Quantcast
Channel: Broken Barnet
Viewing all 403 articles
Browse latest View live

Mapledown: victory for the parents - and a new low for Barnet Tories

$
0
0

Mapledown School

To say that the Barnet Tories are in a state of pre-election panic would be grossly unfair. 

They are now in a state of total meltdown. 

The evidence for this is, as always, measurable by the extent of depth to which they have resorted in order to try to avert further damage to their electoral chances: and judging by what has happened yesterday, they are really, really worried about their electoral chances ...

And so they should be. 

The truth is, after four years of disastrous administration, the Tories have no positive achievements to promote, and are scratching about in the soil, like fools, looking for the scrapings of something to put before voters. 

First of all came the ludicrous claim that the community library in Friern Park was a victory for Tory policy in action, rather than a triumph of the occupy movement and local campaigners. 

That feeble attempt met with widespread ridicule, so the Tories began to go on the attack, and this tactic has increased in the last few weeks, as a series of skeletons have been falling out of the Barnet Tory closet, possibly due to the lack of space, and pressure on the wobbly catch on the door. 

That the door fell open at all is possibly due to the fact it happened while they were all too busy trying to smear Labour and deflect attention from their woeful record. 

This campaign began with a preposterous story about an unnamed councillor they alleged had been 'tax dodging' - she hadn't, as it turned out, and questions remain about why officers felt obliged to take action against her on a false premise, and so close to the beginning of the period of purdah. 

Revelations then emerged about the puerile and highly offensive behaviour of Cabinet member Tom Davey, whose housing policy in Barnet seeks to reclaim the borough for the wealthy, and remove the undeserving poor to destinations unknown. The protest against Barnet's failure to address the housing crisis led to a protest in front of the Mayor of London on a visit here a couple of weeks ago, causing widespread embarrassment for the Tories. 

Further disastrous scenes ensued when West Hendon residents wanting to lobby their Tory MP Matthew Offord were refused access to him at a constituency meeting, and he resorted to calling on the police to escort him home, cowering in the back of a van, as protestors jeered.

A local primary school, Holly Park, was found to be in putting young children's health at risk by failing to maintain standards of hygiene in their kitchens, and not informing parents: the governing board failed to respond adequately to concerns raised, as one of the members, Tory councillor Brian Salinger admitted.

Then last week Mrs Angry revealed the curious tale of the wide disparity in the allocation of Highways funding to wards around the borough, with the top four lucky wards just happening to be Tory seats, and the highest level of funding by far going to the ward represented by  ... the Cabinet member in charge of setting the funding ...

Add to this sequence of unfortunate events the truly shocking decision of the Tory group to impose serious cuts to the respite support schemes at a school for disabled children ... well. What can you say?


Tory 'leader' Richard Cornelius 25th March 2014: “I think the average person in the street thinks this is fair.”


The previous post explains what happened last week when Labour called in the Mapledown decision: 



It was agreed an emergency meeting should be held before the election in order to review the issue of the Mapledown cuts.


News broke yesterday that this emergency Cabinet meeting  had been cancelled. 

Then later that afternoon we heard that the cuts themselves had been cancelled: no - not cancelled - 'deferred' for a year. 

Well, we all know what that means, don't we?

Delayed for a year, to be implemented if the Tories get back into power next month.

If you don't want to see cuts to vital support for disabled children, then please: think, when you are standing in the voting booth, of the consequences of your actions.

The reason for the Tories' u-turn, of course, is the dreadful publicity that this appalling act has engendered, right on the the brink of an election. 

Wednesday night saw the meeting where the cuts decision was called in by Labour councillors, and attended by parents, staff and a pupil from Mapledown School. Three Tory councillors were resolutely unmmoved by the pleas to refer the decision back - but two had the grace to agree that it should, and it was. 
 
Mrs Angry wrote to Cornelius and Councillor John Hart on Thursday to express her sense of utter disgust at the remarks Hart had made after the meeting in the local paper, dismissing parent's concerns with gross insensitivity, and criticising vital support for their children, all of whom have profound and complex disabilities, as 'handouts'. No response, as you might expect.

But Mrs Angry understands from her spies in the House of One Barnet that having read accounts of the meeting, and viewed the footage, even Richard Cornelius could see that continuing to maintain an absolute opposition to the pleas of the parents of severely disabled children was not awfully good PR for him and his Tory chums.

But what to do? How do you admit you were wrong, when you said, and you did say it, didn't you, Richard, that an ordinary person in the street would think it fair, that you had made a pre-election 'gesture' of a tax cut bringing 23 pence a week to residents, and then cut the funding to Mapledown?

No one could have attended the meeting this week, and listened to the speech made by Kristine Canavan, the mother of a child with so many complex and demanding needs, and hear him calling across the room to her, and not want to cry, and shout, in rage, at the total moral backruptcy of the Tory councillors who had sanctioned these cuts, and continued to support these cuts, most of them, and don't think, Brian Gordon, Rowan Quigley Turner, and John Hart, that Mrs Angry is going to let you forget. 

I say no one, other than a Tory councillor,  could have attended the meeting, and remained unmoved. In fact, we do not know if the Tory leader Richard Cornelius, having seen the footage, was moved: but he certainly recognised that he had presided over the most almighty PR disaster, by cutting the Mapledown funding. The only thing to do, this close to the election, was to seem to retract the decision, at least, temporarily. 

But to Barnet Tory councillors, retreat is a sign of weakness, no matter how injust the decision you are retracting. They may have been forced, for political reasons, into a u turn, but they could not bear simply to admit they were wrong, and apologise to the parents and children of Mapledown. They could not say they were sorry, because they are not sorry: they have no sense of conscience, or remorse - just fury at being wrongfooted.

But whenever you think our Barnet Tory councillors have reached the bottom of the pit of total shamelessness, they always surprise us all by sinking to a new level, don't they?

Forced, then, into a temporary u turn over their merciless cuts to Mapledown, they looked for someone to blame. Yes, clearly they were to blame, but they could not admit that, could they?

Look at this story in Barnet Press

Here you will see how Tory leader Cornelius is trying to deflect the toxic publicity caused by his own actions back on to the people who have tried to put the matter right: that is to say the Labour group. 

He starts by pulling the usual Tory trick of becoming outraged by their own policy decisions, whenever they backfire and cause unwelcome publicity, and then goes a step further: blaming Labour for acting not in the interests of the parents and children so badly used by him and his cronies, but for political reasons. Only Barnet Tories, of course, could see the political profit and loss to be gained from such an issue, before the injustice, caused by their own decisions, that cries out to be put right.

Then, however, the Tory 'leader' resorts to lunatic claims that Labour's actions have 'removed all funding from these organisations'. Which organisations, and how? Well, he does not elaborate.

Read on:

“This needs to be reversed. I am taking urgent action to avoid these services being wrecked.

“Mr Rawlings and Labour have created a right constitutional mess and have effectively removed all funding from these organisations. In their attempts to make the funding of short breaks at Mapledown School a political football – never having highlighted or varied this particular saving in their budget amendment – they have recklessly made the situation much worse.

“Labour are faffing around calling for meetings, but what they’ve done needs urgent action and cannot wait for a committee meeting to be called. This is no longer just about short breaks, but also about children in care, mental health services and all sorts. I am ensuring that these services can continue.”


Labour are faffing around.

Trying to restore respite care to exhausted parents of disabled children.

Cornelius appears to have overlooked the fact that the vote to refer the cuts decision back was only passed with the support of his own Tory colleagues, Brian Salinger and Maureen Braun, who had the decency and humanity to follow their consciences and vote for what was right, rather than what was politically expedient. 

Tory 'Leader' Richard Cornelius: I am taking urgent action against my own actions. Vote for me on May 22nd.


An ill advised handling of a catastrophic misjudgement by the Tories, the whole Mapledown issue, of course. And who decided to launch such a clumsy, childish attempt to escape the responsibility for all this? 

We don't know, but what we did see yesterday is yet another truly breathtaking performance of outstanding political inanity by Cornelius' Cabinet colleague, Robert Rams, who had sat through much of the CRC meeting where the Mapledown cuts were nodded through, with no debate, engaged with his phone, and trying to score cheap points with the resident who addressed the meeting about the extortionate £10,000 demands from leaseholders in West Hendon:


 

In his own comical attempt at a blog he published a version of the Tories's statement, prefaced by this:

An incredible blunder by Labour Group Deputy Leader Cllr Barry Rawlings has effectively cut all Short Breaks funding provided by the council to institutions across Barnet, along with a whole range of other support services for children with disabilities, to the value of £1.9m.

The Labour member ‘called in’ the Cabinet Resources Committee report that extended the contracts for these services to the Business Management Overview and Scrutiny Committee on Wednesday evening and then, with colleagues, voted that it be sent back to the administration. Without these contract extensions, the council is left without the legal power to pay its providers, meaning services would have to be stopped.

An incredible blunder.

Councillor Robert Rams

You will note not one word of remorse or apology to the parents and children of Mapledown, or even any indication that he understands the impact of what he and his colleagues had created by cutting the funding to the school. 

And, curiously, no recognition of the fact that the emergency meeting which had been decided upon precisely in order to deal with the issue as soon as possible was mysteriously cancelled just before the Tory smear tactics were put into action.

This is Broken Barnet.

There is nothing more to say.


May 2014: Barnet decides - but will your voice be heard?

$
0
0
The right to to vote is something we take for granted, isn't it? And yet it is less than a hundred years since women won that right, and working men were excluded from the democratic process for almost as long. 

For all the empty promises of Eric Pickles' localism agenda, the harsh truth is that the only challenge to the rule of a failed administration is an election: the democratic process, as we see it here in Broken Barnet, anyway, from one election to the next, offers no other way to influence the course of political decision making. 

Everything the current Tory administration could do to act in defiance of the spirit of localism has been done, in fact - even to the extent of silencing the voices of its own residents at public meetings, and forbidding all reference to their disastrous policies.

So this next election, in less than a month's time, is hugely significant. After all the controversy of the last four years, and a litany of catastrophic stories engendered by the current administration's increasingly deluded activities, there is everything at stake: the future of a borough that saw itself as a flagship of privatisation, just itching to get back in power and hand over the last of the keys to Capita, and allow it to ransack what is left of our council services.

There are many well known Tory figures who are at risk of losing their seats, and some very good candidates standing for Labour in areas which they stand a good chance of winning.

Other interesting factors include the unknown impact of the collapse of the Libdem vote, the absence of the resident association candidates who split the vote in several wards last time round - and the threat of protest vote for UKIP.

Ah: UKIP. More of that anon: first let us consider a very worrying prospect.

That right to vote which we take for granted: will you be able to exercise that right, and vote in next month's elections?

A couple of weeks ago, Mrs Angry was asked to sign some election nomination papers. When the person organising this went to check her name on the electoral register - it wasn't there.

This was a real shock, as Mrs Angry had sent in a form weeks earlier.She rang the electoral registration department, and an officer confirmed that her form had not been processed. Why? A serious backlog, due to shortage of staff. The officer had three boxes of forms sitting by her feet. But there is an election next month ... Yes, she said, I know.

The next day, Mrs Angry, her son and daughter - first time voters - received the following form:



Mrs Angry's son was outraged (yes, inherited characteristic) - Does this mean I can't vote? In fact, that is not the case, but many people who received this letter, sent out weeks after registration should have been confirmed, will imagine that they are not able to vote next month.

Another call to the electoral registration office. A different officer said there were 'thousands' of forms waiting to be processed and added to the electoral register, but the problem was shortage of staff.

Mrs Angry wrote to the Returning Officer, ie Chief Executive Andrew Travers, and the leaders of all the parties in Barnet pointing out the implications of such a backlog. 

The Libdem leader replied immediately that he thought the situation was appalling. The Tory leader replied - and he almost never acknowledges correspondance with Mrs Angry - very early the next morning, to say he was concerned. The Returning Officer sent an out of  office reply. He was away - rather incredibly - at this crucial time before the election. 

Panic stations at NLBP, and then a political whitewash. The Tory leader was assured by officers that there was absolutely no problem. In the place of the missing Returning Officer, Monitoring Officer Mary Ellen Salter sent a typically rude response telling Mrs Angry that it was her fault she had been disenfranchised - as she should have sent in her form last year.

Mrs Angry sent a response to Ms Salter objecting to the tone and content of her reply - which for some reason, despite the personal information it contained, had been copied to others - and saying that not that it was any of Ms Salter's business, but there were personal and perfectly valid reasons for submitting her form more recently, and clearly the main issue is that the council should not be taking weeks to process registration, just before an election.

More worryingly rumours emerged that not only were there delays in registration, some forms may even have been lost. Lost? How?

If they have been lost, this maybe how.

Despite promises that the Royal Mail would carry all election material, Barnet has a contract for delivery of much of its post with TNT.

As was revealed last week, TNT has come under criticism for poor standards of delivery:

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/threat-to-elections-as-mail-firm-tnt-post-sends-poll-cards-to-wrong-voters-9287270.html

So already there are reports of electoral material - polling cards, for example, going missing and being delivered to the wrong address, as well as other mail. 

While out canvassing in West Hendon two weeks ago, Mrs Angry herself spotted this TNT bike left parked - see pic below - unguarded for two hours - if there was any post in the bags, clearly there was a grave risk of theft, and one can only ask how widespread such laxity might be.


Then just this morning, a story in the Barnet Press tells us that more dumped TNT post - including sensitive Barnet Council mail - has been found dumped near the Silkstream river in Colindale, by, of all people, Hendon Tory MP Matthew Offord.

 
The significance of TNT's questionable reliability is that the postcodes covered by the Barnet contract are in the west and north west of the borough: largely Labour voting areas. In what might be a fiercely close contest in many marginal wards, such unreliability might well have a serious impact on the outcome of the election.

Which brings us back to where we started.

In Mrs Angry's view, both Tories and Labour are underestimating the risk posed by vote splitting UKIP support. In fact, it is an immeasurable factor, and hard to predict. One thing is sure: the campaign, if that is what you can call it, is not working to the advantage of party interests. Indeed, some candidates appear not to know where they are standing: Mrs Angry was puzzled to receive the following leaflet from her local UKIP candidate, who seems like a nice old boy, posing in his photo in a kipper tie outside a pub. On one side of the leaflet he says he is standing in West Finchley. On the other he says it is West Hendon.

He wants more grammar schools, and to protect our green spaces, and oh: to 'challenge and review One Barnet' ... well, that's more than Labour has promised, to be fair ... 


    
On one side of the leaflet he says he is standing in West Finchley. On the other he says it is West Hendon. Someone dealt with this confusion with later leaflet deliveries by - no, none of this red tape, bureacratic shillyshallying - taking out his biro, and casually crossing out 'West Hendon'. No need to panic. This is the sort of practical, no nonsense approach for which we British are renowned, after all. 






Ted wants more grammar schools, and to protect our green spaces, and oh: to 'challenge and review One Barnet' ... 

Well, that's more than Labour has promised, to be fair ...

There is another interesting leaflet Mrs Angry has seen in the last few days: yes - one for the independent candidate in Totteridge. You won't have heard of him. Chap called Brian Coleman. Used to be a Tory. Beat up a woman in the high road, got thrown out of the Tory party - eventually - by Conservative central office, as his own former colleagues - including his fellow Totteridge councillor and Tory leader Richard Cornelius - were too scared.

A few weeks ago an early election leaflet poked its head through the letter boxes of Totteridge Ward - one grateful constituent posted a picture on twitter:




But that was just a softening up exercise, all part of Brian's masterful campaign strategy. He taught Lynton Crosby everything he knows, of course, and do you know, Brian rarely gets the credit. 

The old 'dogwhistle' thing: Brian's idea. Well, not so much a dogwhistle, as an all out attack by a particularly rabid pitbull. Of course the law does have certain restraints which even Coleman must abide by, and the pitbull must be kept on a leash, when it comes to election material. The leaflet that our Brian has produced, however - printed in the Netherlands, for some reason  - displays the temper not so much of a pitbull,  as a particularly peevish poodle. Yap, yap, yap.

Brian has never forgiven Cornelius for what he sees as his 'betrayal' - and has used his election leaflet to try to smear the leader and his wife, by making rather ill advised claims about the allowances they have received from their time in office: 




Wonder where he got that pic? Hope you're not infringing copyright, Brian.

So, he reckons, and of course he offers no evidence, that over seven years Cllr Cornelius and Cllr Cornelius raked in £314,786, oh - and 82 pence, let's not forget.

According to Mrs Angry's slow calculations ...  that's around £45,000 a year, between the two of them, just over £22k each. And yes, that is about £22k more than Mrs Angry thinks they deserve, but then, this is all relative, isn't it?

We need a comparison, for the sake of balance. Let's see.

Ah. Yes. 

Brian Coleman. 

On his uppers now, poor old love, lives in a charity owned flat, fixed rent, down to only basic councillor allowance, due to run out any time now ... but once upon a time, readers: once upon a time ...

Take a look at this forensically adduced piece of auditing by one of Mrs Angry's extensive, and only mildly exploited, team of unpaid intern researchers, back in 2010: 





ah, those were the days, weren't they Brian? Years of raking in an annual income from the public purse of at least £128,864 ... Rather makes the Cornelius income pale by comparison, no?

So there he is, our man, standing as usual in a Joseph Paxton sized glasshouse, throwing large pieces of concrete, oblivious to his own failings, because of course, in his own mind, Brian Coleman is above the rules that apply to other mortals: he has appeared on earth to lead us wheresover he should choose, unquestioning, and he must be revered and feted at every step, and at every expense to the taxpayer. Yes, because only he, of all us who dwell in the demi paradise that is Broken Barnet, is worth it.

Will the residents of Totteridge care, when they read of their councillors earning £314,786 - and 82 pence, over six years? Mrs Angry suspects most of them will not give a flying f*ck, as if you live in Totteridge Lane, you would spend that on having your new swimming pool installed, without batting so much as an eyelid.

What else does our candidate have to say, in terms of policies?



First of all please note Brian has paid his own tribute to his blogging mentor/muse, ie Mrs Angry, by pinching a photo from this blog of him and Boris outside Temple Fortune police station. 

I know what you are thinking. Which of them, Mrs Angry, had been helping the police with their enquiries? Not Brian, this time, although as we know, he is familiar with the inside of a police station, and indeed has spent the night in a custody cell, after the Helen Michael assault. Hold on. Let us enjoy that thought for a moment. Itchy blanket. No room service. Full English breakfast, but courtesy of HM constabulary.

In fact, Mrs Angry had found this picture after a long search as for some reason, it is practically the only one in existence that features the pair of them standing close together. How odd, that the Mayor of London has not willingly posed with Brian Coleman more often. Can't imagine why.

The quote used here 'Bring Back Brian', which has rather touchingly been used as a reference, was in fact made in a moment of despair recently by the Mayor, when facing the awkward questioning of Labour AM Andrew Dismore, who took Coleman's seat. Brian - read this carefully: let Mrs Angry translate. It meant: oh God, when Coleman was here I could get away with anything, and now look, or words to that effect ...

Moving on. The policies. More grammar schools, and to protect our Green Belt, out of Europe, end immigration - hang on ... that sounds familiar ... You a kipper, now, Brian?

Except of course that the UKIP candidates round here don't even go as far as that. No mention in Ted's leaflet about immigration, or Europe.

We don't know how the currently non-aligned member for Totteridge would align himself, in an ideal world, in fact: there is no description on the nomination form, just a blank space. His twitter profile describes him as a 'true' Conservative. It may well be, of course, that the Returning Officer would not allow the c word on the nomination form.

There was a UKIP candidate supposed to stand in the ward, but his nomination  appears to have been missed off the list.*

This is rather curious: take a look at this post by the Barnet Bugle,


 

*Update Monday:the Bugle reports that the missing candidate has been found and returned to the nomination list. Curious, because the documentation appears to be dated the day on which the original list was published, without him. An administrative error, we hear. So now we must welcome Keith Graham Fraser, who is nominated by an Elizabeth D Herit.

Another candidate in Totteridge has chosen to leave his details undisclosed too, a George Linskey. Checking him out on social media sites it would appear that this rather confused young man is a UKIP supporter, but presumably not a member. Very odd. And his nominee ... is a Raymond Herit. Odder still.

There are in all nine UKIP candidates standing in Barnet at this election. With changing demographic profiles in many wards, and the collapse of support for Libdems,  the UKIP factor will play even more of significant role in affecting the outcome of the election, and unpredictable in the way it takes votes from both Tory and Labour parties.

Finchley Church End - Amir Latif

A Tory ward, but perhaps not as safe as the current rather complacent councillors - Eva Greenspan, Daniel Thomas and Graham Old like to think.
 
Hendon - Barry Ryan
 
Tory ward, but not immune from challenge.

Mill Hill - George Alfred Jones

Tory ward, Libdems used to come second, a lot of voters annoyed by parking and planning issues: unlikely to pick up from UKIP but will be interesting to see the outcome.

Oakleigh - Victor Kaye

Labour and Libdems with comparable votes last time: difficult to predict ...

Totteridge - Keith Graham Fraser - bound to pick up some votes, but competing with entrenched Tories. And Brian Coleman, who may grab all the Monster Raving Looney tendency voters for himself.
 
Underhill - John Jeffrey Baskin

Split ward: two Tories, one Labour. Likely to want to divest itself of the two Tories.

West Finchley - Ted Anderson

Labour stronghold. Not a chance of a look in by anyone else.
 
West Hendon - Adrian Murray-Leonard

Adrian is something of a loveable rogue - (and keeps trying to kiss Mrs Angry in the Greyhound). Grateful though she is for the attention, he is on to a loser with her, and with the voters of Labour held West Hendon, where last time he stood as a Tory candidate.

Woodhouse - Karl Khan

The collapse in Libdem support should help safely to return this ward to Labour. UKIP factor unknown.

Of course what is interesting, from a brief look at the UKIP candidates, is the curious fact that so many representatives of the party which is so opposed to immigration, are themselves clearly here to delight us all with their UKIP focused views because someone in their own family was  ... an immigrant.

Not just the candidates, but many of those signing the nominations are clearly from families who came to this country relatively recently. Why do they want to deny to others the opportunities they have enjoyed?

It seems to Mrs Angry, dabbling her toe in very dangerous waters, that those of us whose grandparents came to this country from elsewhere should be last in the queue when it comes to excluding the same privileges to others.

It is a curiousity of human nature, of course, that those whose connection to the place where they live is more tenuous than others feel the need to exaggerate their own rights of identity.

Let us take an interesting diversion, and examine the case of Mr Nigel Farage.

In hot water, this week, for employing his German wife in a post funded by public money, at the same time as running a campaign focused on whipping up hysteria about European  workers stealing British jobs. Hmm.

Mrs Angry thought it would be interesting to look at Farage's own background.

He likes to spin the story behind his own unusual surname as being of Huguenot origin: sort of foreign, yes, a bit French but you know, way back, and Protestant. None of that foreign Papist nonsense. 

In fact a quick look on Ancestry.co.uk reveals that the Farage name, to be pronounced, we are told, Far-AGE, is more likely to be rather more boring Ferridge, from the home counties, generations back. 

We know of course that Mr Ferridge has a German wife, and secretary, but last year the Express ran a short story, curiously overlooked,  revealing that Farage had German ancestry. 

Nigel's grandmother was a Gladys Schrod, and the Express article claimed that the family arrived a couple of years 'after 1861' . Nigel's great grandfather Carl Julius/Justus Schrod was born here in 1864.

In fact the Express and apparently everyone else has failed to spot the 1911 census return which includes the surviving grandmother, Bina Schrod, who was born in Friedberg by Frankfurt. 

Until the coming of the Holocaust, Friedberg had a large Jewish population, and Bina is, or was, a common German Jewish forename, of Hebrew origin, meaning 'understanding, intelligence, wisdom'. If the UKIP leader's family were from such a community, it would seem possible his family settled in London at a time when many Jewish communities were finding increasing persecution and social isolation, as well as economic difficulties: coming to England was easy enough during this period due to the absence of any restrictions on immigration, of course.

Does any of this matter? 

Yes, it does: the European origins of our Mr Ferridge's own family, and the immigrant background of local UKIP candidates is deeply interesting, from both a pyschological and political point of view. 

Only today we here former Tory cash for questions MP Neil Hamilton promoting UKIP on the basis it is the party for 'decent BNP voters'.




Second and third generation families often feel the need to overcompensate by identifying strongly with establishment values, and political values. But in truth their own family's experience, if honestly acknowledged, proves the point that UKIP and any other right wing anti-immigration party is trying to exploit: that this is an island nation, and all of us in the UK are self evidently here because we arrived from somewhere else. 

We are what we are, due to immigration, and if we had, in the nineteenth century, the sort of restrictions on immigration that UKIP wants, very few of us would be here, and many of our families would not have survived, whether from genocide in Europe, state sponsored starvation in Ireland, the aftermath of post-colonialism, or the extremes of poverty and persecution in too many countries around the world.

It is the people who came here who have made Great Britain great: and our democracy is built on a legacy of tolerance, legally protected rights, and a political system aimed at giving a voice to everyone, regardless of their background, or class. Here in Broken Barnet that voice needs to be heard, loud and clear: and so does a rejection of the divisive, hate fuelled policies of UKIP. 

So: Barnet decides, you decide: make sure you vote, and before you vote, make sure your vote is registered: you might find only too late that your voice isn't going to be heard at all ... doubts about registration, postal votes, polling cards, nominations - and now there are the questions raised about the security of the ballot papers overnight, in Allianz Park ... Perhaps it is an ill omen, as Councillor Coleman has observed, in a complaint to the Returning Officer, that the count will be held in a stadium renamed after a company associated with the Nazi era.

Or maybe it's time to demand the presence of a team of observers from the United Nations, to ensure this election runs smoothly, and uncompromised by error.

Just a thought. This is Broken Barnet, after all.

Understanding the landscape - or: One Barnet, and gambling that disaster's not going to happen - the last audit meeting

$
0
0




After the Audit meeting, the retiring chair, Lord Palmer, was invited to the bloggers' retreat, the Greyhound pub, round the corner from the Town Hall - and adjacent to the Church Farmhouse, our former museum, now ransacked, closed and up for sale, an apt metaphor for the policies of the Barnet Tory party, as chronicled here, over the last four years.

I never have a drink before a meeting, commented Monroe. Mrs Angry thought wistfully of the occasion on which she had survived an Audit meeting completely anaesthetised by an undoubtedly over generous amount of champagne, which had made the whole experience so much more bearable - and almost interesting, apart from the end, by which time she was thinking about lying on the floor, and going to sleep.

Most audit meetings are - for Mrs Angry at least - far too long and frankly rather tedious, and no amount of self medication can make the evening pass any quicker.

Mrs Angry did her best to try to prepare for the inevitable by - like most of the councillors - not reading too many of the reports, and trying not to think in any depth about any of the relevant issues beforehand, but slipped up, ultimately, by failing to resist submitting a few questions, purely to upset the officers, and to test the resolve of the external auditor, Mr Paul Hughes, of Grant Thornton.

Alas, Mr Paul Hughes, of Grant Thornton, was there only in spirit, his place-name laid at the table, in tribute to our absent friend. No fun to be had, then, thought Mrs Angry, filled with gloom.

Wednesday night's meeting, however, would require more than usually focused attention, as it had some very important and significant findings to be considered: as summarised in a Labour party press release:



The reports going to the committee had flagged up several very serious findings of no or limited assurance, including questions of real risk to sensitive data, and highlighting deep flaws in the management of our contracted services.

Public questions began. 

Celebrity blogger and vexatious council interrogator Mr Mustard busied himself asking about his favourite subject, ie the NSL parking contract. 

Parking, observed Lord Palmer, with masterful understatement, does excite many people in the London Borough of Barnet ...

This contract, and the way in which it has been managed - or not - is a very pertinent indicator of how Barnet's whopping contracts with Crapita will also be managed - or not. 

One worrying trend, audited by Mr Mustard, is the way in which failures to reach agreed KPIs - performance targets - by NSL appear to have been left unchallenged and unpenalised. 

From one of his questions here it emerged that at last, last month, these failures were not likely to result in the financial penalties that are supposed to follow such poor performance. The answer last night said that since last month, 'an agreement was reached' after discussions during which 'NSL made a strong case why they should have been granted relief'.

The council then rolled over and at least partially accepted their sob story and 'allowed a degree of relief'. 

Quelle surprise. 

Mrs Angry next, and a few awkward questions:

                       

Did Grant Thornton assess the internal auditing of Highways expenditure, and would any proven disproportionate allocation of funds, in the opinion of the external auditors, raise a potential risk of unlawful expenditure, or any other breach of regulations?

The written response said Highways expenditure is not reviewed 'year on year' by internal audit, which seemed surprising. But Mrs Angry was informed that if she felt expenditure was unlawful, she could raise an objection with the external auditor, ie Grant Thornton.

Oh dear. In Mrs Angry's experience, the external auditor is not naturally inclined to give any weighty consideration to any complaint made by Mrs Angry. In fact, it is hard to imagine exactly what sort of apocalyptic audit-related horror might cause even the slightest frown of disapproval to appear on the shiny, eager, Pollyanna-like visage of Mr Paul Hughes, or any of his colleagues.

As a supplementary question, Mrs Angry asked if the Chair was of the opinion that the internal audit process was adequately robust, if it could leave unscrutinised expenditure of such evident disproportion? 

The Chair had some views of his own on some of the curious characteristics of this funding, which, as Mrs Angry reminded him, had resulted this year in the Cabinet Member's own ward receiving £1 million, and the Labour ward of Colindale not one penny ...

Next question on the worrying lack of assurance re 'People Management' and the failure of the authority to ensure that Comensura, the agency with a contract to provide staff to the council, had carried out the relevant safeguarding checks on new recruits. The written answer said no staff had been identified as failing checks. But, asked Mrs Angry, have you actually looked? Have all these posts been assessed? Because otherwise, clearly vulnerable residents have been left at risk. 

Answer: no one knew. Oh. They would check, to see if checks had been made on the checks in question. Once again: echoes of the MetPro scandal, and lessons not learned.

Last question.

The evidence in this report relating to limited assurances, and findings with no assurance, proves that not only does the authority continue to demonstrate incompetence in managing longer term contracts such as with Comensura and NSL, it has not addressed the most fundamental security issues created by the wholescale privatisation of our council services by Capita. 


Perhaps the Chair will remember, at the beginning of the current administration, the outcome of the Metpro scandal, and the revelation that the authority was failing to exercise its obligations to the taxpayers of this borough by presiding over a culture of gross incompetence in the management of procurement and contractual activities. 

Does the Chair agree with me that there is a grave risk that the authority will continue to fail the taxpayers of this borough by failing now effectively to manage the Capita contracts, and to ensure that the aspirational savings and benefits so often celebrated by the Conservative administration become reality, rather than the empty promises of a door to door salesman, desperate for a quick buck?

Let Mrs Angry give you the written answer, by the Chair, and then the answer which she has learnt was the one the officers had produced.

Monroe's response was diplomatic:

No doubt the Members of the committee, including the Chair, will comment on the report when discussing the report with relevant Officers. My concern, as Audit Chair, is the length of the contracts. I trust that Internal and External Audit will continue to be transparent in their Audit Opinions

The original response, however, from an unknown senior officer, or senior officers, a response dismissed by Lord Palmer, was:

No

Rude.

Mrs Angry pointed out that the issue, really, was not the length of the contract so much as the fact that the reports submitted to the committee indicated that the authority was unlikely to be able to manage contracts of the scale of the Capita takeover, if they are unable to deal with the smaller arrangements - not to mention the issues which are already occurring.


And the truth, the unpalatable truth, is that in four years, over the course of this administration, we have gone full circle, from an audit that revealed the state of gross incompetence presided over by senior management and Tory executive, one that allowed a management culture with no control over the procurement and scrutiny of its contracted suppliers, to an audit of a commissioning council which has procured itself into a state of virtual bondage to Capita, and adopted a position of abject servitude to the new 'partner', from which the act of scrutiny is all but impossible.

Time for John Dix, blogger Mr Reasonable, to speak to the committee. 

John is a management consultant by profession, wwith many years experience in dealing with outsourcing and corporate matters.

Beneath an increasingly more fragile veneer of Reasonableness, he visibly struggles to contain his emotions at Audit meetings: departing at times from a default mode of continual exasperation, and head shaking, to deep, abiding despair, interspersed with moments of semi-hysteria - and at times, frankly, appearing almost to be hovering on the edge of tears. It is slightly unnerving if you are sitting next to him, and listening to the litany of his muttered insults and pithy observations, all the way through the meeting. But he is always very kind and patient with Mrs Angry, and explains the auditing issues in words of one syllable, and in ways her feeble blogging mind can almost grasp. 



Yet again, he told the committee, we are presented with a shocking report. He listed the awful assurance ratings, the threat to IT security, the risk of irreplaceable data loss, the law contract bill, the failure properly to manage the Comensura and NSL contracts - what have you been doing, in all this time? They've spent £8 million with consultants masquerading as 'implementation partners' for the Capita deal, we have a Chief Executive and Chief Operating Officer paid fabulous salaries and look: the most basic foundations of all these contracts are still not addressed.

The council's interface with Capita, as demonstrated by the reports, is anything but seamless. If Capita want to say the issues arose prior to the start of the contracts, who is then to blame? Management? The eagerness to push One Barnet, said Mr Reasonable, has swamped all other priorities, yet senior management sees no problems, and no one takes responsibility. What steps, he asked, are you taking to see we don't find ourselves in further difficulties?

The response from councillors? Only Labour's Geof Cooke asks a question. What can the Audit Committee do? What is the way forward?

Hold senior management to account, suggested Mr Reasonable, once again exhibiting the patience of a saint. You are the Audit Committee, he explained ... you should be able to hold them to account. The Tory councillors looked across the table at him blankly, incomprehendingly.

A revolutionary proposal, for the elected members of Barnet Council, and one which, if observed over the last few years, would almost certainly have prevented the imposition of the Capita contracts.

Lord Palmer commented that the Audit Committee used to be graced by the presence of the Chief Executive. But even when he suggested that A Former Cabinet Member (guess who) should come to the committee to explain himself over some controversial issue or other, he was told he could only ask him to come, and not require him. Obviously the Former Cabinet Member did not turn up. The Leader, he thought, had come once.

Time for the report from the Corporate Anti Fraud Team. This is given a lot of attention and respect by the Tory members, who sit up, visibly enthused by the prospect of pointing the finger at benefit scroungers and any other assorted individuals (other than Tory councillors) wanting a free ride from the boroughs' taxpayers. 

Mrs Angry's sympathies are not engaged as fully as they might be with this report, a fact  possibly not entirely unrelated to the excruciating grammar, or lack of it, in the 'am I bovvered' presentation of the officer concerned. And what a shame that the council does not apply the same resources and attention to the support needed by tenants who are perfectly law abiding but have no security of tenure, or prospect of accommodation.

Trying not to listen too closely to this item, it was impossible to avoid the volley of corporate cliches which punctuate more and more frequently the meetings of our council: yawn ... direction of travel ... benchmarking ... low hanging fruit, suggested Cllr Old, awake now and keen to show his credentials.

Audit Plan next. Sitting at the top of the table, beaming with satisfaction - and sure why wouldn't he be, Mrs Angry - was a man from Capita, perfectly named: Mr Thorogood. How thoroughly good at his job he really is, we do not know yet, but he seemed to be enjoying the meeting. Mr Thorogood was feeling pleased because the man from Grant Thornton was saying their audit was producing 'promising and positive results, so far' ... Who would have guessed? The man from Grant Thornton now had something else to say. He reminded everyone of their fee, rather tactless, thought Mrs Angry, like an escort hired for the evening demanding his money upfront, before being invited in for coffee and - a discussion of limited assurance.

Tory councillor Sury Khatri, who has reinvented himself, after the contracts were signed and it was all too late, as a One Barnet sceptic, asked why both contracts were not mentioned in the report? Why refer to one but not the other? Officer John Hooton mumbled something about 'a broader picture' .... 'focus on certain issues' ... Why not mention both contracts, he persisted. Monitoring Officer Maryellen Salter intervened, referring the matter to internal audit, yet again with an abruptness which appeared disrespectful, even if not intended - and which raised a certain amount of indignation in the room.

The Chair ruled rather intemperately that officers should 'go away and look at that again'.

As for the internal audit: 32% of findings had less than satisfactory assurance.

Officers including Mr Hooton and Anna Earnshaw from Capita were called to the table to discuss the IT problems.


Tory Cllr Old expressed the fond hope that the important issues were being addressed.

A lot of the issues, we heard, were 'historic in nature'. Ah. Of course. 

Work was ongoing. Good, good.

We need, said the woman from Capita, ridiculously, to 'understand the IT landscape'. 

Mrs Angry had a tragic vision of forlorn crapitorial officers lost, like nymphs and shepherds in an arcadian scene, looking to the far foothills where the gods of commerce arranged their fates, beyond the control of mere mortals. It was a charming fantasy.

Understanding, clearly, from the perspective of Capita, is a hard won thing, and takes a very long time. Possibly as long as the contracts themselves, or beyond. Still: these officers hoped to return to the next Audit Committee with satisfactory assurances, we heard.

Can we minute that, asked Lord Palmer, showing a distinctly unromantic lack of ttrust in the easycouncil promises of Capita and our senior management team?

Geof Cooke was even less impressed. These issues have all been flagged up before, long ago: why were they not addressed? Was it due to the actions of people who are no longer with us?

Mr Hooton agreed that Capita was not with us, in the earlier age of Broken Barnet, before time began. Of course, thought Mrs Angry, but you were there, Mr Hooton, were you not?

He thought the resolution to the IT problems was going to take 'a couple more months'.

But we have known about these problems, repeated Cllr Cooke,  for at least the last two years, and you decided not to address them - because Capita was coming in?

Yes, agreed Mr Reasonable, from the public gallery.

The issues about IT security, as the steely eyed independent committee member Debra Lewis observed, is 'pretty basic stuff'. Officers agreed there was a risk. More than a risk, she replied, tersely. Just because a risk was there, she was told, does not necessarily mean it will occur.

But it might, she repeated.

Cllr Cooke commented that despite all the reams and reams of paper that the Capita contracts are written on, it was clear there was no proper service agreement in place, and it was pretty unlikely we are going to get what we ask for from this arrangement.

Mr Hooton, apparently missing the point, said they were 'clear' about their roles and responsibilities.

As to the failing Swift and Wisdom systems: the excuse was that these have not been updated due to 'challenges'. As Mr Reasonable points out here, there is a real and urgent risk that all adult social care client data could be lost:




... and as Cllr Cooke reminded the committee, with barely concealed fury, these matters have been known for years - and deliberately avoided. It was a political decision, said Cooke, not to invest in dealing with these problems.

Now cast your minds back, readers, to the interesting story revealed here last year regarding the now you see it, now you don't, capital investment of £16 million that we were promised by our Tory councillors was coming, as an upfront payment from Capita, to cover our IT needs. 

This capital investment was the very reason, we were told, that we had to go for mass privatisation, and could not even consider the option of retaining our own services and making efficiencies that way. 

It then transpired that the so called up front investment was nothing of the sort, and would be supplied by us, to Capita, like a surrendering of the spoils of war, as soon as they walked into North London Business Park.

What was that payment for, if not for this? If not now, when? 

How long will it take Capita to sort this out? 

How many more times will they come to the Audit Committee, or the Contract Monitoring Committee, with prefabricated excuses, and promises always to be delivered in a future that never quite materialises? 

How much of the aspirational savings will become reality - or is the truth that this mythical figure can never become reality because there will always be an argument, as there was with NSL, why performance targets cannot be met, but full penalties not applied? 

And furthermore: will we, the taxpayer lose out even more because we will be expected to stump up more funding to resolve issues, whether IT or regarding infrastructure or other resources which our new 'partners' insist are historical, and not their responsibilities?

An even worse scenario presents itself. Read on.

The next consideration of limited assurance: business continuity. 

Discussions about 'disaster recovery plans'. What if NLBP went up in flames? If some catastrophe led to the downfall of Capita's Re and CSG systems? Has this eventuality been assessed?

There had been, we were informed, no testing other than by events occurring.

The only event that had occurred, however, that they could produce in support of this testing was, were ... the Olympics. Eh? They had thought a bit about what might happen, if staff could not get to work, during the games. Ah. And? And nothing.

Lord Palmer ventured his own thought in conclusion. It would seem, he said, in the opinion of many of us, that if disaster did happen, the preparations are not ... very robust. In fact they were gambling, he reflected, that disaster is not going to happen. 

There was an uncomfortable moment as all of us in the room thought in silence to ourselves: shit - disaster is going to happen. It's all going up in flames.

Watch it all burn.

Four years, from MetPro to Capita: events occurring - armchair audited, chronicled, all laid before you, the final committee. Mrs Angry's findings? No assurance. None whatsoever. But it's up to you now, and whatever you decide to do next month, on May 22nd.

When the council reforms in May, it will have a new committee structure, and the Audit Committee will have a new Chair. Let's hope the new appointee is as independently minded as Monroe Palmer, and let us wish him a happy retirement, relieved of the burden of trying, at least, to hold the Tory administration of this council to account for what has been a record of unparalleled incompetence, swivel eyed lunacy, and merciless, mindlessly stupid policies.

Cheers.



In Memoriam - at a price: welcome to Easycrem ... Capita's money making plans for Hendon Crematorium begin

$
0
0
Gone and now to be forgotten - memorial benches at Hendon Crematorium, dumped by Capita

Far from the madding crowd's ignoble strife,

         Their sober wishes never learn'd to stray;

Along the cool sequester'd vale of life

         They kept the noiseless tenor of their way.


Yet ev'n these bones from insult to protect,

         Some frail memorial still erected nigh,

With uncouth rhymes and shapeless sculpture deck'd,
         
        Implores the passing tribute of a sigh.

The need to mark the ending of a life is an instinct common to all traditions, all cultures, and all periods of history. 

Usually the privilege of a permanent memorial is reserved for those with means, of course, and for those less well placed in life, in death too, their memory is less likely to be given the honour of remembrance in any material form. 

It is only relatively recently that the families of ordinary working people could afford to erect headstones for departed relatives, and the increase in use of cremation means that memorials are now likely to be in the form of plaques or other tokens of tribute, and grief.

Many residents in Barnet have family members laid to rest in Hendon Crematorium. 

They may be interred with a headstone, or their ashes may have been scattered there. 

If the latter, it is likely that the families have marked their passing with a plaque or perhaps a memorial bench. 

It is no doubt the case that when these arrangements were made, it was on the understanding that this was a permanent act of memorial.  

If so, the families of those remembered in this way are mistaken, and many of them face the deeply distressing possibility that they will come to the Crematorium grounds to mark an anniversary, or simply to grieve for their loss, and find that the bench has simply disappeared.

We know this because of a short article in the local Times paper this week, in which it was revealed that any benches deemed to have been 'abandoned' will be removed from the grounds. According to the council this is on the grounds of 'health and safety', as many of these memorial items are breaching regulations because they are 'broken, have mould growing on them, or are in a state of disrepair'.
 
Memorials manager David Aspiris said: “We are concerned some people might visit once a year on anniversaries so we’re making a note of that and keeping the benches in good condition safe. 

We can’t say how long they’ll be kept for – I’ve got absolutely no idea – it depends on how much storage we’ve got.

But those which aren’t maintained are clearly not safe, and if something happens health and safety wise, it will be on our shoulders.” 

On their shoulders. 

Of course there are many thousands of instances every year of death and serious injury resulting from grieving relatives sitting on a bench in a memorial garden, and Mr Aspiris and his colleagues are quite right to interfere in this way. 

If only these benches had been maintained to a standard that reaches the level of safety that would allow the memorials to remain. Oh: hang on - why have these benches not been maintained, anyway?

In fact, why has the Crematorium, its incinerators, and its grounds, been neglected, over so many years, by our Tory council?

Why was the Crematorium added, at the last moment, to the DRS/ Re contract, as a 'sweetener' - an inducement to increase the sweaty palmed desires of companies bidding for the business?

Why did our supposedly cash strapped council vote to award £2 million to the Crematorium for improvements, as soon as they had agreed to add it to the tender, having deliberately underinvested in it for so many years?

Who won the contract, Mrs Angry, you may be wondering?

Let me remind you.

CAPITA.

Why was the addition of the Crematorium such a deal breaker?

Because in this world, as we know, the only certainties are death, and taxes, and a Capita run Easycrem can make great fat wads of cash from both sources, if given a free reign, and now that Broken Barnet is transformed into Capitaville, that is exactly what the company has: free reign, and a licence to print money. 

As explained in this post: 



... there is a business plan ready and waiting to be put into action, so as to maximise the level of profit that Capita can extract from our deceased relatives, and our grief.

Of course, the council has already approved increased charges for burials and other related services. But the new plans by Capita? These, as the contract makes clear - if you bother to read it, which our Tory councillors did not - include having more funerals, quicker funerals, floodlit funerals, live streamed funerals, funeral dvds. They will provide services like flower tributes, after marketing them 'sensitively' to the bereaved. 

And, as one strongly suspects, the sudden interest in removing memorial benches is part of a wider scheme, to charge families for such forms of rememberance, or probably for 'maintenance'.

Time to make a visit to the Crematorium, and check what was happening.

This is not a place I like to visit, for one very good reason, a personal reason. When my own mother died, due to a 'misunderstanding' between the undertakers, and the Crematorium, her ashes were scattered, without our consent, in the 'Garden of Remembrance', rather than kept for collection and taken to the Catholic churchyard in Durham where most of my grandmother's family are buried, since they came over from Ireland.

This 'administrative mistake' (pre-Capita) caused me deep distress, and boy, would my mother have been furious. After it happened, I made a visit to the memorial garden, and sat there in tears, on one of the benches, for a long while. It is of course, the sort of place where people do sit, in tears, for a long while.

Yesterday I went there again, reluctantly, as it makes me feel so guilty. I had rung the Crematorium office in the morning to enquire about other relatives interred there, and a very helpful woman had produced a list of their known locations, and took my details, in case, as I had pointed out, there were any attempts to do anything which might affect their remains, or memorials. In the end, it transpired there are no memorials to remove - or so it seems.

Again I sat by the 'garden', and eventually became aware that there were a large number of benches around the edges -some with floral tributes, or cards, or personal items - and they all had laminated notices on them. The distribution of these notices in itself is grossly insensitive, in my view, and intrusive.

Walking around it became clear that these benches are most certainly not in a dangerous condition, nor very old, and the tributes left on many of them are relatively recent.

Normally I would not publish personal details, but in this case I think that the relatives of these benches ought to be alerted -this has a plaque for an Arthur and ?Ena Fitzgerald:


You can see that this bench still has a card from a grandchild, and other rather touching offerings tied to it. Other benches have photos, or religious material - this one below, with a prayer offering from Knock, for Mark and Sadie May, from the Mahon family:


None of these benches are in need of anything other than sanding down and a coat of varnish. Some of them were quite new looking, and it was impossible to see any argument for removing them: 




The 'mould' referred to in the article on some of the older benches is actually lichen, and perfectly acceptable, indeed an indication of the ecological value of the surroundings, an area fringed with old trees, and with a tiny brook running through it. The variety of birds in the quieter parts of the grounds speaks of the importance of maintaining the site in its natural state: what chance of that, though, post Capita? Remember that they intend to have the Crematorium grounds listed as an 'open space' - an ominous warning of what is to come.

The notice which is left on these benches claims they have been 'identified' for removal due to the 'development of this area for further memorialisation'. It says nothing about their state of repair, and it would suggest very strongly that these benches are being removed on a false pretext, and in order to facilitate Capita's own ambitions for income generation. No doubt they will try to impose charges for replacements, and maintenance. Why not? That's how they make profit for their shareholders.

The dead have always been a valuable commodity, of course. In the early nineteenth century, the risk of graverobbing by 'resurrection men', who made their living selling corpses for anatomisation by medical schools, was a real fear amongst the bereaved, with some graveyards driven to hire full time watchmen. Now we have private companies like Capita, at the invitation of our Tory councillors, preying on the opportunities offered by their lucrative new contract. From Easycouncil to Easycrem: the logical conclusion, after all.

I'd known my grandfather Charles, who died during the war, was interred at Hendon, but I had imagined he would have been cremated, like everyone else in the family. But records showed he was buried, in a plot located in a far corner of the grounds. 

The woman in the office had helpfully pointed out, giving me a rather disconcerting look, that my grandfather was seven foot under, and there was room for another burial. Clearly she had no idea I already have the promise of a blogger's discounted pre-used grave, written into the Capita contract.

It was a long walk to find my grandfather's burial place, trailing along a rather melancholy route,  through the Chinese and Greek sections - the benches there considerably older, but noticeably not festooned with threatening notices.

Impossible to tell which of the unmarked graves is his, only within a small area, right by the far edge, beautifully left to its own devices,  surrounded by ancient oaks, watched only by a large crow, sitting on one of the headstones. I stood in the late afternoon sunlight, suddenly touched by the proximity to a grandfather who died long before I was born, and spent most of his life away from home, at sea, a virtual stranger to his own children, and never known by any of his grandchildren.

A tranquil place, as yet untouched by the grubby hands of Capita's development plans, and only spoilt by the PA noise wafting across from that other corporate giveaway, the rugby stadium given to Saracens by our Tory leader, at a peppercorn rent, while they clean up with a sponsorship deal from the former Nazi supporting Allianz insurance company.

Et in arcadia ego.

No record of my grandmother's memorial, nothing for my aunt, or my uncle, or my great uncle Percy, who died after being gassed in the trenches of the first world war: disappeared without trace. 

Does it matter, leaving no trace? 

I think so. That's why I put a headstone for both my parents, and all the other members of my family who have no other memorial, up in that churchyard in Durham. My father's ashes I scattered partly there, and partly in Cornwall, in a place of significance to him. His own garden of remembrance, unsullied by the hands of Capita. When I pass through there, I love the fact that now he is part of the landscape he loved so much, in the wild, and free. But his name is recorded elsewhere.

When someone dies, you need somewhere to go, to mark your loss, and remember their lives. 

Otherwise, what are we, once we are gone? A name in a ledger, forgotten. 

And if for some people, their way of marking their loss is a fading card, or some artificial flowers tied to a bench, who has the right to remove that? 

As I left the Crematorium, I turned left out of the entrance - and something caught my eye, while I was regarding the delapidated state of the original Gatehouse and offices. A hole in the fence, and then - a curious sight, captured in the photograph at the beginning of this post. 

A hoard of hijacked memorial benches, at least a couple of dozen of them, stashed in a dark corner, some with plaques still visible, and still displaying tokens from family members. 

This is where memorial benches go to die, in Capitaville: held to ransom, and then quietly disposed of, if no one pays the price.

And here, in perfect form, we have a metaphor of everything that is wrong, in Broken Barnet: a devolution of responsiblity to the private sector, where everything has a price, if it must survive.

This is how we live now, in this borough, thanks to the Tory administration which brokered the billion pound contracts with Capita, and used my dead grandmother, and grandfather, and mother, and maybe yours too, to seal the deal.

If you think you have relatives buried or remembered here, you are advised to phone the Crapitorium and make sure they respect the last resting place or memorial of your loved ones: 020 8359 3370.

Oh, if you have problems getting through, as I did ... the phone lines? Also run by Capita. 

And if you are not happy about the use of your family members to boost Capita's dividends for its shareholders, you know what to do, don't you?

Don't vote for the same Tory council, on May 22nd. Vote for a Labour administration, and hope for a better future, and a past that is honoured, and remembered, rather than exploited for the last penny of profit.

A great big mess: Tory run Capitaville, two weeks before the election

$
0
0



So: about the election campaign, Councillor Cornelius? All going to plan?

Has your pre-election handout of 23 pence a week for every taxpayer in Broken Barnet done the trick? Are grateful residents rushing up to you in the street and offering you their vote?

Any sign of a Conservative manifesto yet, by the way? No?

It's just that, you know ... people are getting their postal votes and ... it might help, if they knew, when they were making their mark on the ballot paper, what your party stands for, and what you intend to do, in the next four years, should anyone think that you and the rest of your collection of shambling fools who have sold this borough to Capita for a quick buck and a trolleyload of empty promises ought to be rewarded with another chance to shaft us all. 

Let's see. Perhaps Mrs Angry can help. No need for a manifesto, really. Look at the evidence, for example, we have seen over the last few weeks, of Barnet Conservative policy in action.

The two massive contracts with Capita, now referred to so coyly by the Barnet Tory leader as 'the change programme', is of course in fact a billion pound privatisation of every council function that wasn't nailed down in some way - the contract for the CSG services alone came to 8,000 pages, and clearly was not properly scrutinised by the elected members, some of whom have broken ranks with the Barnet tradition of omerta, when it was all too late, and admitted they were given only the most limited, token gesture of access to the agreement.

As part of the DRS/Re contract, it emerged, once a redacted version was published, that our council is contractually obliged to tell the world about the 'success' of the Capita arrangement.

Ah but, Mrs Angry, you will be asking: what if the Capita contracts are ... not a success.

This is an impossibility. The Capita contracts are an act of faith. We place our trust, not in the Lord, but in market forces, and the life of the world to come, in Capitaville. Amen. 

Anyway, we know that the contracts are a success, and saving taxpayers lots and lots of money, because our dear Leader, Richard Cornelius, has said so, and we believe him.

But how, Mrs Angry, can the dear Leader know that the contracts are a success, when they have only just got going, and there have been lots of problems, and any savings cannot be net gains as we have spent more than £80 million in nine months alone, in setting up the outsourcing programme, in order to make £160 million in savings over ten years, and the upfront capital investment of £16 million we were told by the Leader and his fellow Tories was the whole reason for the privatisation has turned out to be not an upfront capital investment at all, but money we will have to pay Capita from ... the savings we may or may not make from the deal?

Ah. 

And let us look at that evidence of the last few weeks, shall we, of how well our Tory councillors are presiding over an administration that brings savings to the taxpayer, whilst maintaining excellent standards of council services? 

An Audit committee meeting which revealed so many serious failings in the management of contracts, not just with Capita, where any issues raised are inevitably dismissed as teething problems, or due to 'historic' causes beyond their control, but with parking contractors NSL, and agency suppliers Comensura.

A school for disabled school children robbed of funding for vital respite care, and told by indifferent Tory councillors to use their reserves to make up the loss. The school is legally unable to use these reserves, and after the matter caused them too much negative publicity, the Tories were forced into a u-turn, and then tried to deflect attention from their own scabrous behaviour by smearing the Labour group which fought to restore the funding.

Yesterday it emerged that the pupils of Mapledown are not the only disabled children designated as the target for Tory cuts. Here in the Barnet Press in we learn that 'Resources for Autism' is losing desperately needed funding, and is expected to remove eight of the 40 children who attend their support schemes as a consequence. 



As Director Lisa Dresner says:

We have to lose these kids. I cannot bear it. They are asking us which children shouldn’t be coming any more, but the real answer is none of them should not be coming any more. Our children will find it very difficult to access other things.
  
Tory leader Richard Cornelius is quoted as saying this scheme, unlike Mapledown, will not be granted a 'reprieve' from his cuts. Well, after all, this is the man who thought the average person in the street would think the Mapledown cuts, in the context of the 23 pence pre-election tax hand out, was perfectly fair.

How many other children's disability charities are paying the price of this election 'gesture', approved by Tory councillors whose enthusiasm for cuts in funding did not prevent them voting themselves big fat rises in their own allowances as soon as they got into power in 2010?

As for the 'success' of the Capita contracts, the One Barnet programme - the 'change programme' ...

Here also in the Press yesterday we find another interesting story about the 'success' - or rather not - of the Capita run payroll and pensions services, which last month underpaid council employees, and in some cases paid them nothing at all, and which in February accidentally put many Barnet pensioners on the highest tax codes, in what one former teacher, a Mrs Renee Kadish, described as 'a great big mess'.



Now Mrs Angry must declare an interest here, Mrs Kadish having known her since she was a mewling baby in a pram, and indeed, Mrs Angry having spent many happy days of her childhood in the Kadish household.

Mrs Angry can confirm that Mrs Kadish is a formidable woman, and a Torygraph reading resident of many years standing, and is not the sort of person to be naturally critical of council policies. Her reaction is, in other words, a good indication of the way in which the Capitalisation of the borough is, like the disastrous parking scheme and other Tory sponsored catastrophes, already raising the political consciousness of otherwise an otherwise complacent electorate. 

And then we have the matter of Hendon Crematorium.

The previous post explained what is happening now that Capita has its grasping hands on the many revenue opportunities offered by the death and bereavement of Barnet residents. 

In yesterday's local Times we read more about the grossly disrespectful move by the company to remove memorial benches that have been sponsored by grieving relatives of those interred in the Crematorium grounds.

The excuses offered for the insensitive disposal of these benches changes with every statement from the council and the Crematorium managers. First we heard that it was necessary due to 'health and safety'. Then, as Mrs Angry reported, it emerged that the notices on many benches explain the removal is due to 'development' or 'further memorialisation'. 

Yesterday we hear they need to 'make changes to the layout' so more people can have memorials. The council tried to claim the decision to take away the benches predates Capita.

Fine: prove it. Let's see when that decision was approved by councillors, and see which of them were involved. Or was it a delegated decision agreed by the Director, Ms Pam Wharfe? Let's see the documentation.

In fact, many of Capita's grubby little plans for extracting profit from our dead relatives is clearly laid out here, in the ludicrously redacted contract -   read from page 163 onwards. You will note that several sections just before this page have been redacted in full - and you may like to wonder why that might be.

God knows what follows is bad enough. 

Mrs Angry draws your attention to the following example of what Capita refers to a 'Monopolistic Market Penetration Growth Idea'. 

This is a form of commercial necrophilia, in truth, in which our loved ones, and our grief, will be targeted for the profiteering pleasure of Capita's shareholders. 

In this specific case, it refers to a whizz of a scheme to corner the market on charging for flowers to be laid (where?) to commemorate your dead relatives.

Opportunity Knocks for Capita:



Making it happen:
  



As you will read, with Capita, 'sensitivity in this area is paramount' ...  but this touching concern for the bereaved appears to have been forgotten fairly soon after the ink from the Tory leader's pen dried on those contracts, as we see from the blundering disposal of the benches.

It is absolutely clear from this example that Capita intend to target bereaved families, and wean them off the most regrettable tendency to want to lay their own tributes to their loved ones, and channel them into the correct mode of behaviour, ie one that will return lots of profit to Capita. 

Whether it is flowers, or benches, or any other way in which they can interfere with the mourning of the deceased and screw some money out of it, they are likely to have a go. 

Read the rest of the proposal, and see for yourself. Capita and our Tory councillors will defend this marketing as offering a service - you may take the view that it is simply an excuse for marketing something that should never be subject to commercial exploitation - the loss of someone you love.

Well, outsourcing the dead is the logical conclusion to the Tory agenda of profit before people, just as taking vital funding from disabled children in order to pay for an election 'gesture' is, in the eyes of Richard Cornelius and his colleagues, perfectly acceptable.

No need for a Tory manifesto, Councillor Cornelius, in fact - the record of the last four years, and the evidence of our own eyes since you signed those contracts is explanation enough of what is to come, if you return to power.

This is Capitaville, and this is Broken Barnet, May 2014.

Two weeks to polling day, and a chance to wrest power from the hands of this lunatic Tory council and their profiteering friends. The consequences should we fail to remove them, and to regain control of the democratic process are plain enough to see. 

You know what to do, then, don't you?

Mr Postman, look and see - if there's a polling card in your bag for me, or - Mr Dismore visits TNT and asks some awkward questions

$
0
0



Mrs Angry brought to your attention, not so long ago, some very worrying evidence that suggested problems and delays in  the processing of electoral registration, and further difficulties posed by the risk of failure in postal deliveries, thanks to Barnet Council's use of TNT to deliver mail, instead of, as was previously the case, the Royal Mail.

Senior council officers have insisted there are no delays in registration, and in contradiction to staff, claimed there have been no 'backlogs' in processing any electoral forms. Yet Mrs Angry received a letter six weeks after sending in her own form, informing her that officers were now 'satisfied' she could be added to the register, sometime in May - hopefully before polling day, which would be nice. 

Whether waiting from March until May, and then only finding Mrs Angry's form after going through 'thousands' of others, after being told to by senior officers is not sign of a backlog is of course not for Mrs Angry to say.

Stories about the unreliability of TNT deliveries abound, and pose a direct threat to the electoral process here in Barnet: we have seen post dumped by the riverside, wrongly delivered electoral material, abandoned bikes, and missing polling cards. 

And then yesterday Labour GLA member Andrew Dismore issued this press release:


Dismore takes to task TNT managers

Andrew Dismore,  Labour London Assembly member and parliamentary candidate for Hendon, met senior TNT managers at their Colindale depot on 12/5/14, to see what they had to say in answer to  the poor performance of TNT since they started deliveries in Hendon at the end of February.

Mr Dismore raised  the many  complaints he had received, including the misdelivery of election poll cards, letters being delivered to one address for the whole street, and dumped mail, as well as security issues when post was left unlocked in bicycle panniers and TNT operatives riding on the pavement.
After the meeting Mr Dismore said:

“The managers were very apologetic and anxious to provide reassurance. They have sophisticated monitoring and tracking systems and equipment, but these systems are only as good as the TNT operatives themselves.

“They are starting from scratch and clearly have had difficulties with the “blind leading the blind” in setting up their rounds. They cannot match the 350 years’ knowledge of the Royal Mail whose experienced posties are aware of all the difficult addresses to find on their walks. No wonder TNT staff end up asking passers by for directions!
“TNT gave clear assurances that they will not be involved in any more deliveries of  sensitive election material for the 22nd May  elections. The problem with  poll cards  arose  as the  result of a long chain of privatisation subcontracting  decisions.  Conservative Barnet Council contracted out the election distribution organisation to a company, FDM, instead of directly using the Royal Mail. FDM in turn contracted to TNT. TNT then decided to further subcontract the delivery back to the Royal Mail, where it should have been in the first place!

“It is no surprise  that things  went wrong, as one day’s deliveries instead of being passed to Royal Mail by TNT went to their own operatives instead. The net result  is that some people  in a key Council election  marginal ward did not receive their poll cards. In what is likely to be a tight election that could change the result, as the Council are refusing to reissue the poll cards that went astray. After the administration problems at the last General Election which affected the result, you would have thought the Council would have learned the lessons, but clearly they haven’t or simply don’t care.

“After recruitment direct from the Job Centre or the Work Programme, in my view part of the problem is that TNT’s 86 Colindale staff are all newly employed, on zero hours contracts without fixed hours and are paid by the hour. They only get a fixed hours contract after a year’s service. 

“The managers say security is a priority and their operatives should not ride their bikes on the pavement, and that this is  a training issue  for them , but this is a  common occurrence- indeed as I left their building I saw this happening!

“TNT are anxious to hear about problems with their service, so if residents have problems or complaints with undelivered or misdirected mail, or see TNT operatives riding on the pavement or leaving post unlocked and unattended, they should  let me know and I will pass the complaints  on.

“At the end of my lengthy visit and discussion with TNT I was also amazed to hear that TNT had invited Hendon’s Conservative MP to meet them to talk about his concerns, but he failed to respond.  Clearly he is not as worried about TNT’s performance as I am.

“I will be raising the issue of TNT at the next London Assembly Mayor’s Question Time as the Mayor who welcomed Dutch company TNT to the capital must get involved in ensuring the service is delivered properly and securely.”
 
The frankly ludicrous situation described in the press release regarding the devolved chain of contractual arrangements for delivery of the electoral post is a simple demonstration of what goes so horribly wrong when a service is privatised, and standards plummet: a perfect metaphor, in fact, for the reckless gamble our Tory councillors have taken in the massive One Barnet privatisation - you know, the 'change programme' that must not be named, or even referred to, in their own feeble election 'manifesto' for fear of - fear of what, actually? 

If Barnet Tories are so proud of what they have done, pimping our council to Crapita, and laying us out, the living and the dead,  to be screwed by them for every penny of profit, well - why not be out and proud about it? 

Is it because already, as we have seen in the disgraceful Crematorium affair, and the cock ups with council tax, payroll, taxcodes, and the phone lines, residents are beginning to see the real impact of private profit on the local services on which they depend? 

Too toxic a thought to associate with your local Conservative councillor, who approved the whole sell off, without even reading the £1 billion contracts? Best to maintain a discreet silence, in the circumstances.

One Barnet: a love that dare not speak its name, in the run up to election 2014.

It seems an extraordinary thing for the council to refuse to re-issue lost polling cards, in view of the proven failings of the delivery system. But then this election is being overseen by a new Returning Officer, and a new Monitoring Officer, in place of the previously safe hands of Jeff Lustig, who had overseen many elections and whose experience was invaluable. 

That said, there were unforeseen difficulties that arose in the last general and local elections, even under the beady eye of the previous regime - and if there are any issues that arise this time as a result of postal failures or delays in registration, one must hope that the council is held to account. 

If any such issues are identified, presumably there will be formal complaints to the Electoral Commission, and, one would hope, an urgent investigation. 

Indeed, some might feel there should be an investigation before the election.

Things can only get ... worse: Barnet bloggers' joint letter to the local press, and Easycrem in Private Eye

$
0
0



Open up this week's local Times' letter page and you will find a joint letter from the Barnet bloggers, ie Mr Mustard, Mr Reasonable, Mr Tichborne, and Mrs Angry, vaguely on the theme of impending disaster, should the voters of Broken Barnet be reckless enough to vote the current assortment of Tory knaves, fools and hangers on back into power.

Here is a copy of the letter:


The Conservative administration that is seeking re-election later this month is clearly struggling to find reasons that might persuade residents of Barnet to vote their party back into power. They appear to be resorting to the tactic of rewriting history, in the form of interesting letters to the local press, and retaining a discreet silence on the matter of some less than welcome publicity given to their own policies in action.

First of all we note the letter written by Tory leader Richard Cornelius, in which he preposterously tries to claim that Friern Barnet Library – closed with the consent of the Conservative councillors – was in fact saved not by the occupation of squatters and a determined campaign by local residents, but by the actions of one of his own Tory colleagues.
Councillor Cornelius and his fellow councillors not only resort to rewriting history, but show a talent for creative fiction by continually failing to refer directly to the One Barnet programme, through which it has given charge of most of our council services to Capita, a private company, and speaking only of ‘a change programme’, which they claim has already delivered savings to local taxpayers. 

In fact the council is contractually bound to endorse and publicise the ‘success’ of the Capita contract – even before it is known if indeed the huge gamble represented by this agreement is delivering the promises so easily made during the tender process.

The real success of these contracts and the privatisation of our services will be in delivering huge profits to the shareholders of Capita, at the expense of local residents, whose services are no longer under the direct control of councillors, and a democratic system of  management, but subject to market forces.

Nothing could better illustrate the future we face as a result of these contracts than what is happening right now at Hendon Crematorium, which was added to the privatisation package as an ‘attraction’ to bidders, as there are lucrative profits to be made from introducing new charges from the death and bereavement of local residents. All of this is clearly detailed in the contract agreed and signed by our Conservative councillors, although it is known that few of them actually read in any depth the terms of the contract they were approving.

As revealed by the Times last week, Capita has begun a programme of removing memorial benches from the area surrounding the Garden of Remembrance at the Crematorium.
In the article it was claimed this is because of the state of disrepair of the benches.
In fact a visit to the grounds demonstrates this is not the case, and that the notices placed on so many benches states they are being removed for ‘development’ and ‘further memorialisation’. 

No doubt this development will include new charges for new memorials, and their maintenance - and healthy revenue for the shareholders of Capita.

There are already dozens of benches removed and dumped in a corner of the grounds, which is clearly a deeply insensitive way to treat what are for grieving family members perhaps the only mark of their deceased loved ones.

The distress that this programme will cause bereaved families, especially those who come to visit the grounds and find their benches and memorials have been removed, is indefensible.
The gross act of disrespect this shows in regard to the deceased residents whose memory these benches commemorate is truly appalling, and a perfect metaphor for the ruthless exploitation of our council services, sanctioned by this heartless Tory council.

Only recently we saw Mapledown School for disabled children lose vital funding as a result of the Conservative pre-election tax cut, which gave 23 pence a week back to residents, but at the cost of removing desperately needed support from exhausted parents in need of respite care for their children.

Tory councillor Reuben Thompstone attempted to deflect attention away from his own responsibility for these dreadful cuts by claiming in a letter that the school could easily afford to subsidise the respite schemes with money from its own reserves. In fact as he should have known, the school is simply not allowed to do so.

With this new attack on bereaved relatives, the true face of Conservative politics is revealed, and if this administration is returned to power, one thing is absolutely certain: there can only be worse to come.

Yours sincerely,

Derek Dishman
John Dix
Theresa Musgrove
Roger Tichborne

And yet again the antics of our Tory councillors have been rewarded by another story in Private Eye: hard to keep us out of the Eye, in fact: Rotten Boroughs could function entirely on the supply of jaw dropping tales from Barnet. This time it is, hardly surprisingly, the shameless start to Capita's grossly distasteful plans to screw as much profit as possible from their management of Hendon Crematorium:


Note to Crapita: Mrs Angry may have one of your blogger's discounted, pre-used grave waiting for her, but she is doing her damnedest to avoid the risk of going to heaven, especially if you're in charge.

More likely you actually won the tender for the other place, though, isn't it?

Sympathy for the devil, anyone?

One Barnet: 'a brand that has served its purpose' - let's take back control of our democracy, say Barnet's bloggers

$
0
0

Over the last few years, the activities of the current Conservative administration in Barnet have been closely monitored and reported by a group of bloggers, determined to hold to account the elected members who have so blatantly defied the principle of democratic government, and fundamentally betrayed the best interests of the residents of this borough.


We have covered every faltering step of the course followed by the Tory councillors, from their first act, on being re-elected, and lecturing residents and staff on the stark economies necessitated by the demands of austerity, but voting themselves a big fat rise in their own allowances, closely followed by the MetPro scandal, a theme which set the tone for the next four years.


The MetPro affair involved the use by the Tory council of an illegally operating private security company, which barred residents from a council meeting, secretly filmed local bloggers and activists, had close contact with vulnerable children, and was being rewarded by casual but substantial payments, in the total absence of any contractual agreement.
Barnet’s bloggers subsequently revealed that far from being a single case of failure in proper regulation of procurement and contractual management, the council had thousands of legally non-compliant arrangements.

Local tax payers’ hard earned cash had been given away in these agreements, unquestioned: a real scandal, and on an unimaginably wide scale.

The next outrage we reported was perhaps one we should have foreseen: the silencing of dissent at all residents’ meetings, with enforced censorship rules, backed by a deliberate amendment to the local constitution,  meaning no member of the public was allowed to criticise, or even refer to anything deemed to be ‘council policy’.

The reason for this soon became clear.


Barnet was to be privatised, with a massive outsourcing programme, from which an in-house solution was excluded because, we were told, we needed a large amount of capital investment from a commercial partner.


There had been no mention of these plans in the 2010 Conservative manifesto.
Despite the lack of mandate, the Tory administration pushed these plans through, at the behest of senior management and private consultants.


Needless to say, as well as failing to present these plans to residents at the time of election, there was no consultation over the privatisation: a serious breach of regulations, and one criticised in the High Court by Judge Underhill last year.


Another policy imposed by Barnet Tories that was brought to account in the High Court was the catastrophic parking policy, which overnight sent the borough’s high streets into fatal decline, and alienated vast sections of the Conservatives’ own natural electoral base.

The Barnet Conservative manifesto for the 2014 elections is even more enigmatic than the version they offered voters four years previously.


When asked by the Barnet Press why there was no mention of One Barnet leader Richard Cornelius declared that it is a brand that ‘has served its purpose’.

Indeed it has, but whose purpose, and for whose benefit?


Certainly not the residents and taxpayers of Barnet.

Already we have seen the real motives of Capita exposed by their attempts to begin the commercial exploitation of this borough in the form of the development of ‘memorialisation’ of the dead in Hendon Crematorium, and the grossly insensitive removal of benches commemorating loved ones in the grounds, taken away and dumped in a corner of the grounds.

It seems an apt metaphor for the exploitation of our borough, by private enterprise, at our expense, sanctioned by our Conservative councillors.

         

And we must ask - if the privatisation of our borough, and the sell off to Capita of our local services has been so successful, why are Barnet Tories not rejoicing in this fact, and sharing their sense of satisfaction with voters? Why are they being so evasive about the real plans that they intend to impose, should they be returned to office this coming week?

Is it because the One Barnet brand is now so toxic, it must be dropped, and forgotten, and voters duped into approving another Tory council whose agenda is unstated, but is clearly going to endorse the privatisation of council service and expand this policy wherever possible?

We have read this week of plans to privatise child protection services. There can be little doubt that if they are returned to office, without consulting residents, Barnet Tories will be likely to extend the process of privatisation to any other council function they care to delegate. And increased pressure to make massive savings will inevitably lead to cuts in services on a scale as yet unprecedented.

There will, of course, be no proposal to deprive themselves of the same level of allowance they still enjoy, despite the limited function they will retain, in a borough where our vital services will be run not for our benefit, with direct control by them, but by a private company, for profit, at our expense.

In the accompanying footage here,John Dix, blogger Mr Reasonable explains why the takeover by Capita of our council services presents such a threat to the wellbeing of our borough, and what the future will hold for all of us in Barnet, should the Conservative administration be re-elected this week.
         



The choice for voters on May 22ndis clear – vote Conservative, approve the delegation of control of your borough to private enterprise, and the shareholders of Capita – or take a stand, and begin to reclaim your democratic right to control your own destiny.

Derek Dishman
John Dix
Theresa Musgrove
Roger Tichborne

Church Farmhouse: closed by Tory councillors, ransacked, left to rot - now robbed and vandalised

$
0
0



Updated below: Barnet Council shuts the gate, after the horse has bolted ...

Apart from the election, Mrs Angry, is there anything much going on in Broken Barnet, this week? 

Well, yes: Finchley Literary Festival, which will run from the 24th May, to the 31st. 

 http://greenacrewriters.blogspot.co.uk/p/finchley-literary-festival.html

Rather foolishly, Mrs Angry has agreed to take part, and is giving a talk, on the 28th, on what is supposed to be about Charles Dickens and his associations with the borough, but has got a bit sidetracked by related stories of bodysnatching, Dracula, slaveowning vicars, death in the workhouse,  demon postmen ... and an Irish bootmaker who asked Dickens for a loan of £1500 to buy the manor house, and - and  if you want to know more, you will have to come along.

So, doing some research in the British Library yesterday, by chance Mrs Angry found herself reading a biography of Mark Lemon, the first editor of Punch, very good friend of Dickens, and who spent what he considered to be an idyllic childhood living with his grandparents at Church Farmhouse, in Hendon. 

In later life Lemon often remembered Hendon with great fondness, and wrote about his memories of life in what was then a rural area, his grandfather farming 200 acres, and living next door to the old Greyhound inn, still there, of course, and the ancient church of St Mary's. 


Mark Lemon

Funnily enough, Tory leader Richard Cornelius has always struck Mrs Angry as bearing a notable facial resemblance to Mr Punch.  

But perhaps the satirical allusion is one which springs too easily to the eye, to those of us living here, in Broken Barnet.




 Totteridge, May 2010

The seventeenth century, Grade II* listed Farmhouse was bought by the local council in 1944, and became a museum in 1954.

In May 2014, the building stands empty, and decaying, having been closed three years ago, in order for our Tory councillors to flog it off for development. With great glee they ransacked the Museum's collection of local historical artefacts, threw some in a skip, gave others away, and auctioned the rest off in a church hall in the midlands.

Their enthusiasm for selling the Farmhouse, however, was misguided, and buyers for a delicate, protected building of this rarity have, unsurprisingly, proven too few. The joke is, of course, that our would be true blue entrepreneurs and property speculators have no business sense at all, which is why they allowed themselves to be so easily led by the nose over so many financial cock ups, especially the Capita contracts, swallowing such stories as the one about £16 million capital investment, and spending £80 million to make £160 million savings. In truth none of them could run a jellied eel stall and make a penny of profit, let alone an authority of this size. No wonder they wanted to delegate everything to the private sector.

The Museum now stands forlorn, abandoned, empty, and neglected, to such an extent that English Heritage have listed its status now as vulnerable. 

It was only the fear of occupation by squatters, as in the case of Friern Barnet Library, moved the council - eventually - to take on any security precautions to protect the building. A company ominously named 'Ad Hoc' supplied a 'live-in' guardian, for whom the council has just installed a shower room, with no regard for the sensitivity and integrity of the listed building's features.

It may be that the guardian in question is spending too much time in his new shower, sadly, as it has been reported that some time on Sunday night/Monday morning, around ten of the old yorkstone paving flags around the Farmhouse were dug up, and stolen. As local GLA member Andrew Dismore commented today:

"This is the inevitable consequence of the Conservative Council’s closure of the museum, and after over 3 years, their inability to find someone to take it on. Their so-called negotiations with Middlesex University are going nowhere, as it is clear they are not really interested in taking over this historic listed building because its uses are so limited. 

An empty unused building like this is an open invitation for thieves. 

The Council has been and is spending thousands on security at the former Museum, for little good it does; and Boris Johnson’s cuts in the police service haven’t helped either. 

The Council should be ashamed of themselves. they will have to replace the missing flags at no doubt considerable expense to the council taxpayers of Barnet, but it is difficult to see how new stones will be able to replicate the appearance of the stolen old ones. Conservative Barnet could not care less about our Borough’s history and historic buildings". 

Andrew Dismore, Labour candidate and former museum curator Gerrard Roots, and Labour councillor Arjun Mittra

During the course of the last four years, the Farmhouse has stood as a permanent indictment, a metaphor in stone, of the moral decay and incompetence of this ghastly, philistine, materialist Tory administration, where nothing is of value unless it can be sold in a market place, and heritage, history, and a sense of community is utterly redundant.

In this week, in which we go to vote for a new administration, it is with perfect timing that we witness the building robbed off part of the very fabric of its own history. It's no worse a crime, in the view of Mrs Angry, than being robbed of the museum, and an intrinsic part of the story of Hendon, and this borough, by councillors elected to protect our best interests, not sell our heritage to the highest bidder - or rather try to, but fail ingloriously even at their own intentions.

The plaque commemorating Mark Lemon's connection with Church Farmhouse is still there, on the empty building. It will mean nothing to the Tory councillors who closed it, and who won't have heard of Lemon, or care. 

But then again, after Thursday, some of the leading Tory councillors who were responsible for closing Church Farmhouse, standing in marginal wards, will themselves be history.

Updated:

According to Mrs Angry's spies, Barnet Council, with a typical display of masterly timing, has now acted to secure the gate to the Farmhouse ...
At some point this afternoon Barnet council chained and padlocked shut the front gates to the Museum, because of the theft of Yorkstone flags from the Museum's paths last Sunday. This will not deter thieves- they'll just bring along a pair of bolt-cutters. However, it will needlessly inconvenience residents and visitors who rightly expect to be able to access a much-used public right of way through a public garden set in a designated conservation area.

The Lost Highway, or: the road to Broken Barnet, May 2014

$
0
0
                                        Now, boys, don't start your ramblin' round 
                                        On this road of sin or you're sorrow bound 
                                        Take my advice or you'll curse the day 
                                        You started rollin' down that lost highway 
Hank Williams



and the revelation of what is undeniably an absolute scandal - the disproportionate allocation of funding from Barnet Council's Highways budget, in the course of which some wards have inexplicably been given hugely generous handouts, and others, such as in the case of Labour held Colindale Ward this year - not a single penny. 

The allocation of the Highways budget funding was, until Tory Cabinet member Dean Cohen took over from Brian Coleman, allocated equally between wards. He changed the system, supposedly so as to dispense the money ... erm, what was it - ah yes, ... according to 'need'. 

Earlier this year, Coleman alleged that Cohen had spent more than £800,000 on his own ward of Golders Green. Mrs Angry submitted a Freedom of Information request to verify the level of expenditure on a ward by ward basis, and the response was truly stunning: in two years Golders Green Ward had been awarded a staggering £1.6 million - one million alone in the last year, the year before the current election. 

The disparity in the level of spending was plain to see, and is is clear that the most favoured wards tend to be Conservative held, or potentially marginal. 

By contrast to the million pounds plus given this year to Golders Green, Colindale, a Labour held ward with areas of social deprivation, Colindale, despite long standing requests from local councillors, received absolutely nothing. After these revelations, a local councillor complained about this matter to the Chief Executive. Weeks later, and there has been no adequate response. 

It would appear that such a reluctance to respond might be because there is nothing that Mr Travers can say in defence of what is clearly an indefensible situation: that the Labour voting residents of Colindale are subsidising the expenditure on pavements and roads of the residents of Tory Golders Green. 

Mrs Angry therefore decided to submit another Freedom of Information request, this time asking for a breakdown of expenditure of the £1.6 million that Councillor Dean Cohen allocated to his own ward, over the last two years, since he changed from a system of equal allocation to one based on 'need'. The response to this request is simply incredible.

Here is the expenditure: I have added the postcode to the addresses, for reasons which will become clear.

2012/2013

Footway - relay

Heathfield Gardens NW11          £69,281,07
Hurstwood Road NW11               £89,515,93
Hurstwood Road NW11               £70,305,79

Carriageway Resurfacing

Tilling Road NW2                       £50,057,45
Prayle Grove NW2                     £22,241,54
Heathfield Gardens NW11         £51,833,56
Highfield Avenue NW11             £200,506,58

2013/2014

Footway Renewal

Western Avenue NW11              £42,450,37   
Princes Park Avenue NW11      £296,663,58
Woodlands NW11                        £242,991,06
Gloucester Gardens NW11        £70,853,22
Woodlands Close NW11              £58,295,75

Carriageway Resurfacing

Claremont Road NW2               £68,166,45
Hurstwood Road NW11             £36,160,00
Princes Park AvenueNW11      £231,650,00

You will note that the lowest payments are to roads in the NW2 area. This is the less affluent part of the Golders Green ward, lying west of the Hendon Way. Tilling Road, in fact, is the location of the Mapledown School for disabled children, which has just had its vital respite care schemes cut thank to the Tory councillors, including Schools cabinet member Reuben Thompstone, who is a local councillor but had never visited Mapledown. A forgotten part of the ward, it might appear.

Most of the roads which have received rather more generous handouts from the Highways budget are in a relatively small area, north of the Golders Green Road, an area where Councillor Dean Cohen himself lives.

Most fortunate of all are the residents of Princes Park Avenue, who have been handed nearly £530,000 in two years for their roads and pavements.

To put this in perspective, let us take another look at the graph showing the distribution of Highways funding in all wards, across two years: 

 

You will see that the total amount of funding given to one road in Councillor Cohen's own ward amounts to the same total given to some wards over two years,  in entirety

Libdem stronghold Childs Hill received less than Princes Park Avenue - around £488, 000, the Labour ward of East Finchley - £322,000. And of course the Labour  ward of Colindale received only £92,936.

The highly marginal ward of Hale has been given a particularly large amount of funding, second only to Councillor Cohen's own ward in Golders Green. This must of course be a coincidence, and it is unfortunate that in both cases, Hale and Golders Green, according to Mrs Angry's spies, for some reason the work which this funding has paid for is still continuing in the last few days before the election, a reminder to all voters, of course, that their council is keen to facilitate their easy route to the nearest polling station. We wouldn't want any voter to trip on their way, would we? Unless they live in Colindale, or East Finchley.

After Mrs Angry brought this interesting distribution of funds to the attention of certain Labour councillors who were given continual excuses from officers as to why their own Highways related improvements were not forthcoming, one member made a complaint to the Chief Executive, and asked for an explanation. Oh dear. Tactless. And there is apparently still a problem in formulating a full response, despite the involvement of Mrs Angry's favourite officer, Ms Pam Wharfe.

Ms Wharfe's excuse for the lack of funds for Colindale was:

all roads and pavements works are evaluated on need therefore there should simply have been roads and pavements in a worse position elsewhere. Clearly a lot of work is being done in 2013/14 on Lanacre Avenue in relation to regeneration works connected to Grahame Park.

Mmm. Clearly. That would explain everything.

Oh, and then ... there is this briefing on a four year expenditure plan, which may or may not tally with what actually was distributed, but tells you something about their intentions:




All that dosh for Totteridge? Interesting to see the winners and losers, compared to this projection, isn't it?

At the last Audit meeting, the Chair suggested that any concerns that the disparity in Highways expenditure was unlawful should be referred to the External Auditor.

What do you think of that, readers?

But anyway, here we are, on the eve of the election, and all is up for grabs, at least in theory. The truth is that the Tories are flailing about, unable to present anything to offer the voters - too frightened even to mention the mass privatisation of council services that they have overseen in the course of the last administration, with no mandate, or consultation with residents - and shrinking in fear of the impact of blunders like the parking policy, the allowance rise they awarded themselves, the support they gave to Brian Coleman, the cuts to disabled children's respite care, the handing over of Hendon Crematorium to the profiteering sweaty hands of Capita.

Their manifesto, such as it is, only surfaced in the latter days of the campaign, and what a cracker it is:

The Tories promise -

Low council tax (even if they have to take the money away from disabled children)
New school places ( for children out of the borough who get through the selective entrance exams of the best scoring schools in Barnet)
A green borough (what is left after providing more potential sites for developers, or in the case of our parks, pimping our open spaces for commercial hire)
Better roads and pavements (ha! Good one: see above - only applies in Tory/marginal wards)
New homes (if you are 'well off', preferably a Russian oligarch, or lucky enough to be allocated one of the three new council houses, the first for 22 years).

No mention, of course, of any extension in the privatisation of our council services, which is absolutely guaranteed, should the Tories return to power.
 
The campaign for the local election has had the Tory administration fighting a rearguard action, of course, with nowhere to go. What could they say, to defend their record in power, and persuade residents to vote for more of the same? They managed to return in 2010 by not informing voters of their plans to privatise council services, and then refusing to consult on those plans. They know only how to impose policy, not how to work in partnership with their own electorate, and respect their views. 

The last four years in which they have been in control of Barnet has been marked by a virtual civil war, between an increasingly politicised and well informed opposition of activists, bloggers and campaign groups, a guerrilla war, striking right at the heart of the Conservative agenda, and continually disrupting what they thought would be the easy installation of an easycouncil regime, a flagship borough, and a new model of local government.

From easycouncil, to Futureshape, to One Barnet: then as the toxic brand became too much to deal with, the privatisation of this borough became merely 'a change programme', a euphemism discreetly murmured by Tory leader Richard Cornelius, with all the discretion and unctuousness of a handwringing undertaker, perfectly cast in the era of Easycrem, and the Capita way of death that we now must subscribe to.

Such is the level of concern over the failure to convey to the ungrateful voters of Broken Barnet the magnificent achievements of our Tory council, in one ward, key to electoral success, they have had to call on the help of local Tory MP, the godfather of easycouncil himself, Mike Freer. 

This is Childs Hill, traditionally held by the Libdems, but now Lord and Lady Palmer are standing down, Tories have convinced themselves that they have the natural first call on the ward, as indeed have Labour. Which party is right? Or will the ward remain loyally Libdem? (Yes, I know, but I like Jack Cohen, and would like him at least to return, as frankly he is the only councillor in Barnet with any wit, and intellect).

Freer did his best to help his Tory colleagues by sending out a 'survey' about the Mansion  Tax, and trying to frighten what the Tories imagine to be the great hoardes of wealthy mansion owning residents who might resent paying their fair share of contribution to the public purse. Tax, you should remember, for Barnet Tories, is an anathema, and teh principle should apply only to poor people, who should stop moaning about the Bedroom Tax, because it does not exist, and anyway they are poor, which is their fault.

This 'survey' has got Freer into trouble, because he is alleged to have misused parliamentary resources for electoral purposes, and will now face an investigation into the matter. But what is telling about this is it shows the Tories have misread the situation and made assumptions about residents which are inaccurate: in fact most people in Barnet are hard working people who aspire to own their own homes, and feel no sympathy for those owning properties worth £2 million or more. The very phrase 'Mansion Tax' is guaranteed to alienate most of the voters they need to persuade to support them.

Their fatal error, the Barnet Tories, is that they confuse the interests of those who make the biggest donations to their party with the ordinary residents whose lives have become so much harder over the last few years. 

Aside from the demands of austerity, the residents and traders of Barnet have been incensed by the parking fiasco, by the arrogance of Brian Coleman, and the failure of his former colleagues to sanction his behaviour: they do not approve of cuts to disabled schools in order to pay for a 23 pence a week tax 'gesture', and they most certainly do not want to see their local crematorium run for profit. 

They don't care about the tax burden of absentee home owners in Bishops Avenue, and yet even if they are not directly affected themselves, they see the injustice of the Tory housing policy, and the immorality of trying to make profit from the provision  of care to the disabled.

In short, the inherent decency of most people in this borough has reached the extent of tolerance that they can bestow on the Tory councillors of Broken Barnet. Tomorrow they have a chance to make their opinions count: let's hope they do just that. 

Over the last four years, I have chronicled the story of this Conservative administration, in loving detail, all for your reading pleasure. 

What a story it has been: one long tale of incompetence, immorality, greed, laziness, inertia, corruption, hypocrisy, and abject submission to the influence of private interests, conflict of interests, and swivel eyed lunacy, promulagated by a bunch of neo Thatcherite, doltheaded Tory councillors who care more about prancing about in a set of moth eaten mayoral robes, and stuffing their tupperware boxes with goodies from the corporate buffet table, than they do about the residents facing real hardship as a direct result of their own policies, and those of the Tory government they support.

The real Tory manifesto is there, for all to see: what they have done, and what they have failed to do, and what they will do if they return to power. 

I never intended to carry on writing this blog as long as I have - frankly I have had more than enough, and would welcome the chance to escape Broken Barnet. 

If Labour take control of the borough tomorrow, Mrs Angry can retire, and I can run away. 

Do me a favour, please, and put me out of my misery, the only way that counts - vote Labour, and kick the likes of Richard Cornelius, Robert Rams, Tom Davey, Dean Cohen and all the rest of the fecking eejits that have hijacked this borough, and got us travelling on the lost highway, right up the *rse.

Thank you.

This was Broken Barnet.

It's up to you, what happens next.

And this one is for you, Councillor Cohen - enjoy: 

                      

We are disappointed, or: Barnet decides - the day of reckoning

$
0
0

Allianz Park stadium and sports centre sits in a semi-rural setting, in the middle of Copthall playing fields, in Mill Hill, surrounded by fields, and old hedgerows, miles from anywhere, inaccessible by public transport, approachable only by a manically road humped meandering road: its splendid isolation a perfect venue, in short, for the process of counting the vote for Barnet's council elections.

We say splendid isolation: in fact the old centre and stadium, long regarded as a white elephant by Barnet Tories, was handed over by them to Saracens rugby club, for a peppercorn rent, and has been tarted up and customised to their specification: the result is an incongrous building, with a shop, and bars, the public one, as Mrs Angry noted with wry amusement on arrival, boasting large windows etched with commendable aspirations to 'honesty', 'humility', and 'discipline'. 


Rogue councillor Brian Coleman had objected to the Barnet Council election count being held at Allianz Park, due to the association of the name - because of course as soon as the former Copthall stadium had been given away to Saracens, they announced an £8 million sponsorship deal with the German insurance company, and renamed it, despited protests from many , not least Jewish residents who are aware of Allianz's history, and its shameful support for the Nazi regime. 

Renamed, rebranded, refurbished - and now lent back to Barnet to hold the count. Were we paying for the privilege? Or was it a favour returned by Nigel Wray, the hugely wealthy owner of Saracens, who happens to be a constituent of Tory leader Richard Cornelius, and fellow member of the Totteridge Residents Association? Who knows. 

Before Mrs Angry could give her name at the reception desk, she was handed an ID badge. Oh yes, said the assistant, smiling, we were warned you were coming. Coming later, she added. Oh. Mrs Angry contemplated the extent of her infamy, and wandered towards the count.

Into the long, narrow room where the ballot boxes were being emptied and counted on tables allocated to each ward in a line, a long walk. Right at the far end the BBC was poised, waiting to film what was a significant moment: the test of a former Tory flagship administration - the day of reckoning, for easycouncil.

Walking along the line of tables was a surreal, dream like experience: or perhaps rather like death by drowning, where the face of everyone you have ever known rises up before you, to say goodbye: in this case, every character who has featured in Broken Barnet over the last four years, friends, foes, people from across the political spectrum in this borough - and Brian Coleman - all gathered together in one room. Friends, enemies, or even, as nwo you see him now you don't Tory councillor Danny Seal suggested 'frenemies'. 

Also keen to chat was his new Hampstead Garden Suburb ward colleague Gabriel Rozenberg, who is a HUGE fan of Mrs Angry. (Even though the so called friend who told her this told him she prefers Mr Reasonable, can you believe it?)  

And she wishes that Tory councillors would stop sidling up to her, as they did all day Thursday, and telling her how much they enjoy reading this blog, because, you feckless eejits, she does not want you to enjoy it, at all. That is NOT the point of this blog. Please pay attention.

She wants you to feel full of remorse, and self recrimination, and to vow to turn away from your path of sin, to a better life of honesty, humility, and discipline. Or you could join the Labour party?

Honesty, humility, and discipline. Like rugby players, but without any of that homoerotic larking about in the bath, as some of you might be too distracted from your duties. 

And your Tory MP chum Matthew Offord would only come in and pull the plug, to stop any of that funny business, in case it prevents procreation, or, UKIP style, perhaps, causes flooding on a biblical scale.  

*Disclaimer ... Sorry: Mrs Angry has had no sleep, is losing the will to write this post, and her mind is wandering.

Gabriel, by the way, is the son of legal journalist Joshua Rozenberg. Oh, and he is also, of course, the son of Melanie Phillips, which may explain his predisposition to admiration of women with forthright views - and a limited amount of tact and diplomacy.

Speaking of which: the previous day had been spent by Mrs Angry at two different polling stations: one in West Finchley, and one in West Hendon. The first session was enlivened by the musings of a local UKIP member, see below, who entertained us with the story of his life growing up in South Africa, his first languages being Zulu, and Afrikaans. He came here as a fifteen year old, he said. So, said Mrs Angry, listening to his lifestory, and tales of derring do, and living in the USA, and elsewhere, you want to deny to European immigrants the privileges you as a South African immigrant enjoyed, by settling here?

Tellers at a West Finchley station, including Cllr Jim Tierney

No, no, he retorted, as the Asian Tory teller regarded him, coolly, but in dignified silence, we want the same rules as Canada and Australia, and ... and would those rules have allowed you in? Ah. He wasn't sure.

He had a good story about another election, however: his first wife, he said, had been working in a polling station many years ago, when Winston Churchill walked in. He summoned the Presiding Officer over and demanded he tell him the name of the Conservative candidate. The Presiding Officer informed him, with pursed lips, that he was unable to do so, as it was not permitted for him to discuss political matters with voters. 

A heavy responsibility, of course, being a Presiding Officer. Mrs Angry has done it, in the past, and therefore has some knowledge of those rules which dictate what may or may not be done within the environs of a polling station. It became obvious at the next stint of telling, at a station in West Hendon, that not all Presiding Officers are as well informed or active in their duties as they should be.

The Tory tellers at this station, it transpired, were not Conservative party activists. Or members. Or Conservatives. Or even particularly interested in politics. Or residents of Barnet. They were there, they both explained, to do a favour for a friend. Odd. Even more odd was the presence of a couple of men standing outside the station, talking conspiratorially all the time, using blue tooth and phones to communicate with who know who, and casting hostile glances at Mrs Angry, for no reason she could see. 

Unofficial Tory 'security' at the polling station

Mrs Angry was told they were there to 'be with' the Tory teller, but they had no ID, and did nothing but watch people. At several points, a large black limo with associates of theirs would come and drive slowly past the polling station entrance, again, the occupants staring at Mrs Angry. Then one of the men took a chair, and sat down outside the entrance, in what was frankly, rather an intimidating gesture. All of this, including the car's registration number, was passed on to the Labour party agent, and then to the Returning Officer, but it should have been addressed immediately, in person.

The Tory candidates in West Hendon failed to win any seats, of course.

Mrs Angry had arrived at the count at midday, and the real counting had not really got underway. When it did, the process was long, highly complex, and intensely scrutinised by observers from all parties, sitting at the tables, the length of the room. That the vote was so complex was due to the number of cross votes, with some residents deciding to distribute their favours amongst a motley collection of parties, as is their right, but causing a real problem for the count, which is why, as well as the closeness of many of the results, the event went on, and on, and on ... 

Mrs Angry had collared a particularly red faced Richard Cornelius on arriving at the count, and asked the Tory leader if he was feeling happy, or ... Grimacing, he shrugged and choosing, in his Mr Punch-like way, a suitable fairground allusion said rather gloomily, well ... politics is a real roller coaster, and ... you have your ups and downs ... 

And then with a certain gleam in his eye, he predicted a long day of many recounts: meaning, Mrs Angry concluded that a. the sense that the Tories had had a pretty catastrophic result was right, and b. that they were going to fight over every last vote, whatever it took. It took all day and all night, that was what it took - and many asked why that was the case, when in the olden day, pre-Capita, pre One Barnet, we were able to organise an election night declaration within a much shorter time. 

In between wandering up and down the tables, picking up whispers about who was in, and who was out, the only other thing to do was to go upstairs to the cafe, where people sat at large round tables covered in white linen tablecloths, like a wedding reception from hell, with guests trying not to sit at the wrong table, with those awful people from the groom's side, or ... oh dear ... libdems. The Greens, of course, sat on the floor in a circle, held hands, and had a picnic. 

Yes, I am making that up.

Or am I?

Hung around the walls of this room, and indeed everywhere in the building, was a rather haphazard art collection, apparently belonging to Nigel Wray, of sporting scenes: pretty ghastly stuff, to be frank, but clearly worth a fortune. Good job he didn't have to flog it to pay the rent on the stadium, isn't it? Mrs Angry was tempted to pinch one, as collateral, to make up for the subsidy extended to Saracens, courtesy of her council tax, but then ... would you really want that stuff on your own wall? No.

Brian Salinger, in his election day tie

By now some councillors had seen the writing on the wall, and predicted their own political demise. As soon as Mrs Angry had arrived, in fact, Tory Kate Salinger had told her cheerfully that she was 'toast'. 'Burnt Toast', she added. She was right. 

A shame for Kate, because she is a nice woman, but, despite her own valiant effort in defying the shameful allowance rise hike,  she was ultimately the victim of her own inability to maintain such independence of mind, and retain her loyalty to the party which agreed to shut libraries, and did, and then saw one reopened by squatters from the Occupy movement, and returned to the community. In her way she tried to support the new community library, but her position was untenable, and voters were unforgiving.

Libdem leader Jack Cohen spent the day in the most awful state of torment, believing he had lost his seat in Childs Hill, which he has held since 1986. Lord and Lady Palmer had both stood down, and personal loyalties clearly no longer applied to the new Libdem candidates. Would Jack Cohen, who is widely respected, a dedicated, hard working councillor, and a man of great wit, really no longer be a member of Barnet Council? Such a prospect was too awful for words. Who else would make speeches about Albert Einstein sitting on a hot stove, or argue with Mrs Angry about the wrong size rivets on the Titanic, or dare to try to correct her on her knowledge of the films of Luis Bunuel? Robert Rams? Ha. 

Robert Rams: what had happened to his vote, delivered by the grateful residents of East Barnet? Read on.

Slowly the results began to emerge, and we moved into another room to hear the declarations given by Returning Officer and Chief Executive Andrew Travers. Unsurprisingly, the right wing Tory Brian Gordon, who had jumped ship in risky Hale to stand in safer Edgware, was returned, along with starchy-knickered, self professed Thatcherite, Helena Hart, and her gal pal, the former manageress of the Ponders End branch of Freeman, Hardy and Willis, 1953-1969, Miss Joan Scannell. 


Mrs Angry was amused to see that to the side of the Returning Officer was another of Nigel Wray's pictures, this one rather good, a large canvas (see below) depicting an upwardly mobile Nelson Mandela. Brian Gordon, of course, is famous for once 'entertaining' the captive audience at a home for elderly residents with his blacked up impersonation of Mr Mandela: so, a fitting backdrop to his admirer's return to power.


Robert Rams, from the start of the day, had a face like a smacked *rse, (I have redacted and edited my own comment here, btw) and was in a full on sulk, all day, disappearing eventually when it became clear he had - deservedly - lost his seat in East Barnet. 

Like many of the Tories who lost seats or failed to win one, he did not have the grace to attend the declaration, and take his defeat like a man. The man who shut our Church Farmhouse Museum, and our libraries, and sat in council meetings scoring cheap points against any opponent or resident who addressed a committee, or sat there playing with his phone rather than give his attention to proceedings - he was thrown out of office and he and his colleagues replaced by three Labour candidates, Phil Cohen,  Laurie Williams, and best of all, Rebecca Challice, a young and really brilliant addition to the Labour group.



Another Tory who did not bother staying to hear the declaration was Ansuya Sodha, the former Labour councillor for West Hendon who was deselected, and became so outraged at losing what she had thought was her right to remain a councillor, she defected to the Tory group, when they offered her a nomination. Elected instead were three Labour councillors, the redoubtable, wonderful Agnes Slocombe, now the longest serving councillor in Barnet, the hardworking assistant to Andrew Dismore, Adam Langleben, and Mrs Angry's dear friend, the lovely Dr Devra Kay, who is a woman of many parts: Yiddish scholar, jazz singer, and a real delight. 

Councillor Agnes Slocombe

No one likes a turncoat, and really Sodha's behaviour was pretty shabby, by any standards. Used by the Tories who spent the last few years sniggering at her every time she spoke, because she is a woman, an older woman, and an Asian woman, she will now be unceremoniously dumped by them and forgotten. Good riddance.

Tom Davey spent most of the day in what to Mrs Angry was a most satisfyingly intense state of barely concealed panic, facing the real prospect that he was not going to return to his seat. Even when the results were declared, he struggled to show any sense of relief. It was a close run thing, as demonstrated by the election of one Labour candidate, Kitty Lyons. 

Mrs Angry sincerely hopes that this experience will teach young Master Davey to grow up, learn a little discretion, and perhaps stop wasting so much time playing board games and dressing up, and more time trying to learn the art of empathy, and understand the needs of those less fortunate than him. Benefit 'scroungers', the disabled, abused women, for example.


Another spectacular victory for Labour came in Underhill, which had been a split ward, with one Labour councillor. On Friday we waved goodbye to Tories Rowan Quigley Turner, and his amusing colleague Andrew Strongolou: all replaced by a terrific team - Tim Roberts,
Paul Edwards (a former union colleague - comrade - of Mrs Angry, as it happens), and another terrific young female candidate, Amy Trevethan, extremely bright and ambitious - and winning, like Rebecca Challice, against all the odds and naysayers who said they were too young (ie under retirement age, like most of the old codgers in the Tory party) or too female (unlike most of the old codgers in the Tory party). 



Amy is standing against Theresa Villiers next year, and she is going to give Villiers a real problem, because, as these results show, there is a previously untapped Labour vote in Chipping consituency that just may take Amy to Westminster. We desperately need young, gifted women to enter politics both locally and nationally, and now we are beginning to see that happen. 

The other parties: how did they do? The Greens did ok: and also did the usual terrible thing, by default, of splitting the anti-Tory vote, thereby delivering you, dear reader to another Conservative council. Those of you, and yes I am looking at someone in particular,  who felt obliged to distribute your votes here there and everywhere in High Barnet with light hearted abandon, to, Greens, Libdems, anyone but Labour, have returned three Tory councillors, and as it turned out, at the nerve wracking end of the night, a Tory administration. Thank you very much.

It is a great shame that the Greens did not come to an agreement in certain wards to butt out, and help us all climb out of the pit of Tory doom, but the greater good, and strategic planning seems to pale into insignificance, when you spend all day worrying about the planet, and climate change, and stuff, we must suppose. 

Barnet Alliance's strategy of recommending people vote 'anyone but conservative' would also, in retrospect be a mistake. Tactics, tactics: a hard lesson to learn, but an unavoidable truth.

UKIP. It must be no longer avoided, Mrs Angry. 

Most of the UKIP candidates were what you might expect: old boys in blazers, wishing they had a gin and tonic in their hand, and wandering about the building at a loss as to what to do. One of them, the Underhill candidate, did pretty well, the rest pretty poorly, and none of them were elected. End of story for Mr Ferridge, in London? Probably.

The collapse of the Libdem vote was another story. Mrs Angry thought it would be spectacular, and it was. Areas like Mill Hill, a former stronghold - the vote was less than UKIP. Unfortunately, the good people of Mill Hill, or at least some of the people of Mill Hill, saw fit to return the moustachioed octogenerian Tory John Hart, whose recent highly offensive remarks about the 'handouts' to disabled children at Mapledown School should on their own have seen him finished as a councillor. Whether or not he is fit enough to see through another four year term is another question. And there is real danger now for the Tories in Mill Hill from Labour, who made previously unheard of gains there - as Mrs Angry predicted.

And then there is Childs Hill. 

This is the ward that kept us waiting until so late at night, as they checked, and rechecked, and checked again. 

Early on in the day, Jack Cohen had said to Mrs Angry, shaking his head, that he was gone. He had clearly given up all hope of retaining his seat, and the poignancy of such a loss, both politically, and personally, was felt by many at the count, of all parties. The count continued, and it became clear that in the cross voting, he was doing much better, as perhaps you might expect. Not until the last minute of the last declaration of the evening did we discover who had pulled it off, as both Labour and Tory candidates were in reach of the crucial figure. He won, by nine votes.

Of course as a Labour member, Mrs Angry should have been rooting for the Labour candidate, and a Labour win. But in truth Jack Cohen, though he will hate me saying this, and so will they, is a better Labour councillor than many of the Labour councillors, and he is certainly by far a better opposition councillor than many of them. He clearly was close to tears when his result was announced - and so was Mrs Angry. 

A shell shocked Jack Cohen, after the result that just saved him

From tears to laughter then : come on, he who must not be named, shall be named: Brian Coleman. Remember him? Already feeling nostalgic, aren't you? Come back, Brian - no. Don't. Really: please don't. 

He arrived with his mum, and promptly headed over to Labour leader Alison Moore, mwah, mwah... 'Leader designate', he proclaimed, to the great excitement of no one in particular. The kiss of death, in fact, for both. 

As soon as it became clear that the tray for Brian's vote was not overflowing with votes: indeed it was positively underflowing with votes, he sneaked out, unnoticed, unmissed.

Bye.

There were a lot of very tired, and very, very tired people at the count, exhausted by the last few days and nights of campaigning, and looking longingly at the bar, which was kept firmly shut throughout, no doubt for fear of the consequences. By the time of the Totteridge declaration most of us were in a heightened state of nervous hysteria. Andrew Travers read out the names in his deadpan, E L Wisty sort of voice. 

Auld, Ash, Green Party, 464 votes

Cole,  Michael, Liberal Democrats, 256

Coleman, Brian John, ... No Description ....

That was it. The room erupted in ribald laughter. Brian Coleman: No Description. A fitting epitaph to his political life, which died there, on that podium, in his absence, in the Allianz Park Stadium, on the 23rd May, 2014.

Mr Travers struggled to maintain his composure, but more or less pulled himself together in order to tell us  that the old fool had 265 votes, which, as his former colleague Danny Seal pointed out, was about the same as the number of twitter followers he has. Had: he has bowed out of twitter, with a last tweet telling the world he was sitting with a glass of something, listening to Tosca. You know, the one where the fat lady sings, and then throws herself off the parapet. Very apt. 

As Mrs Angry has pointed out elsewhere, there was once a famous performance of Tosca, where the diva found herself falling on a trampoline, and bouncing back again. 

God forbid. Look: Mrs Angry is making the sign of the cross. 

So: at the end of the long day, and the long night, where were we? 

Labour had come tantalisingly close to taking control, winning unexpected votes - even in Totteridge - in areas the Labour leadership had dismissed as unwinnable.

And here is the bitter truth, and a truth that some do not want to hear.

With better leadership, and a properly focused campaign, Labour would now be in control of Barnet Council. 

Those responsible for this missed opportunity, you might think, should immediately do the right thing, and stand down. 

In an interview given to the local Timeshere , Labour's leader Alison Moore said:

We fought a hard campaign, and we have elected some brilliant new councillors that will contribute to Barnet. There was a chance we could have won, and we are disappointed but it’s certainly not a ringing endorsement for the Conservatives. 
 
Tonight’s result is testament to our manifesto and out pitch to people about restoring the fairness and democracy in Barnet after an administration that have not engaged with local people and dismissed their views.

We will continue to fight and be on the side of local residents and making sure their voices are heard. We will also fight to ensure that One Barnet is not selling residents short.
 
We are disappointed. There was a chance we could have won.

Not a ringing endorsement for the Conservatives. 

That's ok then, isn't it? Keep calm, and keep on losing elections. You've only lost three local elections, and one general, so obviously learning from mistakes is unlikely, but hey: what does it matter?

It's not just One Barnet that is selling residents short, in truth, that has been selling residents short for the last four years, and  longer - it is the failure of the Labour party in Barnet to act as an effective opposition.


There are many really good, dedicated, hard working Labour councillors in Barnet, and now there is a new intake of fresh, intelligent, creative new members, most of whom have a distinctly more radical approach, and will quickly come into conflict with a leadership that remains on the course it has followed for the last God knows how many years.

Fellow blogger Roger Tichborne has described very well many of the ways in which the Labour leadership has failed in its duty, and has expressed the view of the majority of us here:


 
and it is a view that must be heard by those who influence the direction of the Labour group now, before it is too late.

The Labour leader should have offered her resignation as soon as it became apparent she had lost yet another election - and this one was a winnable election. 

Mrs Angry understands that she has declared her intention to stay on at least another year, until the next general election. 

This is preposterous. 

In no other context would a party leader who has failed to win so many times refuse to put the party interest first, and cling on to power. Change is good: change is vital - and if we want to be serious about winning our local constituencies next year - and the local results prove that with the right campaign all three wards are now vulnerable - we need a new leader.

If the Labour leader will not do the honourable thing and resign, there must be a leadership contest, and just as we have a fresh intake of members, we must start with a new purpose, a new sense of direction, and a new attitude. 

Let's dump the complacency, the settling for second best, the apologetic deference to senior officers, and the gentlemen's agreements with Tory opponents. 

Let's not copy any more of the Tories' policies, and budgets, and help them maintain the status quo. 

Let's remember we are the party for, what was it? Yes: the many, not the few, not the residents of Totteridge, and Bishops Avenue,  the people in West Hendon, and Colindale, and Strawberry Vale, the ones without a stake in the Tory controlled Barnet, the ones who are facing real hardship in their lives and desperately need an opposition party that is angry on their behalf, and will fight social injustice with passion, and hold this council, and their partners in shame at Capita to account, and make them squirm until we can prise their sweaty hands off our public services, and take them back for us, for our benefit, and not the profit of their shareholders.

That's my view, and that is all I have to say. I won't support a Labour group in Barnet that continues in the way it has, and I won't keep quiet about what would be a serious betrayal of the best interests of the people of our community. 

Adapt or die: the rule of nature, and the principle of evolution. Brian Coleman's fatal mistake was in defying that rule, and that principle: it is a folly common to many politicians, and therein lies a lesson for all of us.

It's time to move on.

Broken Barnet, May 2014.

Broken Barnet, May 2014: the morning after the night before

$
0
0


It is now a week since the local elections, and all parties in Barnet are now beginning to adjust to the new reality of political life in this borough. 

Or not.

In the last few days we have seen the Tories in a state of shock, uncharacteristically silent, unable to comprehend the reasons for the loss of so many of their councillors, and unable to see that their failure to predict such consequences is proof itself of the fundamental problems that have driven their party to the brink of disaster. 

They didn't see it coming, in short, because they didn't look. And their ability to remain happily out of touch with reality, has reached its logical conclusion: not to know when they had made the fatal error of alienating their own electoral guarantors, the residents naturally inclined to vote for them, whose support they took for granted, and overlooked in the rush to impose their half baked policies in the course of the last four years.

Not that Mrs Angry is inclined to help the Barnet Tories analyse what went so awfully wrong, but for the record, it might help if they sat in the corner thinking very hard about their attitude of contempt for the views of residents, and asked themselves why they felt obliged to act with such Stalinist zeal to silence all debate with residents, to avoid real consultation with them, to allow Tory councillors like Brian Coleman and Robert Rams to treat residents with such rudeness at council meetings - and to continue in imposing their most unpopular policies regardless of widespread protest, and an uprising of activism in this borough on an unprecedented scale, and one which brought the focus of media attention not just nationwide, but across the world. 

I mean, really, when it becomes a common place occurrence for the borough to be visited by film crews from Japan, or Australia, or Germany, and documentaries are made on just one of the political issues tearing your community apart - did you never stop to think, Tory councillors of Broken Barnet, hang on - this is all getting out of hand? Maybe ... just maybe we've got this wrong? Maybe we are going to be in a spot of trouble, on polling day?

The result of their arrogance, and ineptitude, is that their control of the council has all but disappeared, and hangs in the balance. 

We are just one by election away from the Tories losing all authority, and the introduction of the new committee system means that they will need to exercise a regime of the most stringent party discipline, and eternal vigilence, to ensure their own members turn up to all meetings. This will be an impossible challenge for the Tories, Mrs Angry cheerfully predicts.

At the election count, she asked one young Tory member why he had stood again for council, when his poor attendance record was so poor, and widely criticised. He maintained that he had made a promise to 'improve' his record of attendance, patchy because of work commitments, but said he thought that actually, going to meetings was not the only part of being a councillor which mattered, helping constituents was just as important. True, but for the next four years, being at meetings is going to be crucial, not optional. 

In truth, what is left of the Barnet Tory party, after the election, is a most peculiar creature, hard to define. 

So many of the members that were most characteristic of the previous administration have left us, thank God.

Consider the loss of the man they dare not name, no longer a Tory by the time of the election, but the dark power behind the throne throughout most of the administration, yes, it's him, Brian Coleman, the malign influence which worked its destructive power over the leadership of the party, and led to its downfall: without his totemic presence in the chamber, what strange synergy there will be, in this new administration.

Let's be clear: the Tory party has accomplished the sell out of our council services to Capita, and got it through an election campaign for two reasons. First of all because of the complete failure of the Labour party to oppose the programme - more of this later - and second: the privatisation has only just begun to become established, and only the first signs of fundamental change have begun to become apparent to residents. That is not going to hold out much longer, which is why it is vital for the new intake of opposition members to start as they mean to go on, and get a grip of contract scrutiny.

This week after the election, in fact on the first morning back after a Bank Holiday weekend, it was almost impossible, as Mrs Angry found, over the course of 14 phone calls in one hour, to reach the council by phone. The new Capita call centre could not cope with the number of calls it was receiving. 

 The way that Capita addresses the shortfall in the number of lines it provides, is to set up 'this number is not recognised' messages, or simply saying 'the line is busy'. This brilliant wheeze - dismissed at the beginning of the contract as teething problems - means that not all calls are logged - if they were the performance statistics would tell the truth, that at times residents cannot access information about their council services. 

These failings to respond to calls will not be recorded as failures to respond: they will simply not appear in the data, thus enabling KPIs to be flunked, as indeed they are, as Mr Mustard will tell you, in the course of the NSL contract. 

This is how your councillors, of both parties, have the wool pulled over their eyes about performance, and are able to remain at contract scrutiny committees, nodding as senior officers and Capita representatives assure them everything is just fine and dandy. 

It is not.

And just bear in mind that where large outsourcing contracts like these have ended, it has often been based on dissatisfaction with call centre performance, as we are now seeing in Birmingham. Contrary to what some are saying, it is possible to escape contracts, if the contractors are proven to be failing to provide the services paid for.

You, councillors of Broken Barnet, are being fooled. No more excuses, please: do your job, and challenge contractors not only on the performance statistics, but how they actually compile those statistics. It takes a bit of effort, doing this, but -hello - that's what you have been elected to do.

Over the last four years, I have sat and watched Labour councillors on committees fail to challenge the most appalling blunders by both Tory members and senior officers, open opportunities for political profit, and, for f*ck;s sake, to do what the people of this borough deserve, stand up for them, and do the right thing, on their behalf.

I'm not prepared to do the same again, in silence. 

In the previous administration countless opportunities were lost, by a failure in courage, in strategy, and most of all in leadership. This cannot continue.

The Judicial Review of One Barnet is the most worrying example. The reason this failed, of course, was not because the merits of the argument of the claimant: Judge Underhill ruled that Barnet had breached the statutory duty to consult residents about the privatisation of services. The Judicial Review failed because it was made too late.

Why was it made too late? Because legal action was not instigated by Labour when it should have been, early on in the process. Legal advice was not taken by Labour, until - it was too late. This was an unforgiveable error in judgement.

Having lost the JR, what then? During the election campaign, we had a series of question times at different parts of the borough. Mrs Angry took part in the first one, and sat in fury as the Labour leader refused to commit the party, if successfully elected, to attempt to exit from the Capita contracts. This also infuriated the majority of residents in the audience.

Now safely back in opposition, where some Labour members feel so much more comfortable, we hear reassurances that the party will 'fight to ensure that One Barnet is not selling residents short'. 

Let's hope that the new intake of more challenging and more radically minded councillors will do just that, and not succumb to the culture of complacency and impotence that has too often prevailed in place of any rigorous process of opposition.

And there are some really, really good new Labour members: at last, some young women, bright, passionate and determined: Reema Patel, Amy Trevethan, and Rebecca Challice. Equally promising are Devra Kay, Kitty Lyons (previously a councillor until 2006), and Kathy Levine, joined by Ammar Naqvi - a very able and welcome candidate, Adam Langleben, who works for Andrew Dismore, Paul Edwards, who used to be involved in union politics in Barnet, with Mrs Angry, a long time ago, the inimitable Alon Or Bach, who stood against Sarah Sackman for the Finchley and Golders Green PPC contest, Phil Cohen, Tim Roberts, and Laurie Williams. 

In an article here the local Times, the Labour leader Alison Moore is quoted as saying that this latest electoral defeat for Labour was in fact nothing of the sort, that the results were 'positive for the party' ... she says - I think absolutely it was a success

If this had been a campaign fought in the context of proportional representation, yes, perhaps. Notably where the candidates won surprising victories, it was largely because acitivists in those areas defied the predictions of the leadership group and did their own thing.

And as far as Mrs Angry is aware, the result in Barnet must be judged on the basis of first past the post, and - winning control. So, no: not a success, another failure. A failure resulting in a stronger party, but still: a failure.

There was every chance of doing this, of winning control, after the calamitous Tory administration of the last four years. 

Let's say it again: the Tories lost this election, and then so did Labour. 

Why? Because of the same misjudgement that failed to challenge them effectively in opposition, and something else too.

In the Times article the headline reads: I still have the backing of members. In the article itself the leader actually states: I still have the confidence of many members ... 

In fact the Labour party is in schism, beneath a veneer of unity, between the more - sorry to say - conservative members, and those more radical in approach, who want a new and more challenging form of opposition. 

It has been so, in truth,  for many years, with all criticism dismissed as supporting one faction or another, personalised, polarised. 

This failure to be inclusive of a range of views, and to allow the same attitudes to prevail without any review, is how an opposition becomes institutionalised, neutralised, too comfortable as part of an establishment.

The division in the party is such a waste of energy, and a real weakness, and yet it is set to continue because some of those who might make a challenge for leadership are too scared of disadvantaging themselves, should they fail, and in the handout of offices, and others feel that everything is just wonderful, and anyone who says it is not is disloyal, and mean. 
 
What is happening in Barnet is, in its way, a reflection of the faultlines within the national party. A disconnection between the voters, who see only weakness, and lack of conviction, with an establishment that runs on its own momentum, fuelled by an empty tank, right up until the moment of electoral failure.

Four more years of this, then? 

No: there won't be, because new leader or not, the councillors arriving in the Town Hall mark a new course, one of change, which will build a new momentum. 

The Tories in Barnet are in meltdown: in total disarray. Cornelius is the counterpart of his Labour rival, in fact: rather fatally for his party, he lacks leadership, or political instinct, and no doubt, sooner or later will be challenged, presumably by deputy leader Daniel Thomas.

The Tories only began to realise what was on the cards for them, in truth, in the last days of the campaign. The party which had ignored all criticism, all demands for a real dialogue with voters, all attempts at consultation, suddenly realised they were about to be handed the results of the ultimate form of consultation, in the course of the democratic process, when even their normally loyal supporters told them where to get off.

Then, so desperate were they to hold on to Hale, they resorted to such tactics as asking David Cameron to phone voters in that ward, to invite them to support their local Tory candidates. And yet, after a very long count, despite - or perhaps because of - Cameron's help, it became clear just how close they came to losing all three seats, rather than one. Boroughwide, their supporters, all those residents and traders they provoked into a 40 % turnout on polling day, came out in strength to punish them for the parking fiasco, and every other cockup they have created in the last few years.

Look at their major losses: Rams, the two Tambourides -  and good riddance to all three - and a real struggle to hold on to so many wards. The old epicentre of Tory influence in  Chipping Barnet has blown: things fall apart, the centre cannot hold. The heartlands of Conservative power,  in the cradle of Thatcherism, all crumbling. Who would have thought it? 

Me, and quite a few others, in fact, those of us who bothered to look carefully at what was happening, and why.

You can imagine how popular Mrs Angry is with the old guard in the Labour party at the moment, for daring to raise these issues in public: facing accusations of disloyalty, and being unkind, washing dirty linen in public. Oh dear. 

Don't give the Tories something to make political capital from, they are saying. 

Friends, you've been doing that for the last four years, without my assistance. Now is the chance to put an end to it.

The Tories in Barnet are now in no position to make capital out of anything: they are trashed, discredited, floundering about with no leadership of their own, no direction. Richard Cornelius is standing by, smiling politely, like the chief steward of the Titanic, handing out glasses of sherry to passengers, as they wander towards the lifeboats. 

There are no lifeboats. The ship is going down, and we are all going down with it.

And to those people who don't want to hear it, let me say this: there is a need to address these issues honestly, and openly, and now, when it really matters. That is the mark of a healthy relationship: this is what should mark the difference between us, and the quivering, cowardly Tories, who have followed their own leadership blindly over the edge of the electoral abyss.

It might be in the interests of some to shut down all dissent, and carry on as normal, but it is not in the interests of the party,  or those residents who have placed their trust in elected members to form an effective, fighting opposition, and protect them from the onslaught of Tory policies, nationally and locally, that are driving them into poverty, and then seeing them gerrymandered out of this borough, a process which is set to continue in the new administration.

Next year we have a general election. 

As you will see from this piece in the Ham & High ,  the fight between Tory MP Mike Freer and the brilliant Sarah Sackman has already begun. The party must be in a state of unity, and it must have a new approach to campaigning: painful honesty now, and a few more members putting party interest before personal comfort, or ambition  -and Labour will be unstoppable. 

After the humiliating losses for the Tories in the Barnet areas, predicted by the more radical of us amongst the party, it should be said, and dismissed by many - all three constituencies in this borough are now up for grabs. 

Let's start here working towards that, here and now, but let's start by being clear about who we are, where we are, and where we need to go.



Broken Barnet: the annual meeting, and a new term begins, as care workers facing punitive pay cuts vote to strike

$
0
0



Tonight sees the annual meeting of Barnet Council, the very first, of course, since the election, and one which marks the beginning of a new administration, but which will largely consist of the archaic and arcane rituals of mayor-making, and assorted speeches of self congratulation and mutual admiration from members.

This annual pantomime is the highlight of the year, of course, for our Tory councillors, who live in eternal anticipation of one day becoming Mayor, and being allowed a turn at dressing up like a character in Toytown, sweeping into the council chamber in their fox fur trimmed robes, escorted by Cinderella's footmen, bowing reverentially before them, in white gloves and stockings, and carrying the golden mace of office on a velvet cushion. 

Tonight's performance will see the enthronement of the new Mayor, Hugh Rayner, who very nearly lost his seat in the election, and will be beside himself with joy to get his go after all, and do what he does best for the rest of the year, sit happily below an old portrait of HM the Queen, chairing meetings with brisk bonhomie, and being awfully polite.

Of course there will be some familiar faces missing tonight: the two Councillor Tambourides - sadly missed. And the non aligned member for Totteridge: now just permanently non aligned, Brian Coleman, released from a long career of selfless public service, to spend more time with ... with himself, and serve him right. Mrs Angry understands that as a past Mayor, he is entitled to attend the ceremony, with a guest: will he? Doubtful, one would think.

Tonight will see the new intake of councillors on the Labour side of the chamber, who will sit nervously in their red roses, and wonder what the f*ck they have let themselves in for, as they are compelled to sit through the ceremony of mayor making, and witness their Tory counterparts preening themselves in their Harry Potter style gowns, and crowing over yet another electoral victory.

Commendable words of exhortation to a life of high moral principle will be spoken by the new Mayor's chaplain, words which will be studiously ignored by all over the course of the next twelve months, and then all the councillors and their guests will head off towards a lovely buffet, laid out in one of the committee rooms, at your expense.

Meanwhile, back in the real world, where Barnet is still Broken, and no one really cares, do they? 

This press release has just been issued by Barnet Unison.

Barnet UNISON Press Release: 2 June 2013

Barnet UNISON organised a strike ballot which closed on Tuesday 27 May 2014 in response to a 9.5% cut in pay being imposed on our members. 

Our members working for Your Choice Barnet have delivered a 100% vote for strike action.

 Background: 

In February 2012 Barnet Council transferred Learning Disability and Physical and Sensory Impairment services for adults to a Local Authority Trading Company (LATC) called Your Choice Barnet (YCB). 

About 160 staff (145.6 Full Time Equivalents) in Adults services transferred to the LATC. Following a restructure and cuts to pay on shift allowances there are now only about 105 FTE working for YCB. This is a resounding ballot result and vindication of why Barnet UNISON has always said the additional 9.5% cut was unacceptable both to our members and the future for these critical frontline services. It is not feasible to continually attack low paid workers and expect them to take it without a fight and our members are not prepared to put up with joining a race to the bottom that is now common practice in the social care industry. The business case for this outsourced service was flawed from the outset three years ago and to date we have yet to see any financial figures which demonstrate this service will be able to deliver new business. 

Our members are taking a pay cut in order for YCB to repay Barnet Homes a loan borrowed at commercial rates of interest! 

Last year Barnet Council brought back the recycling service because they felt they could do a better job, which is why we are asking them to bring this service back in house in order to ensure a safe and secure service for Adults with Disabilities in Barnet. 

The last twelve months have seen a sharp increase in the numbers of agency staff and zero hours contracts being used to deliver these services. The attacks on staff have undermined morale and led to an exodus of experienced staff. For many of our members this is a last chance to save the service.

UNISON Branch Secretary John Burgess said: “Our members have always been clear they are fighting for their jobs and the future of the service. We are now seeking an urgent meeting with Your Choice Barnet to see if talks can avert having to take strike action.”

UNISON general secretary Dave Prentis: 

"Your Choice Care Workers are fighting to preserve a service to some of the most vulnerable people in society and I want express my admiration and solidarity for a brave and principled group of people." 

 
"Many of our members have said that the 9.5% cut in pay will mean they simply will not be able to pay their bills and some would struggle to keep their homes. This outstanding strikeballot of 100% for strike action shows they have the courage and  determination to fight for these critical frontline services.” 

Strike action is not being undertaken lightly by the people who are employees of Your Choice Barnet. They have been driven to it, by the absolute intransigence of those running YCB, and the Tory leadership's total refusal to address the catastrophic failings of the Local Authority Trading Company that they created, using a disastrously flawed business model by the same private consultants who 'implemented' the massive Capita deal, at vast expense to local tax payers.

Bad enough, you might reasonably think, to think up a scheme like YCB in which you seek to make profit out of providing care to vulnerable and disabled residents. Put aside the moral question this presents, and consider the underlying principle: that it is possible to make profit out of providing care to vulnerable and disabled residents, and if it is possible, to do so without in any way posing a real threat to users and their families, or without exploiting the already very poorly paid staff who must be relied on to provide such a sensitive and responsible support service. 

Add then, to this equation, another factor: the expectation by those who approved this lunatic scheme, that the profits from YCB would be so great, they could be relied upon to subsidise another part of the Barnet Group of 'hands off', 'at arms length so nothing to do with us' enterprises set up by Barnet Tories - Barnet Homes, their social housing venture. Yes, the mammoth will balance on the back of a tiny shrew, and all will be well.

Surprise, surprise, within a few months of YCB being launched, it became absolutely clear just how stupid an idea the whole premise of the business model was. (Did we ask for our money back, from the consultants?)

Odd, isn't it, how the party which is supposed to be one representing business, and enterprise, has allowed itself to be so easily duped into backing a clearly disastrous enterprise like YCB?

Your Choice Barnet had to be bailed out, by us, the residents and taxpayers, with a million quid, just to keep it afloat. Also expected to carry the can were the staff who carry out the care delivered to clients. They now face paycuts of 9.5%, which for someone already struggling on the low rate they receive is nothing short of disastrous.

No one could be more in need of skilled, compassionate care than the users of Your Choice Barnet: nothing is more guaranteed to drive standards of such care to the lowest point than imposing such draconian cuts on the pay of those expected to undertake work which is immensely difficult, and requires enormous personal commitment and sensitivity. There is no doubt that imposing such low pay on employees delivering this service will put patients at risk as YCB will struggle to find experienced, well trained staff that can provide the continuity and high standard of support that users and their families need.

It should be noted that families of clients of YCB support the staff in their action, and clearly want the best for their relatives, not a service delivered by low paid, demoralised employees, as demonstrated by parents of one user state here:

Our severely disabled son has benefited greatly from the commitment and expertise of Day Centre staff (now employed by YCB) over two decades. It is scandalous that they should be rewarded with savage pay cuts. The impact will be not only on their own livelihoods but also on the service users, who rely on them for enhancing their own quality of life.Their skill and dedication ought to be properly recognised, and we offer them our unreserved support.”

Janet and Tony Solomons

What has happened in the story of Your Choice Barnet is nothing short of a scandal. And yet of course, as the recent issue concerning Tory cuts to respite services at schools for disabled children in Barnet, in order to pay for their desperate pre-election gesture of a pathetic 1% tax cut demonstrated, the care of vulnerable residents is clearly not of any real concern to our Tory councillors, or to anyone else much, other than the local union representatives, and naturally the families of those whose relatives depend upon this vital support.

Will our Labour councillors back the strike action? Will they mention it tonight, at the council meeting? What will they do to help resolve the terrible betrayal of disabled residents that YCB represents? 

Unfortunately, last November, Labour members allowed themselves to be manoeuvred into endorsing a Task & Finish study of the YCB matter, widely condemned as a whitewash: see a previous blog - 'I don't have a problem making a profit' (clearly they do) - crossposted on False Economy:


The YCB case is a classic example, sadly, of where there has been a failure in Labour's leadership and strategy, and a failure to manage the real challenges of opposition: failure which has a real and lasting impact on the best interests of the residents of this borough.

Still: after all the mayor-making fun is over, and the remains of the buffet taken home in doggy bags by Tory councillors, we are left with a number of new Labour members, who have not yet been institutionalised, and are no doubt keen to prove their worth. 

But take a look at this first, maybe: a brilliant post on Labourlist, yesterday, by MP Dave Anderson, ostensibly about Hetton le Hole, the former Durham mining village where, coincidentally, many of Mrs Angry's family lived and worked in the past - and an example now of communities which are succumbing to political apathy, and protesting against what they see as indifference to their opinions by the Labour establishment by flirting with the divisive politics of UKIP:

He says we need to be again a party of hope, a party of visionaries. 

He says:

If the people of Hetton and thousands of other similar communities are ever going to put their faith fully in Labour again we have to give them the belief that things can be changed and that not only can we do it , we will do it. And we have to have belief in ourselves and our party that we are up to the challenge. The great people of this country deserve nothing less.

And nor do the people of Barnet. 

At the Big Meeting, the Durham Miners' Gala, last year, there was no Labour leader present, as tradition once demanded - Ed Miliband stayed away, licking his wounds after the Falkirk fiasco - and indeed throughout his term as MP for Sedgefield, MP Tony Blair refused to attend. 

Blair's absence on the balcony of the Royal County Hotel, we must agree, marked the beginning of a fracture in the relationship between the Labour party, and its natural electorate. What it said, in essence was this: you don't matter any more, and we are turning our backs on you. In the long run, you could even argue, Blair's legacy has done as much to betray communities like Hetton as Thatcher herself. Not with a knife, but a patronising smile.

Post Blair, the Labour party is run almost entirely by young white, middle class men, privately educated, Oxbridge careerists, whose purpose in life is not so much the advancement of the best interests of ordinary citizens, as their own personal promotion. 

Something has gone badly wrong, hasn't it? 

The party has lost the very thing that created its raison d'etre: the spirit of rebellion, of compassion for those in need, a determination to attack the roots of social injustice in this country, and replace it with something better, something that recognised the dignity and vulnerability of the human condition, rather than sought to exploit it. 

Nationally, and locally, we need to reclaim that spirit, and reconnect with the people we claim to represent.

Here in Barnet we have a new start: let's begin by doing the right thing, and fighting for the employees and users of Your Choice Barnet. 

Let's not condone the Tories' policies, by default, or by intention, but do everything we can to oppose their own cynical, gutless exploitation of the weakest, and most vulnerable members of our society. 

Over to you, friends.




The greatest good, or - Pomp and Pomposity: a mayor-making in Broken Barnet

$
0
0


Mrs Angry toyed with the idea of not attending last night's annual meeting of Barnet Council, for several reasons. Deep frustration at the 'business as usual' attitude of the Labour leadership, clinging on regardless after yet another election defeat; a reluctance to watch the Barnet Tories disporting themselves in childish glee in the course of their mayor-making jamboree - but most of all because of a pervasive sense of ennui, weary of the interminable wrangling and dead end politics of much of the last administration.

Still, in the end, the thought of missing the sight of so many old friends taking their places in the newly refreshed Labour side of the chamber was too much to ignore, and so off to the Town Hall, up the slippery stairs to the public gallery, early enough to grab one of the few seats not earmarked for the guests attending the meeting, and invited to the Mayor's reception that follows these events.

For some unfathomable reason, Mrs Angry was not on the guest list, although she would have gatecrashed the buffet, on a point of principle, in order to eat her fair share of egg sandwiches, paid for by her and all the taxpayers of Broken Barnet. 

Would have, but did not, as it turned out, because in the end, after what happened in the course of the meeting, all Labour councillors and supporters were obliged to boycott the reception, and leave the new Tory Mayor, his cohorts and their friends to feast alone, at least on whatever pickings were left by the Barnet Bugle, who predictably nipped in first to avail himself of the free grub. 

This is what happened.

It was clear right from arriving in the chamber, rather poignantly clear, in a way, that there had been a real change in the makeup of the council: not as the Tories wanted, a re-endorsement of their group, safely returned to power, and a weakened Labour party in opposition. 

Cllrs Amy Trevethan and Paul Edwards

The entry into the room of so many familiar faces, new Labour councillors, underlined the real result of the election: a newly energised opposition, and looking over at them from the other side, a jumble of Tory members, a body gutted of some of its longtime members, the steady hardcore of councillors from the Barnet wards, now turfed out of their seats, and unceremonially dumped by the ungrateful voters whose support they have for so long taken for granted.

Cllr Reema Patel

Also missing from this new council, at last, if not from the council chamber, was one Brian Coleman, whose career has ended, at last, not with a bang, but a long drawn out whimper, as he clung to the delusion that the residents of Totteridge would demonstrate their loyalty to what he sees as his many years of devoted public service on their behalf. 

Yes, poor Brian Coleman, as Mrs Angry predicted, could not resist the temptation to make use of the invitation extended to all former mayors of Barnet to attend the inauguration of the latest incumbent. There he sat, rather stiffly, at the side of the chamber, back against the wall, accompanied by his faithful mum, chin up, and a determined look on his face, as if to say: ha - you can't get rid of me that easily. 

They can, Brian, and they have. 

Mrs Angry understands that the former councillor is now looking for useful employment, so would appear to have turned down the offer of a job as trainee washer-upper at Cafe Buzz. ( Zero hours contract, minimum wage, all breakages to be paid for). Or perhaps his CV didn't meet the demands of the job specification.

The pantomime began, with the usual comic procession into the chamber of the old Mayor, about to be wrenched of his position, and condemned to return to the humdrum life of an ordinary councillor. 

This sad ending to the reign of a Tory mayor usually results in tears, endless fond anecdotes of their time as Mayor, and prolonged speeches, as they try to put off the awful moment of surrender. 

When Brian had to make way for his successor, he cried, which was a real surprise to everyone, as no one thought him capable: when Lisa Rutter's time came to stand down, she made a speech longer than the Gettysburg Address - and rather less interesting - delivered in a queenly style reminiscent of Margaret Thatcher, the Early Days/ Long Walk to Finchley era. Melvin Cohen, on the other hand, went for pathos - as we shall see.

The chaplain had not turned up in time, so instead of the usual pleading to the Almighty for a miraculous act of spiritual awakening to take place in the black hearts and twisted minds of our elected representatives, we were blessed instead by an offering of prayer, in a sort of wishywashy, non denominational, God-free invocation from the honeyed tones of Tory leader Richard Cornelius, who asked that he and his colleagues 'may all bring the greatest good to the greatest number of people', which surely marks a dramatic u-turn in the policies of the Tory administration, here in Broken Barnet, where tradition demands the greatest good is brought only to the privileged minority, or in other words, to coin a phrase, for the few, and not the many? 

Tory rightwinger and Nelson Mandela impersonator Councillor Brian Gordon stood to propose Hugh Rayner as candidate for Mayor. Gordon and Rayner were councillors together at Hale, with the callow youth Tom Davey, but Gordon jumped ship to stand in safer Edgware ward when it became clear that Hale could to swing to Labour - in the event, one Labour councillor, Kitty Lyons, did win a seat.

Brian thought Hugh would be a good Mayor because ... he will enjoy it. Fair enough. Also, he had chaired lots of meetings. Another bonus. He knows how to throw his weight around - an ominous remark, severely tested, later in the proceedings.

Hugh also, we heard, had a 'devilish sense of humour'. On balance, Mrs Angry thought that the devil would be having the last laugh at this particular meeting, and so, as it happened, he did. But we are jumping ahead.

Hugh had a military background. Ex RAF. Ah. Mrs Angry looked up, as the theme to the Dambusters played along inside her head. Oh. Apparently he was a supplies officer. Disappointing, still ... apparently this gave him the ability to approach canvassing as a military style operation. 

Mrs Angry had a non Gove approved vision of the trenches, Blackadder style, with keen young conscripts leaping over the top to their electoral doom, while Councillor Gordon legged it in the direction of the mess tent. Wasn't that unkind of her?

Hugh Rayner, after his mention in despatches at RAF Hendon, Warehouse Squadron, developed a new career in property. Ah yes, he is a landlord, isn't he? Hmm.

Planning is his great interest, we heard, on the council. And he is - was - a wow at the 'highly regarded' Business Management Overview and Scrutiny Committee. Yes. Worldwide reputation for scrutiny: ie as he once defined it, whereby only positive observations should be made ...

Hugh, said Councillor Gordon, is 'a live wire'. 

It is now my intention to plug him in ...

Hear, hear ... agreed the Barnet Bugle, as he passed across the floor of the public gallery, a comment that received warm and enthusiastic support, from the public gallery.

And switch him on, continued Gordon, oblivious to the mounting hysteria in the audience, rolling about on their chairs.

Oh, dear God. Eighty four year old Tory Councillor John Hart rises to second the Mayoral nomination. He thought he was right in saying that only two members have a military past, ie Hugh, and himself. But only he, John Hart,had the moustache ... he preened himself, and stood boastfully in the chamber, this old fool, a remnant of another age, but still here, to upset us with such comments as the one about 'handouts' to disabled children, as he remarked only weeks ago, at a committee meeting.

More praise for Hugh. When he worked at RAF Hendon, he ... well he didn't fly. Did nothing dangerous. But since then, he has been involved with many uniformed groups. Good. And he has supported not only the living, we heard, but the dead, which is a good thing too, as there are now more dead people than alive, and they need looking after. 

It emerged he was talking about war memorials, rather than offering masses for the eternal rest of their souls. (Of course now we are owned by Capita, they are doing their best to look after us, the living and the dead residents of Broken Barnet, and screw as much profit as possible from us at the same time).

Guess where Councillor Rayner was born? Grantham. A town, we were reminded, that had produced Sir Isaac Newton, and erm ... there was someone else. Ah. Margaret Roberts, the grocer's daughter. No: I said grocer. Those stories are clearly just ... misunderstandings.

To produce such prodigies as Sir Isaac Newton, Margaret Thatcher, and Hugh Rayner, there must be, thought John Hart, something in the water, in Grantham. 

Mercury, or cryptospiridium, wondered Mrs Angry? 

Such an elixir, he said, should be bottled.

He waffled on, praising Hugh's wife, Susan, 'his elegant consort', who would be bound to wear lovely hats.

Two women in the public gallery behind Mrs Angry groaned: is that really important, one asked the other?

Time for the token nomination for Mayor by Labour to be run through, half heartedly. Clearly there was no chance of an opposition candidate to succeed, but Leader Alison Moore put forward someone who really should be given such a position, as she would bring some real dignity and grace to the title, that is to say Agnes Slocombe, now the longest serving member, of 32 years service.

No chance.

Hugh Rayner now made his acceptance speech. This occasion was, he claimed, the highpoint of the municipal year. Jesus wept, thought Mrs Angry, clasping her forehead in despair. He began a potted history of the borough, thankfully passing over the Roman era, the Dark Ages of the Labour/Libdem coalition, and skimming lightly over the medieval period, in the midst of which we still live, in Broken Barnet, in feudal bondage now to Crapita, rather than our Tory lords.

Mrs Angry's mind began to wander. She thought she may have heard mention of Sir Keith Joseph. And then the Mayor of Morphou (Barnet is twinned with several towns, but for some reason our links with Morphou are positively conjoined, whereas the bond with Jinja, in Uganda, which does not offer regular hospitality to our councillors, is completely forgotten). 

He thanked Hendon Conservative Association. And Tom Davey, whom he thought looked much more relaxed than he did on the day of the count, (when we all spent the day enjoying the sight of him in a state of advanced distress, presented with the clearly unexpected shock of nearly losing his seat).

It was revealed that the Mayor's chain of office, by the way, was presented by Nalgo, the union now known as Unison. Mrs Angry turned to Unison secretary John Burgess: ask for it back. 

It's on loan, he remarked, drily.

Time to praise his predecessor, Melvin Cohen. What, asked Hugh, can you say about Melvin? Of course some things you can't say about him, for reasons which aren't certain, but we moved on. 

Melvin, we heard, had served under Brian Coleman. In what capacity, it was unclear, but Hugh pointed out it had been a 'baptism of fire'. He said, Brian told me what to do, and I did it. This, in fact, is how the Tories ran the council for several years, and has resulted in their terminal decline, and his downfall, but still. 

I'm so delighted you could be here, said Hugh, smoothly, across the chamber, to the former colleague and Mayor, with a criminal conviction for beating up a woman in the high street, who smiled graciously. Wasn't that nice? Are they all friends again? I do hope so.

Hugh said he wanted his mayoralty to define the difference between 'pomp' and 'pomposity'. Mrs Angry, who has always rather fancied her scribblings about Broken Barnet to be in the style of a sort of foul mouthed Jane Austen, intent on studying a small world from close perspective, bashing away at her laptop, rather than with a fine brush on a two inch piece of ivory, thought that might make a very good Janeite title: Pomp and Pomposity.

More prancing about with the Mayor's wife, and a badges, and poor old Melvin Cohen divested of his moth eaten robes, and left feeling naked in his black suited get-up with white ruffled cravat, and time for - oh no - another speech.



He patted himself and his family on the back, recalling his grandfathers' service to the community, and his son's - Dean Cohen, who has served the highways and pavements of Golders Green at a cost of more than one million pounds, in this pre-election year, an expenditure now being referred by Labour to the external auditor for investigation. 

He mentioned his grandson. Oh, and then he honoured us with his opinion  that in his view, the role of the Mayoress was to carry the Mayor's bags. 

Melvin Cohen had no partner or wife as Mayoress, and this role was filled by colleague Wendy Prentice: not sure if she enjoyed her year as his porter, or if this interfered at all in the wearing of lovely hats. But then she has very interesting hair.

The women in the public gallery marvelled at his cheek, their indignation loudly expressed.

What were the highlights of his reign? Well, you know it was nice to have dinner with the Prince of Wales, meet Richard, Duke of Gloucester (presumably at a re-enactment of the Battle of Barnet). And stuff like that.  But the real highlight ... and here his tone changed, as he told the sad story of a short encounter with a small child at Kisharon, a school for disabled children in his local community. He became tearful. 

Harsh though this may seem, Mrs Angry could only wonder at the apparent inability for Cllr Cohen, his ward colleagues and fellow Tory councillors to feel equally moved by the plight of the disabled children at Mapledown School, in the forgotten borders of the same ward, whose respite funding, along with other similar schools in the borough, was dismissed as those 'handouts' referred to previously by Cllr Hart. 

One of those pupils came with his mother to two council meetings, and his mother spoke eloquently, painfully honest, about the terrible burden of looking after children with complex needs. Melvin and Dean Cohen's ward colleague Reuben Thompstone admitted he had never been to the school. Have they, and if so, did they speak up, when the cuts were proposed?

Cohen finished his speech. That's it, he said. The End. 

Thank f*ck for that, thought Jane Austen, hunched over twitter, and trying not to think about the increasingly more attractive possibility of getting rat*rsed in the Greyhound. 

(Oh dear, hope the nice Methodist minister who confessed to Mrs Angry last night that he had once been Brian Coleman's chaplain  -I KNOW! - isn't reading this. Sorry, Reverend).

And: if this post seems long, imagine what it was like, sitting through it all - until things livened up nicely, of course. Hang on in there.

But next we had the election of the council Leader: yep, Richard Cornelius again. For the time being, anyway. Deputy leader Daniel Thomas made a good stab at not seeming to want to be leader himself, anytime soon, and then Antony Finn was full of praise for his not being, erm, arrogant, and being always keen to compromise, and he told us Richard would be leader for the next four years. How thrilled we were.

Out by Christmas, I reckon, don't you?

Then the real farce began. Time to make nominations for offices, and committees, and outside bodies: but the papers were all wrong. Different details for different parties, missing names, wrong numbers, missing amendments, wrong amendments: governance officers were in a total mess, scurrying in and out of the chamber, trying to put things right amidst the chaos.



Matthew Offord - centre - was the only local MP foolish enough to risk being associated with Barnet Tories last night

In short the meeting was a shambles, from the point of view of the organisation of business. What has happened in Barnet is the old school governance officers have left, and their replacements, even at the most senior levels, are simply not up to the job. No one any longer retains the breadth of experience and legal knowledge to manage the work, hence the increasing number of cockups.

The Mayor tried to tell members that none of this really mattered, the confusion over papers, because now they all had their new ipads to use. The panicked look on the face of our IT illiterate councillors, facing a paper free future, with only the Crapita loaned technology at hand, was a sight to see. Since being handed out, many have had problems using the ipads, including being locked out of their own email accounts. Add that to the growing list for Capita to excuse away at the new contract monitoring committee, perhaps?

One of the most extraordinary appointments to committees was revealed, to the disbelief of anyone who has had any faith at all in the objectivity of the Audit process in Barnet. By convention, the Chair of this committee must be a member of the opposition, so as to retain an independence of the process from political influence. 

In Mrs Angry's time as armchair auditor in Barnet, this post has been held by Libdem Monroe Palmer. Now that Monroe has decided to stand down, and spend more time in the Lords, there remains his colleague Jack Cohen, and of course a number of able Labour councillors who would fill the post perfectly. Geof Cooke, for example. But the Tories have taken the completely unprecedented step of appointing a member of their own party as Chair: Brian Salinger. What lies behind this deeply suspicious decision remains unknown.

Out of the prolonged, and proliferating shambles, omnishambles of the nominations, developing in the face of increasing fury and protest by Labour, there now emerged a curious amendment, casually mentioned by an innocent faced Tory councillor, Antony Finn: a proposal to move the date of the September full council meeting. 

At first this seemed innocuous enough - and it had been sprung upon the opposition councillors, with no warning, as had, it seems, most of the other amendments they were meant to vote on. 

Then it dawned on Labour members, the significance of the changed date, a change for which no reason was given. It will be during the week of the Labour conference, in Manchester, which most of them will be attending - in fact on the day of the Leader's speech.

Again, there is a long standing convention in Barnet, as in parliament, that council does not meet during any of the conference weeks. 

This inexplicable move was a deliberate, cheap political stunt aimed at the opposition. 

There was outrage in the Labour seats, and in the public gallery. 

Many backbench Tory members looked aghast at the proposal, unlike Cornelius and his cronies, knowing it was a departure from the accepted rules of administration.




Members and those in public gallery howled their disapproval, as the new Mayor became increasingly infuriated by the heckling, and their refusal to accept the proposals. He blustered impotently, stupidly, spluttering resentment at the lack of respect shown to his position, his 'authority'.

A vote on the amendment was forced, doomed to fail not least because of the absence of any councillors from Colindale, waiting for the delayed election. 

One of the long term Labour councillors, Gill Sargeant is normally a very quiet, beautifully mannered and considered member, well spoken, thoughtful and rather reserved. Last night she exploded in fury, from her exiled position in the public gallery, forced to watch helplessly as this vote was proposed, with three members unable to take part. 

As you can hear on the footage below, she heckled throughout the process of the pointless vote: DISGRACEFUL! SHAME! - to the point where the Mayor turned to censure the gallery. 

Tellingly, he tries to tell the public they are guests of the councillors - in the eyes of the Tory councillors, our presence at meetings is tolerated, at best, of course, rather than seen as our natural right to witness the transactions of our elected representatives.


                         


Rayner tells the people in the gallery, including Gill Sargeant, to refrain from calling out. 

Mrs Angry suggested in return, as loudly as possible, that he tried to act as if he were in a democracy, rather than a dictatorship.


This stand off went on for some time, and then the voting began. One by one the sheep masquerading as Tory councillors approved the move of the meeting to the week of the Labour conference. 

When it came to the Labour division vote, matters were less easily managed. Normally compliant councillors expressed their disgust - in the case of Arjun Mittra, his reference to what was indeed a farce caused the new Mayor to become enraged: ridiculously, Rayner slammed down his toytown mayoral hammer and glowered, then tried to lecture him about his comment. 









The new Mayor becomes slightly cross with Councillor Mittraaa, for daring to suggest a farcical Tory proposal was ... a farce.

He was drowned out by a sea of yells -and was visibly shaken by the force of feeling in the room, and said nothing when the Labour leader and other members made their own protest at the erosion of democracy that this move signified. 

Against - with integrity, as Agnes Slocombe declared.  

Against, against, against, as Pauline Coakley Webb said.

Labour leader Alison Moore said that she had thought that Barnet's Tories could not sink  any lower, but she had been wrong. 

Over on the Tory benches, Danny Seal continued to grin, oblivious to the seriousness of what was happening.

And what was happening was, in fact, partly his fault.

What lay behind the stunt pulled by the Tories was this: a fear of the new reality of political life in Barnet: a feeble grasp of control of the council, made more vulnerable by the change to a committee system, and a demand, made to the Labour group,  that it take part in a pairing system so that any Tory councillor planning on skiving from his or her required attendance at a meeting could do so, safe in the knowledge that it would not affect the outcome of any vote. 

The reward for such a scandalous agreement, they proposed, would be that they would not cut the allowances to certain new opposition spokesperson posts.

Danny Seal was one of those councillors widely criticised for his attendance record in the previous administration, missing a number of meetings. Seal defended this by citing work commitments and a family illness, and promised to improve his record. But he is not the only Tory with a patchy attendance rate, and clearly with the new system, any absence will be a risk. Tough. That is the price you pay, when you fail to win enough votes for a decisive victory.

Labour rightly refused to take part in any such facilitation of the Tory's natural inclination to treat their duties as optional, and in retaliation, not only were the allowance cuts put forward, revenge was taken by this petty move of the council date, and perhaps the Audit chair appointment: breaks with convention marking a declaration of war.

Let battle commence.

Hugh Rayner was clearly outraged that, as he put it, such disrespect was shown to the position of mayor, ie to him. 

This is so typical of Barnet Tories: so bound up in their infantile delight of civic duty as pageant, pomp and circumstance, rather than as a duty to the residents who elected them, particularly those in the greatest need of representation, those without means, without homes, or jobs, facing like the care workers at Your Choice Barnet, huge cuts in their pay, struggling to bring up their families on low incomes, to look after disabled children. 

Where was their part in last night's pantomime? 

How many children in Barnet went to bed hungry last night, while the Tory councillors stuffed themselves at the Mayor's Reception, at their expense? 



Labour councillors and supporters boycotted the buffet, and the sad line of chairs along the committee rooms, attended by obsequious waiters, standing by nervously, ready to serve the Tory members and their guests.

We went to the local pub instead, in protest, and in solidarity with some ideal rather more important than the self serving ambitions of our Tory friends: the recognition of the real value of democracy, and the real cost of failing to defend its processes.

Four more years of this?


Highways of Despair: Labour report Barnet Tory Highways allegedly 'politically biased' spending to the auditor

$
0
0

What is a realization of the notion of knowledge means for it rather the ruin and overthrow of itself; for on this road it loses its own truth. Because of that, the road can be looked on as the path of doubt, or more properly a highway of despair ...  

Hegel, the Phenomenology of Mind

Fair enough, so.

Mrs Angry, Broken Barnet

So. 

You may recall the very interesting story of the Highways budget allocation to Barnet wards, which in the last two years has been the responsibility of Tory councillor and environment Cabinet member Dean Cohen. 

 http://wwwbrokenbarnet.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/scandalous-barnet-councils-million.html

 http://wwwbrokenbarnet.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/the-lost-highway-or-road-to-broken.html

When Dean, the son of fellow Golders Green member and outgoing mayor Melvin Cohen, took over his new post from Brian Coleman, he decided to change the system of funding from one of equal allocation to all wards, to one where he would have control over the amounts granted to each. 

Brian Coleman was less than impressed in being, as he probably saw it, supplanted by a young whippersnapper like Dean, and kept a vigliant eye on the activities of his usurper.

Earlier this year Coleman claimed that the new Cabinet member had spent £800,000 of Highways funding on his own ward. 

In fact, when Mrs Angry decided to submit a few FOIs about this budget, the truth was far worse: in two years, Cohen's own ward had received an astonishing £1.6 million, £1 million alone in the last pre-election year.

Looking at the amounts granted to the other wards was equally astonishing. Most of the best funded wards appeared by coincidence to be Tory held, or targeted, or even, as in the case of the second best funded ward, Hale, again purely by coincidence, the most marginal ward in the election campaign.

Most incredibly, in the year in which Golders Green ward received more than a million pounds, one Labour ward, Colindale, received ... absolutely nothing. Zilch. Not a penny.

Mrs Angry had thought this was a mistake in the FOI response, and so did the local councillors, but - it was not. Yet throughout the period, local Labour councillors claim, they were given a series of changing excuses as to why certain work they had asked to be done had not materialised.

Cllr Cohen has tried to justify his million plus splurge on his own ward on the basis of 'need'. What sort of 'need', we cannot be sure. Certainly he thinks that the roads and pavements in his own part of the ward 'need' more attention than in others: Princes Park Avenue, for example, in two years has had more spent on it than many entire wards. 

He has also defended his enormous act of generosity towards his own ward on the basis that erm, erm ... it has quite a long road in it, and ... he lives there, so can identify problems. Mmm.
 
Certain senior officers have tried, rather half heartedly, to tell the Colindale councillors that they did not need (there's that word again) any funding at all this pre-election year, because of ... regeneration projects. Funny that, because West Hendon has a big regeneration project (Barnet Toryspeak - regeneration = private development) and yet had money allocated - and that was of course nothing whatsoever to do with any delusional plans they had to nobble the Labour vote in that ward.

Among the FOI questions asked by Mrs Angry, one was refused on the grounds that the information was not available. That was for details of the spending allocation for the first two years of the last administration. Not available, thought Mrs Angry? Really? Rather careless, to have mislaid these accounts, no? And then she began to wonder: could it be that this was not actually true, and that - surely not - someone did not want her to know what the previous years' spending had been? She therefore appealed against the decision. 

Can you believe this, readers: after the statutory period for the appeal had ended, she received an email saying that officers could not supply this information, because ... they needed more time. By a curious twist of fate, this means that the answer to her request, should the material needed suddenly be found after all, will emerge, and again this is pure coincidence, at the end of the period leading up to the delayed Colindale election.

Funniily enough, as a further FOI accidentally reveals, officers were able to tell one unnamed councillor the expenditure for Totteridge and Golders Green wards, when he asked, backdated to 2008/09. More evidence for the ICO, there, anyway.

But never mind. Let us not be downhearted. Mrs Angry's has her own information gathering team, her network of spies in the house of One Barnet, and this has already supplied some very interesting indication of longer term spending plans - and crucially it is important to remember this is where it was supposed at one point to go, rather than where it did.

Let's look again at the graph demonstrating their four year plan: 




According to this, the luckiest ward in Barnet was meant to be Totteridge, represented then by the Tory leader and his wife - and Brian Coleman. Clearly there must have been a lot of 'need' in that exclusive area, populated by millionaires, premier club managers and rugby club owners, for brand new pavements and road surfaces, unlike, say, the more urban areas of Labour held East Finchley (represented by the Labour leader) and ... Colindale. Except ... did that money actually go there, in the end?

We don't know when this graph was made, or to what extent the missing two years spending is included with any accuracy, but clearly it shows an intention different to the end result.  Compare it to the actual expenditure priorities of the last two years: 



What happened to Totteridge's allocation? Or did it have a barrel load of dosh handed over in the first two years? Did Golders Green have nothing in that period? We need to know, don't we? But one thing is sure: the Labour held wards, the less affluent wards, generally received a far less generous allocation.

Mrs Angry's third FOI request was for correspondence between Cllr Cohen and Highways officers in regard to his own ward of Golders Green.

This makes for very interesting reading. 

At this point, travelling as we are along this particular highway of despair, let us take time to follow a short diversion, and ponder this interesting statement from the information officer, in the response to the question:

I should advise that the council does not have a retention period for emails and for this reason officers will delete their emails when the issues raised have been dealt with. I should also advise that due to the volume of emails that highways offices receive they frequently delete emails that are no longer necessary.

How, one might ask, is the absence of any retention period for emails compatible with the demands of the Freedom of Information Act? And anyway, a senior councillor has told Mrs Angry that all deleted emails are in fact retrievable, if necessary, for a long period: is this true? If so, why not retrieve them for FOI purposes? 

But surely any responsible authority has a retention policy in place: and one might think that, as the Chief Operating Officer Chris Naylor boasts, the default mode of Barnet Council is 'transparency', such a policy would be an obvious requirement? 

Returning to the question of the third FOI response: it is clear from the surviving emails that there has been significant pressure exerted on highways officers from Councillor Cohen in regard to work in his own ward, and an admirable degree of care has been lavished on certain roads in particular. The residents of Princes Park Avenue are very fortunate indeed.

What is also revealed by these emails is that last year, when we were all being continually lectured about the need to make huge savings in expenditure, he obtained an additional £4 million pounds of funding for these purposes - theoretically for the whole borough, but as he himself boasts to a resident on the 10th November:

I have managed to get an additional £4 million ... princes park avenue and woodlands are 2 of the big roads being done which is taking up a substantial amount of the allocated funds.

Elsewhere it appears that some of the extra dosh - including an overspend of between £90-100 K - that was being focused on a few lucky areas comes from savings in the 2023/14 budget - where those savings were made, we do not know. The Colindale budget would seem to be one possibility, wouldn't it?

One brave officer, the assistant director of resources dared to send in a revised list, apparently with a reduced budget. On 3rd October, Councillor Cohen replied: 

I am not happy with this. It was a policy to start putting more funding into pavements and this is where the need is as also shown in the residents perception survey.

Presumably the residents of wards like Colindale were not asked for their perceptions of how their roads and pavements were being maintained last year.

To another resident on January 22nd, Councillor Cohen brags: 

You will note that I have been publicly criticised by my predecessor for spending monies in golders green but I am confidant that I have allocated the money correctly which includes substantial roads such as woodlands road and princes park avenue ...

The residents of Golders Green, or at least in the lucky roads that received so much lavish repair of their pavements and road surfaces, were also very fortunate in that the local councillor was very keen to make sure all work was completed on time, ie by April/May 2014.

He even suggested at one point - April 29th - that in order to accomplish this, work should be done on Saturdays: a rather odd request in the context of Golders Green:  he was told by an officer this would put too much pressure on a limited budget - but Councillor Cohen also arranged for an additional 'banksman' to help out on one spot, at a cost of £500 a day, for four days, in order to manage the traffic in the favoured Princes Park Avenue. 

Why so much consideration in one part of one ward, and - why the rush, you might ask?

Highways officers, this correspondence reveals, are clearly very quick to apologise, and apologise again for delays. They offer their humble thanks, via Councillor Cohen, to his residents who kindly draw their attention to their complaints about cracked pavements, and so on. 

What a shame that the same degree of attention is not shown, in my own Labour held ward, to installing the safety measures agreed nearly a year ago now, at what is an accident blackspot, outside a primary school, and nursery, and has claimed one life, and seen countless serious crashes and related injuries.

If only all councillors were able to provide such efficient service for the repairs needed in their wards, you will be thinking: especially if you live in, say ... well, Colindale?

To be fair to Councillor Cohen, it may be that there is an audit trail of similarly attentive interventions by him on behalf of residents in other wards, - and this presumably would be found by a full investigation, should one be instigated - and if those emails have not been deleted, due to the absence of a retention policy, of course.

Now, before the election, Mrs Angry drew the matter of the Highways spending to the attention of certain Labour councillors. Nothing happened. 

So she went to the Audit Committee and complained about the expenditure and asked if the external auditors at Grant Thornton might be taking a look at the matter. She was told that if she felt the expenditure might be unlawful, she should report it to them. 

And then we had an election, and lo: a miracle occurred, when it was too late for the campaign, but still very pertinent to Colindale, of course: Labour issued a press release, explaining that they had referred the matter to ... Grant Thornton. 

Hurrah, thought Mrs Angry, who had not relished the prospect of writing again to her friend and fellow auditor, Mr Paul Hughes, of Grant Thornton, with news of yet another questionable financial transaction by Barnet Council. 

Labour refers £4m highways allocations to auditors 

Barnet’s Labour councillors have referred highways allocations worth £4m to the external auditors to investigate after discovering that no formal decision had been taken on which schemes were awarded money. The final decision over which schemes were progressed was delegated to the Cabinet Member for Environment whose own ward received the highest award of over £1m for 2013/14. 

Leader of the Barnet Labour Group, Cllr Alison Moore said: “It’s hard not to be left with the perception that the process has been politically biased during an election year and given the sums of money involved there is clearly a public interest in this issue being investigated further. “Members of the public will not understand how an individual Cabinet Member can be directly involved in the allocation of resources to their own ward in this way with no real formal decision and no public scrutiny or challenge.” 

Cllr Alan Schneiderman, Labour’s Environment Spokesperson said: “The whole thing is a scandal! Opposition councillors were just by-passed by the Cabinet Member and not even asked to submit schemes for consideration. Quite how they decided what roads to include is surprising when we can all see roads and pavements in a far worse state than those chosen to be repaired.”


Here is a copy of the letter sent to Grant Thornton:

Dear Paul Hughes & Nick Taylor (Grant Thornton LLP) 

We are writing to you to set out our concerns about the way council resources have been allocated in the last financial year for highways schemes. 

An FoI request by local resident, Ms Theresa Musgrove, shows that the ward of the then Cabinet Member for Environment - Golders Green - was allocated significantly more resources compared to any other ward. Our detailed concerns are as follows: 

1. Cabinet agreed on 4 November 2013 to allocate an additional £4m to roads and footway schemes, and delegated the allocation to the Cabinet Member for Environment:




2. The Cabinet Member for Environment was directly involved in the drawing up of the list of schemes. 

3. According to an officer briefing note (attached) that was compiled at the beginning of May 2014, the list of schemes was prepared for consideration by Cabinet, but the decision on the final list of schemes did not go to Cabinet for formal decision, and no Cabinet Member DPR was published to formalise the decision about which schemes were chosen. 

4. The proposed list of schemes should have been subject to scrutiny and call-in - £4m is over the threshold for call-in. 

5. The list of schemes was only formally submitted to Area Environment Sub-Committees for approval on 26 March 2014, but this appears to be for rubber-stamping/information as schemes on the list had already been completed or progressed before: 




6. It is not clear what the process was for consulting members to ascertain which schemes should be included in drawing up the proposals, and how some schemes put forward by members were included compared with others that weren’t included. 

7. It appears that administration councillors were consulted on the schemes – the attached officer briefing note refers to changes being made following comments by the Hale councillors. 

8. The allocations disproportionately benefitted the Cabinet Member’s own ward with the highest allocation of resources over the year, and the second highest number of schemes for the additional funding (6). 

9. Hale ward had the second highest allocation of resources over the year, and the highest number of schemes for the additional funding 

10. Over the last 4 years the profile of spend appears to be significantly more in administration held wards compared with opposition held wards (see attached officer briefing note). 

11. Only about 15 of the 44 schemes funded by the additional money were on the reserve list of schemes, so no formal decision on 29 schemes has been made other than the very late approval at Area Environment Sub-Committees on 26 March 2014. 

12. The criteria against which these 29 schemes have been selected has not been published or made clear – particularly the reasons why these were chosen compared with any others – including those on the reserve list. 

13. Only 7 out of the 44 schemes funded by the additional £4m were in Labour held wards. Although policy adopted in recent years is not to have a straight geographical distribution of resources but to base it on need, we believe there are roads and footways in each Labour held ward that would meet any robust criteria as much as roads in Conservative held wards.

14. As far as we are aware no Labour councillors were consulted on the proposed schemes prior to them being submitted to the Area Environment Sub-Committee, and no Labour councillors were asked to submit roads/footways for consideration as part of the process.

15. 2013/14 was an election year, and many of the schemes were progressed very close to the local elections. 

We also attach email correspondence from a further FoI request by Ms Musgrove that gives further details of the Cabinet Member’s involvement in the selection of schemes. We also enclose below email correspondence between Cllr Moore and officers on the subject. 

We ask that you investigate further as in our view the decision-making process has clearly not been robust or transparent, but despite raising the issue on several occasions with the council they maintain that no procedures have been breached. It does lead to the perception that the process has been politically biased during an election year and given the sums of money involved there is clearly a public interest in this issue. 

We look forward to hearing from you as soon as possible. 

Yours sincerely 

Cllr Alison Moore 

Leader of the Barnet Labour Group


Writing to Mr Paul Hughes, of Grant Thornton, is always a rather demoralising activity, in truth. 

Mr Hughes, as we know, rather than adopting the overly cynical audit approach pursued by Mrs Angry, subscribes to the rather rosier view that nothing is ever as bad as it seems, and if it is, will fall naturally under the heading of matters he may or may not take into account, at some unspecified date in the future, and that there is never any pressing cause for alarm. 

Such equanimity is laudable, of course, and has served Mr Hughes well throughout the calls for an investigation into the MetPro scandal, and the matter of the £16.1 million upfront capital investment from Capita that turned out to be quite the reverse, a payment from us to Capita; and matters relating to the NSL contract, and  ... oh, stuff like that.

It was of no surprise, therefore to read here that Mr Hughes, on receipt of the complaint from the Labour group, has apparently shrugged this one off too, and referred it back to Barnet, and our Monitoring Officer. 

We are told that our external auditors 'would be taking no further action at this time'.

Oh. 

Odd, because the matter has already been dealt with internally: in the form of a complaint to the Monitoring Officer's line manager, ie the Chief Executive, from one of the Colindale councillors. The logical step, therefore, would be for the matter now to go to external scrutiny, surely? And of course that was the recommendation of the Audit Committee.

One might be forgiven for wondering what is the purpose of the external auditor, if not to investigate such potentially serious cases. 

Mrs Angry once asked Mr Hughes this very question, in fact, but he declined to respond.

Quite clearly there is a conflict of interest in the councillor in charge of Highways Funding approving the expenditure in his own ward, especially if it results in such disparity between levels of funding. 

Equally obvious is that officers will be placed in a very difficult position when under pressure to agree works in the ward of the member with overall responsibility for their department.

More immediately there is the question of the impact of lack of funding in regard to the election in  Colindale, and the benefit it may have brought, intentionally or not, to the campaign of the members in Golders Green. 

If one ward is given such a high level of funding in the run up to polling day, and another one has funding withheld, is this not likely to have an effect on the way residents view their local representatives?

Surely there should be safeguards in place in any system which oversees the allocation of funds to ensure that all decisions are indeed fairly made, and independent of all potential political influence, or perception of conflict of interest?

In order to establish that the current system is fair, and independent of any such risk, in my view there must now be a full and open investigation of the way in which this funding was distributed.

If the external auditor refuses to examine the allocation of Highways Funding, it would appear that there is quite clearly now a need to take this matter elsewhere, and perhaps that is the only chance of reassuring the taxpayers of this borough that there has been no wrongdoing, and that their money has been used so as to give equitable benefit to all residents of the borough - wherever they happen to live.


Saving time and trouble: new Tory Mayor's activities as landlord criticised by Boris Johnson

$
0
0

*Updated: see below for footage of Mayor's Question Time: Boris happy to support Rayner's tenant ...

Last week, here in Broken Barnet, saw the annual meeting of the council, the first meeting of the new administration, and the making of a new mayor.

 http://wwwbrokenbarnet.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/the-greatest-good-or-pomp-and-pomposity.html

It was Tory stalwart Hugh Rayner's turn to ransack the municipal dressing up box, and strut around in the fur trimmed robes of office: an honour all the more relished by him as he came so close to missing his go, during what was a very close margin of victory in the Hale election.

Sadly for Hugh, what he intended to be a marvellous evening of kowtowing and obeisance offered to him from the assembled collection of fellow councillors, and members of the public, became what was generally agreed to be an absolute shambles, and memorable for all the wrong reasons. 

What ensued was not a dignified and stately transfer of office from one Tory member to another, but a slapstick, knockabout farce, entirely the fault of Rayner's party trying to force through outrageously undemocratic decisions in revenge for the Labour opposition refusing to be bribed into accepting the Tory's wish for a pairing scheme, so as to safeguard their precarious minority in the case of, as must be expected, their own councillors failing to attend meetings.

The new Mayor became incensed by the reaction to the appalling behaviour of his own party from Labour, and from the public gallery, lost his temper, and furiously demanded that 'respect' be shown to his office. 

This suggestion was met with loud opposition from the floor along the line of respect being something that must be earned, rather than enforced by will.



A story has now emerged this week that further compromises the level of respect due to the office of Mayor, and there really can be no one to blame for this but Rayner himself.

Local AM Andrew Dismore went to City Hall yesterday, to attend a question time session with the Mayor of London. 

He raised with Boris Johnson details of a case of a landlord in Barnet whom he alleged had behaved unfairly with his tenant, all supported by housing benefit. 

These tenants were obliged to sign twelve month contracts which could allow rental increases of any amount, and at any time. 

The level of rent for these properties, Mr Dismore claimed, suggested that this landlord was 'overcharging tenants to the detriment of the public purse'.

In one case, it was further alleged, a tenant was visited at ten o'clock at night and pressured into signing the last page of a lease which she claims had already been presigned and witnessed by an individual whose identity she did not know. 

Mrs Angry knows the identity of this individual.

Hearing this, Boris Johnson commented:
 
“There’s an argument in terms of misrepresentation of the lease, it sounds to me as though he has not been fair to the tenant.

It seems to me, to be prima facie illegal.”

Andrew Dismore then revealed that the landlord in question was not only a Conservative councillor, but the current Mayor of Barnet, Hugh Rayner.

There is a real housing crisis in London, as we know, and in Barnet, over the course of the last Tory administration of which Councillor Rayner was a member, a housing policy has been enforced which, as his colleague Tom Davey bragged, is meant to encourage only the 'well off' to live here. 

Those who are not 'well off' face a scandalous lack of social housing, with regeneration projects directed at increasing private profit rather than addressing the need of homeless or poorer residents, and a private sector with vulnerable tenants at its mercy, struggling with the new bedroom tax, and desperately short of alternative accommodation at an affordable level.

Councillor Rayner owns a number of properties in Colindale, with his wife, and through his own company, S&H Housing Limited.

Speaking to the local Times paper, Rayner seems to admit he had made errors of judgement in relation to at least some of his activities as landlord:

http://www.times-series.co.uk/news/11271349.Mayor_of_Barnet_accused_of__acting_illegally__towards_his_tenants/


Cllr Rayner said he “never thought it was necessary” to join the accreditation board but that he would look into it based on our story. 
 
He claims to have removed the clause about raising rent earlier this year as he now “appreciates they are non-enforceable”, but not could answer (sic) when the change took place.

And he no longer asks witnesses to pre-sign contracts – he admitted he admitted it was done on various occasions to “save time and trouble” but now appreciates it is incorrect.

He added that rent renewals or discussions about arrears are dealt with at the tenants home, and where possible, an appointment is made.

But when asked whether he felt 10pm was an unreasonable time to visit a tenant, he replied: “If they say it’s inconvenient for them, I go away. I take the tenants judgement.
No pressure is applied.

Efforts are made to have an English speaker available to translate – often the tenants children.”

He, could not, however, elaborate on the age of the children and said he does not feel this to be inappropriate.

He added: “With regards to charging above market rates, when letting to housing benefit funded tenants, our rents have been in line with the prevailing local housing allowance rates.”

Mrs Angry understands that this is not the end of the matter, and that further details will shortly emerge on what would appear to be a deeply unpleasant story. 

Some may argue that the new Mayor should immediately offer his resignation, and indeed step down from his position as councillor. 

Others may feel that there could hardly be, in truth, a man better qualified to stand as Mayor of Broken Barnet.

*Updated - here is footage of Mayor's Question Time, and the exchange between Andrew Dismore and Boris Johnson:


When will everything be hunky dory? Contract monitoring and performance, in Capitaville

$
0
0



Awfully confusing, this new committee system, isn't it?

Mrs Angry went to the Town Hall last night to attend what she had thought was to be the new Performance and Monitoring Management Committee. 

She had thoughtfully written and submitted some helpful questions, in order to aid the work of this admirable body, knowing that the Chair would be grateful, as so many of the Tory councillors seem unable to grasp the concept of scrutiny, and formulate their own enquiries.

But as we all sat down, and waited for the meeting to begin, the Chair, Anthony Finn, gave us all a little chat about the purpose of the committee, and it became clear that Mrs Angry was labouring, if that is the right word, under a serious misapprehension.

Oh: no - Anthony Finn is not the Chair, as this term has been abolished, in Broken Barnet, where men are men and women are invisible. 

He is of course a Chairman, and all Chairs from now on will be Chairmen, even if they are not men, but women, except that this does not apply as there are no women as Chairs, as far as Mrs Angry can see, and of course she is only a silly woman, so may have got that wrong too.

We have been told that silly women should not object to being called Chairmen, as sex does not matter. 

Sex probably does not matter at all to most of the Tory councillors in Broken Barnet, to be fair, as most of them are beyond the age of caring, but still: Mrs Angry can see no objection, therefore, to referring to them as Chairwomen, and will do so now until the end of time, or the time they lose control of the council, which apocalyptic ending may come closer than some might have imagined a couple of weeks ago. 

But we digress.

The Chairwoman, Anthony Finn, was very kind to the new councillors and the members of the public, and explained why we were there. No, not to hold our contractors to account, and be mean to them if they are slipping a fast one, but in order to show 'unity', and 'goodwill'.

This neatly matches the view of the new Mayor (oh - is he still Mayor this morning?) Hugh Rayner, who thought the purpose of scrutiny was to make only  'positive' suggestions.

Well, you can see their point, can't you? Yes, we are paying Capita, and NSL, and all the others millions and millions of pounds of taxpayers' money to run our services, and pocket handsome profits at our expenses for their shareholders, but is that any reason to expect them to listen to any concerns we might have at their standard of performance?

Isn't life cruel enough, without insisting that the men (and/or women) from Crapita take part in the democratic process of scrutiny, or what passes for it, in Broken Barnet?

Why not just let them turn up at the committee meeting, and accept their big fat cheques from us, without spoiling the occasion by awkward questions?

The Chief Operating Officer, Mr Chris Naylor, took a slightly different view. He made us all look at a slide on the overhead projector with the ominous heading of JUDGEMENTS.

Scenario 1: concern, but committee satisfied that delivery unit or contractor capable of improving.

Scenario 2: concern, general satisfaction that the delivery unit/contractor is on top of it, but committee wants regular updates.

Scenario 3: committee is concerned with either matters that probably require a change of policy or a fundamental rethink about how we deliver.

Scenario 4: committee realises they are being taken for a bunch of fools, dismisses all senior officers, and consultants, and terminates the contracts with Capita and NSL.

One of those scenarios is Mrs Angry's - probably hard for you to spot.

One of the reasons why Scenario 4 is never going to happen is that our Tory councillors - and some of the Labour ones - still do not quite understand how we got to where we are, living in this shining satellite of the Capita empire. They think it was all the doing of their own masterly political and economic judgement - the unlikeliest scenario of all.

In fact One Barnet, as we know it, was conceived by officers and consultants, and continues to be promoted and developed by officers and consultants. 

Is this for the maximum benefit of the residents and tax payers of this borough? Or is there some other agenda, do you suppose?

We know this to be true, as we saw the evidence ourselves during the tender process for the mass privatisation contracts. 

Remember the way in which a decision was made by officers and consultants to change the model of one of the contract for what is now the ludicrously named 'Re' services to a joint venture? Taken in secret, by a group with no executive power, and in defiance of the democratic process, or the need for transparency and accountability? And worst of all, without the leader of the council, Richard Cornelius, knowing anything about it?

It would appear from reports of this week's policy and resources committee meeting that this kind of process continues. 

It seems somewhere, somehow, a decision has been discussed by senior officers to outsource more services, specifically education and catering, yet the leader, according to those present, seemed to know nothing about it.

Is it right that our elected representatives are being sidelined in this way? Instead of directing policy, with a democratic mandate - however precarious - are they being excluded yet again from the enormous policy decisions which have shaped and continue to shape the way in which our local services are being run? 

Are the supine Tory councillors who sanctioned the approval of the Capita contracts, and now queue up in secret to tell anyone who wants to listen how they were misled into agreeing them, going to lie down once again and let unelected officers, consultants and commercial partners decide the future course of this borough?

Probably. But let's see.

We hear that Capita want to bid for education and catering - no surprise there. A slight problem is that Capita are in charge of procurement, so there is a conflict of interest. How is that going to be addressed? No one seems to know, as it seems not to have been discussed, with councillors anyway.

Also up for grabs now, it seems, are waste and recycling - yes, the service which Cornelius has made so much of returning in house because it wasn't good enough - and, God help us all - libraries.

But let us return to the contract committee, and how our elected members scrutinised the contracts that are already in place.

The meeting began with public question time. Questions from three bloggers, Mrs Angry, Mr Mustard, and Mr Reasonable, who could not be present, but asked that we put his supplementary questions.

You can read the questions and answers here:

http://barnet.moderngov.co.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=693&MId=7868


1. Performance Report, Item 3, Customer Experience: 

This report claims that customer satisfaction in regard to the contact centre and website has increased. I simply do not believe this is true, and I am certain that the methods used to assess levels of satisfaction are deliberately designed to obscure the real standard of service. 

The only reason that customer satisfaction is apparently high is because the calls which are being included in the statistics are those that successfully connect to the switchboard. The real picture is being disguised by failing to show the large number of failed calls which are excluded from these statistics. 

Nine months ago, at the first contract monitoring meeting on 10th October last year, a representative from Capita admitted that calls to the council were being 'lost in the wires', but implied this was due to 'teething problems' and would be corrected. At this time, calls to the council were often not connected, and the caller received a message claiming the number was not recognised, or would obtain the engaged tone. 

This was blamed on a high number of calls due to unforeseen circumstances, and we were told it had been resolved by On Tuesday 27th May, I needed to contact the borough archives, but discovered a note on the website stating the phoneline was out of order. I do not know why that was the case. I therefore attempted to reach the archives through the switchboard. In the course of an hour, I made 14 calls. 

The first 10 of those 14 calls 5 were met with the 'number not recognised' response, and 5 calls with the engaged tone. When I did at last manage to get through to an operator, 53 minutes later, no one could explain the delay, other than to say that there were not enough lines to deal with the number of calls. When I asked to speak to a manager, I was cut off, and then told it was not possible. A second call also was cut off. I was also told I could not register any dissatisfaction or complaint about the switchboard service with the call centre itself. 

I should add that I have never, when phoning the council, been asked to participate in any satisfaction survey. In a response to a question submitted to this committee about the Capita call centre failings in January, six months ago, I was told : 

With regard to calls being 'lost in the wires', s this problem has largely been removed as a result of moving all the Revenues and Benefits calls to the Capita Coventry site and freeing up the existing telephone lines into the Council. and then Any Customer is able to make a complaint about the service using the corporate complaints system and processes even if they do not make part in any of the GovMetric Surveys. 

If a customer contacts us and asks to speak to the Contact Centre manager they will be put through to the Contact Centre Manager (or their deputy) if they are available. Clearly this is demonstrably untrue. 

On Friday 30th May, I was contacted by medical staff urgently trying to contact a Barnet employee in regard to a critically ill family member. They were unable to reach the employee, even in such an emergency, and were distressed by continually obtaining the number not recognised response. I then also failed to contact the switchboard when I made my own attempts. 

My experience is not unique, I have found a similar pattern of response since Capita has been running this service. Number not recognised and engaged tones are very clever devices for preventing the gathering of negative data which would prove Capita is not providing a satisfactory standard of service via the contact centre, as clearly there is no measurement of the number of 'lost' calls that are ignored, and only measurements of speed in the response to those calls that are connected. 

This shabby tactic, along with the inadequate system of minimising complaints from users at the time of such poor service is allowing Capita to appear to meet performance targets and escape penalties from failed KPIs associated with satisfaction levels. 

How many phones lines did the council have before Capita took over? 

Why is the company allowed still to hide the real number of calls which go unanswered in this way? 

Does the Chair realise that failings in the running of call centres and IT provision has led to other authorities terminating contracts with Capita and other major outsourcing companies ? 

How long will the authority allow such a poor service to continue before implementing penalties?

The response was: Mrs Angry's annotations in red -


General Response 

We are aware that there have been a number of issues reported in the first quarter of 2014, in particular relating to Customer Services 

During the first 8 months of the CSG contract there has been a significant level of change across the CSG services and systems including 

• Replacement finance and procurement system 
• Replacement HR, Payroll and Pension system 
• Replacement CRM system and Contact Centre 
• Replacement data centre with full disaster recovery and business continuity capability 
• The build of a new asset management system 
• New project and programme management systems 
• Insight / Business Intelligence capability 

(Mrs Angry has asked for a breakdown of this expenditure)

For Customer Services in particular this has meant the move of the Contact Centre to Coventry in April and introduction of an additional new phone system , parking ICT system and Customer Relationship Management (CRM) System. 

It was originally envisaged that these projects would be completed over a 12 month period. But due to the delays as a result of the JR and the need to deliver benefits and savings in the budget cycle originally planned by the Council, this was compacted to 6 months. 

This will be a common theme in the variety of excuses that Capita uses to deflect attention from any criticism of its performance: blame the JR, and those dreadful residents who dared to use their lawful right to challenge the contracts which a High Court Judge ruled had not been the subject of consultation with ... those dreadful residents ...

For the Contact Centre and Customer Services, the compacted timescale and the scale of change have combined with a number of other events which have highlighted capacity issues for calls coming in the Council and resulted in some callers getting the engaged or unobtainable tones mainly in the first quarter of 2014. 

These events include:

• The introduction of a new Parking ICT system by the Council requiring new processes and training in the contact centre and period of planned downtime that inevitably resulted in backlogs of enquiries and requests in the contact centre 
• Council Tax Annual billing taking place at the same time as the contact centre go live in April 
• The annual schools admissions applications process at the start of 2014 
• The elections in May 2014 

Ah: events, dear boy, events. Another excuse: Capita might well be expected to have anticipated that events can and due occur, as part of the normal process of government, yet despite their experience in contractual obligations elsewhere, appear to have not prepared for any such challenges here ...

We would obviously have preferred to avoid these overlaps but in order to deliver within the 6 month timeframe this was not possible. 3 The number of calls presented to the contact centre during the quarter (January to March 2014) shows that 237,760 calls have been handled and of those taking the GovMetric survey satisfaction levels are 69.61%.

Calls Presented 249,760
Calls Handled 237,816
Number of calls abandoned 11,944
Percentage of calls answered 95.22%
Customer Satisfaction levels at the
end of the period March 14 69.61%


Hmm ... calls presented. Does that include calls prevented, by capping software, or by putting our a 'number not recognised' system, do you suppose, readers? I think not.

This is an improvement on the same period in the previous year (January to March 2013) where more than twice as many calls were abandoned and the recorded satisfaction level was only 43%:

Calls Presented 255,496
Calls Handled 232,231
Number of calls abandoned 23,265
Percentage of calls answered 90.89%
Customer Satisfaction levels at the
end of the period March 13 43%


Call volumes are up generally following the addition of new services including into the contact centre (such a libraries), the new Waste and Recycling rollout at the end of 2013 and the introduction of the Council Tax Support scheme which has meant 23,000 residents now pay something towards their Council Tax where they didn’t previously pay anything or paid less.

 The call statistics show that 551,207 calls were taken in the period September 12 to April 13 and 683,555 calls were received in the same period this year. So we are handling more calls than before as more people are getting through. But demand is still on some occasions out stripping capacity, particularly in the new quarter 1. We are taking a number of actions to reduce and smooth demand on the Contact Centre, these include: 

• The introduction of 60 more telephone lines to add to the 180 in place at the start of the contract 

see later: it transpired in the course of the meeting that we used to have 60 more lines anyway!

• We are looking at splitting out the main contact centre numbers so 4 that some calls can be diverted via our new network links 

• A more phased issue of Council Tax Enforcement notices to spread calls 

• Better planning for one off campaigns 

• We are moving the Revenues and Benefits agents onto the new telephony solution removing their demand from the 180 lines coming into the Council.

Should have thought about all that before you started, and since complaints began.

 The action taken to implement 60 additional phone lines at Capita cost is a direct result of the Council and Capita recognising that these issues, which pre-dated the CSG contract, were impacting service and required action to resolve. 

You mean the direct result of people like me kicking up a fuss, and demonstrating the fundamentally  flawed service, and by the way, only since you've been running the call centre has the 'not recognised' system been used in this way - it is not fair to yet again blame 'legacy' issues for the failure.

Answers to the Specific questions raised are shown below 

How many phones lines did the council have before Capita took over? 

Answer: The Council had 180 phone lines when Capita took over and this has been the case since Q4 in 2012/2013 when the lines were reduced by the Council from 240 to 180 as part of the Customer Services Transformation and planned channel shift. In recognition of the issues we are currently experiencing with calls, we are in the process of adding an additional 60 telephony lines to the 180 that already existed. 

As was observed at the committee, this reduction in lines was cynically explained by some as the authority seeking to make the outsourcing option appear to offer improvement.

Why is the company allowed still to hide the real number of calls which go unanswered in this way? 

Answer: They have not, the number of calls made to and handled by the CSG contact centre and all Council Delivery Units is provided monthly to the Council as part of standard reporting required under the contract. This includes full statistics on the number of calls presented to the contact centre, the speed of response, the number of calls handled and the number abandoned. These have also been summarised in the response above. 

Presented to, again: so, the successful calls that are not blocked by 'number not recognised'?

Does the Chair realise that failings in the running of call centres and IT provision has led to other authorities terminating contracts with Capita and other major outsourcing companies? & How long will the authority allow such a poor service to continue before implementing penalties? 

Answer: There are many reasons for terminating contracts and are indicative of the fact that the relationship between provider and customer has irretrievably broken down. In this case, all parties recognise that there has been an issue with performance in Quarter 1 and actions has been taken to correct this. The Council and Capita are now working together to ensure that there are improved mechanisms in place. 

A happy ending. Ah ... feel better? How much do we owe you?

So, up to the table to ask a supplementary question. Impossible to take up all the points now annotated above, so Mrs Angry limited herself to expressing the hope that members understood why the example of the call centre was so crucial, bearing in mind the fact that many contract terminations involved performance failure in regard to such services. 

Next an observation that the councillors had been hoodwinked into approving the Capita contracts, and now were being hoodwinked again into accepting data which wrongly suggested that Capita was providing a satisfactory standard of service, by masking the problem of those callers who cannot connect to the call centre, and receive a bogus number not recognised message, or engaged tone, instead of being put in a queueing system.

Is this not systematic and fundamentally dishonest way of presenting data for the purposes of performance scrutiny?

If Capita is failing to present the real picture of how it deals with calls to the council, a function that we can easily test ourselves, mystery shoppers as we are, what else are they hiding? 

Will the members of this committee undertake what Mr Naylor told us is the function of the committee, to hold our contractual partners to account?

Well: the Chairwoman said he wasn't sure about the words 'hoodwinked', and dishonest. Mrs Angry pointed out no individual was being accused of such activity, but that the system itself of measuring performance was exactly that: dishonest. What else can you call a deliberate method of preventing the collation of negative data from resident at busy times, by not counting their calls, and giving them a message implying they have rung the wrong number?

What should happen, as even the Chairwoman agreed, is that there should be a 'your call is valuable to us' message, and information about your place in a queue. But then that would show up badly in the data, and poor Capita would fail its KPIs.

Mr Reasonable had asked a question on the same subject:

On the corporate performance report can you clarify how many attempts to call the council resulted in an engaged tone or a number unobtainable tone and can you confirm that in those cases the call would be unable to register their satisfaction with the service undermining the credibility of the results?

Can you clarify if Capita has the technology to introduce an engaged tone or number not recognised tone when the number of calls waiting reaches a specified limit and on how many occasions has this technology been used since Capita took over responsibility for CSG?

Answer:Mrs Angry's annotations in red - and no doubt Mr Reasonable will be offering his own views elsewhere ....

The telephony platform does not allow us to identify exactly how many callers coming in via the Council’s 180 telephone lines may have received an engaged or unobtainable tones as these are generated by the public switched network when all lines into Barnet are busy. This has always been the case with the inherited systems. 

Oh dear. Does not allow us to identify how many ... so you are not able to give the committee really accurate data regarding the true state of the performance of the call centre, are you? And inherited systems, again. Didn't we give you £16m quid to deal with this sort of stuff?

The back office calls relating to Council Tax enforcement specifically (as opposed to benefits and other Council tax general enquiries and notifications) were not previously in the Contact Centre. Following persistent complaints that callers could not get through these calls were moved into the Contact Centre in Coventry, with the Council’s agreement, at the end of 2013. 

As a result more callers are getting through than ever before, as reflected in the volumes above, but during peak periods this still results in queues and as a result many callers then call alternative lines or numbers in attempt to reach the service but actually only block other lines. it is technically possible to cap the number of calls hitting the telephone lines and this has always been the case with both the inherited phone system as well as the new telephone platform put in place in Coventry. This does not however result in the engaged or unobtainable tone being given as this only occurs when the Council’s 180 lines have no spare capacity. 

All very unclear. What triggers the 'number not recognised' message, then, if not your capping software package?

The facility to cap calls then has been used on 3 days since CSG started running the Contact Centre (13, 19 and 23 May). 

What is your excuse, then, for the experience I had on the 27th and 30th May?

In each case the limitation was only applied for Council Tax calls when demand peaked following the issue of enforcement notices and was only put in place for one day. The impact of this will be considered by the Committee in the Quarter 1 report to be presented later in year. 

At this time the callers could have been faced with a significantly long wait and so instead of hanging on, they would have heard the message “All our operators are busy, please accept our apologies and try again later”, the aim is that callers will call back later at a quieter time and we avoid other lines being overwhelmed. In future we are examining the use of call back facilities to replace this mechanism. 

You already get that, when engaged messages occur, except that, as I found, the call back does not work.

The only other limitations on the calls coming into the contact centre or into the Council and it’s wider services (including non CSG Delivery Units) 6 is the number of lines available and the availability of the person or service being called and not by any technical configuration of the systems , once this capacity has been reached the caller gets the engaged or number unobtainable tone as stated above. 

Where is your explanation, then for the more frequent 'number not recognised'?

 Line capacity has been impacted recently by the addition of a number of seasonal events and annual campaigns listed below: 

• The introduction of a new Parking ICT system by the Council requiring new processes and training in the contact centre and period of planned downtime that inevitably resulted in backlogs of enquiries and requests in the contact centre 

• Council Tax Annual billing taking place at the same time as the contact centre go live in April • The annual schools admissions applications process at the start of 2014 

• The elections in May 2014 In recognition of the call issues, we are currently experiencing we in the process of adding an additional 60 telephony lines to the 180 that already existed. The GovMetric Customer satisfaction survey is only offered at the end of call when the caller has been successfully connected. This was the same method employed when the council ran the services. 

This should be offered to all callers but is dependent on the agent asking the caller if they are willing to undertake a survey and that caller agreeing to do it. CSG closely monitor the level of referral to the surveys within the contact centre and run various schemes to incentivise staff to do this. This is an addition to any customers who wish to undertake the survey at the face to face locations or on the Councils web site. 

Rubbish, rubbish, rubbish. I have never been asked to take part, nor has anyone I know, and worse still, if you ask to complain, you are either cut off, or refused access to a manager.

The Council also undertakes some mystery shopping activities to check and report on the quality of the services received when calling the CSG contact centre.

The only mystery is why on earth you expect that to give us any sense of reassurance.

So: supplementary question - can you confirm that Capita is using a software package for telephone capping, and do you use it elsewhere, and do the councillors think this is an acceptable practice?

Fudged response, of course, and an attempt to persuade us that Barnet has always had this capability,and a repetition that capping was used only on three days. What then do they call the constant default mode of 'number not recognised?  The truth is that only since Capita took over have calls received this message.  

Another question from Mrs A on her pet subject: the peculiar matter of the Highways expenditure.

In regard to the 100% out turn relating to the carriage and footway programmes: how is this possible when Colindale Ward received no funding at all in the last year, and was therefore unable to benefit from any work associated with this programme?

The KPI for the delivery of the annual planned maintenance programme relates to whether schemes in the approved programme started and finished within programmed dates and not whether schemes were undertaken in all wards within the Borough. All schemes in that time period started by the due date resulting in the 100% figure. The overall programme of projects will not always include projects from all wards. The Colindale ward does have approved 2014-2015 planned maintenance schemes pending but in terms of timing we need to ensure that important excavation works to install electricity, gas, water and telecommunications in the highway, needed for the new development works, are completed prior to undertaking resurfacing works. Our best estimate at this stage is that the carriageway resurfacing schemes on Colindale Avenue and Grahame Park Way will take place in the Autumn.


Oh, said Mrs Angry, so no work was planned at all for the past year, in Colindale? How odd. And not what the local councillors thought. Can you explain this?

Mrs Angry's friend from Crapita, Mr Alan Parfitt, who is in charge of Re, came to the table and Re-plied, with the help of Mr Declan Hoare, but in such a way as to say nothing at all, which is really the only response you can make, in the circumstances.

Last question - oh dear - about the former Hendon Crematorium, now the Easycrem Post-Life Leisure Facililty, run by Crapita, and sadly not yet bringing in the bucketloads of cash promised by the many opportunities from Post-Life life in Broken Barnet, as detailed in the DRS/Re contract.

Question:

Noting the delay to the building work at Hendon Crematorium, and the regrettable impact on income for Capita from the death and bereavement of residents of this borough, has the income shortfall led to any added pressure to obtain revenue from other sources, such as in the recently revealed and highly offensive removal of memorial benches as a prelude to new 'developments' and charges?


Answer: 

As part of the Commercial Development Plan within the contract, Re has committed to bring forward a number of business cases designed to enhance and improve Hendon Cemetery & Crematorium; bringing back into use the derelict buildings at the front of the site and providing a range of new services and options to the bereaved, that are befitting of a modern cemetery and crematorium. 

As well as meeting the changing needs and requirements of our customers, these proposals will of course generate additional income for the Council, but are not related to the delays to the building work. 

The Council had prior to the commencement of the Re contract identified the need to manage the proliferation of unauthorised benches in the cemetery, about which we had received a number of complaints and so this exercise is not related to the contract with Re or established with the intention of it being an income generation measure. 

Burial and memorial space within the cemetery & crematorium is now limited and so it is necessary to look at areas where people have placed their own bench without purchasing a lease to do so, in order that those wishing to purchase a plot still have the opportunity to do so.

So Crapita is now claiming - and bear in mind the reason for the removal of the benches changes in every story about it - that residents are actually walking into the cemetery grounds with their own benches, and plonking them down, willy nilly, just like that, and this is nothing to do with Crapita's plans to extort more money from bereaved families?

I can't even be bothered to write whatever reply the man from Crapita, avoiding eye contact with Mrs Angry, came out with, before she informed him of her view that the whole thing was grossly distasteful. 

Question time over, and of course no members items had been allowed, on the grounds that members had missed the deadline, even though that was because the committee itself had not been endorsed until after the deadline ... 

The meeting then sank into a lull, of vague mutterings over reports, and no real challenge over performance, just as the Chairwoman had wanted, in fact.

Mrs Angry's notes dwindled to a few, now incomprehensible jottings: incentivising residents (this is the new leitmotif of what used to be called One Barnet, but must never be referred to as such, any more) ...the elasticity of demand - (f*ck knows what that was all about, and here Mrs Angry began worrying about the fact that Mr Mustard, on arrival, had carefully placed a tin of vaseline on the bloggers' table) ... adopting rosebeds ... in-flight transformation projects ... intelligent bins  - deeply worrying, you might think, that we live in a borough where the blue wheelie bins are smarter than the average true blue Tory councillor, is it not?

To be fair, the intellectual capacity of the Tory group - and no, I'm not looking at you, Cllr Seal - has been enlarged by the addition of new Cllr Gabriel Rozenberg, whose relentlessly stern and hyper-analytical contributions floated over the heads of the rest of the people sat around the committe table. Cllr Rozenberg will need to dumb down to the understanding of the average nine year old, if he is to engage in any significant way with the democratic process, here in Broken Barnet.

And yet here is the curious thing: just when the meeting promised to fizzle out into a pointless exercise of rubber stamping, goodwill, and unity, it was the two Tory councillors, Seal and Rozenberg who picked up the issue of the call centre, and did something quite extraordinary: they - well, kind of,  held Capita to account, and demanded action. No, really.

Danny Seal may not have the cool eyed intellect of his colleague Cllr Rozenberg, but in his newly reborn zeal for the role of councillor, has decided a. to turn up to meetings and b. to speak up at meetings. This is an encouraging move in the right direction, at least.Good boy, Danny Seal: and here is a commendation from Mrs Angry, for your effort.

He referred to the question raised by Mrs Angry, and wanted the woman from Crapita to know that it simply was not acceptable that residents should constantly receive the number not recognised message, and he wanted it looked into. There is, he said, enough technology out there to deal with the problem.

The woman from Crapita repeated the response given to Mrs Angry, about 'smoothing', and anticipating campaigns, and of course putting in another 60 lines - and aha: but of course it had emerged that there had originally been 240 lines anyway - really incredible, is it not, that they need to be forced into reinstating this, simply because they have been caught out blocking surplus numbers of callers?

Cllr Rozenberg supported the call for more detailed information from Capita in relation to call centre performance. Mrs Angry, he commented, had done us a favour, by provoking such a detailed response to her question. Indeed, but the point is, it should be the members of the committee who elicit this sort of information, and let us hope that that is exactly what will occur, in the course of a new, non hoodwinked scrutiny committee.

A minor mistake in one of the reports was spotted and amended. The Chairwoman looked teasingly across at Labour's Geof Cooke:  

You normally pick up on these things, he tutted. Cllr Cooke nodded.  

I do apologise, Chair (sic, tssk) ... but my allowance has been cut ... 

Much tittering, then.

A reference to the spiteful move by Tories to vote for the removal of some opposition  allowances, simply because the Labour group refused to be bribed into a pairing agreement. Another consequence would appear to be the refusal to allow the members' items for the committee, even on the grounds of urgency, and at the discretion of the Chairwoman. 

Some concession had been made, however, at the last minute, after much protest, and one imagines some encouragement from certain senior officers, in regard to another Capita cockup: the complete mess they have made of the provision of IT services to new councillors - problems with the new ipads, being locked out of emails, delays in giving out phones, the absence of any project manager to deal with these issues. 

The woman from Crapita was called back once more to the committee table, once more to defend her company's failings, and do a bit more 'smoothing'.

We absolutely do have an action plan, she informed the deeply unimpressed councillors.

Ah: an action plan. Good. That'll help, what with the smoothing and all. And we all like action plans, don't we?

One to one training. Home visits. Ah: so it is all the fault of obtuse new councillors, is it, not your useless IT provision?

When, asked the Chairwoman, would everything be hunky dunky. Or is it hunky dory? He thought about this for a moment. Yes: hunky dory: in Barnetspeak - still pretty bad, but not so bad that people will keep bothering me about it, and I can ignore the whole matter.

It's already in hand, he was assured.

Chris Naylor looked less than convinced. In fact ... yes, he was a bit ... cross with the woman from Capita. 

He said the failures were deeply embarrassing, and unacceptable. It was important she understood the seriousness of that.

The woman from Capita left the table in a less than happy mood.

Good, thought Mrs Angry. 

It's been a nice meeting, commented the Chairwoman, oblivious to the real state of play, and clearly assured of the hunkydoriness of everything brought to the table for discussion.

But there really is a wind of change blowing through the stale air of the committee rooms of Broken Barnet. Look:

When you have even Tory councillors flexing their muscles, at last, and senior officers openly criticising Capita, there can be no other conclusion than this: the honeymoon is over, for One Barnet, and the new reality of the now tenuous grip on power by Barnet Tories means every elected member must up their game, and do what they have been elected to do: no more dozing through meetings, or sitting back and let our new masters have their wicked way with us, unrestrained.

A message to our friends at Capita: if you ever thought that coming to Barnet was a good idea, and an easy ride, you may need to review that assessment. No amount of 'smoothing' is going to prevent a continual act of scrutiny from residents, bloggers, and heavens to betsy, even our elected members: who would have thought it?

Watch out.
 

Hugh Rayner: the Mayor's nightmare continues, as Dismore submits complaint to the Monitoring Officer

$
0
0



The story regarding new Mayor of Barnet Hugh Rayner and his business interests has taken on a new level of gravity today, after news broke that Assembly Member Andrew Dismore has now submitted a 19 page complaint to Maryellen Salter, the Monitoring Officer for Barnet Council. A press release reads as follows:

 Dismore presents formal complaint to Barnet Council Monitoring Officer 

Following his exchange with London Mayor Boris Johnson at last week’s Mayor’s Question Time, Andrew Dismore, Labour London Assembly member and parliamentary candidate for Hendon has today submitted a detailed 19 page complaint to Barnet Council’s Monitoring Officer concerning Cllr Hugh Rayner, the Mayor of Barnet. 

Mr Dismore’s complaint, which cannot be published for legal reasons, raises a number of issues concerning Cllr Rayner’s conduct of his property and private lettings business, his position as a councillor, and his registration and declaration of interests concerning the business. 

Mr Dismore said: “ By his own admissions so far, Cllr Rayner has a case to answer concerning the way he conducts his business. Last week, I wrote to him, putting a number of other additional issues and asking for his response, which has not been forthcoming so far. 

“In the circumstances, I believe these matters need to be investigated by the Barnet Council Monitoring Officer, to establish whether or not there has been any wrongdoing on Cllr Rayner’s part. 

“I hope that the Monitoring Officer will conduct a swift investigation as it is not fair to the people of Barnet that these serious matters should be hanging over the Borough’s “First Citizen” , the Mayor of Barnet, for longer than is absolutely necessary. We need to see an early ruling upon one way or the other promptly. 
t. “For my part, I have made clear to the Monitoring Officer that I am available to explain the detail to the Council of the complaint and to produce the evidence I have in support of the complaint. I hope that Cllr Rayner will offer his full co-operation, too. 
“I have also submitted a complaint concerning Cllr Hart cornering the matters I raised at MQT relating to him.”

Earlier today, the local Times group published comments from Barnet Tory leader Richard Cornelius herein which he chose to defend his colleague from the criticisms levelled at him, despite admissions by Rayner himself last week that he had accepted that he had made mistakes in some of his dealings with tenants, which were now corrected - as reported in an earlier Times articlehere :

 "He claims to have removed the clause about raising rent earlier this year as he now “appreciates they are non-enforceable”, but not could answer (sic) when the change took place. 

And he no longer asks witnesses to pre-sign contracts – he admitted he admitted it was done on various occasions to “save time and trouble” but now appreciates it is incorrect".

Asked about the high rent charged to tenants, some of whom receive housing benefit, by the MayorRichard Cornelius states: 

“Market rent is what you can get something for. If that’s the amount of money he can get for the houses, it’s market rent. I don’t see that as overcharging to the detriment of the public purse.” 

Asked if Councillor Rayner should resign over the matter, Cornelius was clear: 

No of course he shouldn’t resign over this.”

Richard Cornlius was equally supportive, as readers may recall, when his former colleague Brian Coleman was involved in an incident in which he assaulted a female resident in the street, and indeed was loath to see him suspended from the party, until intervention from CCHQ took the decision out of his hands.

Of course Cornelius admitted when he was asked to comment that he was not  acquainted with all the facts: asked about the legality of some of the Mayor's actions he states:

"I don’t know, it doesn’t sound illegal. I don’t know the details of it so I can’t make a judgement ..."

Now that a formal complaint has been submitted to the Monitoring Officer about the case, including now, it seems, points raised regarding the declaration and registration of interests, the Tory leader will be able to judge for himself the truth of the matter.

As this post is being written, the local Times enlarges hereon some of the new allegations and now reports rather extraordinary claims -that Rayner failed to declare the fact that he is a  landlord when voting on controversial housing policies. The Times claims:

Cllr Rayner is the former chairman of the business management overview and scrutiny committee, where councillors voted and debated the council’s housing strategy.
Despite receiving the subsidy directly from Barnet Borough Council, he did not make his colleagues on the committee aware of this.


The article alleges that at two meetings in June and July 2010, Cllr Rayner failed to make appropriate declarations of interest.


As it stands on the facts reported so far, it seems that 84% of the readers polled in the local Times feel that Rayner should resign.

What happens next, however, will depend on the Monitoring Officer, and we all await her decision with great interest. 

We also remember the decision, just before the election, which led to a Labour councillor being referred to the police on the basis of an accusation of taxdodging - which turned out to be untrue - and we are confident that the same high standard of stringency will be applied in all allegations regarding members that are submitted for her consideration. 

In public life, we expect fairness to those accused, as well as transparency over any investigation of alleged wrongdoing, don't we?

Hugh Rayner was elected in marginal Hale, a ward hotly contested by Tories and Labour alike in the recent election. Tory control of the borough hangs by a thread, and clearly the ruling party will not gladly agree to a by election, should any councillor in any ward resign, for whatever reason.

In this borough, the curse of living in interesting times is always clear to see: we live it every day, here in Broken Barnet, do we not, where nothing is ever quite what it seems, or what it promises to be?

To be updated.

A clear understanding, or: Barnet is still Broken

$
0
0
           

At last week's contract and performance meeting, the first of its kind in the new administration, our friends from Crapita were called to the table to explain why certain problems were occurring in the course of their management of our council services. 

Excuses broadly fell into categories: consequences of times past, and times to come. Times past, in Broken Barnet? The far distant past, the beginning of time itself:

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And then God created Crapita. Or at least someone did. A fallen angel, perhaps. 

And everything bad in Capitaville dates from the time of darkness, before they arrived, of course, or because of things that have happened since then in the form of Events: unexpected Events. Serpents with apples. Men with no figleaf. Women with no shame. Councillors without ipads, callers without operators, that sort of thing. 

Events have also caused all sorts of trouble in paradise for other outsourced services. 

Take HBPublic Law, the supposed shared legal enterprise set up with Harrow Council.

No, please: take it, and give us back the good old days, when governance in Barnet and legal services and almost everything you could think of was under the beady eye of Mr Lustig, the former head of Democratic Services, in a time where service was not particularly democratic, in line with Tory policy, but it was at least run efficiently. 

Nowadays we rely on a shared legal service, to save us money - ha - and a new Monitoring Officer, Maryellen Salter, the laconic former head of internal audit, who, coincidentally, used to work for our external auditors, Grant Thornton. Ms Salter may be a good auditor: she is not a lawyer. 

The lack of legal oversight and knowledge of procedure that has recently become the norm in the governance of Barnet Council was always going to end in disaster: and now it has.

There was a meeting scheduled for last night at the Town Hall, the inaugural meeting of the rather unappealingly named Assets, Regeneration and Growth Committee. 

Mrs Angry didn't bother to go, being more inclined to stay at home and sit on the sofa eating chocolate, and discussing tents, portable showers and She Wees with Miss Angry (don't ask).

Perhaps this was the wrong choice, or the right choice, but in any event she missed what was perhaps the most extraordinary meeting that has ever taken place, here in Broken Barnet, where extraordinary meetings are the order of the day, most days. 

Do look at the footage, and try to suspend your belief in the possibility of proper governance in local government long enough to understand what has now happened in this borough.

This was the committee meeting which discovered, rather in the surrealist manner of a Bunuel film, (no, please don't argue, Jack Cohen ...) that it did not exist. Or it may have been an existential crisis. Or it may have discovered rather that it existed not in the moment, only in the imagination. Hard to tell.

The harsh truth, however, that had to be accommodated, to the evident discomfiture of all present, was that the committee had no constitutional status, no executive powers, no purpose, and no point. 

No purpose and no point might well be the motto of many a Barnet council meeting, and indeed the lack of constitutional status or executive power does not seem necessarily to prevent our senior officers from making decisions behind the back of our elected members, as in the case of the Joint Venture model for the 'Re' contract with Crapita, and very possibly the latest 'decision' to outsource even more services.

Whatever goes on behind closed doors in the unminuted meetings of senior management, however, goes unquestioned, whereas the deliberations of councillors must not only be done openly, and transparently, but constitutionally. Yes: double standards, as you should expect, in Broken Barnet.

So let us be quite clear, about where we are now, in these first few weeks of the new term of this Tory administration.

Our elected members are unable to meet to decide on council business, we were told yesterday, such as the senior management's plans for further outsourcing, because the outsourced legal service failed to spot that the new committee system was inherently unconstitutional.

Even if members could meet, many of them are unable to do their work as councillors, such as deciding on further outsourcing proposals, because the IT equipment provided by our now outsourced IT people at Crapita, is so crap, it is not fit for purpose. Members are losing emails, and are sometimes unable to send emails. They have been given ipads with covers that make using them impossible, cannot use Word on them, and they have no phones. The IT support manager from Crapita has cleared off to another client somewhere else, and Crapita have had to bring in temporary advisers - at whose expense, we do not know.

Is such a poor standard of service in the provision of members' equipment acceptable? Is it putting residents' data at risk? Why is there a 60 day limit on retention of emails, and how is this compatible with the requirements of the FOI act?

In the meanwhile, residents trying to use the new Crapita call centre to contact their council have been shown to have been kept at a distance by a clever call deflecting system that masks the real performance of the new providers.

Our council leader appears to be oblivious to the scale of failure all around him, except when it confronts him directly, as it did last night, but was an Event that left him reacting less as the leader of a council with direct authority and with ultimate responsibility for what has happened, but rather more like the disdainful master of Downtown Abbey who has discovered, to his grave disappointment, that the butler has drunk his best claret and slept with all the parlourmaids.

You will note from the footage that the Tory councillors sit quietly, totally fazed by the unwelcome intrusion of Events into the committee room. 

Only new boy Gabriel Rozenberg ventures the thought that they might carry on with a pointless meeting, as a talking shop, using their 'collective intelligence'. Oh dear. The boy has much to learn. The only intelligence that was evident in the room came from the Labour side, especially from Pauline Coakley Webb, who wasted no time on any further debate, and castigated those who responsible for such a shambles.

And then this afternoon the Chief Executive wrote to all councillors:

Dear Members

You will be aware that the Annual Council meeting on 2 June has given rise to a number of issues which have implications for the conduct of Council business. It was for that reason that I instructed Hugh Peart, in conjunction with the Monitoring Officer, to conduct an urgent review of the status of the Council’s decision-making arrangements. Mr Peart is the Director of Legal and Governance Services for Harrow Council and leads the shared legal service, HB Law. 

I informed the Group Leaders and Councillor Jack Cohen of the review on Friday.
Yesterday afternoon Mr Peart informed me of his view that the proportionality report agreed by Council was flawed and could not form the basis of sound decision-making. I accordingly informed Members of this at the scheduled meeting of Assets, Regeneration and Growth Committee last night. Members of the committee decided not to proceed with an informal meeting.
 
I subsequently asked Mr Peart to confirm his view by obtaining external legal advice. He has now obtained the advice of James Gaudie QC. Mr Gaudie has confirmed Mr Peart’s view that the proportionality report agreed at Council was flawed. Mr Gaudie further advises that the Council should put this right at the first opportunity. He does, however, go on to say that it is open to the Council to continue with scheduled committees in the meantime, and that decisions taken would be valid. I will consult with the Group Leaders on whether scheduled meetings should continue on this basis. In the meantime, I have asked that this evening’s Licensing Committee is postponed.

The current position is deeply regrettable and I apologise sincerely to all Members.  The move to a committee system was always going to be challenging but the change has not been implemented as efficiently as Members, or indeed residents, should expect from the Council.
It is important that there is a clear understanding of how this situation has arisen and what action, if any, should be taken. I shall therefore be appointing an external reviewer to conduct an urgent investigation into the processes leading to the reports presented to Annual Council on 2 June. This will be published at the earliest opportunity.

Regards

Andrew

So: Mr Peart, from HBLaw spotted, after he was asked to look, after the Event, that there was a flaw in the report which went to full council, did he?

Why did no one from HBLaw spot it before it went to full council? Was he not asked to look at that point?

Who is paying for the external advice, which HBLaw cannot provide?

On what basis does Mr Gaudie cheerfully reassure us today that decisions made are, after all, valid? Why was his advice not sought before now?

Who will conduct this 'external' review? The external auditor? 

Oh dear.

Even as all the governance of this borough unravels, the Monitoring Officer is dealing with a complaint, referred back to her by the external auditors, over allegations of disproportionate expenditure by one Cabinet member on his own ward in the run up to the elections, and now look: she is also obliged to consider a complaint about the Mayor, who is under pressure to resign, over allegations about his behaviour as a landlord, and a claim that he has failed to make the necessary declarations at committee meetings dealing with housing policy.

Apart from that, Mrs Angry, anything much going on?

Nope. Business as usual. Or rather, there is no business at all, and here in Barnet, the incompetence and moral bankruptcy of this most decadent of all Tory administrations, once a flagship council, a pioneer of outsourcing - well, now look: the laughing stock of everyone in local government. 

The pantomime entertainment of the Mayor making full council meeting perfectly illustrates the state of decline into which this council has sunk. 

The heirs of Alderman Roberts' daughter, the small town businessmen, and building society managers, the jewellers and the out of work actors: they can think of no higher achievement than the wearing of the ruffled shirt, fox furs and chain of office of Mayor. It still represents to those who never achieved the success they felt they deserved in their working lives, a sense of arrival, and status.

Not for them the heavy burden of civic duty, the reading of reports, and contracts, and the asking of difficult questions: they want an easy life, and a buffet, and to hell with the rest.

They sit back, and allow the senior officers they employ to direct policy, instead of making the council run with efficiency, and that is how we now find ourselves in this sorry mess.

If Rayner is forced to resign, there will be a by election in Hale, and no amount of jiggery pokery with numbers on committees will save our Tory friends from the fate which awaits them: the real possibility of loss of control of this council 

In truth, they already have lost control, and they know it. Even without a possible by election, their desperate attempts to keep it all together, and cling on to power will have to continue all the way through the next four years. They will never be able to relax for one moment, as each committee attendance must be carefully managed, and no absence allowed.

The dynamics of the Tory group, in the absence of their dark totemic figure of Brian Coleman, and the antics of Robert Rams, are fatally compromised now: left without any leadership, or driving force, however negative in impulse.

The end of days is not in the meltdown of corporate efficiency, or the arrival of Crapita: it is in the lost soul of Conservative values, believing in nothing but itself, and its own comfort, while those without protection from their rapine values fall by the wayside, unnoticed and unmourned. 

Barnet is still broken: it's more broken than ever. How we put it back together again: that is the question. We won't know until we try, though, will we?


Taking a haircut, in the market place of care: another Residents Forum in Broken Barnet

$
0
0



The story of our local residents' forums, here in Broken Barnet, is in essence the story of something else, something rather bigger: it is the perfect demonstration of why Barnet is broken, and will never be mended, while we languish under the regime of swivel eyed loons that have possession of our council.

Started by a Labour administration, the Forums were intended as a way of extending the democratic process to the community, of giving a voice to neighbourhoods within the borough, and focusing attention on hyperlocal issues. 

Once the Tories returned to power, they were stuck with a clearly unwanted and potentially troublesome vehicle of opposition to their authority. This presented no real threat, however, during the following years, until such a time as it became apparent, at last, that there really was a burgeoning  movement of resistance to their policies: dating from the beginning of the administration which began four years ago.

At this point, the new council began with a fatal error of judgement: the furtive attempt to award themselves a whopping pay rise. This spectacularly backfired, and marked the beginning of a collision course which continues even today, a period of unprecedented crisis, alarm and confusion, which perhaps marks the end of days for Barnet Tories. If not the end, as you might say, it is certainly the beginning of the end.

The council which began in 2010 had a secret agenda laid down for the next four years: the mass privatisation of our local services. 

Secret, unmentioned in the course of the election campaign: about to be foisted on the borough's residents and taxpayers, whether they wanted it or not.

Whether they wanted it or not was of no importance to the Barnet Tories. 

What was important was to get their own way, and instigate the preparations for a course of action on which they were already determined.

Tory councillors had been easily persuaded by senior officers and consultants that not only was an outsourced council the way forward, there was no possibility of considering an in-house option. 

There was therefore every reason to make sure that the course of action decided upon by a handful of officers, consultants, and a few tame Tory councillors could be followed with no chance of objection or even debate.

The Labour leadership offered little threat of effective opposition. The local press were totally uninterested in the issue. The Unions' resistance would be dealt with by the usual smear tactics, and game playing: the one remaining difficulty was the growing criticism from local campaigners - and bloggers. 

Any risk of public criticism must be suppressed: the Residents Forums were clearly likely to be the main focus of such challenge, and the Tories duly acted to censor them, amending the council constitution so as to forbid residents and taxpayers raising any issue in public at these meetings which alluded in anyway to what was deemed to be council 'policy'.

Residents daring to question the decisions or proposals about to be imposed by their elected representatives were met with every resistance by Tory councillors and their senior officers, united in a frenzied determination to prevent challenge of their authority, on a level of obsession akin to the merciless fury of a medieval inquisition, seeing heresy everywhere, the devil stalking the streets of Broken Barnet, using the Forums for his nefarious purposes, taking as his tool the sense of uprising and rebellion amongst the previously unpoliticised householders of our borough's leafy avenues. Where would it all end?

It all ended in the High Court, and a finding by Judge Underhill that the council had failed in its duty to consult residents in regard to the massive outsourcing programme. Oh.

And so, in the run up to this year's local election, the Tories decided to try to look as if they were suddenly mindful of the need to respect the views of the electorate. Back to the constitution - let's undo the awful ban on  - sshh - questions of policy, and other silly restrictions.  For the time being.

Here we are, though, on the wrong side of the election, and look: we are travelling back in time to the bad old days, again ... 

The first Residents Forums of the new term were not advertised in advance, and those on the mailing list were not contacted: those who knew that they were listed, and gambled on the chance that they were still legally constituted, after the debacle of the last few days, submitted questions, and found that in many cases these were refused, on spurious grounds, such as being not about 'local' matters, or having been previously discussed, or, in Mrs Angry's case, exchanged, without her consent, for questions submitted to the previous Forum, and filibustered out of time by the Chairwoman. 

Time allocated to residents at this meeting, was appropriated by an unasked for presentation of corporate spin, meaning some questions were left unaired.

The responses to questions were not sent on the day of the Forum to residents, who only saw these, crucial to the formulation of their supplementary questions, once they came to the meeting.

And the responses which were given made it clear that every effort is and will continue to be made to evade, obstruct and deny any real enquiry that might cause the council to view it as a challenge to its authority, or secret agenda. The demands of transparency and accountability are easily subverted in these Forums, as you will see.

At the Finchley and Golders Green Forum, an array of council officers was ready and waiting at the table, when we arrived. Neither ready, nor waiting, was the Chairwoman, Tory Danny Seal, who, despite his claim, after criticism of his record in the last term, that he would commit to turning up to the meetings he is paid to attend, failed to show up, even for his first appearance, which seemed discourteous, at the very least.

The Forum began, not with residents' questions, but with a presentation by an officer who told residents what sort of people they were, according to a ward profile, and then what they might be allowed to do with the new allocation of some funding to area sub-committees.

Allowed being the word, as nothing can be done without approval from councillors and senior officers, in the best tradition of Broken Barnet. This decision, we heard was ratified at a meeting, on the 10th June.

Is is lawful, then, asked Mrs Angry, in a fit of constitutional doubt?

They thought so. Because, said Kate Kenneally, solemnly, Counsel had said so. 

This Counsel, by the way, is the same Counsel who thought the Council could win the parking Judicial Review, which, erm ... it lost. 

Still. No need to panic. Keep calm, and carry on f*cking up, the Broken Barnet way.

And is the allocated funding part of, or separate to, the money distributed in the manner of Councillor Dean Cohen, largely to his own ward, and not at all to Labour held Colindale, in the last year, asked Mrs Angry, still unclear, and casting a baleful look at Councillor Dean Cohen, skulking at the back of the room?

Separate to. And the stand in Chairwoman, the pompous young councillor Reuben Thompstone, who used to try to run the Forum with all the tact and discretion, as Mrs Angry once described it, of the Governor of an antipodean penal colony addressing the convicts on a newly arrived ship from England, clearly wished Mrs Angry would shut up, and not interrupt with impertinent questions.

Oh dear.

But here was one of Mrs Angry's impertinent questions, on the agenda, inescapable, despite being rather out of date, substituted as it was from a previous meeting months ago, as explained above.

I understand that Golders Green ward has benefited from £800,000 of Highways related funding in the last year, and has benefited recently from new paving, and even trees, including one planted by Councillor Dean Cohen, in what must be a very welcome photo opportunity, only weeks before the localelections. 

Please tell me how much funding from the same source in the same period has been received by West Finchley ward, and explain why, even though money was agreed last summer for potentially lifesaving measures in the accident blackspot that is Squires Lane, still no move has been made or funding spent on delivering the agreed changes? When is the authority going to replace the safety barrier next to Manorside school, destroyed in one of the two serious accidents since the funding was agreed last year, and why is this taking so long?

The response was the old one, in which no real reason was given for the continual delays, and claimed the safety barrier would be in place by the time of the previous Forum. It wasn't, and it isn't.

The officer from Highways apologised, saying he was 'surprised, and disappointed' ... but gave no real reason why these safety measures, a year after being approved, had not been implemented, while so much time and attention had been lavished on Cllr Cohen's own ward on replacing great swathes of pavements and smooth road surfaces in a few favoured streets, in an area in which he himself lives, while the less Tory inclined part of his ward was ... less favoured, and why many other wards in less affluent, Labour held wards received a fraction of the budget, and in the case of Colindale, nothing at all in the last year. 

Mrs Angry asked, to no avail, why safety measures outside a primary and nursery school had a lower priority than the pavements of say, Princes Park Avenue, which had £500,000 spent on it in two years. There was no sensible response: how could there be? What: that the life of a child in a Tory ward is worth more than that of one in a Labour one? That would be grossly distasteful, wouldn't it?

West Finchley Labour councillor Kath McGuirk agreed that the delays and disproportionate spending were unacceptable. The accident spots and traffic hazards in Squires Lane have been known about for years, and nothing done.

Mrs Angry had invited Councillor Cohen to comment on the points raised. All he could manage, however, was a mumbled piece of nonsense about funding being based on 'need'. Yeah, right. Whose needs?

Labour's Arjun Mittra, who represents East Finchley, said there was a wider issue at stake: in his own ward he had 18 outstanding defects, reported months ago. 

Dean Cohen tried to blame this on the reporting system, whereas some of us more cynically minded citizens might think the lack of resources, due to funding being diverted unfairly elsewhere were possibly a factor.

Mrs Angry's second question, again held over from the last, filibustered meeting, and with a frankly insulting response, bearing in mind the length of time this issue has been complained of.
How long has the park keeper's lodge in Victoria Park been vacant? Why is it still vacant? 


How much revenue from rent has been lost since the tenants were moved out? How much has keeping the property secured cost? 

When was the property last inspected to ensure the building is still sound and not deteriorating through neglect? 

Has the property been valued, and if so what is the value? What plans have been made for the sale of the property?

The response from a Property Services manager:


Following legal advice the Council is currently considering its position in
relation to this matter.


There was no extra information to add.

This historic property was emptied of its tenants nearly three years ago - a family with small children were evicted - or 'decanted', as the council described it, and has since stood, empty, vulnerable and decaying, exposed to vandalism and a magnet for anti-social behaviour and drug dealing. Why? 

Because it is one of those assets marked up for the car boot sale that Barnet Tories want to have with any public properties they can flog, libraries, museums, anything that isn't nailed down, whether or not it is part of our local architectural heritage.

Just as with our Carnegie library in Friern Barnet, our Grade 2* listed Church Farmhouse Museum, the lodge keeper's cottage is of no value to the Barnet Tory sensibility, and our councillors would all be perfectly happy if they all fell down, or burnt down: easier to sell as a property development then, of course.

As it happened, Mary, a resident who lives right opposite the lodge was at the meeting, and she told the panel how long she has been worried about the state of the building, the trespassing, having to call the police, and the impact on the local area. No interest, no comment from the Tories - and nothing will be done.

After commenting on this, she was scheduled to speak on another theme: the long running saga of the Dollis Valley Green Walk, whose route, despite the clear clue in the name Walk, seems to suggest to our officers that it must be made accessible to cyclists. 

Mary said she was a little nervous. Reuben Thompstone said very solemnly, with no sense of irony, albeit to the accompaniment of much mirth in the audience, that she should not be: this is a very welcoming place, he said.

Mary gave a charming talk, illustrated with the novel use of props: a dolls' bicycyle, Barbie, Ken, and a couple of their offspring. 

(Did they have offspring? Did they get married? I always assumed Ken was gay, or reluctant to commit, perhaps. The one that lived in our house, anyway, and led a life of hell, as permanent escort to the twenty seven Barbies accumulated by Miss Angry). But anyway.

Much as we need more cycle paths in Barnet, and elsewhere, the rights of walkers along the course of a Green Walk should really be paramount, shouldn't they? The right of someone to walk slowly along a tranquil path, by a babbling brook, ought not to be ruined by the worry that some speeding cyclist is going to come out of nowhere and make you jump out of the way, or tumble into the babbling brook, especially if you are elderly, or disabled, or a small child. 

And if the use of the path is going to be changed, there should be consultation. Local residents associations, such as the Friends of Windsor Open Space, headed by Boris botherer Dennis Pepper, should be consulted. They have not been, and nor has any Equalities Impact Assessment been made, and for very good reason: yet again in the noble tradition of consultation, in Barnet: such consultation might produce the wrong outcome. The outcome that does not fit the decision already made - to 'improve' the footpath for cyclists, because funding for cycling is available.

While residents such as the redoutable Mr Pepper were making points about this nonsultation, by the way, Mrs Angry spotted Councillor Cohen apparently laughing as he made some whispered observation to an acquaintance in the back of the room. What the joke was, we do not know.

Mrs Angry had a vision of the past, Broken Barnet in black and white: a comedy classic, with Brian Coleman as Colonel Mainwaring, and Councillor Cohen as Pike. Who would have thought that the boy would take over the Home Guard, with such hilarious consequences?

At ease.

Not so hilarious was the next item: questions on the subject of Your Choice Barnet, from resident Tirza Waisel.

 There are vulnerable residents in this area who use services provided by Your Choice Barnet and to whom Barnet Council has a legal duty of care. How will Barnet Council protect these residents from a decline in quality of service resulting from YCB’s treatment of the care workers employed to look after them? 

 If Your Choice Barnet is in such financial difficulty, will LBB take its services back in-house to ensure a proper fulfilment of its duty of care to the residents using these services?

 As the sole shareholder and owner of Your Choice Barnet and its main funder, why does Barnet Council not ensure it pays YCB £21.81 per hour per service user so that YCB have sufficient funding to run good services without claiming it needs to cut its employees’ salaries by 9.5%?

All very good questions. 

The response, to all three, from an officer in 'Adults and Communities' was: Response to follow. Oh. 

Now we understood why Kate Kennally was present. 

The more power that the members of the senior management team acquire, the more grandiose their job titles become, of course. 

For a brief period of lunacy, two of our highest paid officers revelled in the preposterous twin appointments of Director of Place, and Director of People. 

The Tory councillors may be happy to allow their officers to run the council by proxy for them, and tell them, the councillors what to do, but they certainly don't like it when the said officers start to encroach on their sacred territory: the world of pomp and pomposity, where status alone counts, as described by the trappings of office. 

They didn't like the universal, heroic scale of these titles, so they took them away, and made them take rather more prosaic labels. Kate Kennally, therefore, is now, not Director of People, but Strategic Director for Communities. Yes, there is Strategy, in One Barnet. In theory, at least. No community, clearly: frowned upon, only people, mostly annoying people, but it is quite the thing now to pretend you care about them, hence the name change.

So, Ms Kennally had graced the Forum with her presence, in order, as it became evident, to address the PR disaster of Your Choice Barnet, the catastrophic enterprise set up by Barnet, on the basis that it is possible to make profit from the provision of care to vulnerable and disabled people, and that there would be so much profit that you could screw out of such a venture, it could be used to subsidise Barnet's social housing company, Barnet Homes. 

As it turned out, you can't do either, which was already pretty obvious to all but the private consultants who were paid millions and millions of pounds of our money to come up with a clearly flawed business model, which collapsed, leaving the poor old local taxpayer to cough up a million quid in the first year just to keep it going. 

Funny, isn't it, how a Tory council, so keen on financial efficiency, is so inept when it comes to running any sort of business?

Now of course, as YCB continues to sink, it has been decided it is necessary to make ... 'efficiencies' ... by punishing the already very low paid care workers who do this most sensitive and vital work, and cutting their wages by 9.5 per cent. 


There had recently been a 100% vote for strike action, reluctantly taken, by employees facing such desperate cuts in their livelihoods, with many families completely supportive of their decision, knowing that the support they provide can only worsen, should staff be reduced to even lower standards of pay.

How can you defend cuts of nearly ten per cent imposed on staff already struggling to survive on the low wages they receive? Kate Kennally gave it her best shot: and it was a truly enlightening experience for those of us who were obliged to sit and listen. A masterclass in corporate drivel, a shameful attempt to justify the cuts, and invert the very logic of the situation, in true Barnet style.

What is important in the nature of the relationship between client and carer -  the support giver and the person needing care? Quality of interaction, we heard. Ok. Agreed. And it seems that cutting the wages of the support giver will not in any way compromise that quality of interaction. Really?

We were wrong to think that these care workers were badly paid, anyway, apparently. They have 'a higher rate of pay, compared to others'. Like senior managers in the London Borough of Barnet, but without all the zeros on the pay check.

Mrs Angry wondered where these 'others' were that were paid even less. Albania? China? In the nineteenth century? 

The rate of pay was all carefully calculated, we heard.

Clearly.

Ms Kennally was pleased that Strike Action had been called off (for the moment).

Strike Action, of course, was 'detrimental', for users. Detrimental, presumably, in a sense different to the impact of using employees struggling on the lowest scales of pay to look after disabled residents and their personal care, or substituting them with a series of agency workers?

In answer to a question from a resident whose son uses YCB, she said we need to reduce overhead costs. 

Do we, thought Mrs Angry? Will that help? Or are you simply dragging out the slow, painful death of a fatally ill concept, simply in order to save the face of our Tory councillors and shire up the credibility of an authority determined to pursue the path of mass privatisation?

Another resident and user of YCB asked if and when YCB finally fails, will it go back in house - or be passed on to Capita?

I think we all know the answer to that, don't you?

Tirza Waisel had a useful suggestion for Ms Kennally: why does she not take a cut in her own salary - a very comfortable six figure sum, with added pension contributions - and other directors?

We didn't seem to get a response to that. What we did hear was that - and Mrs Angry apologises for putting this phrase before you - that we - which we was unclear, but you can count me out of this collective thought - we need to create 'a sustainable market place in care'.

A sustainable market place in care.

Is there any worse condemnation of the corporate culture of this council, than that they subscribe to such inverted principles? 

That the care of our most vulnerable residents, your mum, my dad, someone's daughter, someone's neighbour, is dependent on not some intrinsic right to support, but determined by market forces, the language of commerce, and the success of your own stall in the piazza of monetised compassion?

What a revolting concept.

But now 'we' - the same 'we', or a nicer one, again unclear - are worrying about the importance of that 'human interaction' that may take place, between care giver, and customer - if the price is right. Marvellous. 

We may need to worry about that being compromised by staff feeling demoralised, after their wages have been slashed, and we must help them to feel 'empowered'.

No good being sentimental, Mrs Angry, about their wages being slashed. As Ms Kennally explained grimly, her dangly earrings, like spat out, half sucked boiled sweets, bobbing about incongruously below her own crewcut locks: they had to 'take a haircut'.

Yes: take a haircut.

Mrs Angry was somewhat taken aback by the use of such a phrase, in reference to the pitifully paid care workers of Your Choice Barnet, facing such a punishment. It was reminiscent of the punishment handed out to female collaborators after the war, a public humiliation. 

In fact it is a translation of the term 'kourema', used in reference to the Greek economic crisis. Used in this context, it was a crass remark, and very telling. 

We heard that the workers of YCB must take this ritual punishment, sacrificing their right to a decent wage, while YCB 'grows'. 

It isn't growing, yelled Mrs Angry: it's failing!

But it doesn't matter that Your Choice Barnet is failing. Even when it is clinically dead, it will wheeled out from the One Barnet warehouse, to be propped up behind a stall,  in the market place of care, a mummified corpse, overseeing the next stage of the sale of our borough. 

No one must acknowledge failure, in Broken Barnet. The word does not exist. And if the word did exist, it could not be uttered in the carefully filtered air of a Residents Forum, for fear of contaminating us all with a viral urge to seek out a democratic solution, or rise up in revolution,  and man the barricades, get a bit shouty in the public gallery at the Town Hall, or refuse to pay our library fines. 

This is England, and this is Broken Barnet, June 2014.

The next Residents Forum is not until October. 

Probably just as well.
Viewing all 403 articles
Browse latest View live