Bringing it all Back Home

                                                                                                  

                                                                                                     Pic credit @hanlemic

Barnet is probably best known for two things. The Battle of. And football. 

Yes, Barnet FC.

We are talking High Barnet, or Chipping Barnet, rather than the Broken Borough, of course. 

Or are we? No one really knows where the battle took place, although people keep trying to find it, and keep changing their minds about where it was, and – a Barnet theme this - where the bodies are buried. 

And strictly speaking Barnet FC’s home is – was – in Underhill, the area at the bottom of Barnet Hill, where horses used to be switched before staggering up to the top, before Thomas Telford levelled out the gradient.

As for the battle: they used to think it was at Hadley Green, then Kitts End, now they think it was … Hadley Green. Well, I think they should be looking at Dead Man’s Bottom, for obvious reasons. And possibly around Hadley Green station, as rumour has it loads of bones were found there when building work was taking place sometime last century, but it was kept quiet as contractors didn’t want to be held up by pesky archaeologists. 

Finding some real trace of the battle would be of huge benefit to Barnet: it’s the only battleground in Greater London and would attract tourism, a much needed boost for the high street and town centre. 

Recently there were exciting plans for Barnet Museum (still only in place because the former Tory council couldn’t find the deeds necessary to flog, like Church Farmhouse Museum) to open a Wars of the Roses centre (it would be the first in England) – in the 16th century Tudor Hall building, near the church. But they don’t have enough money, and of course the now Labour council isn’t interested in securing the funding, or helping to find the funding from elsewhere. 

This is a shame. And so is the reluctance of the same councillors to support what would also be of huge benefit to the area, with no cost to the borough: plans to bring Barnet FC back to its home in Underhill, with a new stadium and community facilities, situated on a large and boring field, the so called Barnet Playing Fields, which in theory is part of the Green Belt, but really surrounded by a residential area, and underused. 

This is rather puzzling, to say the least, as in opposition Labour criticised the Tories for their campaign of attrition against the football club, and their fawning over Saracens, a non local rugby club owned by Nigel Wray, a resident of Totteridge. Barnet Tories gave the former Copthall stadium to Saracens for a peppercorn rent and allowed them to expand and develop it. Then, quite incredibly, they arranged a loan of public money for the private club – to the tune of £23 million. Perhaps one day the truth about how this symbiotic relationship began will be told. Who knows? 

Barnet Playing Fields

Last summer I was invited, along with hundreds of over excited supporters, to the local Everyman cinema for a screening of a film made about the old Barnet club, as part of the new campaign to apply for planning permission. Was this, you are wondering, because of your internationally acclaimed role as a football pundit, Mrs Angry? 

Well, maybe not.

Let me be honest. I hate football. Hate it. Yes, I secretly do understand the offside rule, but can’t understand why anyone would think it was a good idea in the first place … I detest all forms of sport, in fact. PE lessons at school for me were relentless torture, and I spent most of the time in the gym cupboard hiding from the teachers. 

But watching the old Underhill film was a deeply poignant experience: seeing the extent of joy the club brought to so many - and has done since 1888. The immeasurable benefit in terms of social value and in encouraging engagement in an increasingly isolated and virtual world: the sense of belonging and comradeship. 

The only time I had been to the old Underhill was under duress, forced to sit through a women’s football match, watching 22 somewhat younger PE teachers, with well-developed thighs, run around the pitch and shout rude things at each other. However. I recognise that other people do like football, and I like the fact that there is a local football team, which has so many supporters, and contributes to a sense of local identity. We need such ventures to help build community, as well as help the local economy. The effect on local pubs and the high street since the club was forced out of the borough has been severe: bringing it back would clearly give a huge boost to the area and – oh. And the construction itself would fit very well, wouldn’t it, with the new Labour mantra of ‘growth’. No?

No. Apparently not. 

Our new Labour MP, Dan Tomlinson, was elected just over a year ago. He has been loyal to the government in all its controversial policy decisions – and u turns and has been appointed as a ‘Growth Champion’, pushing for more construction and the economic upturn that this would bring the UK. He has stated himself to be impatient with Nimbyism, and too many regulations standing in the way of developments and new building projects. Yet he appears not to want to lend any support to the new Underhill plans, which might seem somewhat contradictory.

Last week the new plans went to committee – along with hundreds of Bees fans in orange kits – with a recommendation from planning officers that the application should be rejected. And the application was rejected. The two Underhill Labour councillors took different sides: Zahra Beg opposed the plans on behalf of objecting residents, whereas Tim Roberts supported them, commenting: 

“Nobody would expect Tottenham Hotspur to play at Arsenal stadium, Barnet Council should not be telling Barnet FC to play in Harrow.”

Supporters sat open mouthed as they heard officers and councillors list the reasons why they were not going to allow the plans. In desperation, officers cited the potential impact on the environment and our local wildlife. Well, an imaginary impact, rather than potential, in truth, unless you believe in the existence of a colony of otters waiting to move in to the tiny Dollis Brook, now in a real sulk because of plans to build on a nearby field. And then there were the bats, you know, those creatures of the night that planning officers usually don’t give two hoots about (have we mentioned owls?) too many of whom, in my opinion, live in this part of Barnet as it is, including my garden, where they are not welcome. 

Oh, and of course in terms of use, where oh where will local dog walkers go to let their mutts run wild and shit on the grass? (Most of them walk up my road and stare in my windows, before letting them squat on the green outside, in fact). And finally: the kite flyers. Runners. Yes, forget Kabul: Barnet playing fields is the place for this. Well – no one has ever seen it take place, but you know – it could happen. But not if a football stadium is built there. 

So why would councillors and officers feel so strongly about rejecting these plans, anyway? 

Yes, strictly speaking it is on the very edge of the Green Belt – something I feel strongly should be protected from the non affordable housing development some want to see there, but for a leisure facility, in this particular spot, surrounded as we are by so many miles of other, more rural stretches of the Belt? It’s not a problem. If you can build an academy school, you can build a stadium.

But no. Not here. Ok. Where then? 

At the recent Full Council meeting, council leader Barry Rawlings stated that other sites had been offered to the club instead of Barnet Playing Fields – three or four, it was said. And they awaited a response. Oh? What are these sites? But further details ... were not forthcoming. 

Furious supporters vented their feelings on the councillor’s vote to reject the plans on social media and demanded to know what was being withheld from them. Some immediately submitted FOI requests for this information. And then a story -  https://barnetpost.co.uk/2025/07/16/barnet-council-backtracks-on-leaders-claims-it-offered-barnet-football-club-alternative-sites-for-stadium/ appeared in the local Barnet Post which put everything in a new perspective. The council issued a statement contradicting the Leader, saying that the ‘impression’ given by the leader that there had been recent discussions with Barnet FC about alternative sites was ... ‘incorrect’

The article says:

“Responding to questions from Barnet Post: “Which sites in the borough have been offered to Barnet Football Club as alternative sites for a stadium?” and “Has the council now received a response from the club – if so, what was it?” a Barnet Council spokesperson said:

“We have never offered Barnet FC alternative sites, rather, following an initial discussion with the club, we committed to exploring potential locations that could be considered further by them.”

This, in my opinion, is an extraordinary position for the council leader to be in. I’ve never known a statement from the council correcting a remark like this, one made by a leader, so soon before such an important planning application. It arguably leaves the authority open to legal challenge, as the decision made would appear to have been on a false basis, that is to say that the special circumstances of the application were ignored. 

Those who put in FOI requests regarding the alleged alternative sites have now been told Cllr Rawlings cannot respond yet as it the matter is now in the hands of the FOI team. This is nonsense, as the information can be released immediately if the authority wishes: certainly there is no need to string the response out to the maximum 21 day period. 

Just a few of the Barnet fans who attended the committee meeting

The day after the Barnet decision, officers' recommendation was made to approve of the monstrous, totally inappropriate tower block development of Edgware town centre – a highly questionable scheme cooked up by the former Tory council, Capita, and some rather curious local developers, years ago. Odd that they are not listening to the concerns of voters in Edgware, who are hugely opposed to what really is a total overdevelopment, yet here in Barnet, they are choosing to court a few Nimbyist Tory voters in Underhill wards, who will never vote for them anyway, rather than give the many thousands of local Barnet supporters reason to vote Labour, maybe for the first time – votes that will be vital in next year’s local elections.

Labour will also not be retaining marginal Chipping Barnet constituency, at the next general election, if it fails to focus on the needs of local constituents. Too many have already been lost to the fallout over winter fuel allowance, welfare cuts, WASPI, the ‘Island of Strangers’ rhetoric, and so many other issues - and u turns. Banging on about ‘growth’ while ignoring the opportunities offered by a new stadium seems, by their own avowed agenda, to be totally illogical. Not to mention missing the opportunity to build pride in the community, and a sense of identity. But then a lack of vision, unfortunately, has become the hallmark of Labour politics, nationally and locally. 

Still. Bad news for the Bees, good news for the otters, eh?

Learning How Not to Drown, or: Another General Election, in Broken Barnet

It's been a while, I'll grant you, but - for one night only -  here we are. The Great Unpleasantness is upon us: another General Election has come along and all of us here in Broken Barnet must do our electoral duty.

Since the last GE I have moved - from Finchley and Golders Green constituency to Chipping Barnet, once home to the nest of vipers that was the Barnet Tory association, now dying on its feet, due to changes in demographics, a lack of members and activists, and a change in the political climate.

So what, I hear you ask, of the other two Barnet constituencies? (In fact, Friern Barnet has now been joined to Hornsey, so strictly speaking there are three others in total). 

In Hendon, Matthew Offord has seen the train coming and bailed out. Good riddance.

 The new Tory candidate, Ameet Jogia - ha ha, is espousing the cause of clean air through less development, ignoring the mass profit driven development of Labour areas of his ward by the former Tory councillor, and now, hilariously, trying to endear himself to the residents fighting the long threatened development of the conservation areas in the Burroughs, by the pointless Hendon Hub plan. He assures them he can lead their fight against this terrible development. Which was, let me think, created by ... the Tory council and their contracted service providers, Capita. Hopefully the local Labour candidate  David Pinto-Duchinsky will see him off. 

And good riddance too to Finchley and Golders Green MP Mike Freer, also standing down. The godfather of the disastrous mass outsourcing of local council services, when Leader of Barnet council, who spent his Parliamentary years trying to further his career, getting no further than a couple of insignificant appointments, while watching his brighter colleague in Chipping Barnet ending up as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. The Tory candidate who replaces him is Alex Deane, a self styled 'political commentator' who apparently pops up on GB news, from time to time.

Winning smile?

 He looks exactly like an AI designed photofit of the sort of Tory candidate that is guaranteed to appeal to loyal Tory voters (if there are any left in FGG) and to do the opposite for anyone else. Good luck, old son. Might be kinder if it wasn't for the company you keep: take a look at who is out canvassing with him. Yes, Freer, but also, second left - Brian Coleman, disgraced former councillor and AM, once thrown out of the party (by CCHQ) after this incident. 

There is only one possible electoral choice in FGG: Labour's Sarah Sackman, who is an exceptional candidate: highly intelligent and able, but compassionate and caring too. Not qualities you will find in many Tory candidates. 

Back to Chipping Barnet, then.

Saturday night was the occasion of the Barnet Hustings, and once again we gathered in the historic parish church at High Barnet, packing the pews so as to hear the arguments from electoral candidates. Or some of them, anyway: Tory MP Theresa Villiers, Labour candidate Dan Tomlinson, David Farbey for the Green Party, and - ah: Hamish Haddow for Reform. The Libdem candidate could not attend, due to family care commitments. 

Theresa Villiers listens to Reform candidate Hamish Haddow

This was a re-run of a similar event, some years ago, when Villiers faced a young Labour representative, Amy Trevethan, who performed admirably on the night and in the election itself: with some support from the local party, she may even have beaten Villiers. This time round, as the local Labour party and London Region have slowly woken up to the novel idea that there might be votes in Chipping Barnet, the candidate has had at least two visits from the Leader, with Keir Starmer visiting Whetstone twice, once filmed in a cafe that had not yet opened, and then for some reason in Boots, our local branch where there are usually more bored security staff than customers. 

The Labour candidate is a young guy, Dan Tomlinson, whose selection was probably unintended by the unaccountable London Region officers who oversaw the somewhat undemocratically edited long listing of candidates (only one woman and three white men) - complaints were made about this by several local members, but ignored. Not his fault, however, and he spoke well on the evening. 

The church was packed: a reassuring sign that despite living in an increasingly virtual world, people still want to take part in real life political debate, in their local communities.

A couple of police officers stood at the back and perhaps due to Villiers' previous post as NI secretary, at the front, a couple of plain clothed security men in suits spent the evening visually scanning the audience, and, or so it seemed, staring suspiciously at our row, with at least two people of Irish descent shifting uncomfortably in their seats and thinking of bad times in Kilburn, in the 1970s. To be fair, at least one of us was also thinking about Villiers's forbear who was so disastrously in charge of Ireland during the Famine, and without whose mismanagement my mother's family and so many other Irish migrants would not have arrived here, in unstoppable boats, so long ago.

Stopping boats, of course, is the obsession not only of the Tory right, but of the limited company that is the Reform 'party', whose representative on Saturday night, a Mr Hamish Haddow, seemed curiously reticent about his movement's more controversial beliefs and policies. Perhaps he has learned to be more circumspect about his views. By a strange coincidence, it seems there was, once upon a time in Welwyn Hatfield, a Tory candidate also called Hamish Haddow who was dropped by the local Conservative association due to allegedly offensive tweets. This Hamish Haddow then stated he had stepped down voluntarily, due to 'online abuse'. 

The hustings debate at St John's proceeded not just with the assistance of unacknowledged security, but watched by the all seeing eye of the Almighty and his agents in the church of England: stern rules for behaviour were laid out by the presiding ministers, and a volley of prayers and blessings was discharged over the heads of the slightly perplexed audience at the beginning and end of the event. The thought occurred that these hustings might really be some sort of covert harvesting scam: harvesting souls, that is, rather than email addresses and personal data. Probably an unproductive venture, in the dark heart of Chipping Barnet, for so long, but no longer, the stronghold of self serving suburban Conservatism - of the worst kind, when Brian Coleman was its star turn at fundraising strawberry teas, and Theresa Villiers was always returned to power, effortlessly passing through all electoral hurdles, on a fragrant cloud of feudal loyalty.

At this hustings, however, Villiers sat to one side, no longer the supreme embodiment of that self serving suburban Conservatism, dressed in her usual Thatcherite blue business wear, but now rather a forlorn figure, pale and nervous, peering through old fashioned specs and wearing a light pink, floaty dress, a look chosen perhaps to engage sympathy, in her hour of need. Blue, of course, is a forbidden colour now, for Tory candidates. Her leaflets are printed in green and do not mention The Party Which Cannot Be Named.

A few Tory councillors, including former council leader Richard Cornelius and his wife took their places: a a bus load of white haired, white middle class Tory activists had already hogged the front seats, primed to support their candidate - although on one side they had to compete for space with a hard rump of hard eyed Reform supporters, keen to see their man, in his shiny new turquoise Reform tie, fill the ancient church with Faragist heresy. Interestingly, some of the members of this cohort also applauded some of Villiers' pronouncements. 

Rather puzzlingly, and clearly in honour of the Euros, the hustings organisers had decided to deploy a referee, standing in the aisle, waving red and yellow cards at the participants. No one was sent off, unfortunately.

Only six questions were allowed: they had to be submitted in writing and vetted before the event, which rather put a damper on proceedings. In their own way, however, the responses perfectly demonstrated the character and indeed the relative chances of the candidates in succeeding in their campaigns. 

For the Greens, David Farbey spoke well, but clearly is experienced in addressing an audience, and his common sense views, unfortunately, appear to be atypical of the party's usual circus of barking activists and leaders. 

Reform. Well. Mr Hamish Haddow was not experienced in addressing an audience, and indeed after a couple of sentences, some bad tempered members of the audience yelled that they couldn't hear him. Good, I said. Probably too loudly. When he spoke up it was to tell us, in a heavy South African accent, that "there was so much to be proud of, here in Britain". He claimed a family association with Barnet: his ancestor was Thomas Ravenscroft, he said, whose memorial is In This Very Church. We sat and listened then, for the rattling sound of ancient bones, spinning in their marble tomb. 

Theresa Villiers, when it was her turn to answer questions, stood and addressed an unseen entity hovering high up, at the back of the church, with a curious sort of theatrical fervour that seemed out of step with the tone of the event, and reminiscent, perhaps, of Joan of Arc about to to be tied to the stake. She spoke with great conviction, about nothing very much, reverting to the dark magic power of saying the names of Sadiq Khan and Keir Starmer, as if this in itself would manifest some sort of hellish fury on Labour's campaign. To be fair, it provoked a mild round of cheers from her loyal Tory friends in the front pews. 

She was, she said, 'a strong opponent of Ulez expansion'. Presumably she had been a big fan of the original Ulez scheme, run out by her man Boris Johnson, but now doesn't want the residents of Barnet to breathe clean air. In fact she explained, learning nothing from Susan Hall's campaign, that her sympathies lay with those who 'cherished a car'. 

In contrast, Labour's Dan Tomlinson spoke of the worry he had, when walking through the traffic fumes of Whetstone High Street (part of the Great North Road) with his three month old baby. Who is more cherished? A dirty old gas guzzling, polluting car, or a new born child? Again, Villiers is simply out of touch with the reality of life for most ordinary families in Barnet. 

There was a question about police numbers. The Labour candidate pointed out that yes, numbers had dropped because the Tory goverment had cut London's policing funds. He could have added that our stations and officers had been cut by Villier's mate Boris Johnson. When she tried to suggest she was going to save Barnet police station, she was roundly booed, and many people reminded her - loudly - that it had been Johnson who had first put this station on the list for cuts. 

A question about 'communities'. Responses from the more sensible candidates referred to the importance of facilities for young people. Villiers ignored the impact of cuts on community schemes and waffled on about 'Prevent'. The Tory approach seems to be that it is better to grass up kids with dangerous thoughts than investing in preventing young people from forming those thoughts in the first place. 

The Reform candidate thought the solution to community problems was youth clubs, Barnet FC, Saracens - Grow them, he suggested, of the latter, clearly unaware that the previous Tory council had lent them £26 million of public money to subsidise their private rugby club. His biggest idea, however, was that children should be taught to swim, so that - as he explained - they would 'learn how not to drown'. 

The image of a child washed up on a beach facing the English channel suddenly appeared in my head, for some reason. 

A question about integrity in politics. David Farbey referred to the Nolan Principles, a model which has been totally abandoned by successive Tory governments - and listed just some of the terrible scandals associated with these administrations: expenses, duck houses, MPs watching tractor porn in the House, Johnson, the betting scandal ...

Villiers, who not so long ago was one of a group of Tory MPs given a suspension from Parliament for trying to influence a judge presiding over the trial of a former colleague for sexual assault, began her response dismissively by commenting that we had all been worrying about this issue 'since the Roman Republic' ... Decline and Fall, Theresa, decline and fall ...

I thought about my own correspondence with her last year headed, in regard to her acceptance of a donation from Mrs Chernukhin, the wife of Putin's former associate, and the potential for, or a possible perception of, a conflict of interest in Villiers' membership of the committee tasked with overseeing/suppressing the (redacted) Russia Report. I had asked her why she did not recuse herself. Her response was that Mrs Chernukhin now has a British passport, and claimed that the report had been drafted before she joined the committee. Checking this out it seems she joined in June 2020, the report was (sort of) published on the 21st July. 

Her career has drifted in the doldrums since then, after backing the wrong candidates for PM - what do we want? Andrea Leadsom! 

In her closing comments she seemed to accept that things weren't going to go well for her: she made a comment about us having heard from three men explaining 'why I should step aside' - as if the constituents' votes had nothing to do with the electoral outcome. She had also pleaded with the audience to let her be their voice against - erm - Sadiq Khan, and Keir Starmer, implying that although she accepted there was going to be a massive Labour victory, she, Theresa, would remain in her rightful place as the appointed champion of Chipping Barnet. Noblesse Oblige, after all.

I think not. I think the majority of people in the audience and in the constituency will prefer a message of hope of something better, someone, as Labour's Dan Tomlinson put it, 'on the side of the vulnerable' and wanting 'a just and fairer society'. 

Villiers sat down, defeated. She knows the game is up. 

If I wasn't a heartless woman, with a long memory, I might have felt sorry for her. But I am, and I don't. 

There is no choice, on July 4th. Don't waste your vote on Greens, or Independents - and if you think Reform has any answers, please give your head a wobble: choose the only candidate who can remove Villiers from her seat, and help elect an alternative to the years' long succession of corrupt, incompetent and cruel Tory governments. 

We thought Britain was broken when Cameron was in charge, didn't we? Now we know we are at the threshold of something much, much worse. Do I think Labour is practically perfect, in every Poppins like way? No. Is Starmer without sin? No. I don't like his u turns on so many policies: but - he wants to be elected: politics is always, and will always be, the art of the possible, what can be done, rather than what we want. 

Welcome to the Borough of (Hopefully No Longer Broken) Barnet

Ok. I've been putting it off, but here is a sentence I've wanted to write for ... at least twelve years. Well, longer, in fact, much longer.

We now live in the London Borough of (Hopefully No Longer Broken) Barnet.  

Yes. As you know, Barnet Tories have been given the order of the boot, by residents, on a scale that was unthinkable, before May 5th, and is still hard to comprehend. They now have only 22 seats - and Labour has nearly double, with 41. By any measure of success, this is quite extraordinary: by Barnet standards, it is nothing less than sensational. 

As predicted in the previous post, the Tory group Leader, (for the time being, anyway), Dan Thomas, has blindly led his group into political oblivion, despite his magnificent manifesto, based on such gambits as  a false claim about freezing council tax, and a fatal misreading of the rules of #angryaboutbins, and boasting of doing something that absolutely no one thinks twice about, ie emptying said bins, ie a service that we pay for, but somehow something for which they think they deserve congratulations, and four more years in charge of the borough.

Thomas was asked on the live BBC election results show for his opinion on the reasons for his party's disastrous performance. With a face like a slapped you know what, and through clenched teeth, he issued a carefully shaped response which blamed 'a perfect storm' of issues - which naturally had nothing whatsoever to do with him, or his party's performance in power. It was pleasing to see him use this phrase, however, as clearly he was subliminally remembering the prescient tone - and titles - of Broken Barnet's previous posts, here and here,  in which the Hendon Hub development fiasco, and the Tories's mishandling of it,  served as an appropriate metaphor for their looming nemesis.

It is true that national issues helped turn Barnet residents into Labour voters: or possibly, as Thomas would have us think, encouraged his loyal electorate to stay at home, sulking, rather than vote at all. 

Covid, Brexit, the incompetence, corruption and lawlessness of the Johnson government, all of this and more has had a major impact on the local elections this time. And yes, the boundary changes here were beneficial to Labour, to a certain extent. 

Whether or not Barnet Tories want to admit it, however, they are entirely responsible for the way the borough's local services have been mismanaged, and the way in which engagement with the democratic process has been made virtually impossible for residents at a time not only of increasingly dreadful standards of services, but also while witnessing, helplessly, an unprecedented level of monstrous over development - and most significantly, now encroaching on areas where formerly Tory leaning residents live. 

The tower blocks marring the skyline, the relentless demolition of much loved landmarks like the Medical Research Centre in Mill Hill, the White Bear pub in Hendon, the Lodge in Victoria Park; the replacement of perfectly usable housing for non affordable housing; the lack of enforcement of planning breaches in their neighbourhoods: all of this has begun to annoy and alienate the sort of people the Tories needed to keep onside. And here we are, and there they are, sitting on the opposition benches. 

Unnoticed by most, no doubt much to his chagrin, former disgraced Tory councillor, AM and village gossip Brian Coleman has taken his stubby little pencil and written a new blogpost (full of grammatical errors) with his thoughts on the election catastrophe. 

Rather to my alarm, he has somehow reached a point of view in agreement with me on quite a few issues. You ok, Brian? Or maybe it's me that needs a lie down.

No, I won't link to his blog as really, one should not encourage him. 

He focuses, anyway, on the ruthless (and pretty stupid) deselection of Tory members - especially women. He commends Hendon's Nizza Fluss for "her  principled and vocal opposition to the so called "Hendon Hub" , the absurd joint development with Middlesex University which post pandemic looks even more unnecessary ..." 

What he has to say about new Hendon councillor Alex Prager, I could not possibly repeat. Of course I didn't laugh.

Fascinating to see that the library cutter Reuben Thompstone's well deserved fall from grace, after standing in the unwinnable Underhill ward, was reportedly preceded by being turned down by three other areas, as well as his own ward of Golders Green. Awful shame. Brian advises him to ditch the 'silly moustache', amongst other things. Mmm. Not sure that will help. He is the moustache: the moustache is he. There is nothing else.

Dan Thomas, who not so long ago was happy to be seen with Coleman escorting the losing Tory candidate at the London Assembly count, gets little comfort from his chum now. He reckons he can only stagger on for a year at least, and then will have to return to his sun lounger (I paraphrase ...) And then:

I wish the new Labour Council well especially as they undue (sic) some of the dafter decisions of the last few years, Hendon Hub , North Finchley regeneration and of course the horrendous partnership with Capita that has proved a disaster and has had Tory Councillors tearing their hair out . 

Goodness me. Did you vote for it, Brian?

 

Over the last twelve years of publishing this blog, there has been nothing but a slow, insidious, incremental inevitability that the Tories would reach this point of self generated folly - and lose control of the council.

Twelve years and a thousand posts: so much awful stuff to report -  first from the time of MetPro, and the illegally operating, jackbooted thugs that the Tory councillors appointed to keep residents out of the Town Hall, a scandal which led to the discovery of thousands of missing contracts.

Next up: the late, much missed blogger Dan Hope spotted, late one night, that the Tories had sneaked onto a council agenda a proposal to award themselves massive rises in their allowances, even while lecturing us about the need for 'austerity'. We wrote about it: they were forced to retreat.

Then came the strategically organised embedding of the idea of mass outsourcing of services: facilitated by senior officers, consultants and representatives of potential tendering companies. Next came the courtship by Capita, in circumstances never fully understood. The Tories were easily fooled into signing up, without reading the contract that contained so many cleverly designed ways of squeezing every penny out of local taxpayers. We warned them, the unions warned them: they didn't want to know. But we were right, weren't we? And taxpayers have had to pay the cost: more than double the estimated cost.

We sat and watched, and reported, as Capita drew up a long list of 'development opportunities' - opportunities for themselves, camouflaged as 'regeneration'. The mass overdevelopment began, every last corner of the borough that could be grabbed was marked for use. They are only giving up on regeneration now because the opportunities themselves have dried up. Planning has become the favourite cash cow, with a system so saturated with conflicts of interest the entire borough has become helpless before the predation of major developers, pushed by lobbyists, and agents, and none of this in ways which are transparent or accountable. Labour must wrench this service from the hands of Capita, and take it back in house.

We sat and watched and reported, as Capita looked for every last gainshare payment and reward they could muster from such heartless measures as snatching the Freedom Passes of disabled residents, many of them with learning difficulties, some left stranded, helpless, as they discovered their passes had been summarily stopped, without warning. After the fuss we kicked up, this nasty trick was reversed. 

Another shameful episode was the attempt, in order to make a pre-election bribe via a tiny cut in council tax, (the cost of one cup of coffee a month) to take away the desperately needed respite care funding for families of children with severe and complex disabilities. Some of the parents came to the committee to beg the Tories not to do this, their children in wheelchairs. The children, as part of their conditions,  made a lot of involuntary noises - and were told twice by the Chair to be quiet. We reported this story: the cut was restored.

We sat and watched, reported and protested, as our once magnificent library service was gutted, and destroyed, by the hopeless philistinism, one might say hopeless nihilism, of the Barnet Tory councillors. They didn't care. None of them valued libraries, or the local museum. If only they had read more as children, or been taken to visit museums, maybe they might have developed a greater degree of imagination, and empathy, and not ended up as such a bunch of soulless fools, of course.

There have been many, many more stories like these: the millions spent on a depot that was bought for a song only just beforehand, the highly curious tale of the £23 million loan to Saracens, when they could not get a commercial loan; the absolute scandal of West Hendon, where social tenants were tricked out of their homes, and the land given away in secret to developers - throughout all of these we - bloggers, activists, residents, campaigners, have tried our best to question and report what is happening and engage with members, in order to take a meaningful role in the local democratic process. 

But the more successful we were in raising these issues, where so much was at stake, politically and financially, the more repressive were the measures taken by Barnet Tories to silence any challenge, or even debate. The Standards regime was effectively dismantled. The consultation process was trashed, and outcomes ignored. Worse, they amended the council's Constitution, to prevent any challenging questions of policy proposals or decisions: we were gagged, by our own elected representatives. In the end the only voice left for dissenting residents was at the ballot box.

So. My advice to Barnet Tories? 

Kick out Dan Thomas, and elect someone as Leader who has clear judgement, respect for the views of residents, and is prepared to work hard at communicating with those residents, listening to their views and putting their best interests at the front of every policy decision. 

Remember that representation as an elected member is a privilege, and conveys a duty to the community that put you in that position, and that you need to demonstrate to that community that you understand this. Find a modicum of humility, compassion for those in need, and a sense of civic pride - not the sort that relies on the pantomime of council meetings, and slap up dinners in the Haven, at our expense, but one that has a vision of a better place, and a map that might show us how to get there.

Learn from the mistakes of the last few administrations: put up candidates with some life experience, and some degree of competence in handling large budgets, rather than coopting chums or relatives who fancy a life of performative civic functions, rather than working hard for the community. 

Accept the concept of community, in fact: embrace 'the other', get to know the wide and wonderful diversity of the people of this borough, all cultures, faiths, ethnicities. Understand the needs of those who are less advantaged, vulnerable, disabled, and now struggling simply to survive. Show some consideration for older residents, who are excluded from the virtual world of technology in which you live. 

Learn to appreciate the value of culture, heritage: the need for social hubs - for a properly funded library service. 

Wean yourselves off a dependency on the lie of 'private good, public bad'. Don't listen to the whisperings of consultants, lobbyists, and senior officers. Easycouncil was a crashing failure: Your Choice Barnet was a crashing failure - admit it. You can't make profit from a public service - nor should you try.

Stop despising the very concept of social housing. Stop seeing the role of councillor as an agent for development, and developers. Immerse yourselves in the principles of integrity, honesty, transparency and accountability. Here's a novel idea: all of you declare ALL of your pecuniary interests. What have you got to hide?

Oh. 

Moving on. 

We are now in uncharted waters, with a Labour council set to run the borough for the first time ever. Unless you include the Labour-Libdem coalition which lasted from 1994 to 2002, of course. But this year's election saw the Libdems wiped out: hardly surprising as the two former councillors were both defectors from other parties, and the Leader, Gabriel Rozenberg, who apparently thinks he will be Libdem MP for the new Finchley and Muswell Hill parliamentary constituency, (he won't) was not elected in West Finchley, where he chose, rather foolishly, to stand rather than in his previous ward of Hampstead Garden Suburb, where he might at least have depended on some personal support. Now for the first time in many, many years: there is no third party represented on the council.

Mrs Angry's advice for the new Labour administration, then? 

Stand by, comrades.

Things have perhaps not got off to the greatest start, from my point of view. Let's hope it is just a misunderstanding. But I reserve judgement, at this stage - and I have to remain critical, as I would be with a Tory administration.

Because you see, the council agenda for tonight's first Full Council meeting, as spotted by fellow blogger John Dix, has put forward changes to the Constitution in regard to the rights of residents to engage in council meetings. Good, you might think, remembering the extraordinarily drastic restrictions imposed by the last, hard right Tory council.

But they have kept the restrictions - and worse, have devalued the already devalued Residents' Forums by amalgamating them with area committees. This means effectively that residents will still be unable to question, in any meaningful way, their elected representatives at any council meeting.

You may recall that Labour members joined residents in expressing their outrage at the gagging laws brought in by the Tory administration. 

We then discover that they are adopting the same measures. 

Once this was revealed, excuses were made, we are going to consult people on engagement before making changes - well, changes to the Constitution have been made, with no consultation - and that 'governance' wouldn't let them make more changes at this stage. 

The truth is that some of the more right of centre members of the Labour group have always somewhat resented the way in which bloggers, activists and campaigners have held Barnet Tories to account - that is to say, feeling obliged, at times, to take on the function of an effective opposition. 

Latest news on this, however, is, as the meeting looms large this evening, that hints are being dropped that the gagging rules now will now be dropped, at the next Constitution meeting. Wot, no consultation? Ok with the Monitoring Officer, is it, whose contract was renewed, just before the end of the Tory administration? 

If this is the case, it really should have been made clear and indicated right from the off, so as to manage expectations.

Watching the Labour Leader on election night telling the BBC that it wasn't so much Labour who won the council as the Tories who lost it was an astonishing moment. Apart from the somewhat  message it sent to all those activists who worked so hard to canvas for Labour before election day, it struck a warning note: being too comfortable in opposition is perhaps not the best preparation for delivering the radical new administration that is needed in order to undo the damage of so much reckless, heartless Tory policies imposed on this borough.

Labour must ignore the blandishments and assurances of the senior management team. In fact, get rid of as many of them as you can. They have become too used to directing policy, rather than implementing decisions taken as part of the democratic process, by members. This suited the Tory administrations, due to their natural tendency to laziness, and apathy. This is how we ended up with the disastrous Capita contracts - consultants and senior officers - with the help of one or two key Tory councillors manoeuvring behind the scenes - senior officers were relentlessly pushing through the proposals, meeting in secret, making major decisions about the shape of the mass outsourcing, without even informing the then Tory Leader, as we saw at the time of the second contract proposals. 

As fellow blogger John Dix has predicted, the senior management team is likely to try to lure the new Labour administration into thinking they have no option but to extend the contracts. This is not true. And it will be a sharp test of judgement, if they listen to this, and do allow any extension. The benefit will be to Capita's increasingly worried shareholders, not Barnet's range of failing council services. 

The Labour group is without question a collection of decent, well meaning people, and there are some excellent new members now going to be put in positions of great responsibility in the new council. 

Barnet is lucky to have hard working, conscientious Labour councillors who, unlike  many of the previous Tory representatives, are fully dedicated to their roles, and have a genuine sense of civic vocation and duty, as well as an acute understanding of the needs of the residents of this borough whose voices have been overlooked for so long. 

A council which has people like Ross Houston, Anne Clarke, Sara Conway and Arjun Mittra, and newcomers like Liron Vellman, in positions of influence, will be in safe hands. And I hope one of them will soon take over as Leader, for a newly confident, newly enthused administration.

Is Barnet still Broken? Yes: look at the state of us - but at least now we are, at long last, on the road to recovery.  

Welcome to Broken Barnet: soon to be under new management

Welcome to Barnet

The London Borough of Broken Barnet has always been of interest to the media, especially at election time, partly because of now fading memories of the area's association with Margaret Thatcher, and more latterly because this borough has been seen as a flagship model for some of the more radical (albeit failed) Tory policies of recent years - the large scale outsourcing of public services, for example: the so called 'EasyCouncil' mode of local authority administration. 

This May, however, Barnet is once more attracting a lot of attention for a different reason: because it is the most marginal borough in the London local elections, and the former Tory stronghold looks likely to be taken by Labour - an extraordinary development, in truth. 

The factors that are seem certain to deliver such an outcome are both local and national: clearly there is widespread dissatisfaction with the incompetence, corruption and dishonesty of Boris Johnson's government, as well as the impact of Brexit, Covid, and the relentless cull of rights we have always taken for granted: the right to free protest being the latest victim of assault.

Locally the picture is perhaps even more acute, with the breakdown in public services and the rampant over-development of the borough now so clearly evident, and increasingly so, crucially, to Barnet Tories' once staunchly loyal voters. 

The Tories have only themselves to blame.

Nine years ago, they decided to give two massive contracts to Capita, for the provision of council services. They signed the contracts without reading them fully, which is why, so many years later, as audited by fellow blogger John Dix, Mr Reasonable, whose forensic pre-election post you can read here, the contract fees have ended up costing us more than £586 million, rather than the estimated £225 million- that's you and me, the council tax payers, dumped with more than double the original cost. 

Value for money? Hardly.

We were promised better services for less money. This was not what happened. 

Apart from the massive overspend, the standard of services has visibly declined. On the way to the polling station, voters will walk on pavements unrepaired, or drive along roads littered with potholes. They have noticed the proliferation of unaffordable development, no longer just in Labour wards, but increasingly, as Capita reaches the end of its 'development opportunity' list, encroaching on Tory voter areas - such as in the heart of historic Hendon, where the now notorious Hub plans have been both promoted and approved by Tory councillors, and which will see the imposition of a 21st century campus, complete with grossly inappropriate, multi storey blocks in the middle of not just one, but two Conservation areas, stuffed with Georgian properties, a Saxon church and a number of listed 20th century civic buildings.

Barnet Tories voted through plans that will see these monstrosities forced into the middle of two Conservation Areas in Hendon.

The Hub plans include the wrecking of the listed Hendon Library, once the central branch of the former Beacon Status library service, cut and shrunk in a hugely expensive 'refurbishment' in 2017, this branch now handed over to Middlesex University, as was the local history museum round the corner at the Grade 2** listed Church Farmhouse, whose local history collection, donated over many years by residents, was flogged off at auction. History, and heritage and  are disposable commodities, for our Tory councillors.

The history of the Hendon Hub development, hatched in secret years ago, and ruthlessly pushed, in the face of all reasonable argument, tells the story of the crassly materialistic values of Barnet Tories, steeped in anti-intellectualism, relentless opposed to any sense of community, history or culture - contemptuous of the idea of any public sector service, free at the point of use.

Barnet Tories like to think of themselves as continuing the legacy of Margaret Thatcher. In fact she would have been ashamed of them: a bunch of third rate carpet baggers, with no vision, no conscience, no sense of civic pride, or duty. She would have been horrified at the destruction wrought on the library service: something she saw as vital to self education, independence and social mobility: a ladder of opportunity they have kicked away from those residents in Barnet most in need of access to books, IT support, information - study space: community space.

Here in Hendon, we meet the gaping fault line in the Tory plan of action: the freedom they have given to Capita in terms of their licence to make money out of planning and regeneration in Barnet has expired, as far as the tolerance of residents is concerned, anyway.

The developments being promoted in Barnet might be acceptable, if they met the needs of local people. But they do not. They even fail to meet their own local plans - in the case of Hendon, their own policies deliberately ignored, as they openly admit.

Developers know, moreover, that if they are obliged to offer a small quota of affordable housing in their plans, once planning permission is granted, they can plead 'non viability' and get this requirement quietly dropped. This is just one of the shameless practices promoted by the privatised planning service, along with many other activities which favour developers rather than deliver a fair and open service for the benefit of residents.

Hence we have ended up with a lot of very expensive unaffordable housing, which increases the population, largely by renters living in properties bought off plan by overseas investors, but is not supported by any adequate investment in the infrastructure needed to support the new level of incomers: in schools, healthcare, leisure facilities, parks, retail services. 

As the dissatisfaction with the Tory administration has grown, so too has their determination to become less and less accountable to residents - and voters. 

The right to hold councillors to account has been savagely restricted - the council constitution was amended to make the actions and decisions of elected representatives virtually unchallengeable: effectively there is no longer any right to raise valid questions at council meetings, and to hold our elected representatives to account, no matter how significant and complex the issue. 

Consultations on council policy have become Nonsultations. Legally obliged to pay lip service to this requirement, the outcomes, even if the opposition to their plans is unanimous, are routinely ignored and the Tories and senior officers and Capita simply carry on with their own agendas: agendas that do not prioritise the best interests of the people of this borough, as in the most obvious example of housing. Their own plans say we need affordable homes for families - they ignore all reasoned objections and approve huge, ugly multi storey developments that simply do not address local need. 

Since Covid, Tory members have stopped all surgeries: this no show continues even though their own government leaders lie that 'Covid is over';  Tory members are so unfearful of the virus they largely refuse to attend committee meetings in masks, or to observe any restrictions: indeed some of them are conspiracist anti-vaxxers, and see such sensible measures as unnecessary and an infringement of their liberty. Yet they still hide behind the Covid pretext for keeping their own constituents at a distance.

Residents' Forums are pointless now, with similar restrictions on questions, and the inevitable response to any significant challenge being that the point will be 'noted' - and no further action detailed.

There have been election hustings held locally: barely advertised - and the Tories have failed to attend the last two. This is a grave mistake, as they should remember from last year's Assembly husting, where the Tory candidate chickened out, and Cllr Zinkin had to take his place. Labour's Anne Clarke won, of course. In truth, Zinkin seems to do all the heavy lifting for his group: the current leader Dan Thomas is hardly seen - although now he keeps popping up on Twitter in canvassing photos, with a rictus grin, trying to hold on to hope that the ungrateful residents and taxpayers of Broken Barnet will not kick him out of post. 

Boundary changes have redrawn the wards in parts of Childs Hill, Cricklewood and Golders Green. Zinkin is now standing in the new Childs Hill, with Nizza Fluss (wrongly deselected in Hendon - see below) and former Labour Childs Hill councillorBarnet and Camden AM, the exceptionally hard working Anne Clarke, is now in Cricklewood with former Woodhouse councillor Alan Schneiderman, who is one of the most capable Labour members. A new Tory hopeful in this ward is Yosef David, who seems like a nice chap - but was formerly in the Brexit party, along with Nigel Farage.

Cricklewood Tory candidate Yosef David, formerly a Brexit Party candidate

Thomas's party's election manifesto appears to consist only of a reverse #angryaboutbins gambit, ie expecting voters to be humbly grateful that their rubbish is taken away, (while also expecting them not to notice their cars bouncing in out of the thousands of potholes littering our roads, as a result of the botched Highways service run by Crapita). Oh and they are claiming they have frozen council tax. This is not true, in fact they have raised it but are calling the increase something else, thinking you won't notice. Always a mistake, to take your voters for fools.

Thomas, it has to be said, shows poor judgement at the best of times, and in terms of political instinct generally. He has failed to become elected twice in parliamentary seats, or to be nominated for the Hendon seat instead of Matthew Offord: he failed in his own bid to become elected to the London Assembly after his chum Coleman's fall - he has only ever held a safe council seat in Finchley. And now he is leading Barnet Tories into electoral peril, to complete the score.

Johnson and Barnet Tories' Leader, Daniel Thomas

What does it say about the style of administration foisted on this borough by Barnet Tories, when residents cannot engage meaningfully with their elected members through consultation on developments and other major decisions that have direct and lasting impact on their lives? 

It means that those residents are removed from the democratic process, and powerless to share in the governance of their communities. Or so the Tories think. Thought. Now there are two Judicial Reviews being taken by local campaigners, one in regard to the Hendon Hub, and resident Franca Oliffe is standing on behalf of residents infuriated by the Tories' behaviour over the Hub plans. Franca has reportedly been receiving a warm welcome on local doorsteps: Tory candidates should be worried. Ignoring the opinions and the  best interests of your local residents - and voters - is never a good move. 

Hendon resident and anti-Hub campaigner Franca Oliffe

The other JR is as a result of the planned development on the community green space at Finchley Memorial Hospital, approved by Barnet Tories last year. Yes, the same party whose leader, Dan Thomas, claimed in an infantile motion put to Council recently that:

 "This Conservative Council would not and will not build on our parks or green spaces ..."

The Lodge, Victoria Park, Finchley: sold to developers, demolished - now there is a block of flats in the park. Residents were not and are not amused.

Both developments are in middle-class, residential areas: the sort of area Tories must retain to have any real hope of electoral success. Many of those behind these legal challenges are the sort of people who would normally be Tory voters: their votes have been lost. And that is part of the problem: Tory members have allowed Capita and developers free reign in this borough to the extent that they have undermined their own electoral stability. Labour councillors have told me that overdevelopment and planning has frequently come up on the doorstep, when canvassing Tory and marginal areas.

As well as residents pursuing legal challenges, there have been several, very serious complaints now made to external bodies regarding the way in which the Hendon Hub was alleged to have been promoted and approved by the Tory group in Barnet, following a refusal by the authority to admit any wrongdoing after investigating itself, and finding itself innocent of any charge. 

Watch this space.

Hendon Tory councillor Nizza Fluss, with Hub campaigners. Cllr Fluss was deselected for opposing the Hub plans.

Looking at the wards as they are now, redrawn, and favouring Labour, it is pretty clear that even without national and local factors bearing down upon them, Barnet's Tory councillors are going to be hard pressed to do well in this election. Riven by factionalism within and between the three constituencies, they seem to have made some very odd choices for ward candidates. 

Barnet Tories' long history of misogyny is not news: at the last election, long serving, loyal councillor Joan Scannell was ruthlessly deselected from her seat, because she was not popular with the right people. This time round, two more older women, have been deselected - one fought back and had to be shoved into another seat, and one was unpopular with her colleagues, was then alleged to have made offensive remarks about another candidate, and left the Tory party to join the Libdems. 

The first of these is Nizza Fluss, who was a councillor for Hendon. Her crime was to refuse to support the Hendon Hub plans: and she was punished accordingly, with deselection. She complained about the way in which this was done, rightly won her case, and is now a candidate in Childs Hill. She has continued to oppose the Hub plans, and deserves credit for her integrity and courage. 

The second is West Hendon councillor Helene Richman: the background to the allegations about her conduct is here. Cllr Richman apologised for the offence her remarks had made - but could it be that there is more to this story than meets the eye?  At all events, she is now standing as the Libdem candidate in the same ward. A ward that the Tories won last time round, but are unlikely to retain. Standing for Labour is the redoubtable Andrea Bilbow, who runs a well known charity, and two other new people.

On the theme of misogyny, it is notable that the seats in which the Tories have the most hope of returning councillors have no female candidates. Unless you are an obedient, younger woman, or married to a councillor, you now stand almost no chance of standing as a Tory in this borough. 

There are in fact many first time candidates in this election, from all parties. As well as a number of paper candidates who might well find themselves elected, by default.

The combination of changes in the boundaries, and the numbers of councillors in each ward, as well as the retirement - or death - of some long serving councillors is the reason for the new intake: the outcome will be very interesting. Standing down is Mill Hill Tory, expert linguist and silver fox, John Hart. The handle bar moustachioed Cllr Hart is as old as time itself, of course, even older than that other scheduled ancient monument, Hampstead Garden Suburb's John Marshall, who is also retiring. 

It seems likely that the loss of old timers and the proliferation of new candidates will not help the Tories. A lot of loyal personal votes will be lost - and some of the sideways moves of current Tory members, panicking at the prospect of losing their council seats, is rather baffling. 

The former library cutter Reuben Thompstone has lost his safe seat in Golders Green (room for two only and therefore baggsied by father and son act Melvin and Dean Cohen). He has turned up as a candidate in Underhill, of all places, which is likely to go to Labour, and this move might look rather suspiciously as if the Tories were not bothered about keeping him in a seat. 

Excuse me while I look for my tiniest of tiny violins.

Mill Hill attracts all sorts of ever hopeful candidates - ie the Libdems, despite coming third last time. Fellow blogger Roger Tichborne is standing again, as well as your man Richard Logue, who was, hang on, let me get this right ... Labour, then Libdem, then Labour and now Libdem again. Keeping up? Rather amusingly, standing against her Uncle Roger, for Labour, is Pascale Fanning-Tichborne. I imagine they have a bet on to see who beats whom.

In two Finchley wards - East and West - Libdems are standing in full defiance of the fact that the best they can do is split the opposition vote and return the Tory candidate. Both wards have hard working Labour members, and this is a pointless exercise, of course.

Oh, and in Totteridge, here is a well known name: former long time Child's Hill member and old chum Jack Cohen, who is not so much a Libdem as a Lib, and a good sort, (even if he doesn't know his rivets from his screws). Clearly I could not possibly suggest that you vote for a Libdem ... but Jack has promised I can be his Mayoress if he wins & miraculously becomes Mayor. Can you imagine? All those free buffets, and the chance to sit in the council chamber, smirking at the Tory opposition ...?

Of course Totteridge (and Woodside, to which it is now joined) is the fiefdom of the Cornelius councillors Richard (former Leader) and his wife Alison. Short of an armed uprising, nothing will dislodge these two from their seats. Also I think the Barnet Libdem policy (which came as a surprise to at least one of their candidates, didn't it, Simon?) of developing the Green Belt, may not go down awfully well in any part of Barnet, but particularly in Totteridge, and Mill Hill, and Underhill and all the other wards blessed with at least one green area where the Tories and their developer partners can't build any blocks of flats.

There are of course other parties standing in the elections: from the Green Party, the Women's Equality Party - and one or two individuals with no party connection. 

Among Labour's new set are some very promising younger candidates: in Whetstone, Liron Vellman and Ella Rose, for example, and in Edgwarebury, Josh Tapper (he of Gogglebox fame). One impressed resident (ok, my brother) tells me that they have noticed Josh regularly working in a local park, quietly clearing up litter. This is the sort of community spirit we need: and something that has been so sadly lacking under the Tory regime. 

In truth that Tory regime has been lacking in so much: gone are the days of old school Tories, doing their best for the people of Barnet: following a vocation for civic service, and even philanthropy. 

One Nation Tories are short in supply, in Broken Barnet, as they are in the House of Commons. The parallels between what is happening in Parliament, and locally, here in Broken Barnet, are hardly coincidental. They are a representation of a vaccum deep in the heart's core of the Tory psyche, in the era of Johnson: a loss of moral credibility - of moral purpose.

The view from Hendon Town Hall

If you go to a committee meeting in the borough's Town Hall, at Hendon, bang in the centre of the area now waiting for the destruction to be wrought by the Hub plan, you walk up the stairs, past portraits of Aldermen and women,  and long dead, former councillors, the predecessors of the current hatch of Tory members, who so much enjoy dressing up in the inherited, moth eaten robes of office, and taking turn to play Mayor.

The original Aldermen and women, councillors,  took up their roles because they wanted to make things better: they wanted to give ordinary people a park to enjoy, on their days off, or a library to give them access to self improvement. Post Thatcher, what do we have? Tories with a sense of entitlement, who enjoy the status they think is conveyed by becoming a councillor, and the generous allowances, but feel little sense of obligation to the people who voted them into office. 

The Town Hall, at Hendon, is one of those civic buildings about to be surrounded by the hideous blocks of the Hub plan, supposedly for students, but likely to end up as speculative residential housing. It stands next to the listed library, about to be gutted, its library function removed, and the property given over to Middlesex University. What would the men and women who made such efforts to open this library think of their latter day heirs in the council chamber? I think I know. They would be appalled.

The listed Hendon Library, about to be hollowed out, built on, and handed to Middx Uni, thanks to your Tory councillors.

As well as complaints made to the Council about the Hub fiasco, there have also been more than one formal complaint made about the alleged failure by Barnet Council properly to investigate and act upon the non-declaration of pecuniary interests by a number of Tory councillors.

Several Conservative members have been investigated by the Monitoring Officer in regard to such declarations. And several Conservative members have been found by the Monitoring Officer to be in breach of the Code of Conduct as a result.

What happened? Were they sanctioned, for their breaches? No. No further action. 

In at least two serious cases reported to the MO, no proper response was given at all, despite being promised.

Why is that? 

This matter, and other complaints from a number of residents, is now being referred to the Local Government Ombudsman. Again: watch this space.

Barnet Tories have allowed a culture to become embedded in their group, and in their administration of this council, in which there is a refusal to obey the duty of transparency and accountability that they owe to their electors, the residents and taxpayers. 

Conflicts of interest abound, at every level of the council, not least because of the multiple roles that Capita plays in so many areas of council services - particularly in the role of planning and development. And engagement in what should be the shared purpose of a strong, healthy, local democratic process has been deliberately stifled by the Tories, particularly in recent years, to the point where it does not function at all.

The overarching duty of all elected representatives is to abide by the Nolan Principles for Public Life:

1. The Seven Principles of Public Life

The Seven Principles of Public Life (also known as the Nolan Principles) apply to anyone who works as a public office-holder. This includes all those who are elected or appointed to public office, nationally and locally, and all people appointed to work in the Civil Service, local government, the police, courts and probation services, non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs), and in the health, education, social and care services. All public office-holders are both servants of the public and stewards of public resources. The principles also apply to all those in other sectors delivering public services.

1.1 Selflessness

Holders of public office should act solely in terms of the public interest.

1.2 Integrity

Holders of public office must avoid placing themselves under any obligation to people or organisations that might try inappropriately to influence them in their work. They should not act or take decisions in order to gain financial or other material benefits for themselves, their family, or their friends. They must declare and resolve any interests and relationships.

1.3 Objectivity

Holders of public office must act and take decisions impartially, fairly and on merit, using the best evidence and without discrimination or bias.

1.4 Accountability

Holders of public office are accountable to the public for their decisions and actions and must submit themselves to the scrutiny necessary to ensure this.

1.5 Openness

Holders of public office should act and take decisions in an open and transparent manner. Information should not be withheld from the public unless there are clear and lawful reasons for so doing.

1.6 Honesty

Holders of public office should be truthful.

1.7 Leadership

Holders of public office should exhibit these principles in their own behaviour and treat others with respect. They should actively promote and robustly support the principles and challenge poor behaviour wherever it occurs.

A party which does not respect and implement the Nolan Principles at every level of its administration, is simply not fit to stand any candidates for election. 

Here in Barnet we have had years of increasingly unaccountable Tory governance, and in the last four years, this antipathy to the principle of transparency, the exclusion of residents from the democratic process, and the abandonment of acceptable standards of ethical governance has left the borough in a state of ruin. 

What is happening in Westminster, led by the amoral, incompetent government of Boris Johnson, is happening here. 

We cannot continue like this. 

It's time for change.

The only way of stopping this borough from further depredation and decline, of calling an end to the  easy pickings for developers, contractors and consultants, and of wrenching back control of our community, our environment, our history and our built heritage - protecting our public services, our most vulnerable and disadvantaged residents - is to vote Labour and put a group of decent, honest, hard working representatives in a place of power to do good, and help rebuild what we have lost.

Labour Deputy Leader Ross Houston, Victoria Park