeserving poor, and those who, as he put it, depend upon on council services, are not welcome in our borough. If you can't afford to live here, he thinks, then get lost. We don't want you.

We want only the well off, here in Barnet: or the super rich, the 'Russian Oligarchs' whom he fondly imagines will be queueing up to live in the new penthouse apartments of the Barratt West Hendon development.

In Davey's view, and the view of his leader and what passes for the executive body of the Tory administration, we should not waste any sympathy for the feckless poor, who have no aspiration, and have no right to our concern.

Barnet Tories, councillors and MPs: they prefer to reserve their sense of compassion for the plight of the billionaire property owners, the arms dealers, porn merchants and exiled dictators of Bishops Avenue, and the minority of privileged home owners now quaking in fear behind the secondary glazing of their mansions in Totteridge Lane, dreading the introduction of a Labour Mansion tax designed to support the retrieval of our NHS, snatched out of the hands of the privateering vultures now circling above our heads.

Housing policy is one of the indicators that tell us so much about the real nature of our Tory friends. They see it as an opportunity for social engineering: imposing their values and moral judgement on those less fortunate than themselves, creating punishment, where they fail to find aspiration.

Want a council house, or flat?

Priority is now given to those who have demonstrated a 'positive contribution' to their community. (Yes, by definition, should any Tory members fall on hard times, they would automatically be kicked to the bottom of the list).

Are you a victim of domestic violence? Need to be rehoused away from your abusive partner?

Make yourself homeless first, then. Or keep your head down, and stop complaining.

Lucky enough to be offered a tenancy?

Don't think of it as your home. It's only for a maximum of five years. So what if this stops you from putting down roots in your community, and securing a future for your children. What made you think you have a right to security? You are of no value, and have no rights, in Broken Barnet, unless you can pay your way.

The chance of securing a council house, or flat, or even being able to do what our Tory mentors would like us to do, to aspire to buy any sort of property in Barnet: this is becoming more and more of an impossibility.

In twenty years in our borough only three - yes, three - council houses have been built. You may recall the great fun that was had, when Boris came to open them, earlier this year, and met Mrs Angry: hasn't been back to Barnet since, for some reason.

http://wwwbrokenbarnet.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/go-home-boris-we-dont-want-you-here.html

The right to buy scheme, pioneered by Finchley's own Margaret Thatcher, has seen a crisis in the shortage of housing stock, in the face of what was, before the system of counting was abandoned, the longest application queue in the country.

Rather than build new homes, the Tories in Barnet have put homeless families into the private sector, and allowed developers free reign to exploit what are coyly referred to as 'regeneration' schemes for our larger estates, but which turn into private developments, with usually no social housing, and affordable housing only affordable to residents with high incomes, or buy to let speculators, and absentee overseas investors.

According to the cockeyed vision of Barnet Tory philosophy, the free market must and will dictate the natural order of things, and if you do not have the means to buy or rent a home here - hard luck. Get out.

And if you don't get out, they will help you on your way, whether you like it or not.

Because now they have moved on from a tentative dabbling in the art of social engineering to an outright, up front and utterly ruthless campaign of social cleansing. The poor are being shipped out, pushed out from this borough, resettled beyond the boundaries of Broken Barnet, beyond the pale.

If your home is in the way of their scheming, in the way of profit: tough - move out, move off, one choice of alternative accommodation, and no regard for whether or not it will destroy your family life, affect your children's education, send you miles from dependent relatives, and uproot you from the community in which you belong.

Residents protesting outside the wall that separates them from the luxury Barratts' development

What has happened in West Hendon, and is happening elsewhere, the demolition of social housing, the eviction of tenants, and the destruction of a community, in order to make way for a massive development of luxury properties: this is the real face of Barnet Conservatism: the naked, shameless reality of their sociopathic policies.

Whether a deliberate strategy, or not, the effect of such large scale plantation of affluent, middle class residential developments in the heart of working class, traditional Labour voting areas is gerrymandering: part of a pattern of excluding the disadvantaged from the benefits of prioritised council and private sector expenditure, and destabilising - or so they hope - the chances of loss of control of the borough by the Tory administration.

Further evidence of such an agenda was confirmed by their own commissioned report into the scandalous spending of millions of taxpayers' money on Tory wards via the Highways budget, especially in the year before the local elections.

http://wwwbrokenbarnet.blogspot.co.uk/2014/08/the-kings-highway-or-paint-it-white-2.html

Since this report was published, incidentally, and the £4 million pre electoral Tory ward spending spree all over, it has now transpired, according to Childs Hill Libdem councillor Jack Cohen, that there is apparently no money left at all for Highways expenditure in his ward. Or any other, presumably. Even Tory ones.

Another example has been highlighted by Labour's Assembly Member Andrew Dismore this week, with an allegation, reported to the Electoral Commission, regarding a polling station in Hale Ward - the most marginal ward at the last election, which was allocated a huge amount of money, and is represented by two Tories - the Mayor, Hugh Rayner, and Tom Davey.

http://www.dismore4hendon.co.uk/dismore_refers_latest_tory_gerrymander_to_electoral_commission

And now, in logical progression, in their regressive way, from the foundation of their punitive housing regime, our Tory councillors have surpassed all expectation. Earlier this month they casually announced a truly stunning plan: to put council rents up from 30% of market value to a new, staggeringly high level of 80%.

http://betterbarnet.nationbuilder.com/tory_plan_to_hike_council_rents_up_to_80_of_market_rents

Yes. At a time of unprecedented austerity, and the worst possible circumstances for those living on low incomes, or dependent on support from benefits, our Tory members think it is appropriate to push such residents further into poverty, and increase reliance on housing benefit, by upping council rent.

This is, we are told, in order to build more affordable housing. Really? Not, you will note, social housing: and even if this purported claim is true, we know what the Tories regard as 'affordable' housing is anything but, in real terms.

As the eagle eyed Nearly Legal blogger has pointed out, this ludicrous proposal is possibly unlawful, totally unworkable, and clearly defies all common sense: but, of course - this is Broken Barnet, after all.

http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/2014/11/elementary-maths-lb-barnet/

As he puts it:

It would seem then, on some pretty basic maths, that setting flexible tenancy rent at 80% of market rent would make those tenancies unaffordable for many, possibly all, of the only people allowed to bid for them under the allocation scheme. This is, to put it mildly, an interesting approach to social housing and housing need. To put it another way, it is bloody stupid.

Bloody stupid, or totally cynical? Catch 22: in order to apply for council housing in Barnet you must be on an income level that could not afford the rent of said council housing, therefore you will not apply, and there will be no demand.

And as Andrew Dismoredescribes it:

The inevitable outcome will be yet more benefit claimants, yet more tenants in arrears, and yet more evictions due to this ill thought out, economically illiterate and heartless ideological scheme thought up by the far right faction who run Barnet Council."

What is puzzling is the enthusiasm felt by Barnet Tories for increasing the burden on something they claim to abhor: the benefit system, supported by taxpayers.

Of course our landlord Mayor is happy to derive income from housing benefit, as weknow and it would seem the rest of his colleagues see no problem with this, in principle, or in practice, even when that burden is wilfully increased by their own efforts. And for those who will carry the cost of the new level, and find themselves in arrears, and a cycle of debt? Meh.

The changes in the housing market are beyond our control, and if property value and rental levels in London have risen to an all time high, there is nothing anyone can do.
But we are not helpless in the face of a tidal surge, a force of nature: we are capable of deflecting and preventing a disaster of our own creation.

So what can we do?

Barnet Tories, in defence of their own policies, and in the face of any criticism, have only one real tactic: to point the finger at the opposition, and say, ooh look over there - Labour agree with us really, and they don't have any alternative proposals, anyway ...

To an extent, Labour has allowed itself to become vulnerable to such accusations, by naively trying to engage in consensus politics, rather than outright warfare, and by failing to grab political opportunities when they occur, and fight the Tory agenda.

Since the new intake of Labour members, however, those tactics have been consigned to the bin, and a rather more creative form of opposition is being forged.

Hence this week, on Thursday night, we saw a widely welcomed launch of Barnet Labour's Housing Commission - a bold attempt to engage with residents and debate an issue which has become of such urgent priority, as the Tories propel themselves further and further into the far reaches of their deranged housing policy, and some residents are beginning to take more and more desperate, direct action to try to fight in defence of their communities.

The inaugural meeting of the new commission took place in the Crown Moran hotel, in Cricklewood, an extraordinary building, a swish four star hotel on one side, awkwardly placed on a road still punctuated with kebab shops and old fashioned barbers, the new construction latched onto the carefully restored Crown public house, where our meeting was held, a late Victorian, red sandstone structure, still with many art nouveau details, etched glass windows, twisting brass handles, and ornate ceilings..

The Crown is a major landmark in Cricklewood and, although perhaps not many would understand the significance, represents a part of the history of the local community, one which is always overlooked, as are most of the communities in the less advantaged areas of Barnet, in this case that of the Irish who settled in the western side of the borough, in Cricklewood and West Hendon: part of the working class identity that our Tory councillors are trying to eradicate, in other words.

As well as Barnet Labour's housing spokesman, Ross Houston, and leader Alison Moore, former deputy London Mayor Nicky Gavron and the Labour leader of Camden Council, Sarah Hayward, were present. Mrs Angry understands that Tory housing lead member, Tom Davey, was otherwise engaged. Shame. The boy might have learned something.

The Commissioners introduced themselves: Tony Clements, a housing consultant and editor of the Red Brick blog; Glyn Thomas, who is involved in the co-operative housing sector; Bob Young, who has a wealth of experience in housing and homelessness, Rabbi Danny Rich; the Reverend Colin Smith, and Janet Solomons, a local resident, former trustee of several charities and a carer with an interest in disability issues. The discussion began.

Nicky Gavron reminded us that Barnet has the highest rents in London, and the average property value was now nearly half a million pounds.

West Hendon councillor Devra Kay listens to Nicky Gavron

Sarah Hayward talked about Camden, and what they had managed to achieve: making Camden a living wage council, championing the principle of 25 hours a week of free childcare - and building more council houses than any other authority in the UK. Which was all a radical and refreshing thought, for many Barnet residents present: that Labour could form an administration, and fight for some semblance of social justice, and a housing policy that addressed the needs of ordinary people.

Safe, secure housing, she said, was a human right. It was essential to all other positive outcomes, such as health and education. And, she added: however big the problems in housing, there are solutions.

In Camden those solutions included not only an ambitious building programme, but other measures can be used, such as regulation of agents, rent control, the support for schemes such as 'Pocket Homes'.

Taking questions was an invitation to the sort of challenge you might expect from Barnet residents with an interest in housing.

Left Unity's Philip Clayton suggested something which was a common theme, repeated by Taba, from Barnet Housing Action: the need to abolish the right to buy scheme.

The magnificent Jasmin Parsons stood and spoke with her usual passion, and blistering honesty. She is one of the West Hendon residents and activists who have fought - with tenacity and immense courage - against the council's policy of betraying the interests of tenants and leaseholders on this estate, due to be demolished in order to accommodate the private development by Barrett Homes.

Jasmin reminded us of those who are as she put it, dropping out of the housing equation: single people, young adults. And she said she objected, deeply, to the selling off of public land by councillors, in private: this is our land, she pointed out, public land - they are there to manage it, not sell it off to privateers.

Referring to the way tenants in West Hendon have been treated by the council, she said they felt bullied and harrassed by the authority's tactics. Long term council tenants had been kept for years in temporary accommodation: they should have been given secure tenancies. West Hendon, she stated, had been used as a holding place, a reservation, as she later put it, purely for motives of profit: now the issue had entered the political spectrum, because, she claimed, some councillors were using the development of West Hendon as a form of social cleansing.

To understand the background to this you need to know that Jasmin's account is no exaggeration of the facts: the tenants have been kept on this estate -deliberately moved there, in many cases - in long term temporary arrangements, all of them facing uncertain futures over a period of several years, not knowing where, once their homes were demolished, their families would be living, their children go to school: unlikely they would be accommodated in the area: increasingly likely they would only be offered somewhere out of the borough, miles from their families and community. And if they turned down their one offer, wherever it was, and however unsuitable, or how far: that was their only chance of rehousing gone.

In the meanwhile some live on in rat infested, decaying properties, subjected to a barrage of noise, dirt and nuisance from the luxury housing project that will drive them from their homes.

The only token provision for any secure tenants is a tiny building, on the former car park, that will, for its handful of privileged residents, afford a view of the squalid backyards of the Edgware Road shops, rather than the serene beauty of the Welsh Harp, reserved for Tom Davey's Russian oligarchs.

Leaseholders on the estate have similarly been betrayed by Barnet: having done the very thing their Tory councillors so warmly approve, aspired to join the property owning classes, and bought their homes, they now find themselves within a short time of demolition of the estate, landed with enormous bills for pointless work which the council should have seen to years ago - promises made to amend these demands appears, now the immediate fuss has died down, to have been forgotten.

Last week Barnet Council had arranged a number of court hearings to begin the process of serving eviction notices on some tenants: one of them, who has been installed there on a non secure basis since 2008, claimed that in 2009, the then 'easycouncil' guru, Tory leader, now Finchley and Golders Green MP Mike Freer, had 'promised' their tenancies would become secure.

As Jasmin Parsons explained, 12 tenants were due to go to court on Monday: 4 turned up. On Tuesday, 10 were due, 3 made it. And she alleged that this was in part due to advice given by the council not to attend. If this is true, then such a recommendation has had devastating consequences, as those who did not attend lost their homes, whereas those who chose to go, and fight their case saw them adjourned, with various interim provisions made by the judge. More cases are listed for this week.

Philip Clayton wanted to know what Labour policy on all this was: were they supporting residents? Some are, said one of the Labour councillors, loudly - and certainly the West Hendon councillors care passionately about their residents, and have tried hard to lobby for the best outcomes, if any are possible, from this appalling mess created by the Tory indifference, and private greed.

The evening ended with a summing up from the different themed discussions that had taken place around the room, on a number of housing issues: affordable housing, regeneration, rent, and so on. Lots of sensible suggestions, and creative suggestions: the Commission continues, with a call for evidence, public hearings, open mike sessions - a real attempt at consultation, rather than the duplicitous process preferred by our scheming Tory council.

But now the larger challenge lies before Labour: to use the new Housing Commission not as yet another talking shop, but a vehicle for real change, and not the empty promises served up by their Tory counterparts.

The way in which the narrative of abstract concepts and theoretical debate of housing policy in this first meeting was constantly punctured by the reality of interjections from the West Hendon residents, living out the consequences of Tory policy here and now, should serve as a warning, and an opportunity, for those in any doubt of why and how urgently we must address these issues.

Some of us drifted downstairs then, for a drink in the bar of the old Crown, immortalised in the early sixties in a song by the republican Irish writer Dominic Behan, 'Mc Alpine's Fusiliers':

“Oh, the craic was good in Cricklewood and they wouldn’t leave the Crown,
With glasses flying and Biddy’s crying ‘cause Paddy was going to town
Oh mother dear, I’m over here and I’m never coming back
What keeps me here is the reek o’beer, the ladies and the craic…"

At one point during the meeting, a couple of us had been talking to Jasmin about the Barratts' development, just down the road, and the shameful fact that York Park, meant as a memorial to the many victims of the wartime bomb which fell in 1941, and devasted that part of West Hendon, had not been excluded from the scheme.

It was in the post war building boom, restoring a battered London, that the Irish community in this area was really made: 'Paddy' came over here to rebuild London, and settled here, as have subsequent waves of migrant workers from all around the world.

But in the eyes of our speculative Tory council, history and heritage have no interest - and nor does the preservation of a sense of community.

What the Luftwaffe failed to destroy, and the Irish rebuilt, and the diverse population of working families who live there now call home, is no more than a source of potential profit for our elected council, and their developer associates.

The massive Brent Cross Cricklewood development coming now, will be the largest of its kind in London. And who do you think will be benefiting from this scheme, and who will be packing their bags, and moving on, and moving out?

McAlpine's fusiliers are replaced by Barratt's bombardiers, who won't be staying on in Barnet, where they are not welcome, but bussed in and out when needed, according to the rules of the new apartheid system, born out of an evil coupling of Coalition economic policy and a London Tory sponsored housing crisis.

Social cleansing; gerrymandering - apartheid: they may not recognise the historical context, but here in Broken Barnet, our own Tory members are determined to re-live the mistakes of the past, all the same.

In September 2012, Barnet Council employed 3,200 members of staff (excluding maintained school staff).

In the wake of the One Barnet programme, and the massive contracts awarded to Capita, as of September 2014, the authority now only employs a total of 1829.71staff.

Of those 1829.71 posts, should the latest round of outsourcing proposals proceed, a staggering 81% will also be lost, reducing the council to only 336 members of staff.

Does that matter?

Your Tory councillors certainly don't think so.

Some staff members will be employed by Capita, or other private contractors, won't they?

Well, yes. Some. For a while. On terms & conditions only secured for a limited period.

And after that?

Well ... let's see. Only this week it was accidentally Re-vealed, in the weekly newsletter to staff working in the new Capita 'Joint Venture', that some of them, at least, are now being employed on zero hours contracts.

If those unfortunate employees had actually managed to earn any money, they had to get a claim in early, or lose out over the Christmas period, as the management cheerily informed their workforce:

Early deadline for December claims and payments
Due to the Christmas holidays etc. the deadline to submit overtime claims and zero hours payments, to guarantee payment in December, is earlier than normal. Approved claim forms should be sent to redacted by close of play on the 2 December 2014.

The loss of jobs, and the removal of long term protection for pay and conditions might not cause any sense of disapproval from some residents, who may fall for the Tory line that they should not care who delivers their service, or at what rate of pay, but most people do care that others should not be exploited at work. And they understand the connection between standard of service, and rate of pay.
In the course of the creation of One Barnet, the disappearing council has been spirited away by the collusion of Tory members, senior management, private consultants and outsourcing companies.
Between January 2012, and October 2013, Barnet's Tory councillors approved the privatisation of the following council services:

Adult Social care, Parking services, Legal services, Customer Services, Estates, Finance, Human Resources and Payroll, IT Infrastructure and Support, Procurement, Revenues and Benefits, Commercial Services, Housing Options, Building Control, Planning Administration (Development Management),Strategic Planning and Regeneration, Transport, Highways Services, Land Charges, Environmental Health, Trading Standards and Licensing, Cemetery and Crematorium, Barnet Registration and Nationality Service.

Next up for , in the One Barnet knocking shop, are the following services, representing a huge number of additional jobs that will also now be lost:

Street Scene - with 478.42 posts.
Adult Social Care - 362.75 posts.
Education & Catering - 336 posts.
Early Years Children’s - Centres 170 posts.
Library Service - 150 posts

Predictably, it is the last on this list of services to face the chop that has already provoked a reaction of fury from the residents of Broken Barnet.

As Mrs Angry has previously observed, the Tory council could slash as many children's centres and cleansing operatives' jobs as it likes, without the average Barnet resident lifting an eyebrow, but there are one or two areas which only the most abject fool would think of tinkering with, in this borough, without expecting a tidal surge of outrage.

One of those is parking, and, oh dear, we all know what happened when they let Brian Coleman loose with that ... the other, you may rest assured, is any threat to our public libraries.

The story of Friern Barnet library, the library that refused to close, has been well chronicled, but our Tory councillors, instead of learning from the experience, have chosen to misinterpret the outcome as a reason to pursue a truly reckless policy, the total annihilation of our library service, seeking to reduce what was once Beacon status standard library provision to a collection of bookshelves, arranged over the terrain of Broken Barnet, in a parodic representation of a library service.

This is a grave error on behalf of our council. As the recent debacle over Moss Hall Nursery proved, even in a Labour ward, Tory councillors of Broken Barnet, you don't mess with the middle class mums and dads whose children will be affected by the cuts you propose.

Same with libraries. Already residents are making their views known at consultation meetings at their local branches, and forming campaign groups: and last week saw evidence of the strength of feeling that this issue produces at a meeting called by Barnet Unison, last week, with the challenging theme:

What is happening to our council services: and what can we do about it?

A number of speakers were present to address the meeting, in a hall packed with a range of residents, leaving standing room only.

Keith Goodes, who works at a day centre for adults with disabilities, spoke about the appalling situation faced by 'Your Choice Barnet' the Barnet enterprise which was set up to make profit from care, and then discovered that, perhaps unsurprisingly, this is not possible, let alone morally acceptable as a proposition.

He referred with contempt to the 'Strategic Director for Communities' Kate Kennally, and her comment that the care workers of YCB, already on pitifully low wages, should not object to the proposed cut in their wages of 9.5%, but should regard it as a rightful decision by their employers, 'a haircut', well deserved, and to be undertaken with due humility - while the directors and senior officers of Barnet Council enjoy their six figure salaries, of course.

Let Mrs Angry take a moment here, to mark the departure of another Director, Ms Pam Wharfe, to whom Mrs Angry, if you will allow her a moment of personal indulgence, would suggest a consideration of the rules of the law of karma.

Bon Voyage!

Keith referred to the loyal and dedicated staff who provide care to the vulnerable users of YCB, who are now, he reported, whose morale is being destroyed, and who are lining up to leave: he explained the complex needs of these users, so carefully supported by experienced staff, whose interpretation of the subtleties of their limited communication takes years, in some cases, to create, their carers trying, as he put it, to be the voice of those who cannot speak for themselves.

Parent and carer John Sullivan talked about the brutal regime in Barnet - comprised of Tories who, he said, do not care about disabled people.

Taibyah Shah, from Barnet Housing Action, spoke about the impossibly high rents in Barnet: around £1,200 for a 2 bedroom property, £1,600 for 3 bedroom flat, £3,000 for a three bedroom house: needing half a million pounds to buy a house. Ordinary working people are being priced out of even social housing, with the new Tory proposal to raise rents to 80% of market value. Homelessness was on the increase: people in temporary accommodation in 2009/10 numbered 364: this last year the figure was 823.

Alastair Smith addressed the issue of early years education: it is, he reminded us, the foundation for our lives, a vital part of social development. Politicians now want to measure children from an earlier and earlier age - this is necessary in order to comply with a culture of profit in education, and a part of the regime of fear instigated by the Gove approach to learning.

He advocated the benefits of play for young children, using sand, and bricks, and dressing up, all ways through which they learn essential physical and social skills, and he pointed to examples of where an organised resistence and unity of opposition has succeeded, ie in the case of the St Mungo's workers. As he said: we can fight - and win.

Ah: libraries. Perhaps the issue which will galvanise support more than anything else.

Sarah from Unite, and Greenwich Libraries, gave another inspiring and positive address to the meeting: she explained how staff that Greenwich had outsourced & TUPEd over to Greenwich Leisure, facing terrible threats to their working conditions, and the service, including the use of zero hours contracts, had taken a stand, stood up to such bullying - and won. Greenwich Leisure, after a ten day strike, completely caved in to all their - perfectly reasonable - demands. They won, she said, because of the support from members of the public, library users. Her only regret was that they had not taken such a strong position of resistence when Greenwich first proposed outsourcing libraries.

Two lessons there, for Barnet libraries, and those who want to protect them from the devastation planned by our Tory councillors.

The brilliant Alan Wylie also talked about libraries: a seasoned campaigner who described the Tory proposals as 'an onslaught'. Not one Tory member, he reminded us, had spoken up in defence of our libraries, despite their sweaty panic over their own local branches.

You can read his speech in full here, courtesy of the website of the brilliant writer and library campaigner Alan Gibbons, who has twice visited Friern Barnet Library, the library that would not close, despite the best efforts of our Tory councillors.

http://alangibbons.net/2014/12/campaigner-alan-wylies-speech-in-support-of-barnet-libraries/

Next up was Professor Dexter Whitfield, an expert on local government outsourcing. He carefully, incrementally, trashed the Tory proposals for libraries, explaining the lie of 'mutuals' and ridiculing the idea of staffless 'open' libraries, as proposed in one of the Barnet options, based on what is referred to as a 'Scandinavian model', conjuring up associations probably more enticing to some of our Tory members.

Mrs Angry had a fleeting vision, as he spoke, of a councillor-less council: an 'open' council, a perfectly well functioning local democracy in which representation by, and engagement with, elected members was replaced by automated, holographic substitutes.

And should we not, she wondered, rather than be seeking to shrink the size of our libraries from 5,000 sq feet to 540, be reducing the number of redundant councillors, and the allowances, parking permits and other perks they enjoy, at our expense?

The disappearing council, taking with it the likes of Richard Cornelius, and all his colleagues, might not be such a bad thing, after all.

But then of course, Mrs Angry: this is, more or less, how things work at the moment, isn't it, in a post Capita, hollowed out, emptied out commissioning council?

Except we carry on paying our shameless troughing Tory members their allowances, while they strip our services away, and divest themselves of their responsibilities.

Talking next of Adult Services, Professor Whitfield pointed out that councillors were choosing, either wilfully, or because they were being misled, to sanction a strategy that maximised risk to the service, and in terms of impact on users, and minimised democratic accountability. This is true of all service delivery models other than in house, of course.

He urged us to 'move onto the offensive' in support of retaining our local services. He reminded us that we are only one councillor away from the Tories losing control of the council. He also recommended that we impose new demands on the Labour group to be effective in opposition. Hear, hear, yelled someone in the audience.

This was a theme returned to by other speakers, who now took turn at the open mike session. Unfortunately the Labour leader was not present to hear these criticisms, but Labour councillors who were present included Paul Edwards, who represents the new intake and more radical tendency within the Barnet Labour group, as well as Finchley and Golders Green parliamentary candidate Sarah Sackman, who is absolutely committed to the campaign to save libraries and heading the Labour working group (which includes Mrs Angry) focused on this aim.

No Labour leader present, but we are happy to report that the People's Mayor, Councillor Lord Shepherd, was present, and that the meeting was therefore quorate, and fully constitutional.

On Tuesday this week the budget cuts proposed by Barnet Tories was back on the agenda for another Policy and Resources meeting.

Outside the Town Hall a protest took place, with residents and activists standing resolutely in the cold and rain, in solidarity and determination to voice their opposition to the decisions about to be taken in their name, by their elected representatives.

Those elected representatives not only didn't give a damn about the views of those residents protesting outside, they were clearly equally contemptuous of the opinions and questions put to them at public question time, by stalwart local activist Barbara Jacobson.

It was, frankly, a repugnant performance from the Tory members of this committee, who sat throughout her number of perfectly acute, reasonable questions, and address to the meeting, sniggering, deriding her statements, and at times their behaviour was both disrespectful and bullying: typical of the underlying arrogance and misogyny that is deeply ingrained in the attitude of Barnet Tory councillors.

How comical it was, next, to hear Richard Cornelius, alleged leader of the Tory group claim that their guiding principle was ‘to serve the people of Barnet'. This from the man whose party will not engage with, nor listen to the people they represent, and whose idea of service would seem to be based entirely on the solitary activity of self pleasure, rather than a mutually satisfying relationship with their electors.

His administration had improved the standard of services, boasted Corny: I am proud of it.

Oh dear. The level of heckling is usually fairly constant, at such meetings, but this one had more than its usual of angry voices (not so much Mrs Angry, who was tired, and feeling a bit below par).

A protestor who had been yelling some delightfully impertinent, and yet pertinent, observations, now stood up and wandered over to the table, with a large 'cheque' which he said, was for Capita, who seem to be rather keen on taking money from the residents of this borough.

The Tories tried to ignore him, and used diversionary tactics now, deploying their most effective weapon of mass destruction, a speech by Sachin Rajput, which, like mustard gas, is a silent killer, paralysing all who listen, depriving them of oxygen, of life itself, by degrees, and leaving victims praying for an early death. Stop: just stop. Please.

Dear Christ, in another underhand move, they played their most deadly gambit: an address by the pompous young twit in charge of education, libraries etc: Reuben Thompstone. Surely this form of torture, thought Mrs Angry, stuffing her fingers in her ears, eyes filling with tears, must be in breach of the Geneva Convention?

Bla bla bla ... hold on, now he was talking about children and disabilities. Really? Clearly he thought he could speak with expertise on this subject.

Have you been to Mapledown yet, asked Mrs Angry?

Ah. Now Councillor Dean Cohen was discussing his Environment budget.

Will it all be spent on your own ward, asked Mrs Angry?

Councillor Antony Finn is Chairwoman of the contract monitoring committee. He said they were going to start monitoring contracts.

Better late than never, said Mrs Angry, kindly, always keen to encourage positive moves in the direction of travel of our less intellectually gifted Tory councillors.

Time for Labour members to have their say.

Barry Rawlings pointed out that the Capita contracts left the council with little if any flexibility to adjust their budget policies to a changing economic reality.

Cornelius thought, and heaven only knows why, that any risk resulting from this would be borne by the contractor. Yeah, right. He quickly deflected the debate to Chief Operating Officer, Mr Chris Naylor, who has just announced he is leaving the sinking ship of Capitaville and going to Barking, and when Mrs Angry bumped into Mr Naylor outside Santa's Grotto in Brent Cross recently, she promised she would not make any jokes about inverse nominative determinism, so - she will not.

Mr Naylor, whose boundless optimism is bound to be why he persuaded the people of Barking to take him to their bosom as their new Chief Executive, said that he thought that there was scope within the strictures of the Capita contract for a 'downward adjustment'.

Nope, I don't know what the f*ck that means, either. Are we meant to know?

Cllr Ross Houston's area of specialism is housing and he has been the driving force behind the Labour housing commission which, in the absence of any interest from the Tories , is trying to address the terrible crisis in housing engulfing this borough, run by a neo Thatcherite Conservative administration intent on driving the poorest and most vulnerable residents from Barnet, whilst disguising private developments of luxury homes as 'regeneration'.

Ross praised the efforts of Labour run Camden Council to address the challenge of social housing need. As he did so, the young Tory housing lead member, Tom Davey looked less than impressed, as you might expect.

Cllr Houston then picked up on a question raised by Barbara Jacobson, in which she quoted an abominable statement in one of the reports, stating:

'Barnet is a place where housing helps individuals and families who add economic, social, civic or cultural value to communities, to live as owners or renters of property ...'

Barnet is a place, you see, where you are only welcome if you register on a scale of value, because in the privatised paradise that is Capitaville, worth is measured by your usefulness as a commodity, or your ability to manufacture profit.

Councillor Houston, who is an honourable man, of quiet intensity, and a strong sense of social justice, revealed himself, with remarkable patience, to be in disagreement with this Tory view of the way of things.

Barnet, he said, as if trying to explain to a particularly obtuse group of pre school children, is a place where people live.

It is their home.

The Tory members, as ever, looked on with a range of expressions, from indifference to open derision.

Labour's Cllr Paul Edwards is particularly good at challenging the capital funding sleight of hand that appears to be in charge of all financial reports submitted to scrutiny committees: truth lost behind a veil of commercially sensitive agreements to which we are not party, and may only guess the outline.

Kate Kennally, who is now Strategic Director for Communities, looked solemnly across the table and did her best to patronise Cllr Edwards, who, she graciously conceded, raised an interesting point ... Oh, well done, Cllr Edwards, thought Mrs Angry.

In Broken Barnet, of course, the norm is that councillors leave the running of the council to senior officers like Ms Kennally, who know better than our elected representatives what is best for us. Newbie councillors take a while to adjust to this idea, and some Labour members are proving rather slow to fall into line.

Some fun for any body language experts: displacement activities at the committee table ...

Kennally's colleague Mr Naylor may be clearing his desk and looking forward to his new job in Barking and Dagenham, but he was still keen to contribute to the meeting in the language of doublespeak that is the usual Barnet senior management house style. Murmured references then, to 'the gateway process', and 'keeping a close eye on the market of social care'.

Marvellous stuff. Bet that will go down awfully well with the comrades in Barking, the massed ranks of the Dagenham girl pipers, and, of course, the cast of Towie.

Oh, shut UP, Mrs Angry.

Whatever.

Just when Mrs Angry decided she would rather, on balance, go home and watch Edwina Currie being tormented by cockroaches in the Australian jungle - or rather: watch cockroaches in the Australian jungle being tormented by Edwina Currie, than remain in committee rooms one, and two, at Hendon Town Hall: hello, Reuben Thompstone was off again, with his own form of antipodean entertainment.

With all the gravitas and ponderance of a papal envoy in the age of reformation, Cllr Thompstone decreed that there was no concept of 'predetermination' in the library nonsultation.

Not so much in the sense of a predestination of souls doomed to eternal punishment, but any foregone decision on the fate of Tory library closures and cuts in service.

Hmm.

This was, thought Mrs Angry, an interesting announcement, especially when followed by a statement, tinged by just a hint of desperation, that Cllr Thompstone would 'welcome' alternative ideas from residents taking part in the current round of faux consultation. Mrs Angry's notes contain the observation, at this point: ... the Tories are FRIT!

They know they have cocked up again, like they did with the parking, upsetting too many of their own voters, due to their innate inability to judge the political impact of their idiotic, blindly ideological obsession with outsourcing, but ... they imagine they will be able to bluff their way out of this corner by saving strategicly chosen branches, the ones in the most sensitive Tory or marginal wards.

Behind the scenes, even as we speak, Tory members without the balls to speak openly in criticism of this administration’s cultural revolution and war on libraries are lobbying frantically for their own libraries to be spared the axe.

(More on libraries, and Mrs Angry's contribution to the nonsultation events, in the next post, God or Google willing, if Blogger will stop losing Mrs Angry's drafts and driving her to tears, and over the edge of sanity. What is left of it, after being shrunk in size, from 5,000 square feet, to 540).

In order to try to cover their own shame, of course, the Tories resorted to the usual tactic: pointing the finger at the opposition. What, Richard Cornelius wanted to know, were Labour’s proposals?

A fair point. No one is entirely clear, yet, because the traditional Labour leadership style is to oppose things, sort of, but not give any detailed policy proposals, as they think they can’t promise anything they cannot deliver in power.

We have seen this posture forced on the group in the previous administration, in regard to YCB, and budget proposals.

There is a fatal flaw in this argument, of course.

You have to get into fecking power first, see, before you have the luxury of worrying about something you should not worry about in the first place, ie following the Tory policy agenda.

And you are not going to win votes by a wishy-washy response to what is by any standard the most ruthless, destructive and indefensible assault on what was once a nationally acclaimed public library service, about to be raised to the ground by the vandalism of mindless, pointless privatisation and a reckless disregard for the real, immeasurable value of reading, culture, education, access to information - and social justice - by this appalling excuse for a Conservative administration.

Time for a clear stand, a hard head, and a campaign of overt, relentless resistence from the opposition, and every resident in this borough.

Today it is your library, your home, your nursery, your care services at risk: tomorrow it may be too late and the future of public services this borough will already have been trafficked over to the private sector, to be used, abused and never seen again.

If you don't want to see that happen, open your mouth now, and speak out.

Storytime in Golders Green Library - picture credit Museum of London

Before Mrs Angry was Mrs Angry, and in between her time with MI5, a short but interesting career in burlesque, and a few years in the Carmelite convent in Tyburn , she was, you may be surprised to hear, employed by the London Borough of Barnet, working in Golders Green Library, and the union convenor for Barnet Libraries: placed there in a covert plot to undermine the establishment, and bring about the revolt of the proletariat - or at least a few bolshie librarians.

And they were bolshie, too: successfully striking twice, and warding off a nefarious plot by the then Tory council to close down libraries. Yes, there will be a theme of deja vu running through the course of this post. Try and keep up.

Tories in Barnet are awfully fond of closing things down, of course, and always have been, since the days when Margaret Thatcher was the MP for Finchley, and her having a tendency to shut down entire industries, mining, steel, manufacturing: anything that moved and had a trade union, in short.

But what began as an anti social activity on a modest scale, in homage to the former PM and her manic attacks on public services, the neo Thatcherites still clinging on (only just) to control of Barnet Council have revealed a manic bloodlust for the sport of closing public amenities, public buildings, running amok like Jack the Ripper, slashing mindlessly at the body of our local public services.

In the old days, there would often be proposals to shut down certain branch libraries. Top of the list drawn up by senior library management - in those days, when libraries were respected even by Tory authorities, there was a Borough Librarian - was Hampstead Garden Suburb. This was purely on pragmatic grounds, due to the cost of subsidising what was, even then, an indulgence: a sop to the hugely affluent and influential residents of one of the most wealthy residential areas in the country. The 'library' was no more than a few bookshelves in a tiny former shop, and totally impractical, leeching funds from other libraries in much more deserving areas: but we all knew that the Conservative council would never allow it to close.

And they never have allowed it to close. When included a couple of years ago in the nominal list of targets for closure, it was never going to happen: the residents' association was outraged, and a marvellous rescue package agreed in which the council would subsidise the little library in a shop, at the expense of other libraries in less advantaged areas.

Despite all pleas from the local community, in far greater need of a public library, Friern Barnet branch, in a ward with two Labour councillors and one maverick Tory was refused any subsidy; closed down, the shelves stripped, and the building put up for sale. The library was then taken over by Occupy activists, who worked with local campaigners to reopen the building, fill it with books, and defy the council's actions.

In the end the worldwide publicity this hugely popular occupation attracted forced the Tories into a humiliating retreat, and the agreement that the People's Library, the library that would not close, should become Friern Barnet Community Library, subsidised by the council, like Garden Suburb, but this apparently happy outcome was compromised by one crucial flaw: FBCL would not be part of the borough's public library system.

For some campaigners - and some councillors, of both parties - this was not seen as a problem. They had saved the library, a beautiful Carnegie building, and a group of residents would see that the venture continued on a voluntary basis. Success: or so they thought.

But for many others, the agreement that excluded the return of the library to the borough service was not only regrettable, it put the other libraries at risk. Because we knew exactly how shameless the Barnet Tories have been, under the 'leadership' of 'Tricky Dicky' Richard Cornelius, and how likely they were to try to turn what had been a galling defeat into political profit.

For some Tories, the motive of profit is accompanied by something else: something even more shameless, and repellant. That is to say, the desire for revenge. A library, in Broken Barnet, is a symbol of resistance: a rallying point for the community, a place where people think. Shut it down. Shut them all down.

The campaigners, bloggers and residents who created a surge of rebellion to the ignominious policies of the previous Tory administration, especially in regard to the parking fiasco, and the library story, became something the Tories had never really encountered before: an effective opposition. And those two political blunders, in two areas that were always guaranteed to attack the Tories' own electoral base, lost many of the most prominent councillors their seats, and very nearly lost them control of the council.

Due to their innate stupidity, our Conservative members have failed to learn the lessons of the last few years, and like all bullies, imagine that the way to retain authority is to carry on in the same way, rather than try to reach a consensus with the residents they purport to represent.

Hence the latest outsourcing proposals, and in this case the truly apocalyptic scale of plans lined up to besiege the remnants of our library service, knock it all down, and grind it into the dust.

Where there is resistance, as with all such assaults, they will be likely to back off: where there is capitulation, they will walk over you.

The so called 'consultation' process for the library proposals reveals another of their tactics in the war against culture: divide and conquer. Play residents off against each other. Those who have the loudest voices, and the greater political influence: they will be rewarded for their protest, at the expense of the less advantaged, and less articulate communities. Survival of the fittest, and sod the rest: it's the Tory way.

Mrs Angry thought she would choose to attend one of these nonsultation events, and the one she would choose would be Golders Green library, where she used to work.

Arriving as the doors opened, there was an astonishing sight: a queue, outside, in the chilly rain, of about twenty young mothers with babies in buggies - not something that ever happened, in Mrs Angry's time, before she left to be a mother herself, with babies in buggies. There was evidently a 'baby rhyme time' session in the children's library, the first of two that day, due to enormous demand.

Walking into the library, an eighty year old building with a mosaic floored entrance hall, brass railed, polished stone staircase, oak doors and shelving, time seemed to have stood still.

Was it really twenty years or so, since leaving? Hard to believe, in some ways, because the first two faces that she saw were the two elderly sisters who used always to be the first on the doorstep, every morning, when the doors were unlocked, all that time ago: unmarried women who lived together in a house across the road and came every morning to read the papers. We recognised each other, and were all mutually amazed at the passage of time, and yet the stillness of time, and here we were, together again. Did they know the library was at risk of closing? They did not. Mrs Angry wondered how they would cope, should that awful day come.

Ben, the consultant who has been running these events was waiting, with only a few chairs ready, in a corner of the library. Only a few chairs ready because he knew that the timing of the consultation had been carefully arranged - by the commissioning team senior officers, apparently - so as to exclude as many library users as possible from attending: barely advertised, and fixed in a weekday morning, when working people cannot attend, an action heavily criticised by the users who came.

Despite the deliberately obscure time of the session, throughout the three hour time slot, the chairs were filled constantly by a sequence of library users, shyly but determinedly resolved to make their voice count in the consultation for this awful set of proposals.

Mrs Angry decided to stay for the three hours, not because she wanted to, but because it was clear that otherwise the discussion was not going to be anything other than a talking shop whose outcome was, like the online survey, directed by a carefully steered debate.

Significantly although the table before us had copies of the three bad options that our council thinks we should choose between: death of our library service not by a thousand cuts, but by three equally terrible weapons.

No one was going to say, you do not need to die at all, except Mrs Angry, who pointed out that the residents of Broken Barnet did not have to choose death for their library service: choose life, she said, and reject all three options: please.

We sat in the corner of the library, wedged rather awkwardly in the teenage fiction section, watched over on our side, Mrs Angry happily observed, by books by the brilliant writer, and esteemed library campaigner, Alan Gibbons.

And rather aptly, in view of the circumstances, a local resident persuaded by Mrs Angry to join the discussion, spotted a book by former Tory favourite, Jeffrey Archer:

Be Careful What You Wish For ...

The consultant, his back against a wall of vampire romances, introduced himself.

Who do you work for, asked Mrs Angry?

His company was called 'Shared Intelligence'. Oh. Sounds promising, doesn't it? How much are we paying you for this consultation? With a grimace he muttered something about £20K. And did the other users sitting there realise £200, 000 was being spent on this excuse for 'consultation', and how many libraries would that keep open, did they think?

Oh, and where is the rest of the £200K set aside for the nonsultation going anyway?

He thought it was to be spent on the survey: printing costs etc. That would be the printed copies that had not been available, weeks after the consultation had begun, and were now being kept behind the desk, where unless you knew they were available, you were obviously not going to ask for them. Only after absolutely insisting were any copies brought to the table, and it was Mrs Angry who kept offering them to those attending (with a warning about the loaded questions), rather than the consultant.

Two of the attendees were young mothers from the local Charedi community, who emphasised how vital the library was to their family life. One of the mums described the proposals as 'devastating'. She could not drive, and depended on the resources in their local community, and the library was a central part of this. Mrs Angry remembered the importance to such families, many with several young children, and the queues that would form on Fridays, to have plenty of reading material for them over shabbat, and one very bright and cheeky little boy called Zvi-Dov, who was found to have 116 library books hidden under his bed, by his embarrassed mother, who had to bring them back in a shopping trolley ...

Mrs Angry also remembered the elderly residents who would call in every day, the library being part of their daily routine, a welcome sanctuary, where staff would build relationships with them, over the years, and be privileged, in some cases, to hear their life stories, and become honoured trustees of their confidences.

Yes, in some cases, these older residents, in Golders Green, were former refugees, and in some cases, survivors of the Holocaust. Over a period of time you would get to know these people, and their backgrounds, and maybe be trusted to hear their testimonies. Some of them would need your help to find books to read, that they needed to read, because it helped, in some small way to come to terms with the path of their lives and experiences that they could not discuss with their own families.

Mrs Angry has written about this before, but it has to be repeated as it tells its own story: the necessity of communication, and bridges between generations, and different communities, and the value of reading, and literature, and bearing witness, and telling your story, and enabling those who come after you to learn the lessons of history.

For Barnet Tories, of course, history began in the year zero, when Margaret Thatcher came to power as PM, and ends when she was disposed of. Since then, we find ourselves living in Broken Barnet, under the flag of Capitaville, where history is of no value: nothing more than the collection of faded photographs, and a few family items left to a local museum. Museums are dangerous places, like libraries: their contents remind us of our common past, and sense of identity. Shut them down, sell off the collection: charge people £8.50 a go to look at those old photographs, online: heritage is only valuable in monetary terms, after all.

This disregard for culture, or history or heritage extends to our built heritage. The museum is shut, and put up for sale. What next? The libraries, of course.

How fitting that the idea of a public library, promoted by Victorian philanthropy, funded by successful capitalists, salving their social conscience by good works, and investment in access to the education of the working classes, should be destroyed so enthusiastically by their heirs in the Tory party, both nationally, and locally.

What happened to the idea of enabling social mobility, and aspiration?

When did such paternalistic Toryism become replaced by the mutant brand we see in power now, wielding policies that widen the gulf between rich and poor, making education and healthcare the privilege of those with means, rather than a right for all?

Access to information, and the liberating power of reading: the means to self improvement, self expression, to empowerment of the individual: what was once the gift of the Tory do gooder is now an affront to those who took his place in government: a form of intellectual terrorism, a covert activity that threatens the status quo. Remove books from prisoners, then, (or try to, anyway). Stop as many young people from disdvantaged backgrounds from being able to afford to go to university. And shut down the public library system. Close the buildings, and sell them off to local property developers for more non affordable housing.

Rather than admit that this is their real agenda, Barnet's nonsultation pretends that many of the branch libraries will merely be 'shrunk' in size, so as to free up the rest of the buildings for rental to commercial tenants. Reduced by an average of a staggering 93%. No, that is not a typo: let's say it again, 93%. The size of Hampstead Garden Suburb Library, the library in a shop.

Except that of course this is a load of balls. This option is thrown in as a distraction, and a frightener. The worst excesses of the three bad options are meant to make whatever final outcome emerges, with its 'compromises' favouring Tory ward branches, seem like a blessing. And the truth is that any branches considered surplus to requirement will simply be flogged off as lucrative developments. There are no doubt companies that already have their eyes on certain buildings, including the one in Church End that has already been marked for sale thanks to a previous deal with the shy and retiring Pears Group who have planning permission to develop Gateway House.

The fact that the consultation document reveals there is no costing for the potential rental of library buildings reduced in size, nor any mention of the substantial capital investment that would be needed to convert the libraries to extra use, (and therefore make a complete mockery of the alleged motive for the cuts, of finding necessary savings) says it all. In a borough where an abundance of empty office space is begging for tenants, there is no business case to support this preposterous suggestion, and there never was intended to be.

Golders Green is one of those branches that are supposed to shrink in size. The consultant tried to give a vague idea to the users sitting around the table, of what that would be. He said it would kind of be like that section over there, between that bit, and that bit. The group looked bewildered.

What is the current floor space, asked Mrs Angry? Erm .... around 5,000 square feet. And do remind us of the size of the new 'library'? 540 square feet. So, said one of the men in the group, you are saying ... it will be a tenth of the current space.

Yes.

A tenth.

Golders Green is not a large library. A space that is one tenth of the area now used is simply impossible: an insult to the idea of a library. Room for a couple of shelves and a handful of books: no space for students, or pcs, or children's activities. No baby rhyme time. No library, in short.

But this is as likely to happen as the building of Robert Rams' invisible library in North Finchley. It is pie in the sky, a total fantasy. The library will either continue as it is, or be sold for development. And it will not be sold, or closed, or shrunk - because the Tory councillors in Golders Green will not dare allow that.

Some debate took place in the nonsultation over why these proposals were made in the first place. Mrs Angry took it upon herself to explain that the cut being presented as an unavoidable saving was in fact a relatively small amount, although the fact that it represented 60% of the library budget demonstrated what good value for money our services already provided.

Some further explanation ensued as to how much money the Tory council wasted on such things as - sorry, Ben - consultants: millions and millions of pounds each year, oh, and you might like to ask your local councillor, Dean Cohen, why he spent so much money on the pavements and roads of Tory wards, including £1.1 million in Golders Green, just before the election, and £500,000 on Princes Park Avenue, in the last two years, while some Labour wards like Colindale last year got not one single penny. £1.1 million pounds - almost half the savings the Tories say necessitate the closure of library services.

Someone asked where Cllr Cohen was, and then one of the young mums said, with an interesting glint in her eye, that she knew Dean Cohen, and his wife, and would be Having A Word With Him.

In the background, baby rhyme time continued in the children's library, and library staff dealt with the continual stream of visitors, helping with enquiries, using the pcs.

None of the Tory councillors had the guts to show up, but Sarah Sackman, who is Labour's parliamentary candidate for Finchley and Golders Green, spent the morning talking to residents outside, and then came in to sit through some of the discussion. Just look around you, she said: there was no better evidence of why the library was so vital, and irreplaceable.

When Mrs Angry worked there, the staff structure comprised a librarian in charge, a deputy, a reference librarian, a children's librarian, library assistants and a branch administrator. It was a struggle even then to keep up with the demands of users: heaven knows how they manage now.

Typical remarks from attendees ranged from 'absurd' in regard to the 'open library option, 'absolutely ridiculous' in general, and 'I don't understand what motivates these people ...', 'the heart is being ripped out of council services', 'outrageous proposals' ...

After a while, a woman who had been sitting opposite the consultant, and glaring rather furiously at him, said she was rather inclined to agree with the views of that woman, Mrs Angry, who wrote about this sort of thing.

Mrs Angry sat up. Aha, she declared ... that is ... me!

Is it really? asked the woman. She laughed.

Is it really? asked the consultant, turning a funny colour ...

After this dramatic revelation, outing Mrs Angry in the manner of the denouement of a murderess in a sensation novel by Mary Elizabeth Braddon, a satisfying change was noticeable in the nonsultant's attitude of complacency, as he realised he was in for a very long and uncomfortable morning. Throughout the session, he nervously kept checking twitter, to see, he confessed, what was being said about him. Mrs Angry assured him she would do no such thing. But would write all about it in the blog instead. So here you are, Mr Lee.

The option for 'open libraries' caused the most ridicule and protest: when asked, the consultant appeared to know little about it, other than to say, rather feebly, that it worked well elsewhere. Where, demanded Mrs Angry? He didn't know: probably, was it - Ipswich, or ... Abroad. (Same thing, arguably, to be fair).

Scandinavia, suggested Mrs Angry, trying to be helpful, and nodding encouragingly, but at the same time trying to conjure up vague intimations of Nordic Noir, and menace in the shadows of an emptied out library, devoid of books, people, meaning or hope.

The Swedish model, remember? No, he thought it might be Danish. Less exciting, of course. Though probably safer, thought Mrs Angry, as the bookshelves were less likely to have come from Ikea, and fall over. Not safer than a fully staffed library with human beings interacting with each other, of course, rather than a dystopian vision of a self service library, and a holographic librarian, however.

The safeguarding aspects, issues of equality of access for the disabled: have these really been taken into consideration? The residents at the consultation laughed, but were incredulous that this was a serious proposal, pointing to the risks involved, and again, the necessity for capital investment for implementation, uncosted. And again, this is because these nightmare scenarios will never happen, and are meant only to scare us all into acceptance of the eventual, slightly less awful decision.

What was truly touching about the reaction of the users who came to this discussion was this: they were none of them the sort of people who made a habit of this sort of thing. Ordinary residents, reserved by nature: when they approached the table, quite a few of them did that quintessentially British thing, hovering vaguely, then moving off pretending to be looking for something else, then plucking up the courage to join in. Quiet people, shy: but determined to speak out, because they desperately care about their library service, and are truly distressed to think it may be taken away from them.

One man said he had lost his job a little while ago, and that it was comforting to have somewhere to go, near to home, on the days when he had nothing to do. The staff were all good people.

Another man, serious, carefully weighed his words before speaking. He had, he said slowly, got a lot of general knowledge from using the library. He trailed off, clearly unable to express what would be a personal loss on such a scale, or understand the reasoning behind it. Who could?

One quietly spoken older woman said apologetically that she was not very articulate - she was - but clearly she felt very strongly about what was being proposed. She did not have a computer, she said, or a mobile phone. This was, as she put it, an intimate library. She wanted to say how kind the library staff were, in helping her learn to use the pc, so patient,never a raised eyebrow: that's rare - in the world we live in, she said, why would we lose that?

This woman was not the only one to praise the staff, for their help and kindness, and professionalism, and to try to explain the intangible, inexpressible sense of sanctuary, welcome and belonging that you find in a library. It is a place of refuge, a place of safety, as well as a place with access to the world of books, and information.

The selective note taking of the nonsultant throughout the nonsultation consisted of, well not taking many notes, as far as Mrs Angry could see, seated at his right hand side, so as to keep her beady eye on him. He was quite keen when a woman turned up who worked for Wandsworth library service which had been taken over by a 'mutual' company, apparently seen as a lesser evil by staff who had been previously treated by the council in a pretty shabby fashion, reportedly having to pay back sick pay, for example. Mrs Angry pointed out that when the same 'mutual' company took over Greenwich libraries, they put new staff on zero hours contracts.

Has anyone, in all these events, expressed any support for the proposals, Mrs Angry asked the consultant. He thought very carefully, and then remembered there had been one elderly man with wild hair, who said he had grown up on a remote sheep farm, and thought everyone should stand on their own two feet. (Or four feet, presumably, if you are a sheep).

It will be interesting, won't it, readers, to see how the outcome of these events, from a few scribbles in a notebook, are transformed into a report to council?

When the session was nearing the end of the three hour time slot, a woman in a beautiful blue velvet coat slipped into one of the spare seats. She smiled very sweetly, and listened patiently to what they group had to say: and then she took out a piece of paper, on which she had written a speech.

And what a speech it was.

Her name was Esther Waldron, and you can find a copy of what she said on the Independent Catholic News website. No further comment needs to be made, as Esther says it all: only to add that, for some reason, the consultant listened to what she had to say - and wrote nothing down.

A Defence of Barnet Libraries

One of the books I’m borrowing from Golders Green Library is ‘A Century of Wisdom - Lessons from the Life of Alice Herz-Sommer’.

Alice’s surname means ‘Heart of Summer’. Alice spent two years in the Theresienstadt concentration camp during the Holocaust. She survived because of the beauty of her piano playing; she was a concert pianist who played in concerts in the concentration camp.

In the book, Alice quotes Heinrich Heine who foresaw the evils of Nazi Germany. Heine said of the early days of Nazism: “Where they burn books, they will, in the end, also burn people."

To translate this to the modern day: if Barnet Council decimates its library service and severs access to books, it will, in the end, also decimate the spirit of its people.

And not just any people, but its weakest members – by which I mean the most vulnerable; as Gandhi once said: “A nation’s greatness is measured by how it treats its weakest members.”

In average, in Barnet, 44 per cent of school children don’t speak English as a first language at home. And 18 per cent of the borough’s population are aged 60 and over. Reducing staffing levels in our libraries by 40 or 50 per cent will make it 40 or 50 per cent more difficult and intimidating for these people to navigate our libraries.

I’ve listened as staff of Golders Green library have patiently explained to elderly people how to create an email account, how to surf the internet. The time and care these librarians take with the people of our community is an example to us all.

In literary terms, the three options that Barnet Council is proposing for its future library service are ‘Hobsons Choice’.

I love and choose to live in Golders Green is for its religious diversity and tolerance.

Directly opposite the library is a Greek cathedral. Nearby is a Buddhist community centre. The area is, of course, well known for its vibrant Jewish community. This is also a Christian parish - my Catholic church is five minutes’ walk away on Finchley Road.

Barnet Council would not restrict access to our places of worship – at least I hope it would not. The same principle applies to libraries.

When I was a child every book was like the Bible to me. Every book felt holy. I still feel that books are holy, and that libraries are sacred spaces. Libraries are cathedrals of the human imagination.

When I walk into my local library, my spirit soars at the achievement of the writers around me, and my soul sings at the possibilities inside the pages of the books.

With its current options Barnet Council will restrict access to books, but also the ideas in them - the hopes and dreams of authors’ hearts that speak to the human spirit, and what it means to be human and alive.

To sever libraries is to sever access to what the books inside them represent: the creative imagination, which the poet William Blake said was God. He called it ‘Jesus Christ the Imagination.’

In closing: the words ‘council’ and ‘councillors’ have their origins in Latin words meaning ‘a group of people meeting together;’ and also the verb ‘to call’.

Councils are literally called to bring people together.

Barnet Council, please use your powers to preserve our libraries because they are worth far more than any budget gap of £ 72 million.

Barnet libraries, like the people who live in the borough, including its most vulnerable members, are valuable beyond measure.

http://wwwbrokenbarnet.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/honey-i-shrunk-libraries-barnet-tories.html

http://engage.barnet.gov.uk/consultation-team/library-review/consult_view

What is clear from all of these options is this: the variations that they present prove the point of the whole exercise is not logical, or based on any independent analysis of need, but designed to be subject to political influence, and pressure from residents.

The flaw in their calculations is that although they have protected their own political core of Chipping, Church End and Hendon from the worst of the destruction, the changes there will be enough to infuriate thousands of their own voters, and elsewhere will be even more successful at losing much needed support.

Throughout the consultation document we read hints that they will not stick to these three definitions, and may end by 'striking a balance' of various proposals contained therein. Let Mrs Angry translate: depending on the level of panic exhibited by nimbyst Tory councillors worried about any closures or loss of service in their own ward, the final plans, presented as a compromise, will be approved - or so they hope, by the council.

Already two Tory councillors have publicly exhibited misgivings about - guess what - their own local libraries being closed or radically affected.

At the CELS meeting at which the proposals were presented, long serving councillor, and self confessed Thatcherite, Helena Hart, member for Edgware, expressed her dismay at the impact on her local library, and for some reason the one in Golders Green.

At a recent residents' association meeting in Mill Hill, Sury Khatri, who has criticised the One Barnet outsourcing procedure, after agreeing to it, reportedly declared his opposition to the plans for Mill Hill library.

Both Tory councillors voted with their colleagues shortly afterwards when the report was moved to Full Council.

Mrs Angry has written to both councillors to ask why, and will publish any responses that may ensue. They have not replied, so far.

She suggests all readers with Tory members write to them and demand answers from them as to their position on your local libraries: hold them to account.

It is necessary to warn anyone who takes part in the Barnet Libraries'nonsultation to be scrupulously, forensically, careful how you respond to this survey, as a significant number of the questions have been cynically devised to produce data which they will use to endorse their proposals, even if that is not your intention - by offering you a loaded set of options which presupposes your acceptance of their definition of the context of these plans.

Questions 6,7,8,23,25,26,41, for example, need careful negotiation.

They have made the survey as long and as difficult as possible, as well, in the hope, no doubt, of deterring residents from sticking the course and submitting their views.

Please stick the course, and submit your views.

In regard to any dubious questions, the only way to respond, in order to avoid being used as a stooge, in Mrs Angry's view, is to leave them unanswered, and fill up the comment section with your reasons.

Remember that the purpose of this exercise is to trick you into producing data that they can use to endorse one of their three options. There is an assumption that you accept one of those options, or a combination of the three, is necessary.

That said, you should take part and ignore their proposals: tell them what you think, and what you want.

Before taking part in the survey, you will be asked to read the accompanying consultation document which you can find here - do read it, but wear Mrs Angry's blogger branded x ray specs, which filter out Barnet's interesting representation of the 'facts' and the context in which these devastating proposals are being made.

A recent court ruling on consultation has confirmed that it is unlawful for local authorities to engage in this process without providing proper information, or giving regard to alternative options to the proposals themselves.

Here we see lip service paid to these requirements, for example, with carefully placed phrases such in support of a 'genuine dialogue' - yeah, right: and in rubbishing the radical idea that a rise in council tax might actually save some of our public services from the depradations of our Tory councillors' slash and burn policies.

Terrible warnings are given of depending on such a strategy, and baleful predictions, which they have kept quiet before now, of a necessarily huge rise in council tax on the way, the revenue from which is already allocated.

They do not, of course, explain that their self confessed political 'gestures' in freezing and then cutting council tax pre-election is another cynical act which deprived vital services of funding, and brought us to the point where they now claim such drastic savings are unavoidable, or that there are many areas of extravagant waste and spending, such as on the million pounds consultancy bills, within the budgets they approve which could easily cover the library cuts - if the political will was there.

The Consultation Document begins with a telling admission:

In the most recent library user customer survey, nearly 90% of users were satisfied.

As we have often observed, this is the first rule of Broken Barnet: something ain't broke, so we are going to destroy it anyway, because there is profit in it, somewhere, for someone.

It is clear, in fact, if you are, as advised, reading this tosh wearing Mrs Angry's x ray One Barnet bullshit glare resistant specs, that the financial argument for what is being presented as an indisputable truth, that the Tory proposals are being forced by the need to make cuts in budget, is absolutely not the real driver for their scabby plans.

The volume of cuts being imposed on libraries is breathtakingly severe in scope: 60% of total budget.

This is not sustainable, in any service, which is why it is being applied - the service, as it stands, must not be allowed to survive.

The real reasons, readers, are twofold.

One is an obstinate loyalty to the half baked philosophy that lay behind Mike Freer's 'easycouncil' idea, the sort of ill defined, instinctive mistrust of any public service ethos that so easily appeals to the neo thatcherite eejits of the Barnet Tory group.

Income generation is one thing - and it should be noted that from very early on, Barnet Libraries have always embraced the need for to create revenue, which is what helped it to be one of the best value for money services in the country - but this is never enough to satisfy our Tory masters, who cannot understand any sort of service that does not take place behind a shop front or on a market stall, and think there must be an incremental drive for more and more commercial activities, until the original function of the service is entirely obliterated.

What is curious, however, is that there is no costing for any of the proposed new revenue requirements, or estimations, just as there is no mention of what will surely be substantial need for capital investment, in the name of making 'savings', should many of the truly devastating recommendations be put in place, such as shrinking the size of libraries by 93%, or adapting them for different use - what they refer to as the 'reconfiguration' of buildings.

As for the new ideas for sources of revenue:

The document suggests 'meeting room hire, renting parking spaces, providing collection points such as Amazon Lockers, advertising and some increases to fees and charges'.

Libraries already hire out rooms, in fact, but renting out parking spaces? Providing any libraries are left at all, have you thought through the equalities impact on removing the few spaces there are already for those residents with mobility problems? Nope. Didn't think so.

Don't have a problem with sponsorship or advertising, if they promise to drop the rest of the idiotic plans. Something tasteful. Wonga. William Hill. British American Tobacco. Would residents squeak a bit about that, do you think, Cllr Tom Davey?

Amazon lockers? Yeah, whatever: a company selling books, rather than lending them, and paying minimal taxes, would seem the appropriate installation to have in a Tory Barnet library, wouldn't it?

Jesus: to think we complained about the last lot of library proposals. Come back, Robert Rams, you and your invisible flagship libraries - all is forgiven.

Or maybe not.

Here is another odd claim, hidden away: that an in house solution has no additional savings potential. This is absolute nonsense, a creative approach to such things as sponsorship, or finding alternative forms of funding is perfectly possible - and does not require any reduction in staffing, or any other deeply damaging assault on the standard of service provision.

One new source of income generation is commendable, however: the idea that substantial levels of revenue can be screwed out of fines for children who - wait for it - bring their library books back late. Yes, really. See Question 15.

Mrs Angry remembers the fine box in Edgware library, when she was a child, glass topped, and sunk into the wooden counter, with a slot and a brass chute down which your coins would have to roll, making a satisfying chink, as they dropped inside. Sadly, because the infant Mrs Angry was a prodigious reader, and would usually have read all the three books borrowed on Saturday morning by Sunday afternoon, so did not have any overdue books, she never had the chance to try out the fine box herself, and was obliged to watch other, more naughty children perform this shameful ritual, with a secret envy.

In our new age of austerity, of course, the children of Broken Barnet must be put to the wheel, and have applied to them the same merciless programme of punishment as their errant mums and dads, who so wilfully incur parking fines by daring to park their cars in what turn out to be the wrong places, at the wrong times, caught by a warden short of his targets for the day, which do not exist, but must be met.

Quite right that the children of our borough should be targeted too, little cash cows of the future, groomed for a life of exploitation in the profiteering paradise of Capitaville.

Mrs Angry warmly approves of this sort of initiative, naturally, and has suggested in her response that Capita's bailiff company, Equita, could be instructed to pursue these juvenile delinquents, in the case of non payment of library fines, visiting their homes, and shouting through the letter box threats to confiscate their toys, should they refuse to cough up.

Oh, yes, and: hidden away in the consultation is a reference to possible optional charges, subscriptions: the two tier service that 'easycouncil' was all about. No doubt that will apply to the proposed 'open', DIY libraries.

There won't be much inside them, of course, as the book stock will have been decimated by then, but still: here is a smart card to let you in - £2o charge to let you out, after losing your mind talking to a holographic librarian, and searching the shelves in vain for something to f*cking read, in the virtual outsourced, hollowed out, cleaned out libraries of Broken Barnet.

The other motive for the new proposals, the second reason is - pure speculative greed. The library service is being ripped apart by a fatal budget cut of 60%, because it must be outsourced, and because the buildings are an asset waiting to be stripped, laid bare, and used for capital gain. Don't be distracted by all the crap about the need for 'new models of delivery' and 'savings': yes, they like the sound of that, but the real motive is pretty clear.

There are numerous references to the redevelopment of library sites. This idea is casually used in the context of possibly providing income for whatever is left to provide a service, once the Tory councillors have destroyed most of it, by whichever option they finally choose. The development of closed libraries, of course, is not spelt out, but coyly included, obliquely, and no commitment made at all that any capital made from the sale of such properties will return in any degree to the library service, for example:

'Alternatively income might be secured by redeveloping the current library site ... '

Might be.

New libraries might be provided in the same areas, or nearby.

Or they might not.

Which do you think might be more likely, readers? Is there a degree of certainty comparable, say, to the promise of an invisible library, in North Finchley, which necessitated the closure of Friern Barnet library? Is a broken promise, in Broken Barnet, more likely than not? If so, how reliable is a 'might be', a possibility left trailing in the air, with no promise at all?

And how much do you think our Tory council secretly has already estimated it can make by the sale of so many of our library buildings?

We will never know exactly, because such information will be redacted on the grounds of commercial sensitivity.

Library buildings will, if we allow these plans to go forward, be shut, the book stock removed and dumped, the staff made redundant, the properties put up for sale.

In some cases, no doubt, developers already have their eyes on sites that just might provide some much needed unaffordable luxury housing, which will get the seal of approval from the same set of Tory councillors who sold off the site in the first case.

And the people of this borough will be left with a handful of libraries, no professional library service - and some bookshelves in the corner of a community centre, stuffed with a few yellowing secondhand paperbacks.

https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/no-to-closure-of-barnet-libraries

Labour's petition

Updated Sunday:

Here are dates of 'consultation' events at your local libraries: if you care about the future of Barnet libraries - that there will be a future for Barnet Libraries, then please make the effort to attend, and voice your opinions.

You will note that in typical fashion, your council has arranged many of these events to take place at times when the majority of working residents will not be able to attend - but try to come anyway.

Location	Date	Time
Mill Hill	Tuesday 18^th November 2014	2-5pm
Burnt Oak	Thursday 20^th November 2014	5-8pm
Mobile library route	Friday 21^st November 2014	All day
Chipping Barnet	Saturday 22^nd November 2014	2-5pm
Hendon	Monday 24^th November 2014	2-5pm
East Finchley	Wednesday 26^th November 2014	5-8pm
Mobile library route	Thursday 27^th November 2014	All day
East Barnet	Friday 28^th November 2014	10am-1pm
Edgware	Sunday 30^th November 2014	2-5pm
Grahame Park	Tuesday 2^nd December 2014	5-8pm
Mobile library route	Wednesday 3^rd December 2014	All day
Golders Green	Thursday 4^th December 2014	10am-1pm
South Friern	Saturday 6^th December 2014	10am-1pm
Church End	Monday 8^th December 2014	5-8pm
Mobile library route	Tuesday 9^th December 2014	All day
Childs Hill	Wednesday 10^th December 2014	10am-1pm
Osidge	Friday 12^th December 2014	2-5pm
North Finchley	Saturday 13^th December 2014	10am-1pm

Earlier this week an article by Aditya Chakrabortty, senior economics editor of the Guardian - (and, more importantly, as Mrs Angry can exclusively reveal, one time saturday assistant at Hendon Library) - appeared in the paper's 'Comment is Free' column:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/dec/15/local-services-barnet-council-town-hall

As he said:

If you want to see the future of your local public services, it’s already here: in the north London suburb of Barnet. I visited last week – and it’s not pretty.

Here was a brilliant, incisive analysis of the state of Capitaville, now in its second year, since Year Zero, the beginning of the age of mass privatisation of our council services.

Christmas has come early for the campaigners, activists and commentators of Broken Barnet. Once again media attention is turning to the state of things here in the one time, some time Tory flagship borough as an indication, a sounding of the depths, a measurement of where we are now, in these last few months before the general election.

So yes: and here we are now, then, the festive season in Broken Barnet, that time of year when our Tory councillors put aside all political ambitions, and focus their energies on more community minded endeavours.

You know - like sitting back and pimping the last of the local council services not already sold into ten year bondage with Crapita, putting hundreds of council employees into a state of fear over their jobs, approving a monstrous range of budget cuts, and plotting to destroy our public library system.

Merry Christmas.

Oh. Mrs Angry says sitting back, and pimping the last of our public services. Hmm. Something of an unexpected problem, for some.

Easy as it is for our worse than useless Tory members to do as their senior management tells them and hand control of this borough to profiteering private contractors, without so much as a whimper, they are not, as events at this week's Full Council meeting proved, awfully good at sitting back, or indeed, sitting.

Chairs: hell of a challenge. What to do with them? F*ck knows.

Having outsourced their brains to Crapita, our Tory friends are now unable to work this out. Not to worry. A £1million report has been commissioned from consultants at Agilisys/iMPOWER, to be followed by a ten year contract as implementation partners, and a new management structure, headed by a Director of Sitting Very Carefully. And then the members' chairs will be taken over by Crapita, and leased back to Barnet Council, at a very reasonable rate.

Arriving at Hendon Town Hall last night for the last Full Council of the year, where cuts and outsourcing were on the agenda, to be rubber stamped by our uxorious councillors, mrs Angry was met by a curious sight: look - there was Santa Claus. And there was Santa Claus: and another, and another, a dozen or so (not sure of the collective noun, in this context: a sleighload?) all holding placards.

Which of you, asked Mrs Angry suspiciously, is the real Santa?

I am Santa Claus, proclaimed one.

No! I am Santa Claus, declared another.

A Spartacus style rebellion amongst the whitebearded comrades, then, which must have been awfully confusing for any small children passing by, or our emptyheaded Tory councillors.

Mrs Angry has it on good authority, however, that the real Santa is very cross with our emptyheaded Tory councillors, and she must warn them, like that horrible mum in the Daily Mail story, that they are unlikely to receive anything in their Christmas stockings this year, and serve them right.

He knows, Tory councillors of Broken Barnet, when you've naughty, and he knows when you've been nice. That is to say: never.

Into the town hall and up into the council chamber. The public gallery filled up, watched by nervous security staff - but there was no particular trouble brewing, just a sense of quiet fury, and well worn cynicism at the farce that was about to begin.

And with an added sense of pantomime, as the back row of the gallery became occupied by a row of santas, sitting rather formally, more like a conclave of particularly grumpy cardinals, peering disapprovingly at the sinners in the council chamber.

The Mayor swept in, accompanied by his footmen, with an air of showmanship only slightly less overstated than Liberace, on a tour of Vegas.

Until recently, those in the public gallery (apart from Mrs Angry) would, as expected, stand up - all rise - as the Mayor entered the chamber. It is a sign of the times, and the abiding sense of contempt - oh dear - that we citizens bear for the office, that no one now would even think of making any such gesture. The Mayor might see this as a mark of disrespect to the office he holds. Mrs Angry would argue that it is entirely appropriate. Until Barnet Tories learn to show respect for the residents they represent, they deserve none in return.

The chaplain began her prayer, and our Mayor, councillors and senior officers bowed their heads: always a difficult time for Mrs Angry, who struggles to keep a straight face at the sight of such an unlikely assumption of humility and spiritual reflection, here in the corporate temple of Capitaville.

The ministers leading prayers in the council chamber of Broken Barnet are surely blessed with an evangelical mission way beyond the expectation of God, or even the hopes of the ranks of heavenly angels, saints and martyrs looking down, in tears, on our elected representatives, their knavish hearts frozen in Thatcherite time by the Snow Queen herself, our former PM, now departed.

Ah well. Let it go, Mrs Angry. Let it go. Let it go, let it go.

The Chaplain began with an odd sort of choice of address to the Almighty. We must give thanks, she said, for the money that has been given for the 'regeneration' of Grahame Park. Oh. Ok. Bit political, thought Mrs Angry.

Worse still: let us give thanks for 'volunteers' (here there was a temptation to heckle something on the lines of not in our libraries, thank you very much), oh, and then 'the workers', and 'all in this assembly who have worked hard to make Barnet a better place'. That would exclude all those sitting on the far side of the chamber, then.

Christmas and Chanukah, she commented, were both festivals celebrating miracles. A phenomenon, thought Mrs Angry, unlikely to occur tonight, unless our feckless Tory councillors are suddenly transformed from a herd of donkeys into a pack of roaring lions, and find the courage to oppose the agenda of cuts and outsourcing, and defend the libraries most of them are privately assuring their residents they will not allow to close ...

Christmas, Mrs Angry, as the Chaplain also reminded us, is the season of peace, and goodwill.

But not in Broken Barnet, Reverend.

Declarations of interest: always amusing to watch, to see how the Tories address this requirement, or circumvent it with their self awarded 'dispensations'.

Tory Environment lead member Dean Cohen declared something (he mumbles, and Mrs Angry couldn't hear everything) about being in talks with a lighting business. He has mentioned this before. Must be very long talks. Not sure why it is relevant, anyway.

The Mayor put on a solemn expression now, as he had the sad duty to announce the death of a former deputy Mayor, that no one seemed to remember, but had been, he claimed, cheered up by a visit from him, coincidentally, on the very day before she passed away, during which he showed her an old picture of herself he had taken from the Town Hall, dressed in her robes of office. Mrs Angry observed that this demonstrated yet again the curious degree of significance that Rayner, and most of his fellow Tories, place on the status of being Mayor, above all other reasons of being in public office.

In an unprecedented step, he then announced that, in a demonstration of Mayoral patronage, he had arranged for coffee and mince pies to be made available for the public, in the lobby outside the chamber. We live in an age of foodbanks, of course, and noblesse oblige: and this gesture may or may not be related to the recent revelation by fellow blogger Mr Mustard, following a question by the sharp minded new Labour councillor, Rebecca Challice, about the cost of our councillors' slap up buffet at these meetings:

http://lbbspending.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/picnic.html

Question Time, next. Usual game playing by the Tories. It was good to see Brian Gordon, the right wing Tory member for Edgware, comment, in regard to one response, about the 'multi racial and multi cultural' population of this borough. Cllr Gordon, of course, apart from his enthusiasm for diversity, is fondly remembered for his blacked up impersonation of Nelson Mandela at a party in an old folks home.

Amandla, Brian.

He is also very good at providing leading questions for fellow Tories, on the lines of would the leader agree with me that we are the most wonderful council in the history of local government? He wanted to know from his fellow frozen hearted councillors about preparations for what a winter of blizzards, here in the blighted landscape of Broken Barnet.

Ah. An opportunity for Dean Cohen to revisit his finest political achievement - no, not the millions of pounds spent over the last couple of years on tarting up pavements in Tory wards, something far, far more successful. Cultivating a bunch of Pledgebankers.

No, not exactly cockney rhyming slang: this was a Big Society Idea, from a few year ago, using - yes - volunteers - to do the things we already pay our council to pay some other contractor to do, ie look after the borough.

As Mrs Angry recalls, at least two citizens in Cllr Cohen's own ward agreed to sign up - or at least pose for a photo opportunity - to shovel a load of grit provided by Barnet Council on those precious, tenderly cared for pavements of Golders Green (£1.1 million worth, in the last financial year).

Unfortunately the venture seems not to have caught on, very possibly because the idea of selfless volunteering has not been pioneered to any noticeable degree by our elected Tory councillors, and although our Tory friends think that libraries can be stripped of all professional or paid staff, our council chamber will remain stuffed full of largely redundant councillors, paid very nicely, thank you, and continuing to deliver shovel loads of shit policies on top of the heads of their electorate, while drawing up plans to replace senior officers with holographic representations, provided by Crapita, at only twice the going rate of six figure salaries, hidden behind the commercially sensitive front of agency provision, hidden behind a commercially sensitive, blogger-proof contract.

Questions continued with two telling admissions from the Tory 'Leader', Richard Cornelius:

In response to this question by Labour's Phil Cohen:

Q:' Visiting our local library with my family is the highlight of our week'. Who said that?

A: I don't know.

From Labour's Paul Edwards:

Q: Would the Leader confirm if any senior officer currently employed by the London Borough of Barnet has also been an employee of Capita in the last five years; and if so, for which Council Department/theme area are they currently employed?

A: I do not believe so, but it would not be a barrier to their employment.

Cornelius may not 'believe' so: if so, he is wrong, or badly informed. There is a senior officer who has worked for Capita for many years, and within that time frame, who is now heading one of the services being prepared for outsourcing, a proposal for which Capita has already been involved in 'market testing'.

Mrs Angry has been trying to ask questions about this from the new, part time, interim Monitoring Officer, since October, and only just received a reply - after resorting to shaming the Chief Operating Officer on twitter - a response which claims the individual has not worked for Crapita since 2011 and-

... has no ongoing financial interest in the company. In those circumstances, it cannot be said that a reasonable, objective and well-informed member of the public would see any conflict of interest.

Really? Obviously Mrs Angry is well informed, but cannot claim to be reasonable or objective: what do you think, reasonable and objective readers?

We hear that there are council protocols for such situations whereby conflicts of interest might occur, as described in the officers' code of conduct, with which of course the officer has complied with. No one doubts his honesty, but it is the responsibility of the council to have in place a system that addresses any possibility of risk from conflicts of interest, or even the perception of conflict of interest.

Are you confident, readers, that Barnet's protocols are sufficiently stringent to ensure the integrity of the tendering process for these outsourcing contracts, worth millions and millions of pounds of our money, bearing in mind the number of other senior officers who have come and gone between tendering companies, contractual partners, and consultancies?

After more knockabout questions, and careful evasions, and poor old Tory councillor Old getting his jacket caught in his chair, and finding himself unable to stand up to speak, it was on to the first item for debate: the interesting story of the council's new depot plans.

In their enthusiasm for the encouragement of property development, Barnet Tories, some way back, happily sold off the previous borough depot at Mill Hill East, before, oh dear, they had found a suitable site to take its place.

Plans to use a site at Pinkham Way, conveniently in an area bordering on Haringey, came to nothing, and now they want to use a location in Oakleigh Road South for the waste depot - and this has caused some concern amongst local residents.

Tory councillor Dean Cohen intervented to make another declaration of interest. A client of his, he said, owned a site adjoining the new proposed location.

Labour's Kathy Levine spoke about the council's incompetence in regard to this matter, not only in the failure to identify a suitable site, but in the price paid, in apparent panic, for the Abbotts Road property, which, she said was more than £5 and a half million more than the vendors had paid for it: Barnet was had over a barrel, she claimed.

Local Tory councillor Lisa Rutter stood up. Her queenly manner, assumed during her term of office as Mayor, an office she was clearly deeply reluctant to relinquish - as demonstrated by what seemed like a six hour long speech at the end of her term, has never entirely faded, despite the length of time since she was deposed.

She now made a dramatic declaration of intent to the chamber.

She would not vote for the plans.

A sharp intake of breath.

Oh.

She was going ...wait for it ... to abstain.

Her demeanour, at this point, was as one might expect to have seen on the shining, heroic face of Joan of Arc, headed for the stake, and not giving a damn for the fiery torment lined up for her.

Or that was her intention. In fact she appeared rather more in the guise, thought Mrs Angry, perhaps unkindly, of that woman, Margaret Dumont, in the Marx Bros films, always trying to rise above the anarchic chaos of the plot, and retain some semblance of dignity, but failing.

Vote against it, don't abstain, suggested someone. Well, ok: it was Mrs Angry.

You can't face both ways, said someone else. You know the Mayor will use his casting vote, and the plans will go through anyway.

And so he did, and so they did.

Lisa Rutter's residents should know and understand, and remember, that their local councillor could have voted against the depot plans, and they would not have been approved, but she chose not to, apparently putting party loyalties before the concerns of her constituents.

True Blue Lisa Rutter, failing to oppose the new depot plans

Mrs Angry's mind was wandering by now, but she suddenly found herself listening to an uncharacteristically bad tempered Dean Cohen launching an attack on Labour's abandonment of the grossly undemocratic working groups, an attempt by the Tories, terrified of the risks unleashed by the new committee system to their tenuous grip on power, to persuade the traditionally docile opposition to discuss and agree on policy proposals out of sight, behind closed doors, and beyond the reach of transparency and accountability: a travesty of the local democratic process, in short.

Labour should never have fallen for this, of course, but the leadership complied, until protests from more radically minded members such as Alan Schneiderman and Devra Kay led to their boycotting the whole farce. Alan reminded Dean Cohen now that hidden in the proposals put to one of these groups were suggestions that our street lights should be turned off at night, and the parks left unlocked: both putting women's safety at increased risk, amongst other consequences. By Labour councillors dragging the issues into the public arena, and inviting members of the public to attend, the Tories had then been forced into a retraction of these idiotic proposals.

Dean Cohen maintained the group meetings were held in public. Hmm, thought Mrs Angry, eventually - but kept a virtual secret, with no agenda, no papers, no public questions, no minutes: no democracy.

At this point in the evening, Alison Moore, the Labour leader, decided, at last, that she had had enough, and launched what was by usual standards an outspoken attack on Tory policy, nationally and locally, observing that we were seeing 'the inevitable destruction of local government as we know it'. Even Thatcher, she said, baulked at such extreme measures, and yet we were seeing this happen in Barnet.

She laid into a list of expenditure wasted on such things as paying over the odds for the new depot, the parking deficit, the extortionately high salaries of 14 senior officers earning more than £100,000. As for the millions wasted on consultants' fees: a 15% cut would save our libraries, wouldn't it? She accused the council of 'stunning incompetence', that Barnet's public services were not safe in Tory hands - you know it, and we will not support it.

Deputy Labour leader Barry Rawlings began to speak. As he did so, or perhaps because he did so, Tory councillor Anthony Finn, for some reason, fell off his chair, or rather - slowly slid forward, like Titanic on the slipway in Belfast, launched and moving inexorably towards the ocean floor.

The chamber looked on in surprise: a security officer rushed through the doors with impressive speed, and went to his assistance.

In the public gallery, the news that a Tory councillor had hit the deck was met with a certain amount of feverish excitement. Has someone kicked the bucket? asked one man behind Mrs Angry?

The word 'by election' shot through the gallery faster than a speeding bullet.

Fortunately Cllr Finn was hauled up from the floor of the chamber, unscathed, if somewhat embarrassed, and able to joke about there being no safe seat left in Barnet.

In many former Tory wards in Broken Barnet, this is most certainly the case.

Libdem Councillor Jack Cohen was speaking now.

A riveting speech from Cllr Cohen (screws loose, Jack?)

He was brandishing a copy of the Barnet Tory Town Hall pravda, 'Barnet First'. In it, he had found a lovely feature with Councillor Cornelius smiling benevolently at residents, and doing what sounds like a good example of what Mrs Angry's no 1 fan, ie Eric Pickles, emphatically does not want Town Hall administrations to do, ie wasting tax payers' money on agitprop. Do you, Eric? Tell them off, then: good and proper.

According to the Tory leader's message to the downtrodden masses of Broken Barnet, Crapita is starting to see the fruits of their labour, here in their latest and greatest colonial outpost.

Strange Fruit, concluded Mrs Angry, via Billie Holiday.

Jack Cohen observed that you do not pick fruit by cutting down the tree itself.

He also floated the idea, hat tip to @rustyrockets, in a thought popularly received in the public gallery, that Richard Cornelius was the 'Poundland Margaret Thatcher'.

Or perhaps, he suggested, with a dig at the Tory leader's Hatton Garden jewellery shop, a more suitable comparison would be Ratner's?

Cornelius replied with a brave if somewhat bizarre response, claiming that the Tories had fought off all Judicial Reviews brought against the council (clearly forgetting the parking fiasco) and that, ha ha: democracy was 'safe in Conservative hands'. Mmm.

Tory matron Joan Scannell spoke waspishly about 'nasty comments' and banged on, as the Tories still do, and will until the end of time, not about their own faults, but about the 'Labour deficit'. She said, in rather a 'nasty comment', that she could not wait to see what the opposition's financial proposals would be, and what they would cut.

Your allowance, suggested Mrs Angry.

Nasty comments: Joan Scannell

Oh dear. Sitting in the gallery was Gerrard Roots, the former curator of the Church Farmhouse Museum, which was shut, ransacked and put up for sale while Cllr Scannell and her Tory colleagues sat back and watched, without protest.

Gerrard, who may or may not have come to the Town Hall via the Greyhound, (tempting, but always risky, for anyone about to sit through a Barnet council meeting), and who is anyway yet to be persuaded to show anything other than the most scathing contempt for Barnet Tory councillors, and their reprehensible behaviour, does not give a flying fuck for their opinion, and nor does Mrs Angry, who was beside herself with mirth, as he was now moved to make a not necessarily universally popular recommendation to our elected representatives:

Earn your money - and SHUT UP, he suggested. Loudly.

Oh dear. Councillor Wendy Prentice, she of the bird of paradise coiffeure, was outraged by what seemed to Mrs Angry to be a perfectly reasonable request, and she squawked in fury across the chamber at the Mayor, to demand an apology.

I know who said it, she said, like some sort of uppity teaching assistant in a primary school assembly, as we fell about laughing: I RECOGNISE HIS VOICE ...

It is true to say that Gerrard has a rather splendid, withering patrician tone when he speaks, and that Councillor Wendy Prentice ... does not.

He was unmoved, and unrepentant.

I am not going to apologise, he said. And SHUT UP.

How funny that the Tory women were happy to see their slip-sliding colleague Antony Finn remark 'Calm down dear' to a female Labour member, and said nothing when their former pin up boy Brian Coleman insulted women in the public gallery, and called them 'old hags', and yet are so sensitive when a member of the public reminds them that they receive a generous allowance to represent us, the residents sitting in that gallery.

On with the motley: the panto continued with a turn by handle-bar moustachioed silver fox and renowned linguist, Cllr John Hart, who resembles a character in a vintage fifties British comedy, probably played by Terry-Thomas, or Leslie Phillips ...

Not eating all the pies, but clearly stimulating all the same: Cllr John Hart

Cllr Hart gave a frankly mystifying speech, even by his own standard, a benchmark that is pretty unbeatable.

It appeared that he was asking us to support his intention to, well: to stimulate the residents of Mill Hill with pie stalls.

Nope: don't ask me.

The residents of Mill Hill, Councillor John Hart, might be more stimulated by the thought of a Tory councillor with the integrity to defend their local library, and not vote through the current scabby proposals to shut it down, or sentence it to death by a thousand cuts.

And next we had the amusing spectacle of veteran Tory Cllr John Marshall on the subject of the truly shameful leaders' panel, which is the scabrous replacement for the former standards committee, politically weighted and a total joke.

Earlier in the evening, during the Q&A session, in response to the Labour leader's belated objections to the panel, and questioning its integrity, the Tory leader, running forward gingerly, in his vintage knee length footballer's shorts, to an open goal, remarked that it was strange that she should take part in a body that she felt lacked integrity.

Ah.

Back of the net.

Alison Moore now announced that Labour would be withdrawing from the process.

This is the only approach the opposition can possibly take, and should have been taken right from the moment any credibility was removed - but now the wider Labour group has made it clear the sort of co operation and consensus that the Tories try to exploit is no longer going to be an option, and so -hard luck, Tory councillors of Broken Barnet. Fings ain't wot they used to be.

Watch out.

Are you sitting comfortably?

Thank God. Half time. No oranges, but the lure of mince pies. Mrs Angry tried to retain some principles, and boycott them, but failed. An officer slipped into the gallery and whispered to Mr Shepherd that he was invited to come and sample the Mayor's hospitality. He smiled graciously - In the Mayor's Parlour, he asked? I have been there before, you know. No, Councillor Lord Shepherd: laid out on a trestle table outside the public gallery door.

The People's Mayor declined the offer, with pained dignity.

A Nightmayor, and the People's Mayor

Note to the Mayor: the mince pies were very nice, but too small, and not as good as Mrs Angry's. (Note to those seeking to corrupt Mrs Angry: cake usually does the trick. Or alcoholic persuasion, or whispering suggestions in her ear. Unless you work for Crapita, in which case ... no. No, no, no).

Where were we?

Recess over. Tories started without Labour, who didn't hear the recall bell.

A new Tory councillor, who, unique in that she appears to be, if not in the first flush of youth, of childbearing age, and in possession of her own teeth, and some faculties, made a maiden speech worrying about obese children. Mrs Angry tactfully tried not to look at any particular councillors, at this point.

The new councillor for Totteridge, Brian Coleman's replacement, thought it was a good idea to stop poor people becoming fat by sending them to their local park, and making them take up gardening. (Mrs Angry is yet to see ex Cllr Coleman jogging around Victoria Park, or buying secateurs in Homebase, but one hopes he will follow his successor's helpful advice, now that he is at a bit of a loose end and at risk of piling on those extra pounds).

Labour's Arjun Mittra, who is lovely, but perhaps could be described as being possessed of a cherubic figure, spoke with fondness of his interest in sport, as a child, having watched them all on tv as he indulged his interest in kebabs, pizza and pepsi. He did not say that he would be easily stimulated by pie stalls, but Mrs Angry thinks it likely.

New boy Tory cllr Gabriel Rozenberg also made his maiden speech. Not sure what it was about, but he decided to tell us about his own childhood aversion to sport, being a conscientious objector to all such compulsory activities . Mrs Angry felt a bond of kinship with Gabriel, reminded of her years at St Michael's, spent hiding during PE lessons, quaking with fear in the gym cupboard.

He explained that his mother, ie the journalist Melanie Phillips, used to ring his school and beg them to allow him to pursue a form of physical activity more suited to him, such as, he said, cats cradle, or origami. Which was rather funny. But then he went and spoiled it all, and provoked Mrs Angry into heckling him, by banging on about the wonderful parks and ancient woodland in his ward, and how children can benefit from these lovely places, and design their own obstacle courses and all that sort of thing.

As he spoke, Mrs Angry listened to the sound of Mr Shepherd, the People's Mayor, sellotaping together a selection of articles from the Morning Star, and sighed.

Cllr Rozenberg is a nice bloke, and very bright, and very possibly in the wrong party, but he is in the Tory party because he is naive, and representing as he does the favoured residents of Hampstead Garden Suburb, has simply no understanding of the real challenges faced by children, obsese, or not, or those maybe going without food altogether, or dependent on foodbanks, in the less advantaged areas of Broken Barnet, where there are no lovely parks, or ancient woodland, and the obstacles they must avoid are those created by a Tory government and local authority intent on demonising their parents, and punishing them for being poor.

Labour's Anne Hutton had an interesting contribution to make. She reminded members of the agreement that local primary schools had been given in regard to the grounds of the new Finchley Memorial Hospital. You may recall that Mrs Angry has questioned the curious excuse sometimes given by various Tories, the Mayor of London and TFL, that there is not enough space at FMH for a bus to take patients there, and deposit them, and turn around, when it is clear to see there is a load of unused grassed over space.

Cynical Mrs Angry has previously, and frequently, suggested this was because that land has secretly been earmarked for development (just as staff told her the rumour of the unoccupied building space being reserved for private practice): and lo and behold, it now seems that there is a rumour that the council wants to move the Lido from the other side of the High Road, and relocate it ... at Finchley Memorial. Well, then: what is the truth?

Cllr Hutton's own cynicism about funding for local projects has been aggravated by the promise of development for North Finchley library resulting, she said, in nothing more than a model replica of the building. It'll be bigger than the new one, said some wit in the gallery.

Back to reality, now, a far cry from ancient woodlands, and the first world problems of privately educated schoolboys, good or bad at sport: over to West Hendon, that portal into another dimension of Broken Barnet: a view of the borough our Tory councillors turn their backs on.

Labour's Adam Langleben spoke about the appalling treatment of residents of West Hendon now an area of 'regeneration', ie development, now being socially cleansed of their presence.

In this other Eden, the children of the poor are being packed up, cleared out, sent away, taken away from their schools, their friends, their neighbourhood - their community: and the land where their homes now stand has been sold to privateers, profiteers, who will drive the last of them out, knock down their houses, and build luxury properties for absentee owners, and speculator landlords.

As they wait for the final days of their years long, short term unsecure tenancies to end, or must give up the properties they were so enthusiastically encouraged to buy, the council has left them to live in squalor, in asbestos ridden, damp, rat infested properties neglected by the council over decades. Barnet Homes then turned on the leaseholders and landed them with massive, last minute bills for maintenance they as landlords had failed to implement. In some cases, the monthly payment for these demands is bigger than their mortgage.

As Adam observed, Barnet Tories are selling Thatcher's dream - the right to buy your own council home - right down the river. How ironic, sitting in the Town Hall that witnessed her election night triumphs, to hear the story of the betrayal of her key policy, the encouragement of aspiration, and the reward of hard working families with the keys to their own home. They have learned the hard way that the party which once pretended to want to help people out of poverty by persuading them to join the property ladder was only in it for a quick buck - and a chance to destroy the very concept of social housing.

Ah, but Tory housing lead member, the charmless Tom Davey, was on his feet, reverting to his new persona, that of the quiet man, who speaks in what he clearly thinks is a controlled and yet deadly manner, no longer the ranting juvenile: retaining the juvenile political extremism and ideology, but expressed in the moderate, soothing tones of a third rate stage hypnotist. Look into my eyes, and listen to my voice. You will feel sleepy, very sleepy, Mrs Angry, and then you will find yourself reading the Daily Mail, and hating benefit scroungers, and socialism, and wanting to buy a penthouse flat in a Barratt Homes development overlooking the Welsh Harp.

I am actually amused, he declared, in a tone of voice in which there was not the slightest trace, nor even an atomic memory, of any sense of humour.

He said that Cllr Langleben had misrepresented the truth, that there was no evidence of financial distress. The developers had already offered to pay costs, and help out.

Why now? shouted furious leaseholders in the gallery.

Only because of so much bad publicity, suggested Mrs Angry

It is true to say that some show of assistance has been miraculously made, latterly, by Barratts, albeit only in some cases. Mrs Angry has noted some weeks ago, at the height of direct action taken by local residents, and a good amount of sympathetic media attention on the plight of residents, that a certain PR company whose clients include the developers of the West Hendon project, have been reading and re reading her posts on the subject. It may be entirely coincidental, of course.

Labour's Devra Kay protested about the treatment of her constituents in West Hendon. Tom Davey shut his eyes, and held his head.

Her colleague Paul Edwards pointed out that the council was not there simply to facilitate profit, it is there to ensure social and economic justice.

Nope. Deaf ears. Nothing.

Cllr Langleben alleged then that those few residents who had been offered a new deal were given them only on condition of accepting a gagging order, which is quite extraordinary, if true. Why would that be the case, do you suppose?

He observed, with good cause, that the Tories are running scared of the judge let public housing inquiry into the West Hendon leaseholder scheme, due to take place in January, following orders from Uncle Eric Pickles.

Oh, and Labour would be writing to all council tenants in the borough, warning them of what was likely to happen to them, too.

Davey looked bored. Other Tory councillors looked embarrassed. They know they have betrayed the leaseholders, even if they don't give a shit about the tenants they have planted in West Hendon, rounded up like hostages, prepared for the moment when they will be bussed out of Broken Barnet, beyond the boundaries of our borough, to become someone else's problem.

The meeting wound up then.

Happy Chanukah, and Merry Christmas, said the Mayor.

Unless you are a leaseholder in West Hendon, observed Mrs Angry, as she packed up her notebook and pens.

What about the druids? wondered Mr Shepherd, aloud to himself, worrying about this fellow Mayor's failure to be fully inclusive, in his festive greetings.

Everyone drifted out. All the cuts and outsourcing proposals, and the destruction of our library service had been voted through, on a majority of one, and barely anyone noticed. Painfree privatisation, the easycouncil way.

At least: that's what they want to believe.

But the real battle is fought not in the council chamber of Broken Barnet, or by motions to council, or pointless pantomime debates.

It's up to us now, to inform the residents of this borough of every Tory councillor who voted for the next round of outsourcing and cuts in budgets, and then tries to tell them, with a nod and a wink, that of course they won't allow their local library to close, or that depot to be built next door to their homes.

Look at the evidence - when have any of them had the courage to stand up for what is right, and just, and put the best interests of residents before the mindless tribal loyalty to their own group, and their own political ambitions?

The battle in the council chamber and committee rooms of the Town Hall - the pantomime - is a diversion from the real war going on around us.

The real struggle is outside, in the hands of ordinary residents, and activists, and campaigners, and in the words written in the press, and this blog, and spoken on tv, or the radio, or via social media: it is the battle for the hearts and minds of voters. And that campaign is underway, drawn up, mapped out, on the march.

The Tory councillors of Broken Barnet may or may not survive the next three years or so, with their slender majority: but their foolishness has very likely cost the three local Tory MPs irreparable damage in their chances of being returned to parliament next May. Either way: this war will all be over by next Christmas: it remains to be seen who is the winner, in the end.

The western boundaries of this borough have always represented a problem for the Tory councillors of Broken Barnet.

Hostile territory, populated by an indigenous people, working class communities: Labour voters.

The very existence of such areas of unconquered land is of course an affront to the founding fathers of our easycouncil empire, and a challenge to their dwindling electoral dominance: but it is also an opportunity that attracts the pioneering political ideologues of the Tory administration - assisted by the attentions of private developers who are adept at persuading those that need to be persuaded of the benefits of large scale development schemes, dressed in the guise of 'regeneration'.

This part of our borough, the western side, has been heavily targeted for 'regeneration', with massive development plans for Brent Cross- Cricklewood, Colindale, Grahame Park - and West Hendon.

Nothing must stand in their way: any objections are brushed aside, or carefully managed.

Only this week it emerged that the new Colindale development by Fairview New Homes, approved by Barnet Tory councillors in July, will involve the demolition of the recently closed British Library newspaper archive.

That this irreplaceable historic building, a brilliant example of thirties architecture, a curious hybrid of art deco meets functionalist brick modernism, stuffed full of original internal features, should be facing destruction, is unthinkable.

Opened in 1932, by Gilbert Murray, eminent classic scholar - and great grandfather of Polly Toynbee. Due to be destroyed by Barnet Tory councillors, who see the word library, and reach for their guns.

That these developments are not regeneration, and will not provide a better quality of life for the residents of these areas is demonstrated by the nature of the new developments, the absence of social housing, the indifference shown for any reasonable definition of 'affordable' housing, and worse still: the eradication of entire communities within these areas, and a policy that really is nothing less than the living demonstration of a term, an accusation, that was once an exaggeration, but here in Broken Barnet has become reality - that is to say, the act of social cleansing.

Barnet Tories blunder about the landscape of this borough blindly, impulsively, eschewing the aid of any sort of moral compass, or principle, other than a sense of divine right to do exactly what they want; neo Thatcherites, as distant from, and as close to, what passes for modern Conservative ideals as any UKIP candidate, languishing in the past that never was, the glorious era when Margaret was in Number 10, and all was well with the world.

Like docile puppies, they are led by the leash by their own senior management, cohorts of parasitical consultants and their masters, the private sector outsourcing companies, and by the would be developers of Broken Barnet.

Commercial proposals are presented in an easycouncil ideological package, encouraging our councillors to believe that the mass outsourcing of public services is a necessary move, that the development of vast tracts of former areas of social housing is for the greater benefit of the borough.

The lack of leadership in the Barnet Tory group, and absence of any organised political strategy has led to major policy areas left in the hands of inadequate and inexperienced lead members, with huge budgets and responsibilities for decisions which have had terrible impact on the daily lives of residents.

One example is the case of the environment expenditure overseen by Dean Cohen, which diverted highways money to Tory wards, and his own ward, while we now see a crisis in funding for essential maintenance.

Another example is the ill judged appointment of Tom Davey as lead member for housing.

It would be unfair to lay the blame for Barnet Tories' monstrous housing record entirely on Davey, of course: the antipathy borne by this administration towards any sort of social housing, and a natural inclination to regard the duty to encourage the provision of affordable housing as entirely optional, is deeply embedded in their culture, and he is only the ranting mouthpiece of their collective subconscience, and their total lack of understanding, or compassion, for those in need.

Our Tory councillors have made it plain that market forces should dictate who lives in this borough. If you cannot afford to do so; clear off, and if you are here already, and you are facing homelessness, or struggling to find accommodation: be afraid. Be very afraid. You will be moved on, and out, as soon as they can legally do so.

Even if you pass the test of their moral judgement, and can prove you are not one of the undeserving poor, you may only aspire to the temporary dispensation of a five year tenancy.

For those residents who are council tenants in certain parts of our borough, especially in West Hendon, the last frontier of Broken Barnet, your tenancy is even less secure.

You may have lived there for ten years, but Barnet Council keeps you there on a temporary basis, so as to minimise your housing rights, to dispose of you as they wish, when they knock down your home to make way for the better sort of resident: the kind Tom Davey wants to see living here.

You may be a leaseholder, who did the very thing our Thatcherite councillors urged you to do, to aspire to better yourselves, and become property owners, by buying your council flat. Hard luck. Your home will be demolished too, and just before that happens, Barnet Homes will land you with a massive bill for thousands of pounds of 'maintenance ' work on the condemned properties.

These are the people whom local resident and activist Jasmin Parsons recently described as being kept there in a 'reservation' - the analogy is apt: a gathering of indigenous people, the last of their tribe: social tenants - rounded up, detained, and fed with false promises, their own land taken from them, and handed over to land grabbing speculators.

http://wwwbrokenbarnet.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/this-is-our-land-tales-from-cricklewood.html

And yes: the land was taken, and given away, to all intents and purposes. We don't know the full details, because they are shrouded under a blanket of counter transparency, in the guise of 'commercial sensitivity'. Were the developers charged anything like market rates for the land? We are not allowed to know, even years later.

Read on, and let us remind ourselves of the way this development has slowly, stealthily evolved, as so many things do, in Broken Barnet, from what was once an innocent sounding idea, a proposal to improve the standard of living of tenants living in West Hendon, and a genuine commitment to regeneration, shape-shifting by degrees, carefully managed, to an entirely different outcome.

Because in the end, we saw nothing more than a long good bye to the regeneration of the area, and a warm welcome by our Tory councillors to a luxury housing development that will bring huge profits to Barratts, but deprive the borough of much needed units of social housing, and, let us not forget, a substantial amount of publicly owned land: see a community destroyed, and the area scoured of the presence of the working class, Labour voting residents whose home it has been for so long. Social cleansing, social engineering: gerrymandering.

Well, then. Who cares? Who even knows about all this? Not many, until recently.

Mrs Angry, it must be said, is not a fan of celebrity political gobshites, or ex boy band multi millionaires making sad films for charity fundraising events, on behalf of causes that would not need to fundraise, if ex boy band multi millionaires paid their f*cking taxes; or of soap actors making sad films of dolphins who are probably thinking: please go away, and stop patronising a superior life form; or fading reality star celebs, who can't sing, demonstrating their humanitarian prowess by warbling tunelessly in a studio in Hampstead, because Bob Geldof says they must.

Mrs Angry has never been a great fan of Russell Brand, either, even though he appears to avoid dolphins, singing, and sad eyed charity appearances. But still: she might be warming to him, a. for being as rude as possible to the insufferable Mr Ferridge on BBCQT, and b. taking an interest in the New Era story and now, c. goodness me, most gratifyingly, turning his attention to the shameful, little known story of West Hendon.

Take a look at this short film:

An extraordinary piece, really: featuring some of the truly admirable residents of this estate who are refusing, with great courage and determination, to accept the decisions of the council, with the developers, to destroy their community, and hand the land they live on over for the big fat profits of a private developer.

Time to go back and look at the genesis of the West Hendon development then, I think.

The story begins in 2001, when the government produced a 'Decent Homes Programme' that the then council administration in Barnet decided was rather a good idea. Yes, I know what you are thinking: sounds unlikely until you know that this was in the halcyon days when there was a Labour-Libdem coalition.

In response, the authority began to formulate plans to regenerate the West Hendon area, where there was dire need of improving the stock of social housing already in place, and investment in the area as a whole, including not just the estate but around West Hendon Broadway.

Pledges were made to the people living on the estate, who were then balloted for their views on the proposals. Amongst these pledges were the following promises:

You will have a brand new home
All will be housed on the new development
You will have a choice of landlord
You will have a choice of where to move
You have a real say in the regeneration
York Memorial Park will not be touched
Homeowners properties will be bought at current housing prices
No major works will be undertaken while the regeneration is under construction

Sounds reasonable, doesn't it?

But as local Labour councillor Adam Langleben will want to explain to the Inquiry due to be held this month - more on that later - every one of these promises has been broken, as a result of the new development now taking place, sanctioned by the Tory administration, a plan masquerading as the original regeneration but in effect a total inversion of everything the very principle that began the process all those years ago.

The scheme approved in 2002 did not exclude the current residents from the footprint of the area of new housing - they were an integral part, the reason for the regeneration. Now they have been relegated to a minimal consideration, a nuisance, held back behind the black painted wall that surrounds the new building work, and access to the formerly public land.

Mrs Angry visited the West Hendon estate last year several times, in the course of canvassing for the local elections, and wrote about it more than once, for example here:

http://wwwbrokenbarnet.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/once-upon-time-in-west-hendon-or-mrs.html

That wall: the black painted fence that surrounds the no go area around the new development, and keeps the privileged views of the Welsh Harp away from the residents of the old estate - that was the thing that kept drawing the eye.

And stirring up thoughts of another wall, in another example of social apartheid, in which the gulf between those with means, and those without, was held back by bricks and mortar: built to keep the residents of social housing away from their middle class, owner-occupier neighbours - the story of the
Cutteslowe Wall, in Oxford.

The difference here is that this story is from eighty years ago, and after early direct action by local people and activists, and obstruction by police and the developers, it was the local council who eventually demolished it, keen to be seen as progressive, moving towards a more decent, more inclusive society.

Here in Broken Barnet, of course, where housing policy is not about fairness, or decency but more about cramming as much profit as possible into every available piece of land, our socially regressive council is reversing time itself, and forcing us back to the age of segregation, where the demands of private enterprise take precedence over equality, and humanity.

As local AM, and former (and future) Hendon MP Andrew Dismore will no doubt remind the Inquiry, due to the developers' desire to screw as much profit as possible from Hendon Waterside, there will now be a huge increase in the density of housing in this area, far in excess of the GLA's recommended level, with monstrous tower blocks up to 29 storeys in height - yes, 29 - imposed on the beautiful surroundings of the Welsh Harp - a fragile site of Special Scientific Interest - with terrible impact on the location both as a local amenity, and as a precious urban retreat for London's wildlife.

But Barnet Tories care as little for ecological sensitivities as they do for culture, heritage, or indeed, the well being of the residents of the West Hendon estate. If there is no consideration for the rights of social housing tenants, there is no hope at all for the protection of the wildlife and environmental balance of the area.

Equally repellant, in the new order of development, is the forcible annexation of York Memorial Park, to be included now in the building scheme, despite all promises, and the impact of loss of more open space - and most shamefully of all, in full defiance of this park's historic significance.

York Park was created to commemorate the loss of many lives - and homes - in this part of West Hendon in a single bombing raid, in 1941. It is simply an abhorrant idea that what was intended as a memorial, in perpetuity, for the victims of war, should itself become a victim of speculative greed.

Where did the break happen, between a genuine attempt to improve the lives of residents of this area, and the invitation to property speculators to move in, throw out those residents, and use the publicly owned land they live on for private profit, screwed out of a luxury housing development?

The original agreement was made in 2002, with a consortium comprising Bellhouse Joseph, Lovells, and Metropolitan Housing Trust. In 2005, however, Bellhouse Joseph and Lovells pulled out, and were replaced by Barratts, forming the new 'Barratt Metropolitan LLP'.

According to the 'Statement of Reasons', a document published last June, formalising the council's Compulsory Purchase Orders of leasehold properties, the following explanation is given for the changes made to the 2002 agreement :

Whilst both the Council and the Developer remained committed to delivering the aims of the West Hendon regeneration project, the changing economic climate was starting to impact on the proposals. It was agreed between the Council and the Developer that further development under the 2008 Scheme was not possible taking into account the emerging viability and deliverability issues in the period from 2009 onwards.

Now there will be a net loss of 200 rented properties of affordable or social rent status, and clearly what little provision there is left is grudging, and deliberately marginalised.

So what started as the regeneration of a working class area, a commitment to the delivery of better housing and facilities for a local community, has become something entirely different: the creation of 'Hendon Waterside', a land grabbing colonisation from which the local community is not only excluded, but is being removed, 'decanted', in order to make way for the sort of residents our Tory councillors prefer: those who can afford the eye wateringly expensive penthouse flats of a luxury development. And those who are more likely to vote Conservative, of course.

http://www.barratthomes.co.uk/new-homes/greater-london/H441801-Hendon-Waterside

And all because of 'viability and deliverability issues' which occurred within twelve months of the new developers taking over. What an awful shame that they were unable to predict the pressures which were to require the transformation of a regeneration scheme for residents, into a hugely lucrative new development for anyone wealthy enough to be able to afford an exclusive view of the Welsh Harp, in one direction, and a panoramic spread of the kebab shops of the Edgware Road, from the other.

Perhaps the wild geese who visit the Welsh Harp, at least, will remind those exiled Russian oligarchs so yearned for by Cllr Tom Davey, of home. Or perhaps, rather more likely, they will never materialise, and most of these flats, like so many in the other 'regeneration' areas of the borough, will remain empty, bought by overseas investors, and absentee owners.

In the meanwhile, the tenants and leaseholders of the West Hendon estate are being treated abominably: one third of tenants have non secure status, despite some of them having been living there for up to twelve years, and despite others having been moved there, to the reservation, after being 'decanted' from the Stonegrove estate, prior to its development, and gentrification. Some of the West Hendon tenants are being moved to Grahame Park, only to face further uprooting in a couple of years when yet another process of faux regeneration begins. Doesn't matter, to our Tory councillors. Social tenants are expendable: a problem to be resolved: removed.

Leaseholders already facing what many consider to be an undervalued estimate for their homes - assessed by Capita - have been served with bills of thousands of pounds for work the council, via Barnet Homes, insists their properties, due to be demolished, require, even though the authority, as property owners, failed to maintain them.

Tenants have been served with eviction notices, and those who did not turn up to court, allegedly in some cases because the council led them to believe they did not need to attend, have found themselves disadvantaged in the process of where they are reaccommodated, whereas those who did go to court, and challenged the order have had better offers of more secure housing.

Since residents and activists have stirred up a certain amount of media interest, the 'development partners' have made offers to some of those residents, agreements alleged to be subject to 'gagging orders' to those who accept their more favourable terms, and also reportedly requiring a withdrawal from the forthcoming Inquiry.

Ah yes: the Inquiry.

This will be a formal process, led by an Inspector, Zoe Hill, appointed by Eric Pickles to hear objections to the compulsory purchase orders referred to above. The hearings are open to the public, and are expected to last eight days, opening at 10 am, on the 20th January, for the first day's proceedings at the Holiday Inn, Brent Cross. It will then move to the Town Hall for the rest of the hearing, at which both Barnet, Capita, and Barratts, their legal representatives, and of course a group of local residents, including Jasmin Parsons, will give evidence and present their cases.

Maybe the Inquiry will bring about a better deal for some of the residents of the former West Hendon estate.

And of course Barratt's black fence around Hendon Waterside will come down, eventually, when the project is complete.

But the wall will still be there.

Unexpected dangers lie everywhere, in the wider world of politics now, don't they?

A cartoon: a line on a page, a caricature, a moment of spontaneous expression, frozen in time. A few words, ill chosen, on twitter. An opinion spoken in debate, recorded for ever.

Best to avoid any of these blunders, if you are hoping to be a successful politician: or maybe just to stay alive.

The virtual world, where you can live in the shadows, behind a mask of anonymity, or a world defended by spin merchants: much easier, isn't it?

No surprise, really, then, that our Prime Minister is so scared of live debate, with his political opponents: too much risk of exposure, and real challenge.

Here in Broken Barnet, the Conservative leader and his colleagues similarly try to avoid the cold light of scrutiny, and any meaningful discussion with the electorate.

And out three local Tory MPs are awfully shy too, avoiding any open public meetings, for fear of being confronted with awkward questions from their constituents.

Here in Broken Barnet, however, our grassroots political life, and the activism which flourishes in this borough, has not yet become entirely bullied into a state of silent conformity, despite the fond wishes of the Tory administration, and if you want to take part in a real debate, on a range of issues, local, or national: take your pick. There is always something going on.

(Of course, Mrs Angry always refuses to take part in any political debate, unless there is a member of the Green Party present, preferably wearing a skirt made out of recycled tea towels, and planning to return another Tory administration, by splitting the vote - but you know, really, the Prime Minister might be a little more flexible).

That is the curious thing about Tory activists, isn't it, though, the lack of, well - activitism - that they engage in? Or rather: they don't engage, do they? They raise a lot of money, and they shove a lot of leaflets through letter boxes, but they certainly don't knock on Mrs Angry's door and try to discuss any of the political issues that concern us all.

To be fair, they probably don't dare knock on Mrs Angry's door, and Tory canvassers no doubt have her address marked with a big red circle, with a sternly worded warning.

Shame.

(In fact, they've only tried calling here once, when Mrs Angry was ill in bed, and was obliged to croak instructions to her son to tell them to f*ck off out of it, which he failed to do, in his typically disobedient way).

There are so many political events and meetings, in Broken Barnet, each week, that it is impossible to attend them all. This is a really encouraging sign of the extent of engagment that residents have with their community, and the issues which concern us, or some of us: the point is to be informed, and to exchange ideas, and to organise resistence to the grossly illiberal agenda of the government here in Barnet, and nationally.

If not now, when? And if not here, in Broken Barnet, the heartland of Conservatism, the cradle of Thatcherism, where else?

Thursday night saw the third meeting of a new initiative by Barnet Labour (yes, yes -I know, I know - no: really ...) - a Housing Commission, set up to address the crisis in affordable accommodation that faces the residents of this borough, paralysed by the grip of a Tory administration which, as the West Hendon story demonstrates so acutely, is set on excluding the most needy members of our community from the right to decent housing - and ultimately, on excluding them from residence in this borough - and if you think that is an exaggeration, then please read the previous post.

The commission took place in a mosque youth centre, a small local hall in West Hendon just on the other side of the Edgware Road from the doomed council estate about to be demolished to make way for a luxury Barratts development, 'Hendon Waterside'.

Walking up to the hall, it was clear that all the surrounding shops were shut, shutters down, some seemed permanently closed. No sign of Carluccio's moving in yet, to be frank. This regeneration thing: not quite been thought through, has it?

Nicky Gavron is the Chair of the Commission, and introduced the other members of the panel to a packed audience, which included many residents from the estate, as well as people from across the borough, and a curious couple of rather tetchy looking men sitting right at the front of the seats.

Someone whispered to Mrs Angry that one of these men was a UKIP activist: and later they were joined by another one, whom she remembered from last year's local elections, standing for UKIP in Barnet. In fact, it is pretty easy to spot the kippers in any political meeting, by their age, gender, and general air of sulkiness. Always men: presumably their womenfolk are busy at home, cleaning behind the fridge, or ironing their pyjamas ...

Commission members, apart from Labour's housing lead member Ross Houston, and the leader Alison Moore, were: Glyn Thomas, who has experience of Co-operative housing schemes, Rabbi Danny Rich, the Reverend Colin Smith, a Methodist minister and former CAB manager, Janet Solomons, a resident with an interest in disability issues and a former social care professional, and Tony Clements, former policy advisor to the last Labour housing minister.

The meeting began with a rather surreal presentation, for no reason anyone could see, from a woman whose company makes eco friendly pre fab houses. It was rather like being trapped in a room with a double glazing saleswoman. Everyone kept quiet, and hoped she would stop, eventually. An activist from Our West Hendon commented, half heartedly, after the hard sell, that they were living in concrete blocks: if Labour came to power, she wondered, could they have the same sort of homes, in West Hendon? No reply.

The men from UKIP were not ready to move on. One of them, a man wearing a brown bomber jacket, and an expression of deep suspicion, felt obliged to pose a number of detailed, probing questions into the manufacturing specifications of the prefab panelling.

Mrs Angry wondered if UKIP have some sort of policy against prefab panelling. Most of it is made in Germany, you know, like Mrs Ferridge, and then assembled on site. The panelling, not Mrs Ferridge. (Although one imagines most UKIP men would prefer a female companion that requires some sort of assembly - or perhaps inflation). And then Mrs Angry remembered that UKIP have no policies, because Mr Ferridge got rid of them all, for fear of people finding out what they are.

And so it continued throughout the evening, at every point of opportunity, up, up in the air went the hand of the bomber jacketed kipper, to ask an awkward question, like the class swot trying to catch the teacher out. Mrs Angry sat with an evil smile on her face, and waited.

Meanwhile, it was time for GLA member, and once and future Labour MP for Hendon, Andrew Dismore, to address the Commission.

He listed the factors that have created the crisis in housing in Barnet: the secrecy around the agreements between the authority and developers; the nonsensical definition of 'affordable' housing; the impact of so many overseas investors buying new homes off-plan, in cash, excluding local residents from new developments.

He talked about the 'ghettoisation' of so called regeneration schemes, the lie to the notion that such plans delivered mixed developments; about the impact on the wider community of large scale projects, such as in Colindale, where a massive increase in population is not supported by any consideration of the need for extra GPs, transport or parking, let alone the provision of recreational land for the families that will live there.

Turning to the case of West Hendon, he commented that the development which is now in hand 'could not be more different' to the plans originally put to the local residents. They had wanted to be re-balloted, when the radical changes were made, but were ignored.

And now, he reminded us, we see the Tory housing policy in Barnet moving even further along the path of injustice by adopting a proposal to increase council tenants' rent to a staggering 80% of the market level. This absurd and deeply unfair decision will have the result of barring anyone whose income threshold is low enough to meet the authority's social housing application criteria from being able to afford the rent: Catch 22.

As Mrs Angry has observed, this move is clearly deliberately engineered to fit the Tory agenda of removing the poorest and most vulnerable residents from Barnet, and to make sure that none cannot settle permanently here. It is a logical extension, in a way, of their decades long stigmatism of gypsies and travellers, defying the law on statutory provision of even one legal stopping place, and using police to evict at once any families who come to the borough, who might offer a legal challenge of their inhuman policy. The Tory war on the poor, at its most blatant, now targeting not just those passing through, but those already here.

Someone asked why the issues of inadequate infrastructure at the Colindale development at Beaufort Park had not been addressed before planning permission was given. A good question, to which Dismore replied that Labour had submitted their objections, but these were completely ignored by the Tories, who simply proceeded, and continue to proceed, with their blinkered policies of social engineering.

Labour's Colindale councillor Gill Sargeant agreed, and said the Tories were building up problems for the future. She also revealed, to widespread indignation, that in this development, social tenants were barred from using the gym, even if they could afford it.

There were no amenities for children, no play areas: when she raised concerns over this, she claimed, they were assured by the developers that there would be no children, in Beaufort Park. A local vicar ventured his expert opinion that children are very likely to be an unavoidable consequence of human relationships, even in the carefully controlled environment of Beaufort Park. A woman in the audience commented that the intention was probably to sterilise the poorer residents. Some laughed: some of us remain unamused, as it seems at times, here in Broken Barnet, that the next step along the path being followed now is not so far removed from such a proposal.

These terms we use: social engineering, social cleansing, ghettoisation - gerrymandering - they are no exaggeration: this is reality, now, in this borough, in London - in this country, held hostage as we are now, by a government determined to reclaim the authority and power of those with money over those without, to deprive them of the right to equality, and the hope of a better life.

Two commission members asked Andrew Dismore what a Labour Mayor of London, or a Labour government, might do to improve housing provision. The answer is obvious, to us, of course: ensure that developments have a higher number of affordable housing content, and in regard to large scale plans already in progress, like in West Hendon - look at the joint agreements, so carefully hidden behind the wall of 'commercial sensitivity', and address the phasing of the plans, where there is room for adjustment. Or:

Expropriate the land! demanded an elderly man sitting in front of Mrs Angry.

Time to hear from Dan Knowles, who is representing the residents of West Hendon facing compulsory purchase orders of their homes, and negotiating on their behalves. He will also give evidence at the forthcoming public Inquiry set up by Pickles, in response to objections over this process.

He gave a telling resume of the events leading to the situation we have now, in West Hendon, the genesis of a development in which, from the moment the Tories got their grubby little hands on it, was fated to cease being one for the benefit of the residents who lived on the estate, and to become a hugely lucrative proposal for private developers keen to seize the opportunities offered by this rare and beautiful site, by the Welsh Harp. An opportunity, once the obstacle of social housing is removed, of course.

Mr Knowles described the absence of proper consultation once the new plans were slipped under the cover of the old regeneration scheme: the secrecy, and refusal to release the viability scheme. He also explained that when the CPOs were issued, this took place in some cases within hours of the purchase offer being made. Deliberate timing, you would reasonably conclude. Maximise the pressure on the leaseholders, minimise their options.

Next speaker was Steve Cowan, the new Labour leader of Hammersmith and Fulham. And it was an inspiring speech : how refreshing it was to see a Labour leader, newly elected, determined to give residents a real alternative to the Tory agenda of cuts, lack of investment in policies with social benefit.

He remarked what a disappointment it had been to see Barnet fail to win the election, and indeed it was: all the more so because, as we know, with better strategy and leadership, Labour would have won: should have won.

He told us about Hammersmith & Fulham, under Tory rule, the same ideologically driven pattern of private development rather than genuine regeneration, from a Conservative party that maintains the residents of social housing are 'locked into a dependency culture'.

By challenging the agreements he inherited from the previous administration, Cowan was able to reclaim a total of around £26 million, which begs the question as to what the viability schemes and all the secret agreements that accompany the developments here in Barnet are hiding from us. Are we getting value for money? Or are these developers exploiting the public purse, with the approval of our Tory council?

He gave lots of good advice on how to scrutinise these deals, and hold developers to account, but ultimately, as he stated, the only way forward is - to vote Labour.

The applause which followed this was markedly not supported by our UKIP friends at the front, of course, who sat there, stony faced. Up shot the arm of the man in the leather jacket, keen to ask a question, which turned into a somewhat ill tempered objection to council tax banding. The moment for denouement had arrived, thought Mrs Angry.

Are you by any chance, she asked, with studied innocence, a UKIP member?

Yes: he was, he snapped.

That was it. Uproar: the audience jeered, loudly, the room suddenly filled with a weight of palpable hostility.

You're not among friends here, mate, yelled a man at the back.

The UKIPpers sat rigidly in their seats, eyes ahead: unveiled, outnumbered, and surrounded. There was a moment, then, when Mrs Angry thought things just might turn ugly. It passed, luckily for the men from UKIP.

On with the meeting. Steve Cowan revealed that the £26 million clawed back from development schemes in Hammersmith and Fulham had been redirected to housing association and other similar projects. They were looking now at the possibility of building social housing: he pointed out that reserves earning such low rates of return would be better off following the investment route of overseas buyers, in housing stock, although with a more beneficial outcome in mind.

Steve also revealed that above his door, where he sees it everytime he leaves his office, is a piece of paper with a number on it: 22163.

That is the number of people who voted for him, he said, and it reminds him that they are his boss.

Can't imagine Barnet Tory leader Richard Cornelius doing that, can you?

He knows who is boss, in Capitaville - and it certainly isn't the residents and tax payers of this borough.

Two members of local campaign groups, were next to speak. First was Janette Evans, of Barnet Housing Action Group, who was visibly upset as she spoke of the human cost of what was happening in West Hendon: the impact on mothers, fathers, children: it broke her heart, she said, to see these families living as they do, in limbo, living in the middle of a building site, where the children cannot play outside in safety, due to the risk from lorries, and the pollution and dirt caused by the construction work.

Another concern, which few have spoken about, is in terms of the effect on mental health of the residents going through this protracted ordeal. There is a suggestion, which she did not refer to directly, but has been raised elsewhere, that vulnerable tenants already struggling with health or addiction problems have deliberately been placed on the estate, on non secure tenancies, with total indifference to the consequences on their well being.

There is a difference, said Janette, between a house and a home.

Barnet, she added, was deliberately destroying the sense of community on the estate.

In truth, thought Mrs Angry, Barnet might well want to destroy a sense of community, but their actions over the last few years have united the people of West Hendon, and created a new sense of kinship between neighbours and residents, with bonds that show a real strength, and increasing sense of power.

One of the leading figures in this local resistence movement is the magnificent Jasmin Parsons, who spoke next.

West Hendon, she said, was a degenerated, not regenerated estate.

She accused the council and developers of 'raping our land, shafting us residents, fleecing the taxpayer' ... She also laid into Metropolitan Housing, partners with Barratts in Hendon Waterside: meant to be a charity for social housing, she said, but complicit in 'booting the tenants off the estate'.

We should be building council houses, for people to rent. She blamed 'the Maggot', for trying to brainwash everyone into thinking they have to buy, buy, buy ...

This is the curious thing, of course: that Margaret Thatcher's heirs in Tory Barnet fail to feel even the slightest twinge of remorse for betraying those former tenants who did what they say they want them to do: to aspire to 'better' themselves, and become property owners.

But then remorse, and sympathy, and conscience, are not qualities to be found in abundance in the ranks of the Tory party, are they? And Thatcher's heirs no longer pretend to want to help the lower orders out of poverty: they are actively removing the very channels that might help them do that: access to good healthcare, education, housing, libraries: all being taken away, or assaulted to the point of failure and collapse. They don't want them to aspire, any more: they want them to disappear off the face of the earth.

Question time, but next not so much a question as a howl of anger, from a woman resident: she was sick and tired of the council's 'bullshit story', 'expert at telling us white lies ...'

There are allegations that residents were facing eviction were told it was not necessary to attend court, as the proceedings were a formality. Those who ignored this 'advice' have been granted stay of execution, and the hope of a better outcome. These allegations should be investigated, because clearly such advice would have had a detrimental impact on the future of those residents.

Another woman, a leaseholder, an elderly woman using a stick for support, talked about her wish to grow old in the place she knew, where her GP and hospital support was familiar, not to be forced out to a place where she knows nobody, as she becomes older and more needy. The rights of human beings, however, were supplanted by the cold view of the council that she should 'embrace the new culture' ... how can we soften them, she wondered?

In the open mike session which followed, Father John, one of the two local vicars who have been so diligent in supporting their parishioners and the wider local community throughout the last few terrible years came to the front and addressed the commissioners in a short but forthright, and unequivocal, speech.

Mrs Angry has nothing but respect for these two men, acting out their faith in practical demonstration, and not afraid to speak out, when it counts.

He asked about the cost of the housing policy not just in commercial terms, or the environment, but in other ways: to do with the human spirit. Not something, of course, that is easily quantified by the valuation department of Crapita, guessed Mrs Angry.

Barnet Alliance member Julian Silverman observed that during the war, local people were driven out of their houses by Nazi bombs: now they are being driven out by developers.

It wasn't hard to see another parallel, from wartime, however, thought Mrs Angry, in the blitz spirit and defiance of the people who are being targeted by this assault, a campaign by stealth, and deceit, rather than by fire and explosion.

Talking of the war reminded East Finchley resident George of the difficult years of his parents generation, in the nineteen thirties. It seemed to him that we were returning to those times. And he predicted that the West Hendon development, and the similar schemes on the western side of the borough, would act as a template for future plans, on the other side, as he put it, of the North Circular. They are, he stated, with deep feeling, destroying London's social capital. This is the social capital, here, he said, looking around him.

A Unite member took his turn to speak, saying the Labour group needed to speak more clearly, both locally and nationally. Alison Moore looked on while Nicky Gavron reminded him that the Commission itself was only happening because of Labour.

Because there is an election, suggested some cynic in the audience.

Some one suggested that as the Labour group is not in power, there is little they can do: you still need to speak out, said someone. It might have been Mrs Angry.

Labour: Thatcher's wet dream, muttered someone else.

In fact, as one of the local campaigners wrote to Mrs Angry this week, "West Hendon has been blessed with good councillors and the support of a lot of decent human beings supporting them ..."

Agnes Slocombe, for example, is a long serving, dedicated and much respected councillor who has been a part of the community of West Hendon for decades.

Mrs Angry had the privilege of visiting the estate several times last year in the company of former councillors Julie and Geoff Johnson, who seemed to know everyone by name, and worked so hard for the people they represented; old school Labour: Julie being West Hendon to the core, born and bred. The hard slog that these councillors put in, the piles of casework that they deal with: easy to overlook, and it is hard to imagine members of any other party would give a damn in the first place.

New councillors Adam Langleben and Devra Kay are bright, outspoken advocates who will be presenting their own submissions to the housing Inquiry in a couple of weeks time. It promises to be a memorable event, of immense significance not only here, in the badlands of Broken Barnet, but for all Londoners facing what the people of West Hendon are going through now: the loss of their homes, and the destruction of their community.

Another UKIP activist tried to jump in now with another jibe - he was nipped in the bud by Nicky Gavron, who firmly took back hold of proceedings, and in her closing words, urged all concerned parties to continue to engage with the Commission, to make statements, write in: to make practical suggestions, and help find positive solutions to the crisis we face.

Oh: and why were the men from UKIP there, anyway?

In fact that man in the brown jacket, so keen to rubbish the Labour record - Mrs Angry was tipped the wink about him, after the meeting. It seems he is not just any old UKIP member: he is Jeremy Zeid, the newly approved parliamentary candidate for Hendon.

And he has a rather interesting background.

A former Tory from Harrow, and then Chair of UKIP in the borough, who caused a great deal of criticism last summer, for a highly offensive tweet about what he described as an 'almost absence of white faces' in Ilford, suggesting the area had faced 'ethnic cleansing' ...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/ukip-branch-chairman-london-is-being-ethnically-cleansed-of-white-people-9448154.html

He admitted only that his views were "badly worded".

It seems now that UKIP may want to exploit the tensions in West Hendon for their own purposes, and although the reception they received at this meeting was fierce in opposition, there is a danger that apathy by either Labour or Conservative parties will create an opportunity, among some disaffected residents, for UKIP's deeply divisive, dog whistle tactics.

That is deeply concerning possibility: but it is not unprecedented. This part of the borough has traditionally attracted the attentions of political activists intent on causing trouble, most recently from the Neo-Nazis trying to march through Cricklewood last August, to the blackshirts who countered stiff opposition from locals in Hendon in 1935, a memory passed onto Mrs Angry from an elderly friend who could remember Mosley trying to recuit supporters there, and along the Edgware Road, at that time.

Another elderly friend and neighbour could remember the battle of Cable Street, one year later, in which Mosley and his thugs tried to terrorise the Jewish population of Whitechapel.

If only Mr Zeid, and all the other UKIP candidates, could try to read some history, and then sit and think through the logical consequences of their blinkered view of the world.

But they never do think anything through, do they?

UKIP wants to distance itself from accusations of racism, and intolerance. Voters in multi cultural, happily diverse Hendon can and will make up their own minds in May, as to whether such accusations are fair.

In the meanwhile, all hopes rest on the Inquiry, set to begin on the 20th of January.

One of the local residents present at Thursday's meeting was downbeat about the prospects of any good coming from it.

After so many years of delay, and deceit, and betrayal: who could blame him.

Still, he said: we're not going down without a fight.

And that in essence is what is so bloody admirable about the people of this estate: they've heard it all, had it up to here, and they hold no faith in any prospect of justice, anytime soon.

But they won't do what the Tories want them to do, and give in, and give up.

This is West Hendon, their West Hendon, where a house is more than just a home, and where a community still stands, defiant in the face of the bulldozers, the profiteers, and the men with cash stuffed in their back pockets, waiting to buy their birthright from under their noses.

The Luftwaffe couldn't wipe them out, the blackshirts were chased back to Mayfair, and UKIP will be sent off too, if they try to muscle in on this territory.

The balance of power is shifting back into their hands, even if they, and we, don't quite know it yet.

Our Tory politicians may be too scared to come here, and face the people whose lives they have so easily written off, but these issues cannot be avoided for ever - and now those sins of omission are coming back to haunt them.

Watch what happens, in the next few weeks: it might just point us in a direction we never thought we'd reach - a way out of Broken Barnet, maybe.

Well: this was going to be a post dedicated to the rather interesting library cuts meeting on Wednesday night, in Mill Hill, at which Mrs Angry had the great honour of being insulted by the (soon to be ex)Tory MP for Hendon, Mr -no, no, no: DR Matthew Offord ... but there will now be a short interval, and a diversion, because in the course of writing it, a truly staggering tale reached Mrs Angry, from one of her network of spies in the house of horror that is North London Business Park.

The eyes and ears of Mrs Angry, as you should know by now, Tory councillors and senior officers of the London Borough of Broken Barnet, are everywhere, and all seeing.

And some of the men in suits, the evangelisers of outsourcing who come and go through the open doors of NLBP now need to be a little more discreet, when discussing their plans in public places.

Remember the time Mrs Angry sat on the tube next to those nice men from Crapita, dismissing criticisms of the poor IT provision for councillors? Tut tut: the humble acknowledgement of 'lessons learnt', it seems, to borrow a phrase from our senior management team, is once more being overlooked.

And so: we must now put aside the discussion on Wednesday night, for this report, which, if confirmed, blows out of the water everything that we have been led to believe, so far, in regard to the planned cuts to our library service.

Forget about the three options, the weasel words of our Tory councillors, and MPs: and forget the farce that is the the public nonsultation, the con-sultation now taking place - which tonight has itself been discredited by this very interesting assessment

http://www.pdf-archive.com/2015/01/16/barnetcouncillibraryconsultation16jan2015/barnetcouncillibraryconsultation16jan2015.pdf …

And now read this, a reported conversation, forwarded to Mrs Angry from a very reliable source, overheard and carefully noted at the end of this week, in a public area at North London Business Park, a conversation which, if accurate, is, at last, proof of the grubby reality of what is, after all, beneath the big fat lie that is that thing we no longer call One Barnet, but remains, in truth, nothing less than the wholescale privatisation of our council services.

We don't know who these individuals were, or for whom they work - they may have been outsourcing partners, or consultants, or officers. One at least would appear not to be currently based here, but we can't assume that they are working for a current partner, or contractor.

Both parties were clearly well informed on the current state of the library proposals. As our informant alleges:

"The conversation started by both men having amusing conversations about their wonderful fast cars…….break horse power was mentioned…..

Selling Barnet libraries as a business – a man was taking about bringing in some of his partners (Starbucks and Waterstones).

Conversation around whether it should be set up as a franchise. Investment – bringing in partnership so others can get a ‘cut’ of the business. The figure of £100,000 a month was mentioned. This would affect LMS?

A new system whereby books can be sold or rented – they would have all the latest books. Mini Waterstones, Mini ipad station and starbucks coffee.

We need to show investment. Revenue opportunities. Cabinet papers.

We would start with Hendon and Edgware.

“I will be moving here in June” (said one of the men).

Of course we want to present them with options, but let’s start planning now. (he started taking about Expats…)

We can sell this idea. Costa is already doing Camden and Haringey. Starbucks could do Barnet.

We can take on the management of the library services for other London boroughs by selling the concept.

This has strategic buying power by selling the libraries.

JV companies for Tri Borough arrangements. And we have a JV, they (Barnet) have to deliver statutory services.

It’s a business idea to sell to other local authorities. Yes, we could definitely sell it.

Commissioners have no commercial experience. They are the ones in charge of the money. Let’s keep in touch, lay out some bonds and security. “Here is what we are doing with the borough etc”.

We can fill in the information gaps. Information gaps helps with the partnerships. We can have a customer focus group of course, but we are the ones who are paid to make the decisions.”

BOTH MEN THEN SHOOK HANDS AND WALKED DOWN THE ESCALATORS TOWARDS THE EXIT".

Well, well.

Mrs Angry has often used the analogy of prostitution for the predatory exploitation of our public services by outsourcing companies. It seems an apt comparison, does it not? Outsourcing companies, like common pimps, using us, the taxpayers of this borough, and the services we hold in common ownership, in public ownership, for their own purposes.

Here is a reported conversation which, if true - and there is no reason to believe it is not - demonstrates an attempt to use our library service as a means of generating profit for a private sector company, and other would be contractors: a naked defiance of the pretence of consultation with residents, and indeed any political leadership by elected representatives.

If you ever doubted that the residents of this borough have had the privatisation of council services foisted upon them by the pressure of private sector contractors, consultants and senior management: think again.

This was never a direction demanded by political initiative, and here is further evidence of how the whole shabby operation works. Let's look more closely at the reported conversation.

'Bringing in partnership so others can get a cut of the business ...'

So others can get a cut of the business. There you have it, in nine words: the reality of outsourcing.

This is not about providing better services, for less money.

This is not about savings, or efficiencies, or cuts.

This is entirely driven by the companies, service providers, consultants and senior officers who are playing games with us, and opening up every available market to create business opportunities for the private sector.

Who cares if council staff lose their jobs, as a result, and now, that the residents of Barnet lose the library system that serves them so well?

A reference to 'LMS' ...

Is this, by any chance, the library software provided by Capita?

Oh: surely not, Mrs Angry ... Barnet Libraries are currently using Vubis, of course, and over the last year or so have seen an apparently unfixable sequence of problems in IT provision.

Of course this might just be the solution we have been waiting for:

http://www.capita-softwareandmanagedservices.co.uk/software/pages/libraries-lms.aspx

'Books sold or rented'

Marvellous idea: why should borrowing a library book be free?Plenty of profit to be screwed out of those who can afford that, and screw the rest who can't. Might be a problem with the notion of charges in a 'public' library: get round that with membership schemes, loyalty cards etc.

'We would need to show investment ...'

You mean like when Capita showed us a promise to give us £16.1 million in upfront capital investment, to seal the deal with Barnet? Only it turned out, in the end, didn't it, that the taxpayers of Barnet paid £16.1 million pounds to Capita?

'We would start with Hendon and Edgware ... '

So decisions have already been made as to which Tory ward libraries are going to be miraculously saved from the cull?

'Strategic buying power by selling the libraries ...'

Really? What has Mrs Angry told you all along, about the plot to flog the buildings?

'A business idea to sell to other boroughs ...'

Give me back that corporate claptrap book. This is, erm: yes ... blue sky thinking, isn't it? I can just see it now, can't you? Local authorities, queuing up to pay Crapita for One Barnet prototype pop up libraries, probably a couple of self assembly book shelves, and a rubber stamp set.

'Commissioners have no commercial experience ...'

Well, then: what the f*ck are they doing in their very nicely rewarded jobs? Is it because they are easier to fool?

'... we are the ones who are paid to make the decisions.'

That, at least, is certainly true. Because the decisions to outsource, as we know, are never subject to the safeguarding inherent in a really democratic process, but driven by unelected, unaccountable, faceless senior officers, in circumstances which elude the overview of scrutiny, and defy the need for transparency.

This conversation took place after the meeting at Mill Hill, footage of which is widely available for anyone to see: Mrs Angry will upload it in the next post. Sounds like certain parties have been watching with interest: or even preparing the way.

In this debate, mention was made of Waterstones, and Starbucks.

Mrs Angry commented that it was ironic that someone should advocate a partnership with Starbucks, a company so reluctant to pay the tax which our economy so desperately needs, tax which would not only support our NHS, but keep all our libraries open.

This conversation appears to prove the point that the consultation process is a complete sham, and that our Tory councillors are a bunch of incompetent fools, unable to exercise leadership or authority over the process of privatisation, as we accede further and further to the rule of commercial empire building, lost in a mire of contractual bondage.

Yes, in case you had forgotten, this is Broken Barnet.

Time for someone to ask a few questions, I think: open questions, loud questions: and to keep demanding answers, until the whole hidden agenda underlying this latest act of privatisation is exposed, and laid bare before the glare of public scrutiny.

In case you don't get the point, Tory councillors, we never believed in your bogus consultation: and we are not going to fall for, or tolerate, yet another sell out.

Please leave our libraries alone, we like them as they are, thank you very much.

And tell the outsourcers standing by with their sweaty palms, and bulging wallets, to clear off out of it, and find someone else to screw over.

In the meanwhile, if any readers are as appalled as the rest of us by what Barnet Tories are about to do to our wonderful library service: please sign this petition:

https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/no-to-closure-of-barnet-libraries

Barnet Libraries Consultation: A Sham

A Joint Letter from the Barnet Bloggers to the Leader of Barnet Council

Barnet Bloggers are appalled by reported plans to outsource libraries and make them available to commercial exploitation by companies such as Starbucks and Waterstones. The real purpose of proposals to cut and shut libraries in Barnet is now clear.

In April 2013, a High Court ruling found that Barnet Council had failed in its obligation properly to consult residents over the imposition of the whole scale privatisation of local public services, known then as ‘One Barnet’.

The Judicial Review which had reached this conclusion found that legal challenge had been brought too late, and therefore the two massive contracts with Capita, agreed by the Conservative administration, are now in place for a period of at least ten years.

After narrowly being returned to power the new administration has, as predicted, rushed ahead with new plans to outsource most of the remaining services, at the same time as launching plans to impose devastating cuts in budget.

As a result, we now face devastating plans to slash the funding of our library service by a staggering 60%, a disproportionate and punitive amount which is clearly agreed as a means of preparing the argument for yet another act of privatisation.

Councillors have been presented with a report with three equally damaging options for the future of Barnet Libraries, and residents encouraged to take part in what we believe to be a deeply flawed and subjective consultation process, one which an independent report has described as not fit for purpose:

https://www.scribd.com/doc/253017634/Topline-Findings-From-Research-Into-Barnet-Council-s-Library-Reforms

Now we are faced with new information which, if true, would suggest that far from learning the lessons of the Judicial Review, the authority’s latest consultation process, as well as being deliberately designed to minimise opposition to the three options, is itself a complete irrelevance, and that the outcome of the council’s consideration of the three options is already agreed in principle, if not in detail.

And if this is dialogue is typical of the way in which potential business partners negotiate with the authority, it would also raise serious and wider questions over the integrity of the procurement process in Barnet, past and present.

http://wwwbrokenbarnet.blogspot.co.uk/2015/01/exclusive-so-others-can-get-cut-of.html

Whatever the opinions of residents, it seems that there will be closure and sale of library buildings, and the outsourcing of our library service, engineered so as to provide opportunities for commercial exploitation by private contractors.

Such an outcome would be simply unacceptable, and indeed would be an unlawful decision taken in complete disregard of the democratic process.

We ask Councillor Richard Cornelius, leader of the Conservative administration, immediately to halt the discredited consultation currently in place, remove the library proposals from the budget cuts about to be imposed, and to launch an independent investigation into the alleged subversion of the due process of democratic engagement that should decide the governance of our borough, and hold the authority to account in a way that is fair, and transparent.

Derek Dishman

John Dix

Theresa Musgrove

Roger Tichborne

Mrs Angry was asked, only the day before, to join a panel for Wednesday evening's meeting about the Barnet library proposals organised by Mill Hill Residents Association, one of those local groups that Barnet Tories are desperate to court - or rather groom - in the course of their electoral campaigns.

She knocked up a few notes, therefore, tempted by the lure of being on the same panel as Matthew Offord: like all three local Tory MPs, he has spent the last few years avoiding any potentially dangerous open meetings, but now, of course, with a majority of only a hundred last election, clearly panicking, and making a rare appearance at just this sort of meeting.

Arriving at the hall where the meeting was to be told, Mrs Angry was told that Offord had objected to her presence on the panel, as she was not an elected representative. He was reminded that this event was not a hustings, and that she was there for political balance, as the other members were Offord, Tory councillor John Hart, and local AM, former Hendon MP, and future Hendon MP, Andrew Dismore. Fair enough, so.

After a talk in support of our libraries by Deborah Moggach and S F Said, the panel were invited up to the stage, which was at some distance - and out of earshot of the audience. Just as well.

Mrs Angry arrived on stage, after Offord had sat himself at the table, having already decided to make polite conversation, ask him how he was after his recent eye injury, and maybe enquire about Max, his jack russell terrier and political advisor - but: oh dear ... as she walked on, he looked at her with a chilling glare.

Don't be scared, said Mrs Angry, reassuringly, smiling only slightly mischievously, as she prepared to sit down. (You can see all this, from a distance, from about 29 minutes in - and Mrs Angry's contribution, for waht it's worth, from around45.50).

She wasn't prepared for what followed.

Scared? he immediately hissed at her, with an expression of blazing fury on his face:

Contemptuous, he snarled, sotto voce.

Mrs Angry had never met him before, or spoken to him, or had any contact with him, and was staggered by the underlying agression of his manner. It was, she thought, rather like a wounded animal, cornered, knowing its time is up, and lashing out.

I'm sorry? she asked, appalled.

Contemptuous! he repeated, and then continued, while maintaining a cool demeanour for the benefit of the audience out of earshot, similar remarks, quietly, and for no reason, on the line that she was 'a vile bully, an online bully', and - it was so shocking, it is impossible to remember exactly what else he came out with.

Why are you doing this? asked Mrs Angry, standing on the stage, aghast, looking at him, stunned by his verbal assault, but somewhat distracted by the almost messianic expression in his eyes.

By this time, thankfully, Andrew Dismore was behind her and a witness to his sequence of insults, which continued even as we sat down. On the film Mrs Angry's reaction veers between horror, and laughter: but it was truly shocking, and an real insight into this man's character.

Mrs Angry felt obliged to tell the organiser of the event, who came to the stage then, what Offord was up to, and that she was happy to take part in the debate, but not to be subjected to such abuse.

As a result, veteran Tory councillor John Hart was asked to sit between us.

I don't mind, said the handlebar moustachioed old boy, leaning towards Mrs Angry, whispering, with a Terry-Thomas aside: I like blondes ...

Help me, said Mrs Angry, to Andrew Dismore.

What triggered such a reaction? Has Mrs Angry ever had any dialogue with the MP for Hendon, online, or offline? No. On the other hand, she has, in the cause of writing this blog, had occasion to report some of these stories about Offord - or rather, DR Offord, as he commanded her to call him.

Holding the mirror up to nature, reporting the truth, is not an activity welcomed by our local Tory politicians, and the more insecure they feel about their electoral prospects, the more they fear the glare of scrutiny. And what has triggered Offord's behaviour to Mrs Angry?

Yes, she had condemned his ludicrous opposition to equal marriage which included offensive remarks comparing the lovebetween two people who happen to be of the same sex, who simply want to marry, like any other couple, to polygamy, or even incest.

And reported the time he made a fool of himself shouting remarks at a dinner with army chiefs.

No doubt he objected to her chronicling his interesting trip to Belize, during the London riots, apparently to engage in a fight against hurricanes, and'narco-terrorism'...

And more recently, his fact finding visit to address a problem of urgent concern to the residents of Hendon, ie the turtles , blue iguanas - and boobies - of the Cayman Islands.

You might think that rather worrying about the endangered species of far away tax havens, the MP for Hendon ought to have been devoting his energies to the endangered species in his own constituency, and expressing his outrage over the threatened habitat of the working class community of the estate in West Hendon, about to be thrown out of their homes, to make way for a luxury development by Barratts.

Far from showing any interest in the pleas of campaigners fighting this forcible eviction, Dr Offord, when Our West Hendon came to lobby him at a local meeting, refused to meet them, or leave without a police escort.

http://wwwbrokenbarnet.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/whose-west-hendon-our-west-hendon-mp.html

Yet in the last week or so he has, at this late stage in the proceedings, just before the Housing Inquiry which begins today, invited some residents to a meeting at Portcullis House, taken them on a lovely tour, and no doubt posed for some nice photos - and agreed to come to the library meeting.

Is there an election in the offing, Dr Offord?

Not being used to such open meetings, clearly he was unnerved by the idea that he was would have to be in the presence of opposition, and take part in a difficult and potentially risky debate.

He came expecting something that did not happen, as you will see, and you may judge for yourself his own performance: watch what happens when he speaks to a woman who worked as a volunteer in a library ... and compare his evident lack of ease in this dangerous environment to the courage of Ed Miliband, in the same hall, a few days later, taking on a sequence of unknown, difficult questions, and addressing with admirable openness the complexities of the issues raised.

Offord was of course, as a former councillor, and indeed eventually deputy group leader, part of the Tory council administration which brought Barratts into the West Hendon development, and he was also, despite the curious remarks he made in his otherwise carefully worded speech about the library cuts, a member of the administration when the chance to retain Totteridge Library was finally thrown out.

And what did he have to say about the current proposals? Beginning with an amusing Freudian slip, saying we were pushing on a 'closed door' in regard to the library proposals, he then cleverly chose to disregard the scale and significance of the plans, and avoid talking about the cuts. He waffled on instead about how much he liked reading, giving as evidence of this a sight of his library card, and the names of two books he had read. One was the Invisible Man.

Dr Offord, and Mrs Angry

No, not HG Wells, Mrs Angry: the one by Ralph Ellison.

And the other was ... Confessions of a Justified Sinner, by James Hogg, supposed to be the inspiration for Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde.

Hmm, thought Mrs Angry. Very interesting choices.

And then: says Offord, airily: people don't read books like they used to ... and John Hart informed the audience that no one read as much as he did. In French, and Spanish too. Mrs Angry disagreed and dared to suggest that she read quite a lot. Could she read in French, and Spanish? Of course. (She was lying about the Spanish, to be fair).

So: our Tory betters are of course men of culture, gentlemen and scholars, but the plebs in the audience, and on the panel: we can only dream to be as well read as them, those wise men charged with responsibility for removing from us the means to access the knowledge they hold so dear.

Contrast their vision of libraries with that of Andrew Dismore, whose career in law and politics, he said, would not have been possible without the public libraries he relied on throughout the course of his studies. Libraries, he said were at the heart of the community. Heart, community: difficult words for Tories to understand.

Offord and his Tory council colleague John Hart both ignored the absolute savagery of the cuts planned for libraries and talked about lovely ideas for improving them, as if the three devastating options, and the absolute destruction of our library service which they will create was a complete myth, and we were talking about something altogether different, and reasonable. They also, along with Cllr Khatri, another member for Mill Hill, assured us all that Mill Hill Library would not close.

A a gentleman, a scholar, and a multi -linguist: Cllr John Hart. And Dr Matthew Offord.

Mrs Angry has said all along that Mill Hill, Edgware, Golders Green and now probably Childs Hill libraries will not close.

Why? Why do you think? Because they are in sensitive Tory wards.

She understands on very good authority that even as we speak, Tory councillors are lobbying for their own libraries to be saved and yet planning to vote with an absolute lack of compunction for the proposals to go through, and to hell with the other libraries.

Lack of compunction is perhaps the trait that defines the Tory philosophy, in Mrs Angry's book. (Now available for loan, or download, at www.brokenbarnetlibraryfranchise.co.uk). Or lack of empathy, something she touched upon in her address to the meeting, an emotion which, as the writer and library campaigner Alan Gibbons once reminded us, at an event at the library that wouldn't close, Friern Barnet Community Library, is developed and supported by the reading of fiction.

Mrs Angry also commented that the Tory war on words included the truly dreadful ban on books for prisoners, which that perfect example of her thesis on empathy, Justice Minister Chris Grayling, had introduced, in defiance of the potential for rehabilitation, or the transformative power of the written word. But that is the point, is it not: the danger of a word, a thought, and the risk of awakening the latent intellect of disadvantaged people, given the means of expressing their experiences, and challenging the establishment?

Perhaps the Tory aversion to libraries, and the written word, locally, and nationally, is based on their own lack of empathy and understanding: to want to put your interests before those of others, to prefer the pursuit of profit before the pursuit of love, or friendship, or social justice - that is never going to appeal to anyone who has grown to adulthood reading the great novels of our time. You know, all those works Gove wanted to removed from the syllabus, like 'To Kill A Mockingbird', Of Mice and Men ... books that teach us how to feel compassion, and even love - and to fight for what it right, and true.

Having said that, of course: much easier to get by in life, isn't it, if you have a heart of stone, and nothing moves you - or hurts you?

The Tory councillors' number one priority is their own political survival - presented as so called party 'loyalty' - and the need to preserve their chances of retaining the whip, and being reselected to delight us all again by being reselected as candidates and to continue to enjoy their comfortable lives, freed from the burden of governance by the rule of Crapita, and still sitting on their generous allowances.

They may feel vague regret at the scale of cuts they are going to endorse, needlessly, but none of them so far have shown the slightest courage, or moral integrity in being prepared to stand up to do what they know their constituents will want: to preserve our library service, and invest in a vital community resource.

The money is there, if they want to find it. At the moment, they don't want to consider looking for it, because a. they are too lazy, and b. they don't understand, or care about the impact of what they are about to approve. And by impact I mean also, because they have not thought this through, on their own political survival.

It will be interesting to see what the Tory councillors will make of yesterday's revelations in this blog here,reproducing a reported dialogue in a public area of Barnet's council offices between two men allegedly hatching a plot for the commercial exploitation of the library proposals.

Because the implications of that dialogue are almost impossible to grasp, even if you are not a Tory councillor: the scale of the significance. It means that we no longer have to worry about the outcome of the consultation so much as the irrelevance of the consultation process.

There were a couple of curious questions, or rather suggestions, from members of the audience in the course of the meeting: one man advocating a partnership with ... oh, Starbucks, and another keen to work something out with ... Waterstones.

Mrs Angry refers you to the previous post, and this line from the reported dialogue at NLBP:

A new system whereby books can be sold or rented – they would have all the latest books. Mini Waterstones, Mini ipad station and starbucks coffee.

Oddly prescient, weren't they, those questions?

Also gracing us with his presence, at the back of the hall, and keen to pose another question hostile to Labour (funny how the Tories are in no need of targeting) was, yes, Mrs Angry's new friend from UKIP, their parliamentary candidate for Hendon, Jeremy Zeid.

As at theWest Hendon housing meeting last week, Mr Zeid was awfully shy, and forgot to tell everyone that he was indeed the UKIP parliamentary candidate for Hendon, so, as at the meeting last week, Mrs Angry helped me out by introducing him to the audience.

He did not seem particularly grateful at the time, but after the meeting at least revealed himself to have a sense of humour, when Mrs Angry, worrying about her former adversary Brian Coleman, who is at a bit of a loose end these days, asked if UKIP might want to take him on, and give him something useful to do.

Mr Zeid looked appalled and said, in no uncertain terms, that they would not take him, as he was an ******** (redacted by Mrs Angry, on the grounds of decency). Harsh. Buy a bike, and try the Greens, Brian, is Mrs Angry's advice.

As for the meeting, and the views expressed: watch the footage and gauge for yourselves the mood of the audience, not one of political activists, but a residents association, there to debate one issue: a truly impressive turnout, on a scale that should put fear in the hearts of Tory councillors - and, more urgently, Tory parliamentary candidates.

The very first question put at this meeting was, rather touchingly, from a very young girl, one of a pack of brownies at the back of the hall. She asked a question that caught everyone on the hop, and hung in the air, unanswered, at first.

What, she asked, in all her innocence, would you do with the books?

A moment of silence. What did she mean? And then a woman in the audience understood.

What would you do with the books, when the libraries closed?

They'll burn them, she said ...

Footage here: courtesy of the Barnet Bugle.

The Holiday Inn, Brent Cross, is placed in perhaps one of the least attractive locations imaginable for any hotel: surrounded on all sides, as it is, by a stranglehold of motorways, high rise flats, an ageing, brutalist style shopping centre, a small industrial estate - and an abandoned rubbish dump.

The River Brent, once an idyllic retreat, and the favoured subject of pre- Raphaelite Victorian artists like Maddox Brown, now runs through an ecologically barren concrete conduit, full of rusting supermarket trolleys, and plastic bags, waiting for the long promised restoration accompanying yet another 'regeneration' scheme, and serving as another psycho-geographically perfect metaphor, perhaps, for Broken Barnet, where the preservation of environment, if not of community, must accompany the profiteering of property developers.

Yes: to the Holiday Inn, then, yesterday, for the opening day of the West Hendon Housing Inquiry, instigated by the Secretary of State for the Department of Communities and Local Government, in order to hear objections to the compulsory purchase of residents homes, in the council owned estate, next to the Welsh Harp, before demolition makes way for a development of luxury housing by Barratts.

The Welsh Harp, of course, is a reservoir created in the 1830s, so as to ensure suffient supply of water for London's canal system. The River Brent flows in and out of it, connecting, for the purposes of our metaphorical journey, one focus of so called regeneration in the western side of the borough, with another, each with their separate story, but both with a common future, as part of a new page of history, refreshed by Tory policies of gerrymandering, social cleansing, and an unswerving support for the insatiable demands of profit hungry large scale developers. And so: West Hendon, then.

Arriving at the Holiday Inn on Tuesday morning, Mrs Angry was immediately distracted by the sight of the events board in the foyer, graced as you should expect, in Broken Barnet-Capitaville, by the corporate image of our new library providers, ie Starbucks:

Barnet Council, Capita, and G4s: an interesting combination ...

The room was already filling with suits, the suits from Barnet, and Crapita, and Barratts. It became clear throughout the day that the men from Crapita were running the show, in fact. A man from Re foolishly tried sitting next to Mrs Angry and a Labour councillor, to eavesdrop, but was outed by Mrs Angry's crapitorial detector, and moved at the next break, having failed in his mission to reverse the networked surveillance techniques used by her to secure the intelligence on the alleged new library franchise plot, as revealed here.

The Inquiry was to be chaired by Inspector Zoe Hill, who ran the first day's proceedings with admirable tact, and was as accommodating as possible to all parties taking part.

During the day, Mrs Angry noted, a security man she recognised from the Town Hall paced up and down the corridor outside the Inquiry room, as if they were expecting trouble from some of the residents. In fact the residents behaved impeccably, despite the severe provocation of some of the presentations, and the terrible situation they are in. Curiously, the security man was not in uniform, and if he was wearing his SIA badge, Mrs Angry could not see it, which would be questionable, if he was there on duty, one might think.

Another sign of unease from the local authority became visible once the Guardian journalist Rob Booth turned up, and started talking to the residents. Rob has of course written before about Barnet: the library occupation, and the state of the decaying mansions in Bishops Avenue: the latter subject as far a contrast as one could imagine from the story of West Hendon, and yet, equally valid as evidence of the decadent values of our Tory administration.

The PR officer from the Town Hall hovered anxiously, watchfully, while residents spoke to the reporter - and seized the opportunity, as soon as possible to whisper in his ear the council's side of things. His article is here

On the right hand side of the room sat Neil King, QC, counsel for Barnet Council and Barratts, with his assistant, and opposite them on the left, representing a number of residents facing compulsory purchase of their homes, Dan Knowles from Sawyer Fielding, a surveyor specialising in this field of work, who has 26 clients in the next phase of CPOs, and another 12 to come next. He has been involved in negotiations regarding other local schemes such as Stonegrove.

Sitting next to Mr Knowles was Jasmin Parsons, a resident and leaseholder, representing the interests of many other residents, other leaseholders and tenants facing eviction. Or, as she put it - everyone who wanted a voice at this Inquiry.

It was clear from the onset, therefore, how disadvantaged, even here, are the people facing the destruction of their homes in the course of the development. Where is the equality of access to justice, when those affected cannot afford to present their case through the services of a highly experienced, and no doubt very well paid QC, and must challenge the so carefully crafted presentations of Barnet's senior officers, and senior executives from Barratts?

However well the Inspector runs this Inquiry, the inequality of representation is a fact that cannot be denied, and this will be almost certain to deliver an outcome which does not reach the expectations of residents, for that reason, and others too. The remit of the Inquiry, as Ms Hill so patiently, and repeatedly explained, is limited, and cannot address areas regarding the planning application itself.

Anyone with any understanding of the background to this story would surely agree that in regard to the limitations imposed by such a narrow interpretation of the Inquiry is the absence, from the documentation submitted to the Inquiry so far, of the original agreement with Barratts: the PDA and viability studies.

Naturally it is in the interests of both Barnet Council and Barratts to continue to refuse to put this information in the public domain, on the grounds of 'commercial sensitivity' - the reason always given, by the authority to FOI requests which seek to hold contractual partners of the authority to account. This might be a bona fide excuse at an earlier part of a tender process: it is hard to see any justification for continuing to withold this vital information so many years later, and at the point of a formal Inquiry.

It was ironic, in fact, that there were several references throughout the first day to the financial viability of the development by the counsel for the council and contractors, asking us to sympathise with the financial constraints they claimed compelled them to push forwards with the phase of the scheme that is shortly to remove so many residents of the estate from their homes.

We do not know how true the claims made by the council and the developers really are. We do not know how much profit they stand to make from the scheme. We do not know how much they paid the taxpayers of this borough for the land they are building on. We do not know if it is true that they paid nothing at all. We do not know how much the land they have taken is worth now, compared to when the agreement was made. And nor does the Inspector: so how can she possibly fairly assess the arrangements for the compulsory purchase orders of the properties in question?

Last year the ICO ordered the disclosure, in part, of the viability report concerning the Heygate regeneration, in Southwark.

http://www.out-law.com/en/articles/2014/may/tribunal-orders-southwark-to-disclose-heygate-viability-information/

This finding ought surely to apply to Barnet and Barratts, especially as the time that has elapsed since the agreement is so long, and any argument extending to the 'operating model' and 'projections' are no longer relevant. Ms Hill explained that she would need a 'compelling reason' to ask for the viability report to be appended to the Inquiry documents. One might imagine that if the residents had the privilege of the same degree of legal representation as the council and developers, that compelling reason would be strongly argued on their behalf.

The proceedings began with an introduction of representatives, and reference to the objectors concerned. Neil King QC stated there were now 77 remaining objections, and he proceeded to deliver what an opening address, which was meant to be a summary of his clients' position, but became, as Ms Hill remarked, with commendable restraint, 'lengthy, as openings go ...'

The essential point of the address was to explain to the Inquiry why the Compulsory Purchase Orders were necessary - why Phase 3 of the development was itself a key component of the programme of work, and why failure to proceed would put the financial viability of the whole scheme at risk, or rather their investment would not see an adequate return.

Ah, well then, was the immediate thought of several of us listening to this tale of woe: let us see the evidence, the details of the viability study, so as to assess for ourselves the truth of such an assertion.

The West Hendon 'regeneration' was, we heard, was mindful of the human rights implications that would ensue the purchase and demolition of so many properties. Yes, people would lose their homes, but there was 'a compelling case' in the public interest that outweighed the 'private loss' of the residents so affected. There would be 'social and economic benefits'.

We heard a fairly dismissive description of the estate as a 1960s large panel construction which had had 'a series of problems' - poor insulation, lighting and thermal difficulties - management problems.

We were not told why Barnet Council, as landlord, had failed to address such problems, for some reason, but residents later raised this in a series of questions.

Phase 3, we were told, would, once the homes in question had been demolished, all traces removed and landscaped, provide a visual link to the Welsh Harp. The architect, Hendrik Heyns, would, in the new development, create a 'clear hierarchy' of buildings, urban blocks gathered around courtyards.

The development complies with the London plan, the core strategy and UDP. Mrs Angry did not hear any reference to density, which was odd, as she was pretty sure someone had claimed the density of the scheme exceeds recommended levels.

But you know, the key strategic aim of the plan was - no, not making shed loads of money, of course, what was it ... checking notes ... ah: The Promotion of Well Being.

Not sure whose well being. Perhaps the well being of the well rewarded senior executives of Barratts, but certainly not the leaseholders facing the compulsory purchase of their homes, or the tenants going through the distress of eviction: the process of 'decanting', as they call it - those whose community is being ripped apart, torn down and eradicated so as to make room for people with more money and more inclined to vote for the Tory administration which approved the scheme in the first place.

But still we sat listening to Mr King, and heard him tell us all about the 'variety of economic and social benefits' ... high quality homes, better management etc etc.

The pledges made to residents, around the only time they have been balloted as to their opinion of the development, even though the development over which they were balloted was not the same development being built now ... and even though those residents are being effectively largely excluded from any chance of a home in the new buildings.

We heard that 'changes had to be made', in regard to the pledges, due to 'changed' economic factors. We are not in a position to judge the truth of this, because, let us say it again, we do not know the financial details hidden in that viability study.

We were reminded that the Inquiry could not be used to contest the level of offers made to leaseholders. It was not a valuation tribunal. Just as well, from their point of view, of course.

Compulsory Purchase Orders, we heard, are 'a postive tool in planning'.

More references, of many more throughout the day, to 'decanting'.

decant

dɪˈkant/

verb

past tense: decanted; past participle: decanted

gradually pour (wine, port, or another liquid) from one container into another, typically in order to separate out sediment.

Tenants, non secure tenants, moved to the estate and kept there for years but not allowed the dignity of formal long term protection of rights: human detritus, to be removed at the will of the council and their developers.

Decanted, like the dregs at the bottom of a cheap bottle of wine: an term so offensive, so dehumanising, but so casually used that its offensive implications simply do not register with the housing officers and developers, and their lawyers and apologists, who so easily overlook the real suffering caused by their actions and decisions.

Actions and decisions all in the pursuit of profit, led, in this case, by the lure of private profit from public land, subsidised by the public purse: by you, and me, and most offensive of all, by the taxes of the working people of West Hendon being thrown out of their homes, and airbrushed out of the lovely photographs in the advertisements for Hendon Waterside.

A break then: and we were allowed to take photographs, if we wished. Mrs Angry took this one of Jasmin Parsons, peering at the model of the estate where she lives: behind her resident Kalim Khalick and Dan Knowles talk to the Guardian's Rob Booth.

After the break, it was time for witness evidence from Mr Martin, described on the fact sheet as: Martin Cowie, BA (Hons) DIP TP, LBB Interim Assistant Director of Strategic Planning, Regeneration and Transport. (We like Interims, in Barnet, don't we? Except of course 'Re', the Barnet-Capita hybrid, the Joint Venture, is rather more Capita, than Barnet, other than in terms of burden of risk).

Mr Cowie was there to tell us all about 'LBB's Regeneration Objectives'. This began with a brief history of the West Hendon scheme, beginning in what is, in Capitaville, prehistory: 2002, when a Labour-Libdem Coalition (yes, can you believe it?) thought it ought to abide by the principles of the Decent Homes strategy. Not a bad idea, you might agree. Well, not, of course if you are a Barnet Tory councillor, and take over the administration shortly afterwards. Decent Homes? For poor people? For f*cks sake: what were they thinking?

Mr King took Mr Cowie through his statement, in summary, a process which promised to be almost as long in summary as the summary of Mr King's opening remarks. So, from 2002, and the prospect of Decent Homes, to 2015, and a development bearing no resemblance to the original proposals and pledges, but now a luxury build from which the local community was excluded, and indeed will be removed, in order to facilitate its creation.

The change in the developement was due, said Mr Cowie, to 'changing economic circumstances' but he held that the scheme would be 'a inclusive place for all sections of the community'. What was to be avoided was having 'pockets of the new scheme sitting in an 'old and unattractive setting. This would, Mrs Angry could see, be most unfortunate, and it was lucky that the council and developers would make a lovely new view of the Harp, by knocking down a few homes.

As Mr Cowie told us, with an admirably straight face, the concept of place making is very important to the council.

Ah yes: place making. Love that. Easy, see: you take a place, and you turn it into ... another place. A different sort of place, obviously, without any poor people in it. And if any poor people get in the way of the new place, you decant them.

Time for objectors to ask Mr Cowie questions.

Mr Knowles asked points of information regarding owner occupiers and tenants whose circumstances would appear not to have been addressed by the recent offers from Barratts. Mr Cowie was uncertain. They're not allowed to come back, claimed a woman in the public seats, seemingly better informed.

Jasmin Parsons asked about Ramsay Close which has now been removed from the scheme: why?

Leaseholder Kalim Khalick asked about the state of the buildings as described in the report: you were the managers, he reminded the Barnet officer. And he pointed out the amount of work for which he and other leaseholders were now being billed: £10,000 worth of maintenance.

Local Labour councillor Devra Kay asked about the infrastructure that the huge increase in population will require, and the state of progress in agreeing the delivery of schools, GPs and so on. It seemed clear from the response that nothing much was in place yet, nor was likely to be in time for the new residents.

Jasmin Parsons raised a point about references to deprivation in regard to the estate. Mr Cowie advised her that it was defined by government. She felt that the references implied the residents were people 'living in squalor' - that is how we see you describing us ...She pointed out that in 2002, the council had stated it would not be doing any more major maintenance. Residents had asked for documentation regarding maintenance and inspection - but it had still not appeared. And the economic changes? There had been an upturn, so where was the argument.

Mr Cowie stated he could only restate some of the key points, but then went on to assert that West Hendon suffered from problems associated with 'large post war council estates'. It was, he said 'as simple as that'. West Hendon, he added, rather ridiculously, 'would not be an attractive place, fifty years hence ...' He meant, of course, the estate, left as it is: but the estate has been neglected, and the idea of refurbishment ignored, once the prospect of handing it over to developers had taken hold. Jasmin alleged that the council actually refused government money to improve the estate so as to be able to follow its own plans for development.

Kalim asked again about the issue of supposed economic benefits. They were knocking down the shops, for a better view, and a higher price for properties. Where were the 1500 new households going to shop? Where were the promised construction jobs for the local people? What was the economic benefit to the community?

There is no community, said a woman behind us: it's going, going, gone ...

Mr Cowie burbled on rather frantically now about a 'significant uplift' to the area, as a result of the spending power of the swanky new residents. The truth is that anyone with the means to buy one of the luxury homes in Hendon Waterside is going to be severely disappointed to see the state of the local amenities and shops: the level of gentrification they will no doubt require to make them feel more at home is a long, long way off. Last time Mrs Angry read the marketing blurb, potential buyers were being advised that they would find all they need in Hampstead ...

A question from resident Jackie Coleman. They talk about the visual impact: what about the human impact, in destroying a whole community? You are making out these buildings are for us, she said, they are for the private sector ... she said her neighbours had gone, and so had the wildlife from the Harp.

Cowie was talking even more incomprehensibly now, about unfortunate impacts, well burst, in many ways. Eh?

Dan Knowles introduced the theme that neither the council nor the developers want to discuss: the pledges made to residents, which they feel are now all being broken.

You will have a brand new home
All will be housed on the new development
You will have a choice of landlord
You will have a choice of where to move
You have a real say in the regeneration
York Memorial Park will not be touched
Homeowners properties will be bought at current housing prices
No major works will be undertaken while the regeneration is under construction

It is fair to assume, he said that public opinion, if it were to be re-balloted, would not be so much in the council's favour ...

Mr Cowie tended not to agree, and tried to convince us that not so many of the pledges had been thrown out.

Kalim said that if the pledges had not changed, 'none of us would be in this building'.

After lunch, the session resumed with Matt Calladine, Head of development for Barratt London, sitting in the hot seat, to delight us all with his vision of the 'Scheme description and commitment to delivery'. Mr King took him through his statement.

It transpired that they had indemnified the council's CPO arrangements, and were paying the costs of the Inquiry. Mrs Angry resolved to eat more biscuits, and appropriate more bottles of water. Generous of them, you might think, but then: they are getting a luxury housing development from us, so: fair enough, really, isn't it?

Mr Calladine had clearly been doing his homework during the lunch break and was keen to mop up any unfortunate misunderstandings or omissions in the contribution by Mr Cowie.

He told us there had been a test, a couple of weeks ago, to see how many people working in site were indeed, as promised to residents originally, from the local area. He proudly announced that 21% of workers were from NW9, or immediate postcodes. Mrs Angry thought he seemed to expect us to be impressed by that. But erm: that means that 79% do not, and of the 21%, there is no proof that any are from the local community in West Hendon, as NW9 is rather large, and - surrounding postcodes?

More talk of phasing - and 'decanting' and the dire consequences to their profits, should people not feck off out of it and let them knock their homes down. Mrs Angry's terminology, rather than Mr Calladine's, of course.

Phase 3 required this, we heard, in order to provide 'a gateway to the site ... permeability' and, oh: a view to the Welsh Harp for those who are ready to pay big wonga for it. To hell with the 'decanting block'. Move along please, you're spoiling the view, don't you know?

Well, the upshot of it all, as Mr King reminded us, is that 'times have changed, and that is a fact'. Facts is facts, in Capitaville, as they are in Coketown. We live in Hard Times, do we not?

Our latterday Gradgrind continued to lead the man from Barratts through more a difficult terrain of unpalatable facts into a nicer place, where he could be seen to offer encouragement to residents to drop their objections, and learn to love Barratts and Barnet Council ... offers dependent on individuals' private arrangements, of course.

After a break, Dan Knowles started to question Mr Calladine.

Viability could change month by month: how was it assessed?

- There were regular updates.

Of the 21% of workers were any noted specifically as being from the West Hendon estate?

- No.

Shared equity: only ten properties being made available - how many of them are actually affordable?

- 90%.

Only one property was actually affordable to those eligible, according to Mr Knowles, for 18 of the clients he represents.

Mr Calladine suggested they could sit down and talk ...

Ms Hill hoped they might be able to find common ground.

Jasmin asked a very interesting question.

Originally there was no shared equity available: all this was a recent proposal, and only through pressure - why?

- He wasn't sure of the historic circumstances.

Promises being made so late, yet they still want people out by the end of March!

- Now looking no earlier than the end of June.

York Memorial Park (which the original pledge had promised to preserve, but was given to Barratts to build on). You are splitting up the remaining part of the park, splitting it in two, taking away our football pitch.

-You can access other playing fields, over Silkstream Bridge.

But we can't take part in activities together, playing football, looking on, interacting ...

-We are enhancing it, not dissecting it.

You've stolen York Memorial Park to open up the area, to make a green concrete corridor to link the Welsh Harp with the Edgware Road.

-This is a permeable and open scheme.

About the drones that you were flying over our homes, on Sunday ... (This was an incredible despatch, from the war zone that is West Hendon - Barratts apparently using surveillance and photography not just of the building site but the estate, with no consultation - police were called).

- This was the fault of the Sales and Marketing Team's consultants, who were taking advantage of lovely weather. It will not happen again.

Kalim asked what was going to happen between the time when their local shops are demolished, and the appearance of new ones. It transpired there would be expected to be a gap of at about two years. Shops do naturally evolve, he said. But the area, according to the man from Barratts 'would regenerate itself.

Funny, thought Mrs Angry: I thought that was what you were supposed to do, on our behalf?

You talk about the area as if it is just West Hendon Estate, said Kalim: there are thousands of others living around here, West Hendon is not just a housing estate, there is a community on both sides of the Edgware Road.

It's about getting a diverse community, he was informed. The local cafe is doing wonderful business. Hmm, thought Mrs Angry: from the workers wanting a full English. Can't quite see the Russian oligarchs sitting down to a nice fry up. Still: there's a Carluccios in Hampstead.

And so the questions continued. Residents were assured that there will be enough units available for shared equity for those interested. The point that almost none are now eligible was not answered by vague hints that the developers would now be prepared to consider individual cases.

Adam Langleben tried to find out how many properties had been marketed overseas.

I couldn't tell you, said Mr Calladine.

Was it true there was a 20% profit margin for Barratts?

Mr Calladine was not commenting.

Wasn't it true that the properties were really only affordable for young professionals on high salaries?

I understand your point of view. Some people, he said ... may choose to live elsewhere.

Or more likely, thought Mrs Angry, the majority of people in the local community will have no choice at all, and will be driven out, decanted, made homeless, rootless, dispersed - while Barratts sit back, count the money, and enjoy the benefits of their development, on our land, their West Hendon.

The Inquiry is expected to continue for eight days.

West Hendon resident Leigh, who has lived there since the estate was built, more than forty years ago, but will lose her home to the new development.

Thursday at the West Hendon Housing Inquiry began with evidence from Andrew Dismore, the London Assembly member for Hendon, and former MP.

He explained how he had seen the West Hendon scheme evolve over a period of many years, from a genuine desire to regenerate a badly neglected estate to what he described as something very different indeed: that is to say the private development by Barratts.

Then Tory leader Brian Salinger said the council 'guaranteed' every tenant and owner occupier would be offered a new home in West Hendon ...' Residents were balloted early on in the process, on the basis of wonderful pledges, which have of course not been met. No re-balloting has been carried out, despite the fundamental change in the nature of the proposals.

In November 2007, Andrew Dismore carried out his own consultation with residents, with absolutely conclusive support for a new ballot, and expressing concern over the new plans, which he described as 'not a regeneration, a redevelopment'.

Over the years, the effect of 'blight' caused by the proposals has seriously affected leaseholders trying to sell their properties, and now of 19 examples who qualify for shared equity deals, only a couple can afford them.

Barnet Council had 'cottoned on' to the idea of putting more and more non secure tenants on to the Estate: they were, he said, 'treated like pawns on a chessboard, the first to be moved, easily sacrificed ...' Only recently have they been able to stand up for themselves. There is no provision for them on the new scheme, even though many of them have lived on the estate for years, some ten years or more, their families putting down roots, their children going to local schools.

Private tenants had been completely overlooked, and had no rights in the 'regeneration'.

The density of the scheme, suggested Dismore, was far too great, and greatly exceeds the GLA level, with buildings of up to 31 storeys, so close to the Welsh Harp, a Site of Special Scientific Interest.

He then referred to the loss of York Memorial Park, not only as part of the problem of density, but as a memorial to the civilians lost in the World War 2 air raid: it would be, as the developers put it 'completely refigured'. Originally it had been promised it would be retained: it was now going to be lost.

He referred to the inadequacy of parking provision, and traffic management, the lack of infrastructure, the impact on wildlife.

Neil King QC, for Barnet and Barratts, remarked that there was no statutory requirement for a re-ballot. Andrew Dismore suggested that it was still 'morally right' to undertake such a process.

Oh dear, thought Mrs Angry. All these years in politics, Andrew, and you still worry about morality: have you learned nothing?

It is a fact, isn't it, asked Mr King, that there had been no legal challenge to the planning consent?

Awfully keen on Facts, is Mr King. (Which is good, as Mrs Angry now has some new Facts for Mr King to consider, if she is allowed to present them today).

Dismore tried to explain why that was: but how do you explain to a well paid barrister how impossible it is for disadvantaged residents on a council estate to formulate a legal challenge to anything?

Back to the question of tenants: Barnet Council, claimed Andrew Dismore, had manipulated the system by using non secure tenants for their own pusposes. Letters sent at the beginning of the scheme making promises had referred to every council tenant, and had not differentiated between different types of tenure.

He thought leaseholders should be properly compensated for the losses incurred in the value of their properties, including the impact of 'blight' from the long drawn out 'regeneration' process: offers were way below an acceptable standard.

Regarding his allegations about density, Mr King suggested that issue had been addressed at the planning stage. Depends what you mean by 'addressed', said Dismore. It appeared to be becoming a question of linguistics.

As for matters of biodiversity, Mr King offered the opinion that the matter had been resolved as objections from certain national bodies had been withdrawn. Not the full picure, said Andrew. Local wildlife groups who were better informed were still concerned.

They continued to disagree, hardly surprisingly since Dismore is also a lawyer, and tenacious in argument. At one point Mr King became rather annoyed because he thought the witness had asked him a question. He was not here, he was reminded, to ask questions. It was rhetorical, said Andrew.

Back to the issue of York Park. Mr King referred to the statement made by planning officer Mr Wyld. What evidence do you have for saying York Park is preserved as a memorial?

From residents, he was told, who used to live here at the time. But the park was there on the 1935 map? It became a memorial to the dead, said Dismore. King disagreed, and demanded evidence.

He was told again, it was remembered by people who lived here at the time.

Mr King wanted Facts, of course, and now Mrs Angry has provided those Facts, so we must wait and see if they are allowed as evidence tomorrow.

There is no real alternative, suggested the QC, to the current scheme. The reply was that we needed access to the viability study, and a reminder that when the new Labour leader took over in Hammersmith & Fulham, he was able to extract an extra £26 million from current agreements with developers for affordable housing.

Councillor Devra Kay, and long term West Hendon resident and leaseholder Kalim

After a break, it was time for Dan Knowles to ask questions on behalf of residents: he is retained by some leaseholders, and acting as an advocate for tenants, which is just as well, as other wise they would have no one acting for them with any idea of procedure. Mr Knowles is a truly admirable man, in fact, impeccably fair, and yet firmly protective of the rights of those in West Hendon who would otherwise have no informed representation at this Inquiry, in contrast to the services of Barnet and Barratt's QC.

Dan referred to Perryfields, where it is believed there once stood a memorial to the many civilian victims of the 1941 bombing raid. Residents say the memorial disappeared, and a car park was put there.

The car park itself has now been used to put the building no one wants, developers or residents: an afterthought - a holding place for secure tenants, the ones who are lucky enough to have some rights, and cannot be 'decanted' elsewhere against their will, by the council, unlike the non secure tenants kept on 'temporary' arrangements for up to ten years or so.

This building is outside the footprint of the luxury housing, of course: the deserving poor must be kept away from those who buy their new properties, and whereas the newcomers will have lovely views of the Welsh Harp, the original residents will now gaze, as Andrew Dismore, cribbing from this blog, told Ed Miliband last week, on the back yards of the kebab shops of the Edgware Road. If they haven't all closed by then.

Ironic, then, that the unwanted residents of the council estate built to provide them with decent housing, post war, are now shoved on to the former location of the memorial: a place marked for things to be forgotten - the living and the dead.

After a break Andrew Dismore was questioned further by Dan Knowles: he commented on the way in which off plan sales of properties on new developments discriminates against local residents, and does not create a decent, settled community. The example of Beaufort Park was raised, where those moved there on shared equity deals found themselves facing huge service charges.

Next to take a seat as a witness, or rather to continue cross examination by Dan Knowles, was planning officer Mr Thomas Wyld.

All Barnet planning officers now, of course, are now employed by the Capita-Barnet joint venture 'Re'. Yes: Capita is in charge of planning - and in charge of valuing the leasehold properties, and buying them too; and at the same time are expected to safeguard the best interests of residents, including the residents of West Hendon. A difficult juggling act, one might conclude.

A discussion on density ensued: Mr Wyld informed us that high density was not a reason for refusal of a planning application - even on this scale.

As for criticisms of lack of services such as healthcare, and schools? Meh. No objections had been received in regard to the former, and seven out of twelve GPs were taking on new patients. Mrs Angry counted on the fingers of both hands, and then again, and calculated that that meant five out of twelve were not, which might cause problems when a couple of thousand new families arrived in West Hendon, as indeed would the lack of any new primary school to cater for the children, at least in the immediate future.

Ah, but Mrs Angry, Mr Wyld had an answer for that too: families, children, illness - no. There won't be any, see, in Hendon Waterside, just as we hear a vicar near Beaufort Park was told there wouldn't be any there.

Apparently, in the perfect world envisaged by the designers of luxury housing developments, the ideal residents are young professionals with busy jobs, mortgages, disposable salary, and no children. They must never be unwell, or have children, in fact, because that would spoil everything, and create a demand for ... schools and GPs and parks, and all the sort of things developers don't want to think about, as there is no profit in them.

Mr Wyld put it another way, when asked about the lack of any new secondary schools, he said that the 'child yield' projections indicated that, even taking into consideration of the existing 'child bulge' (feck knows) there would be no need for one.

Odd, because we are promised a new primary school, so some statistical 'slippage', as it were, must be predicted between the crisply ironed sheets of Hendon Waterside's future inhabitants, but clearly when these inconvenient children reach the age of 11, they will be bussed out of the safe world of the new development, across the dangerous comprehensively schooled territory of West Hendon, to QEBoys, or Henrietta Barnett.

Time for residents' spokeswoman Jasmin Parsons to examine Mr Wyld.

Good Morning - and how are you? she asked, in her disarming way, and then launched straight into the subject of - yes, York Park. York Memorial Park. She insisted there had been a stone cross on the car park site, and a service held in York Park.

As we know now, of course she was absolutely right all along: but that is for the next post.

A disagreement followed now about the lack of transport planning: the bus lanes that would be lost, despite the big increase in traffic. They are only broken bus lanes, commented Mr Wyld, unmoved. Of course, thought Mrs Angry. This is Broken Barnet, after all.

Community facilities: so much promised by the council, and so little delivered - community centres closed, and not replaced, or rents charged to residents. When will the new centre be available? No one could say, for certain, but it would not be anytime soon. The Deerfield Social Club, known locally as 'The Madhouse': taken off them, 0r rather 'acquired', by Capita - and not being replaced.

After lunch, Mrs Angry went to the cafe next door, in Hendon Library, with Councillor Kay, and was suddenly struck by an idea, the result of a peculiar suspicion that had been growing over listening to evidence over the last couple of days of the Inquiry. She left her half eaten sandwich on the table and hurried upstairs to see if the borough archivist was around. He was.

Did he know anything about York Memorial Park, in West Hendon?

He did.

Was it true, as she expected him to confirm, that there was no evidence at all to substantiate the story that the park had any sort of memorial status?

He looked at her, rather bemused. That was not true at all, he said: did she want to see the material he had?

Yes - yes: as a matter of fact, she did.

It was arranged she should come back in an hour or so to see what was held in the Archives.

In the meanwhile, back for a short session at the Inquiry.

Giving evidence now was Mr Paul Watling, head of valuation at Capita.

(Mrs Angry, who is easily amused, and easily distracted by the significance of such things, thought it apt that the the valuer from Capita should take his name from that of the Roman road, Watling Street, which became the Edgware Road, on which the West Hendon estate is located ...)

Leaseholders on the estate are angry because they say Capita has undervalued their homes, and they cannot meet the 50% contribution required in the belatedly offered shared equity scheme on new properties. Mr Watling tried to explain why these valuations were so low.

He told us leasehold properties had been inspected for valuation on an 'ad hoc' basis. Offers had been made to owners, and then revised offers. Oh, and a letter had been sent to leaseholders by the deputy Chair of Hendon Conservative Association. Move on, move on, nothing to see here. Yes, just a letter from Tory councillor Tom Davey, lead member for housing, in his capacity as ... oh. Oh dear: doesn't sound credible, does it? But here you go: a real treat, featuring the man who wants the new development stuffed full with Russian oligarchs, and the MP who previously described the leaseholders and tenants who tried to lobby him at a constituency meeting last year as a 'ragtag bunch', hid in the church hall, refused to see them, and then had to be taken home in the back of a police van. Enjoy.

When the Inquiry resumed on Friday morning, Paul Watling returned to continue with his evidence, cross examined by Dan Knowles.

He said that offers to leaseholders had been made by post last June. Mr Knowles pointed out that in some cases, offers were made a matter of hours before the Compulsory Purchase Orders were made.

Only 16 out of 34 properties were inspected.

So some offers were made when the properties had not been inspected?

Yes, they were.

What about residents who had to be informed of the possible loss of rights of access?

All parties written to on the 10th July. But it transpired that Mr Watling was now of the opinion that there were no 'justifiable claims'. After questioning about timescales, he qualified this by saying at the moment he thought no rights were impacted.

Inspector Zoe Hill was interested in how Mr Watling had arrived at his valuations. He said based on 'market transactions' on the estate, and outside it, although it was difficult to make comparisons on market value directly to West Hendon, because it 'depends on one's judgement'. Ah. It was his opinion, ultimately, it seems. And his opinion was that West Hendon properties were pretty well 'obsolete'.

There had been 'revised offers', and goodwill payments dangled in front of some leaseholders, but of course they were obliged, if accepted, to withdraw from the Housing Inquiry which had been appointed.

Next came some awkward questions about the letter from Cllr Davey. This offer, about to be offered: or had it already been offered? Ah. It seems there was only a 'confusion in tenses'.

The use of the Conservative Association heading, said Mr Knowles, suggested some political interference over the most recent offer ...? If it is Capita who advises over the level of offer, how is it the Conservative Association can make this goodwill gesture?

I think you would need to ask the Conservative Association. Mr Watling had known nothing about the letter, until he saw it in a submission to the Inquiry. He would probably have advised that it should not have been sent.

Jasmin's turn: she observed, amongst other interesting matters, that Capita's low offers had the effect of ensuring no one from the estate would be able to stay on the new development.

Mr Watling said that as a valuer, I am concerned with value.

There is a difference, he said, between value, and worth.

Capita, commented Jasmin, run around seventy per cent of council services, now. Is there not a conflict of interest, here?

No, he didn't believe so. Capita was simply a number of different services, albeit 'under the one umbrella'.

Councillor Adam Langleben asked if he would agree that the 'regeneration' has brought a blight to property values. No, he was not sure he would. There were historic and physical factors. Yes, thought Mrs Angry, like a history of neglect by the council landlords.

Councillor Devra Kay pointed out that there seemed to be no consideration given to the beautiful location and views of these properties, and the presence of the wildlife. And that the shoddy repairs, and having to live on a building site was not their fault.

Mr Watling kept repeating that the valuations were largely calculated on the basis of his opinion, and therefore the process we now know was entirely subjective, and has no inbuilt safeguard for the best interests of owners.

The last witness of the day was surveyor and CPO expert Dan Knowles, no longer cross examining but making his own statement.

He explained that for his 19 clients entitled to shared equity deals, there were only ten properties available, and only one actually affordable. There were hidden costs which helped make such a deal prohibitive: huge service charges, £13, 000 charges for a parking space.

In regard to those clients facing loss of access rights, the impact was not yet known.

The level of public consultation was of an insufficient standard: the ballot was twelve years old and out of date.

He described the case of an elderly resident with heart and lung conditions, whose GP had recommended she should move as soon as possible. Listening to this one really had to wonder why any attempt to rehouse this poor woman had not been done long ago, to save her and her family such distress throughout the construction works now making life so unbearable for residents.

Mr King's turn to examine Mr Knowles. The limitations of the Inquiry, we were reminded were that it could only consider whether the CPOs could be confirmed. It was not about valuation. There was no requirement for market value offers until the Secretary of State confirmed this, although it was good practice, said Mr Knowles, to do this. Otherwise purchasers start low and progress upwards, Equally the surveyors will start high, said Mr King.

'Blighting effects' had to be left out. Yes, said Mr Knowles, you have to value as in a 'no scheme world'.

A no scheme world. Is there such a place? Not in Broken Barnet, where every property has its price, and a house is only a home if you can afford to buy it, and not always even then.

Before Mrs Angry realised what was happening, there was a sudden diversion to the matter of York Park, and a reference to 'new evidence'. She sat up, and watched with some wry amusement the reaction in certain quarters.

What that evidence is, will be the subject of the next post, but let us say it was enough for Dan Knowles to question the assertions made for so long by the council and Barratts about the park, and indeed the bombing raid.

This put something of a spanner in the works, as you can imagine. Despite having made arrangements to submit this new evidence, the Inspector appeared not to realise this, and alluded somewhat obscurely to 'cost implications', as did Mr King, who then smoothly added that of course, at this stage, he had not intention of making any such application. Mrs Angry didn't know what they were banging on about, then: just as well, probably.

Anyway, said Mr King: the bomb fell outside the area under consideration. Mrs Angry shook her head, but he didn't notice.

The discussion turned at last to the matter of consultation. Mr King was of the opinion that residents had had an opportunity to participate in the planning process. Mr Knowles thought that they felt disengaged, and disenfranchised. The residents felt they were not being effectively listened to, but rather told what was happening. Any engagement then, he thought, seemed to them to be a 'futile exercise'.

There is a difference, said Neil King, QC, between listening to, and taking action.

It didn't necessarily mean accepting their views.

Indeed, thought Mrs Angry.

Why would anyone think that any consultation with residents and tax payers facing the demolition of their homes, and the destruction of their community, should carry any obligation to respect their opinion?

Who are these people, to put their private loss before the interests of private developers, and the half baked political agenda of our crackpot Tory council?

The hearing resumes this morning.

It promises to be an interesting day.

Giving it (not very) Large: Barnet's new interim, part-time, temporary Monitoring Officer steps into the breach. Sort of.

Keep it in perspective, or: Mistakes will happen: a salute from the bridge, as the Barnet Tory ship sinks into the sea

A show trial in Broken Barnet: Labour's Kath McGuirk vindicated - again

Honey, I shrunk the libraries: Barnet Tories, wielding the knife once more

A nursery tale, and decorum not retained: a meeting with the hollow men of Broken Barnet

Accentuate the positive, or: the beginning of the end - Barnet Tories in humiliating defeat over cuts

Hesitating before Heaven's Gate: Mrs Angry's Remembrance Day

Laventie

Brought to book: Barnet's nonsultation on library cuts

This is our land: tales from Cricklewood, and the launch of Barnet Labour's Housing Commission

The disappearing council: and a place where people live - a week in Broken Barnet

Be careful what you wish for, and: Mrs Angry goes to a library 'consultation'

Brought to book: Barnet's nonsultation on library cuts

Secret Santa in Broken Barnet, or: Easycouncil ... as easy as falling off a chair?

How the West was Won: the forgotten story of Hendon Waterside

The difference between a house, and a home: Labour's Housing Commission takes evidence

Exclusive: "So others can get a cut of the business": who is plotting to take over Barnet Libraries?

The Libraries Consultation: a joint letter by the Barnet bloggers

Return of the Invisible Man: Dr Offord and Mrs Angry talk about libraries

A concept of place making, and the promotion of well being: the West Hendon Inquiry begins

A confusion in tenses, and: the difference between value, and worth - the West Hendon Inquiry continues