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. 

Storming the Town Hall: Barnet Tories, the lie of 'Regeneration' - and the May Elections

 

Last week I was asked by a BBC journalist preparing for the May elections in London about the prospect of a Labour win in Barnet. Yes, this is a real thing. Hold on to your hats.

There has been much speculation in the last week or so about a number of Tory held London boroughs that may well be taken by Labour: my view is that - for the first time in the ten years or so since I've been writing about local politics - it seems more likely than not that such a result is a genuine possibility, here in Barnet, and increasingly begins to look like the most likely outcome. 

Tory canvassers are secretly panicking, and Labour canvassers reporting more and more former Tory voters who are no longer prepared to support the party in this borough.

The reasons for this are pretty obvious: although in the past local elections were about local issues, certainly this time round they will be strongly influenced by national concerns: Covid, Brexit - the universal sense of disgust at the corruption and incompetence of Boris Johnson's government. Another important factor is the impact of new ward boundary changes: in this borough, changes that favour Labour.

Most important of all, however, in Barnet, is the disaffection of what were traditional Tory voters as a result of the dire performance of council services managed and delivered by the authority's contractor, Capita - and because of the ever encroaching plague of manic over development in the borough, a phenomenon which now has even the leafiest areas entirely in its relentless grip. Over development which is not being supported by any adequate level of investment in desperately needed infrastructure and support in terms of schools, healthcare, parks, parking, transport - retail outlets. In many cases the developments are removing such community assets in the course of clearing the way for profit driven 'regeneration'. 

Far from meeting local housing need, this non stop process is being promoted purely for the benefit of developers, and for Capita, which amongst the fat portfolio of contracts it still retains, holds planning the most desirable. Most desirable, because it is the most lucrative: capable, as we have seen, of generating huge levels of profit for the company, in terms of fee based income streams, such as the deeply non-transparent pre-application 'advice' service for developers and their agents: some of the latter having been only recently senior planning officers with ... Barnet/Capita. Applications with fee based advice, data obtained by FOI suggests, are far more likely to be successful.

Remember that, despite the issue having been raised - by me and others - constantly over several years of the contract, it is only recently that the service that Capita Re offered to applicants and agents to 'name your own planning officer' has been quietly dropped, despite the clear risk of 'conflicts of interest' - especially in the case of the agents who are former colleagues of the planning officers with whom they deal.

Last year, raising the question of why details about pre-planning advice, and the name of the planning officer who was dealing with it, had vanished from Capita Re's application forms, I was told that this was due to changes by the government. Lo and behold, last week, on checking the application form for another awful development - six blocks plotted for the former Homebase site in North Finchley - there again was the question, on the form, but ignored. Yes, fee based advice had been paid for. Tick. What was it? 'As advised.' Who gave it? 'Mr.' Mr Who? They weren't saying. Why not?

Back to the old Barnet/Capita tradition of counter transparency then,  and a practice that obscures and obstructs our right to know how large developments are enabled and encouraged by the privatised planning service. On raising this again and complaining about the practice, I was offered no explanation but - a meeting with the Head of Planning, to discuss the matter. Nothing further has happened about that, funnily enough. 

Until very recently, as well as planning, Capita ran 'regeneration' in Barnet. This is an activity which purports to bring new life to failing communities, but does this by removing the people who live there - and any of those community assets that get in the way, like libraries - and inviting in developers to make whopping profits from luxury housing developments: the taller the better, although the tallest only in Labour wards, of course. 

Regeneration, for Capita, went by the name of 'development opportunities', and there is almost no town centre, suburb or open space in the borough which has not been targeted for these appalling schemes. 

In West Hendon, land worth millions was given to Barratt London in a secret deal, secret, that is, until revealed by the requirement for disclosure at the CPO Inquiry. 

Finchley Memorial Hospital: plans hatched in secret, again, and accidently exposed some years ago, were last year, during Covid, slipped out under the clever cover now of providing homes for NHS workers - to be built on the local community green space. There is nothing to stop these properties being sold on the open market, in fact, rather than to key workers, who are very unlikely to be queuing up for them (as other attempted developments of this type have shown) and it is highly likely this will happen, after the usual plea of non viability is put in, at a later stage. 

North Finchley is now being laid wide open to another assault in the name of 'regeneration': more unaffordable housing, and developers being given, by our Tory councillors, the local Arts Depot, and ... the lovely, historic library. Which brings us back to ... yes, the Hendon Hub. 

Barnet Tories think this is an appropriate development for the middle of a Conservation area

The story of the Hendon Hub development is hugely significant, because it perfectly demonstrates almost every rotten element of what has gone wrong not only in this Tory run authority, but on a national scale, encouraged by the current government.

Conflicts of interest in abundance, at every level of the council; hidden agendas, mass development given a free hand, regardless of the impact on the built environment, our built heritage, and our communities, all promoted by commercial interests, and here in Barnet, too many Tory councillors with little or no interest in representing the people who elected them, nearly four years ago. 

Unfortunately for the Tories in Barnet, their failure to restrain the extent to which their privatised regeneration and planning services operate has now fatally compromised their own electoral chances in May. 

The council's contractors will hardly be bothered what happens then. They have had a good run in Barnet: most of their fees came from the process of organising 'Regeneration' and planning, rather than the end result itself.

Recently the inevitable moment came when more failing services were taken back from Capita, as well as Regeneration. This is no major loss to them at this stage: there is pretty much nothing left that they can develop - but it has happened too late to prevent the detrimental impact on many residential areas and town centres. And in Hendon, the Hub land grab, memorably described by one resident last week, as a 'brutal acquisition', cooked up years ago, but kept under cover until late on in the process, has infuriated local residents who live in the heart of the oldest and most historic part of Hendon, which has dozens of listed buildings, and comprises not one but two Conservation Areas. And of course these residents are the sort of people the Tories desperately need to support them, in order to hold on to their seats.

Only one Hendon Tory councillor, Nizza Fluss, has had the courage and integrity necessary to oppose these plans, and truly represent her constituents, who, as the ludicrous 'nonsultation' process demonstrated, are outraged by the attempt to force a development of crashingly ugly, modern multi storey blocks - supposedly intended as student accommodation and other campus space for the ever expanding Middlesex University. Ever expanding in the past, that is: post Covid, post Brexit, these plans are clearly no longer viable, you would think. It makes no difference. Development must be pushed wherever there is an opportunity for profit.

Tory Cllr Nizza Fluss, who has bravely opposed the Hub plan - to her cost

Cllr Fluss was deselected by certain fellow party members in the Hendon Tory association, following her opposition of the Hub development.

Barnet Tories don't like women who answer back, or do the right thing, instead of doing as they are told, by the men, of course. 

On the 10th January, at a meeting of the Strategic Planning Committee, at Hendon Town Hall, in the centre of one of the two Conservation areas at risk from the Hub plans,Tory members ignored the unanimous, detailed and clearly articulated opposition to the plans from residents, and approved the plans in a remarkable show of unity on a planning decision which of course is supposed not be whipped.

One thing that emerged from the (strictly limited by the Chair) farce of pretending to consider the arguments for and against the plans, at this meeting, was that the much vaunted replacement library, which is allegedly going to be squeezed into the ground floor and basement of the planned Rotunda building opposite the Town Hall, is still shrinking in size, almost as if it will completely disappear, in the end. (Which is quite likely, in fact, like the Invisible New Library not built as promised in North Finchley).

When such fierce local opposition to the Hub plans had become apparent, half way through the Nonsultation, the developers tried to persuade residents of the benefits of having their listed library taken away - given away, and gutted - they attempted then to make the scheme seem more 'community focused' by declaring the library would now accommodate a Safer Neighbourhood police unit. 

Whether or not they checked if the Met can actually afford to staff such a unit is not known - but clearly this eats into the space meant for the substitute library. 835 square metres reduced to 675. Which must accommodate every other library function: adult & children's borrowing, PCs, stacks, storage, staff space, study areas, printers, a community area & all the other lovely new functions they dangled in front of residents, like 'Makerspaces'. Ah: but hang on - we've forgotten Local Studies and Archives, which currently require 160 square metres - and specialised storage for documents. Which leaves ...  515 square metres - not even a third of Hendon Library's original space. To put it in terms that are easier to visualise, this is less than the space of two tennis courts - for all the normal library functions, of what was once the central borough library, plus the extra wonderful things they claimed would be there. It just doesn't make sense, does it?

You can listen to a recording of this meeting here - and marvel at the way the Tory members pushed through the hugely unpopular plans, ignoring all reasoned objections. Some light relief is afforded by the Chair who steamrollered the meeting to its conclusion failing to remember her mic was picking up her whispered remarks, throughout the meeting, to senior officers ...

There was a pronounced sense of somewhat desperate, blind determination from those pushing through this proposal at the meeting, that night. I suppose they were keen to get the plans underway before May - if indeed they go ahead. 

As this meeting and other related matters are now understood to be the subject of more than one very serious complaint, I am not going to comment in detail on what happened, or the further implications: but it is reported that there are some deeply alarming issues which have emerged from the meeting itself, and from the process of 'consultation', over the last year or so. 

Watch this space.

One characteristic of Barnet Tories is that, like lemmings, they will head towards danger with free abandon, thinking that they are immune from any consequences. Frankly, most of them are pretty dim, and don't care about much other than retaining their seats., which usually requires nothing more than unquestioning loyalty to the current leader - and a safe seat, of course. None of them are politically astute, and the current leader is particularly tone deaf when it comes to gauging the mood of voters. Still, it came as a real surprise to see their latest idiotic move. 

You may recall that a few years ago, the Tory group supported a truly awful Motion to Full Council, proposed by the golden boy himself, Cllr Longstaffe, claiming that the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, is 'An Enemy of the People'. Bad enough, you might think. Here comes another one., this time proposed by the Tory 'Leader', Dan Thomas, and due to be 'debated at tonight's Full Council meeting. 

This puerile nonsense reads as if it was written by Thomas, in biro, on the back of a shopping list, to be honest: publishing it all here, however, so you can see the extent of sheer childishness and mendacity of this motion, and this Tory group, attacking the Opposition, with rather touching lack of awareness of the theory of Freudian projection (to say nothing about the curious accusation of 'impotence' ...)

Political Discourse Within Barnet

Council notes that:

1. The Barnet Labour Party and members of the Opposition have made misleading claims about this Administration’s policies and achievements.

2. Contrary to Barnet Labour’s misinformation:

a. Barnet has not only maintained weekly collections of refuse and recycling under this

Conservative administration, unlike any neighbouring borough – which are all run by

Labour– but we also have the lowest number of missed bin collections in London.

This is of course a feeble attempt to play, without permission, a round of 'Angry About Bins' (© Mrs Angry) but scoring an own goal, from the council which has stupidly stopped collecting food waste, and now charges householders an annual fee for the privilege of having their green waste collected - occasionally.

b. Council Tax in Barnet has been kept lower than that of any of our neighbouring boroughs for

the past decade, and will remain so. In real terms, Council Tax in Barnet has been reduced by

5.2% over the past decade — despite the Labour Mayor of London taking an ever-increasing

sum from Council Tax.

Barnet Tories kept council tax so low, they were unable properly to fund basic council services. In one particularly infamous incident, they cut desperately needed funding for respite care for the families of children with profound and complex disabilities, so they could boast about reducing the tax bill by the equivalent of  a few pence a week.  The families were reduced to having to go in person to the council to demand this funding restored - only to be told that their children were making too much noise in the committee room. Public outrage saw the cut grudgingly reversed, after this appalling move: but what a thing to do ...

c. Barnet has zero “non-decent” Council homes, while our neighbouring boroughs have

thousands. Labour Enfield alone have over 4,000.

'Zero non decent council homes'. Got that? Apart from the fact that thousands of homeless residents have been kicked out of the borough, the Dear Leader seems to have forgotten his own appearance on the Victoria Derbyshire show (after refusing to appear the week before) trying to defend the truly abominable condition of flats in West Hendon, in which council tenants' children were forced to live with cockroaches biting them, rats running around their homes, and their walls covered in mould.

d. Barnet’s outsourcing has saved millions – ensuring value for money for our residents.

Ah yes. The old story. Utterly untrue. The short list of guaranteed savings is restricted, and minimal, and pales in comparison to the many, many millions surplus paid to Capita, so far, that was never foreseen, although it should have been, by the Tory councillors who signed the contracts

e. Barnet has successfully stood up to developers and has been successful in having storeys

removed from proposed towers. The ineffectual Labour group is impotent to influence the

Labour Mayor of London’s desire for ever larger tower blocks in London. This is evidenced by

the Mayor’s support for the original B&Q proposal and those regarding tower blocks over

tube stations, such as a recent High Barnet application.

Frankly this is so risible, it is hard to know where to begin. Or end. It is reported that the Monitoring Officer removed the word 'wilful' in regard to the idiotic accusations against Labour - but why was this Motion allowed to stand at all?

'Barnet has successfully stood up to developers' ? What a f*cking joke.

Tory Barnet has actively welcomed and encouraged, with the help of Capita, a scale of over development that has ignored the real housing needs of ordinary families. The needs of developers are put before all other considerations.

Clearly the Labour group - and the Labour AM, Anne Clarke, are able to communicate effectively with the Mayor of London to moderate any multi-storey plans, or he would not have done so, in regard to the tube station developments. Perhaps if the Tory group were not set on smearing the Mayor as an "enemy of the People", he might be more inclined to include them in a grown up discussion about the borough's needs.

For Thomas even to dare to pretend to oppose multi storey blocks is absurd. These have gone up all over the Western side of the borough, carefully avoiding the Tory areas elsewhere - except in Hendon's Conservation areas, where clearly something has gone awfully wrong in their judgement, and someone's influence has convinced them to commit electoral suicide, rather than listen to the overwhelming objections of their local residents. 

f. This Conservative Council would not and will not build on our parks or green spaces. This has been made clear a number of times over the past year in various committees and at Full Council.

This statement is on a Johnsonian scale of 'fiction'. The Tories approved the development of the community green space at Finchley Memorial Hospital last June, despite fierce opposition from local residents incensed at the loss of their amenity. They were caught considering the use of 'low value' parks and green spaces for placing solar energy facilities and battery storage. And last year saw the construction of a block of flats in Victoria Park, after they sold off and allowed the demolition of the historic, Arts & Crafts style park keeper's Lodge. 

3. The above are responses to only some examples of the mistruths stated by the Labour group.

4. The Labour Party and Labour councillors made exaggerated claims during the East Barnet by election, which the people of East Barnet clearly saw through. However, such claims risk causing polarisation, unnecessary upset and worry amongst local residents.

Ah. Presumably a reference to the hugely inappropriate Gas Works development, which proposes more of those blocks Thomas claims to oppose, but is apparently happy to see in an area with too many Labour voters. The only affordable housing here will punish the undeserving poor by shoving them right next to the railway line, with windows that can't open, (because of the noise levels being too high for approval). Once they realised the flats will over heat, as a consequence, they have designed a cooling system that the already disadvantaged tenants will have to pay for. 

But just imagine: Barnet Tories accusing someone else of 'causing polarisation'!

And on we go:

Council believes that:

1. Misinformation about the state of the Council, and this administration’s policies and history, are little more than a sign of desperation from the Labour group.

Misinformation from the Council, and its contractors and consultants, (eg in the case of the Hendon Hub - Historic England, anyone?) are ok though. Ok.

2. Over the past term and beyond, this Conservative Council has consistently made decisions based on value for money for our residents, while ensuring that they receive the best possible services.

Quite clearly decisions are not made on the basis of value for money, nor do they deliver the best possible services. Again, this is Johnsonian inversion of the truth, up ending the story of their own dreadful performance. 

Tax payers' money has been extracted on an eye watering, industrial scale from the Capita contracts, via income opportunities hidden at the time of signing in the form of contractual variations, unnoticed and by Tory members, before approving for a ten year term of bondage to the conditions. As fellow blogger John Dix can tell you, you and I and all the other residents have already paid hundreds of millions more than the expected amount.

That services are not the best possible is evident to anyone who walks along a tarmac patched pavement, or driven along the thousands of pot hole scarred roads, or tried to phone a council department, or had to chase enforcement of flagrant breaches of planning permission conditions, or visited a relative in a care home like Apthorp Lodge. 

Rather than in invest in new social housing that would benefit the most needy residents, or borrow state money in order to do so, Tory members preferred to borrow £22 million from the Public Works Loan Board to lend to their 'partners' at Saracens to build a lovely new stand at their Stadium, which was our Stadium, and for which they only pay a peppercorn rent. Value for money? Meanwhile families in West Hendon were living in utter squalor, and the Housing committee did not meet for eight months, because - 'there were no urgent issues'.

That over the last few years Tory members have sought to stifle challenge, engagement and consultation with their own residents is undeniable: changing the Constitution to prevent questions at committees where hugely important and controversial plans are decided being the keystone of their shameless and deliberate strategy of gagging dissent. 

This gagging has not only coincided with a period of increasing decline in the standard of council services, but also with a period of hugely expanded proposals for so called 'regeneration' and development. What a stroke of luck! 

Except that the Tories' luck is now running out. 

Poor leadership and recklessly poor judgement has made them complacent, and to take risks  that can only damage their electoral prospects. Tory voters are now queueing up to fight developments in their areas: the snatching of the community green space at Finchley Memorial is facing Judicial Review, and the Hendon Hub is being legally challenged, in various ways, as well as now being the subject of very serious complaints over ... related matters.

Roll on May: it's time to clear out the Augean stables, and rid ourselves of the rotten stench hanging around this Tory council and their collaborators. 

Time to bring the council back under democratic control, return local services in house, where true value for money can be achieved - and give a voice back to the residents whose representatives have, for so long, so blatantly betrayed them and their well being.

The Treasure House: Barnet Tories resume their war on libraries and plot the closure of their former flagship branch

Hendon Library, pic courtesy Historic England

Updated 26th March 2021

It has since emerged that not only is it intended to close Hendon Library, Barnet Tories and their development partners want to demolish the listed building, and leave only the front wall as a facade ... See new post here.

There is a time for everything, in Broken Barnet: a season for every activity under the heavens: a time to be born and a time to die, a time to plant and a time to uproot. All of these rites of passage, fittingly, are now supervised and monetised by Capita PLC, the council's outsourced provider.

There is also, of course, a time to roll out controversial proposals that might cause fury amongst the populace, if not carefully managed, and pushed through, while everyone is otherwise engaged. 

Normally the optimal moment for such plotting is in the summer, while (so the Tory councillors and their masters in the senior management team and Capita imagine) everyone is away on holiday, and not interested in what is going on. 

This year, of course, the year of Covid, offers an unprecedented opportunity to roll out any controversial proposal, and hope to get away with it, unopposed - and that, as we now see, is exactly what our scheming Tory councillors have attempted. 

They tried this tactic earlier in the year, when they disposed of local planning committees - removing even further the extent to which ward residents and their representatives may take part in any democratically run planning process. As much as was possible with a Tory majority loaded committee, of course. But interfering  opposition councillors and their pesky residents were getting in the way of the best interests of Capita and the flock of predatory developers who are grabbing every piece of land available in the borough, and screwing out of it as much profit as possible, regardless of whether or not their ghastly buildings meet the real needs of the local community. As with so many other anti-democratic measures taken by this administration, it becomes clearer and clearer whose interests are now prioritised in this borough. And it is not the residents and tax payers.

In the latest example of Covid opportunism, Tory members have turned their attention to another pet project.

After some effort by Labour councillors to secure an independent review of the devastating library cuts which have turned the former nationally recognised, value for money service into a parody of its former self, a report was published a year or so ago which criticised the depth and severity of the actions taken and highlighted the impact on users, especially children, elderly and vulnerable residents. 

The consultants concluded that the cuts had gone too far: not only had staffing been minimised to a barely workable level, and book stock savagely reduced, the physical space for library functions in their own buildings had been shrunk to a nominal and totally inadequate level, with unstaffed hours having a clearly detrimental effect on the standard of service. 

'Refurbishment' of Hendon Library - cutting the library footprint to a fraction of its former space within the building - cost half a million pounds of public money, only three years ago. Now the building is to be given to Middlesex University.

Perhaps the most obvious example of what the cuts had destroyed is demonstrated by the plight of Hendon Library. A handsome building that stands next to the Town Hall, (both of them listed properties), this was once the flagship of an outstanding, beacon standard service: the central borough library. As well as a large volume of books for borrowing, it had a reference library, and a music library, a lecture room, and a children's section that covered half of the ground floor. 

Above the door lintel is an inscription:

Non mimima pars eruditionis est bonos noscere libros: 'not the least part of learning is to be acquainted with good books'.

The idea of opening a library in Hendon had first been suggested in the early 1920s, at a time when providing free access to books was seen as a civic duty, not simply for the leisured classes, but those less advantaged, as we see in this extract from a local newspaper report from February, 1923, of a meeting of the 'Childs Hill Ratepayers Association', and a motion proposed by a Mr Widlake:

I sure that any opponents of the scheme on the score of cost will be ready to admit that public libraries are not only a necessity, but that their cost is not to be reckoned an expenditure, but an investment.” Councillor Taylor seconded the motion moved by Mr. Widlake, and said that personally he would not mind seeing an increase in the rates provided benefits were given. “Poor people,” he said, “should be enlightened as well as the rich.”

A copy of this resolution was sent to the District Council, and in due course plans were made for the building we now know, which was opened in December 1929 by Lord Elgin, President of the Library Association, and chairman of the Carnegie Trust, from whom a grant of £7,000 had been made towards the overall cost of £30,000. A newspaper report of the opening filled three columns, listing dozens of local dignitaries who had attended the ceremony, begun in the Town Hall, and moved to the new building, which was unlocked by Lord Elgin, after he had been presented with a golden key, which Councillor Mrs Bannister, heady with civic pride, explained would 'unlock  our treasure house' ... 

Oh, Councillor Mrs Bannister: what would you make of the barbarians in the Barnet Tory group who have so thoroughly trashed your treasure house, and thrown away the golden key?

Post war, Hendon Library had been the base of the magnificent Eileen Colwell, a widely respected professional librarian who pioneered the international children's library movement - of which I was later a grateful beneficiary, in Edgware, as a child with few books at home, liberated by access to endless supplies of reading material at the new library I visited every Saturday, devouring my allotted three books usually by Sunday evening, re-reading them throughout the week until I could borrow more. I would never have passed the eleven plus, or progressed to grammar school without this resource: and that was true of generations of children from all backgrounds, whose standards of literacy, and educational well being, were entirely dependent on the provision of such libraries.

The pathetic replacement children's library in Hendon, post 'refurbishment', overlooked by the ghost of Eileen Colwell.

This is all destroyed now. Ironically, Barnet Tories think, if they think at all, of themselves as the natural heirs of their heroine, local MP, PM and milk snatcher extraordinaire, Margaret Thatcher, but fail to remember that she embraced and defended the public library system as crucial to the cause of social mobility, through access to education and self improvement. 

They have effectively torn away all chances of disadvantaged children having somewhere safe and quiet to study, somewhere to have free access to books, to guided information. They have removed a vital social hub for lonely or isolated older residents. Many disabled users no longer feel able to access the unstaffed libraries, let alone remain inside one, without assistance. But the Tory members do not give a f*ck about any of this.

The innate materialism and anti-intellectualism of the average, intellectually challenged Barnet Tory councillor means that even if an ideological hostility to the very idea of the public sector was not deeply embedded in their clockwork mechanisms, their antipathy to anything that hints of cultural values, equality or community, would ensure that their war on libraries would continue. 

And so, continue it must, spurred on by the other motivation of their abominable administration: profit. In case you need reminding, a library is not, to the Barnet Tory councillor, and their contractual partners Capita, who now manage the portfolio of library buildings, a temple of education and learning, or leisure. It is a potential property development, or generator of income. 

When councillors first began selling off the family silver, and turning their beady eyes to the council owned properties they could flog off, one of the first targets was the historic Church Farmhouse Museum, just yards around the corner from the Town Hall, and the Library. It was the only local authority owned museum of local history, and held a unique collection of historical artefacts, much of it donated by residents. The then Tory leader Richard Cornelius said this collection was 'worthless', and it was sold (for a tidy sum, as it turned out) at auction, while the listed building was put up for sale. But not all went to plan: no one wanted to buy the building, with all the listed features they would have to preserve: such a nuisance! So they tried leaving it empty for a few years, decaying, a perfect metaphor for their contempt for our local heritage, defiant in its refusal to comply with their would be procurement of its history. 

In desperation, they tried selling or leasing the property to Middlesex University, the usual customer in the marketplace of council properties in the Burroughs. Like any sole customer on whom the retailer depends, despite much pleading from the council, the Uni stuck out for a deal which was entirely beneficial to them, and a sorry bargain for the residents and taxpayers of Broken Barnet, robbed of a museum, and their heritage. 

The relationship between Barnet Council and Middlesex is very close, and often secretive. They have been awfully helpful and bailed out the council in one or two scrapes, not just in regard to the Museum: their involvement in the curious Saracens story is a crucial factor in propping up that very interesting loan of £22 million which Barnet officers brokered between the authority and the private rugby club, when it was refused commercial funding for the new stand they wanted to build - but which has still not appeared.

Middlesex Uni, in the course of its apparently unstoppable colonisation of the Burroughs, has taken over Hendon Town Hall, in all but name: the Tory councillors still cling to the council chamber and a couple of committee rooms, due to their primary reason for becoming councillors, that is to say, to pretend to be very important members of the community, jostling every year for a nomination to become Mayor, and the chance to be carried about the borough in a limousine, with the grateful populace bowing before them, and a never ending round of all you can eat buffets, at other people's expense.

The early days of Hendon Library: the 'Treasure House'

It was only a matter of time before the University got its foot in the door of Hendon Library, of course. During the massive programme of cuts that they pretended was a 'refurbishment', but which slashed the the service to shreds, in which millions of pounds were spent in order to - ha ha - 'save money', the 'reconfiguration' of Hendon Library was prioritised. The library functions were cut down to a tiny part of the footprint of its own building, and all that was left, in effect, were a few rows of bookshelves. The once outstanding children's library was gutted, and a useless, miniscule replacement shoved into a corner of the building, Eileen Colwell's legacy trashed and thrown in a skip, along with her vision of educating and empowering new generations of children through a love of reading. 

As a final insult, they put her photograph on a wall looking down at the two boxes of picture books and the couple of stacks of shelving that pass for the newly 'refurbished' children's 'library'. 

After the review's damning report was published, you might have hoped that the Tory councillors would have been shamed into some sort of plan to repair the damage they had done to the service. You would have been wrong to entertain such hopes. They feel no shame, and indeed are incapable of ever admitting they are wrong. They now decided, therefore, to double down on the same course of action, thinking they could push through the handover of Hendon Library to Middlesex Uni while the borough was in the grip of Covid, and not in a position to protest. 

Tory councillor Reuben Thompstone, cutter and shutter of Barnet Libraries, pic courtesy Times Series.

As you can read in this account in the local Times, Reuben Thompstone, the pantomime Tory member in charge of (cutting) libraries, informed a meeting on November 18th that 'moving' Hendon Library was an 'exciting opportunity'.  

In the now usual Barnet Tory tradition of take a decision first, then pretend to consult afterwards, they have already agreed to go ahead with the proposal to remove the Library from Hendon Library, and stuff a token replacement in a portacabin, in what they claim will be a temporary measure. Their scheme includes a vague plan to build something on what is now the tiny Town Hall car park, across the road, which they say would accommodate a small library and house an even bigger nuisance, the borough's Archives. 

The latter function, ie the preservation of council documents, is a statutory one, or you can bet your last penny that they would flog off anything of value they found in the Archives, delete the archivist's post, and restart the history of Broken Barnet from Year Zero, in a cultural revolution with no culture, no past, no future - and no responsibility for heritage. 

We do not know where these fragile and irreplaceable documents will be placed, during the 'temporary' decantation of the library into a portacabin. But before the retelling of horrible histories becomes forbidden, in Broken Barnet, let us remember what happened to the civic heritage collection, and the Grass Farm stained glass windows, left in the similarly emptied and abandoned Church End Finchley library. 

Capita was given charge of the safekeeping of all the civic heritage collection. They handed the items to a third party contractor, and, showing at least some regard for the art of ironic gestures, shoved everything in the derelict Finchley mortuary, a few yards across the road from where I live. (Later sold for development, of course). And then - guess what? The items were stolen, and/or destroyed. 

After we raised concerns about the Grass Farm windows, an irreplaceable piece of Finchley's history, taken from what was once the home of the family which included arts and crafts designer Ambrose Heal, and left to the local council, many years ago, it was admitted - after a lot of prevarication - that these too had been stolen, while supposedly in the safekeeping of live in guardians contracted by Capita. Were there any sanctions, or penalties for the loss of these objects? What do you think? 

The Grass Farm windows, stolen while in the keeping of council contractors

We have every reason to worry about what would happen, therefore, to the historic material currently in our local Archives, and it seems that questions raised by Labour councillors about this have not been adequately addressed.

Recent history tells us there is little likelihood of any permanent replacement being built for Hendon Library. We were assured, when Friern Barnet branch was closed, that a wonderful replacement library would be built in North Finchley. A temporary arrangement of shelves in a room in the Arts Depot was the only thing to come out of that - and then disappear.

The authority will simply not be in the position to afford to build any replacement, for the foreseeable future and eventually the 'library' portakabin will be run down and 'disappeared'.

Save Barnet Libraries campaigners have issued a statement (forming part of a letter published in the local press) on the proposal for a massive six-year £90m “Hendon Hub Redevelopment” to expand Middlesex University, and the removal of the library from the listed, purpose built building:

In October 2021, perhaps even before the first tranche of planning approvals, the library will be rehoused in “temporary” portacabins on the Burroughs Large Car Park near the A41.

Residents are meant to be happy about this, on the Council’s promise of a new library with “curbside appeal” in either Autumn/Winter 2023, or May 2024 – the date is vague. The description of the new library is also vague, promising to “facilitate the provision of a broader and enhanced library offer” that will attract more visitors, incorporate the borough’s archive and be “rent free in perpetuity”. This sounds very like the old Hendon Library which until 2017, was the most well-used branch in Barnet with over 233,000 visitors and 146,000 book loans per year. 

But, unfortunately, the proposals for the future library contain no guarantees at all: no capital budget, design or planning permission. Similarly, there is no commitment to increase staffed hours and library resources - which is what the service really needs to encourage library use. As the Council’s independent evaluation bluntly stated, the cuts to staffed hours have “gone too far”. 

These issues didn’t seem to matter to Cllr Thompstone or his colleagues on the Library Committee (CLCC) on 18 November. After all, they presided over the last decimation of the library service: in Hendon by spending £500k on reducing the library to 13% of its previous size, cutting staffed hours by 72% and leasing the building so that the library became a paying tenant. (One point of this was to make money from the building, but it’s unclear if it broke even, let alone made a profit.) By 2019-20, before Covid, book loans had reduced by half and the Council had stopped counting visitors.

In terms of the so-called “temporary” library, we are only told there will be reduced opening hours which will be, very unsatisfactorily, made up for by the mobile library. We are extremely concerned that the Council gives no consideration to the effect of the move and reduced service on library users, particularly as it appears almost inevitable that the development will overrun on time and costs, threatening the prospects of a new library at all.

They are right to be concerned, and right to articulate the fury that will be felt by many residents and users over the further assault on our library service. Funnily enough, one of the newer local Tory councillors, Nizza Fluss, has voiced strong objections to these proposals. So she should. 

“I can’t see any reason to leave this Grade II-listed building ... I do see why Middlesex want to acquire it, but I can’t see how it will benefit Barnet residents or the residents of Hendon.”

Quite.

She is somewhat naive, and an inexperienced member of the Barnet Tory group and will be ignored, of course, by her colleagues, if she continues to object, and told to vote in line with the party's position. 

Well: if you live in Hendon, or use the library, you might like to write to your MP, Matthew Offord, and remind him of his former pledge to keep all libraries in his constituency open. He claimed, during an earlier Libraries nonsultation, that Unison was to blame for 'scaremongering' in repeating fears about library closures. Of course: blaming a union for telling the truth is the usual fall back for Tories trying to deflect attention from their assaults on our public services.

In the previous cull, library buildings were retained, but with their function as libraries reduced to a small fraction of the footprint of the building, to aid the Tories' assertion that they have closed no branches. The pretence was that the rest of the buildings would be used to generate income. This was nonsense: an excuse to justify the absurd expenditure of £14 million pounds of taxpayers' money, in truth not to make 'savings' (which of course have never made, other than in terms of sacking staff) - but for preparing the next stage in their long term development plans. 

In practice, the Barnet Tory decimation of the library service, the replacement of staffed hours with self service entry - and the massive reduction of the book stock - was far worse, and has had a profound impact, leaving many people with effectively very little or no access to the service.  The longer term effect in terms of the educational and literacy standards of less advantaged children and students, of course, will be equally damaging.

The closure of Hendon Library will have a further, hugely detrimental impact on residents, particularly, as in the case of Golders Green Library, for the families of the local Charedi community. As always with Barnet Tory cuts, however, the consequences for children, the elderly and vulnerable matter not at all, when development or business interests are at stake. 

Oh, and if they get away with shutting the flagship library, you can be sure other valuable library buildings will follow.

Libraries are more than just an easy target for Barnet Tory cuts: they carry a symbolic role in the group's ritualised, instinctive loathing of the very concept of public services, free at the point of use. Although unthinking in their attitudes and half formed beliefs, they naturally object to what is to them a mystifying concept: community, care for others, culture; the love of reading and the acquisition of knowledge, for its own sake, or the importance of social hubs to address issues of exclusion, or loneliness. They see only an unnecessary burden, and a duty they refuse to acknowledge, a cost they do not want to pay. Their emotional distance stands on the same place as every tedious, extreme right wing administration, perfectly demonstrated by the rise of Trumpism (admired by some local Tory members) or the Johnsonian shambles that passes for government in the UK. It is from a heart as hard as flint, and as cold as ice: why should I do anything for others? Only my self interest matters. 

Despite the smouldering contempt Barnet Tories feel for the local library service, with typical hypocrisy, once the Covid crisis was underway, this service, above almost all others, was considered so important that it was the last to close, before lockdown, leaving poorly supported staff - and users - dealing with an unknown situation, expected to carry on, while councillors's surgeries were cancelled. 

On the Saturday before Christmas, Johnson announced the introduction of Tier 4 and warned of an apparently more virulent mutation of the virus: within a short time of this deeply worrying announcement, far too quickly for any proper risk assessment to have been made of the increased risk to health, with all the unknown factors of higher and faster transmission, library staff were told to report to work as usual on Monday. "Click and collect" services continue, which they must administer. Many other library services have closed, of course, in other areas, by authorities with some sense of responsibility for their staff, and the public. But not in Barnet.

So which is it, Tory councillors? A library service of such little importance, that you can slash it to pieces, and leave poorly paid workers to struggle on, regardless, commended by your own consultants for their efforts to do so, in spite of the damage you had done? Or is it so vital that you must now, in the grip of an increasingly dangerous pandemic, merciless in its grip on this part of North London, force those workers to risk their lives, and that of their families, while you sit safely at home with your feet up, cancelling surgeries, holding a few safely Zoomed meetings, but refusing to put yourselves at any risk at all? 

When Hendon Library was opened in 1929, Lord Elgin made a speech, faithfully recorded in the local newspaper report: it was one which would have passed over the empty heads of the current crop of Tory councillors in the chamber of Hendon Town Hall. He observed:

Libraries (are) not mere store-houses of books. They must be centres of social and political life—political in its old and full sense of what pertained to the good of the community. A library should teach us not only that we had a neighbour. It should help us to understand that neighbour, to know his ideals and ambitions, and to know that he wanted to find the best way of making use of the talents with which he had been entrusted. A library service must be treated as the true life-blood of the population. It must the open gateway to all and sundry to knowledge and beauty.

Not content with ransacking the treasure house of Hendon Library, and no doubt leaving the golden key to be stolen with the rest of the civic collection, our philistine councillors are happy to throw the spare key to the building over to their friends at Middlesex University, and reverse the march of progress begun by their predecessors. 

There is no excuse for this. The events of the last year have proved more than ever that the public library service is a vital, fundamental resource for all communities, never more so than in difficult times, and not least for those without means, the 'poor' people that Mr Widmark recognised, even in the 1920s, who deserve access to reading, and information, just as much as those with wealth and privilege.

Just as Barnet Tory councillors care nothing for those without access to books, computers or smart phones, they care even less for Lord Elgin's vision of 'the good of the community'. They do not recognise the idea of caring for one's neighbour, and supporting him or her in their aspirations, or needs. 

And it is fair to say that the paternalistic but caring Conservative councillors of the 1920s would not recognise their supplanters in the chamber of Hendon Town Hall, who are intent on destroying their legacy of philanthropy, and practical help. 

Hendon's 'Treasure House', of course, is the perfect place to start the next phase of their war on libraries: where better than the former central library, that once meant so much to so many people? 

A gateway to knowledge is a dangerous thing, in Broken Barnet: a portal to a world of differing opinions, and the possibility of change. No wonder they cannot wait to shut it down.

Project Rose: the devastating report Barnet Tories didn't want you to read

  

Barnet Tory leader Richard Cornelius at a recent residents' meeting

Summer in Broken Barnet has always been a dangerous season. 

A time when devious council strategists quietly slip out any awkward political announcements; when developers submit any awkward applications to demolish yet another piece of our built heritage (more of that in the next post) - but increasingly now it serves as a lull in the storm: a time of desultory Tory inaction, some of our more privileged elected members sitting idly in the garden of their French summer homes, safe in the knowledge - or so they think - that nothing much back home is happening, can happen, and if it does happen: no one will notice.

This year, this summer, before our Tory councillors packed their bags and headed off to the sun, something already had happened - and the long break until September offered them a welcome respite from the gathering clouds that now have broken over their empty heads, only this week, in the form of further trouble, and the publication of a damning report that exposes, in visceral detail, the extent of failure in the corporate management of this borough.

Only after the elections were safely over was it revealed that the authority's pre-election financial statements were wrong, and predicted deficits actually on a catastrophic scale, far worse than previously given. The council also now admitted that the mass privatisation of council services, thrown in the hands of Capita, in the form of two enormous contracts, was failing - or rather, as they put it, required a 'realignment'. Capita itself, of course, is struggling to survive: all of which together has left the borough in a perilous state, at unprecedented risk of financial collapse.

At the same time, again, shortly after the elections, rumours emerged of a scandalous story involving a massive fraud alleged to have been committed by a Capita employee. A fraud said to be more than £2 million in value, and one that had gone undetected until the employee's own bank had reported it to the council. Little could be said, as the matter was going to court, and although the authority had commissioned a report by auditors Grant Thornton into the wider issues raised by the fraudulent activity, they would not publish it yet, claiming that it was not 'in the public interest'.

On Friday this report was quietly made available on the council's website, spotted only by fellow blogger Mr Reasonable - no announcement was made, of course. Why would there be? It would be in breach of their policy of denial, and counter transparency.

But let us set the scene for the latest developments.

A couple of weeks ago, Tory Leader Richard Cornelius returned from his long break to begin a set of three low key public meetings with residents. These engagements, clearly reluctantly undertaken, are lip service to the statutory requirement to consult the public about forthcoming budget expenditure, and the corporate plan. As such, of course, they were given little publicity, in the hope that almost no one would turn up.

Some of us did turn up.

We trailed along, in the dismal early autumn rain, up the steep slope from the tube station to the venue in Chipping Barnet, passing on the way a discarded copy of one of the many leaflets local Tory MP and Brexit enthusiast Theresa Villiers has been stuffing through residents' letter boxes, in the frantic hope that she can, in the event of a snap election - any election - retain what is now a desperately marginal constituency, and one that is staunchly Remain.

 

Poor Mrs Villiers, marginalised, and digging her own political grave

The venue chosen was the Old Bull theatre: once an inn, so named for the Bull's head drain that used to spout water from the roof - an inn dating back perhaps as far as medieval times, when Barnet itself was a venue for a battle that was one of the pivotal moments in the War of the Roses. 

In the window was a poster for a local society's talk on Richard III, who was of course present at the Battle of Barnet, as a young man. His beady eyes gazed out on to the street that he once must have passed along, after the battle, on his way to London. 

Inside the theatre, another Richard stood waiting on the tiny stage, about to give a soliloquy not on our glorious summer, or the looming winter of discontent, but to expand upon a vision of life as it never is and never can be, in Broken Barnet, where everything, as he put it, is Nice, or at least, parts of it are Nice, and in defence of which he intends to make sure the Nice parts remain Nice.

Sat in the audience were some well heeled residents of Chipping, relics of the days when Barnet was still a Tory stronghold, awash with fundraising strawberry teas, and Pimms on the lawn, and Brian Coleman in a deckchair, and residents' wishes instantly accommodated by local party representatives. 

The sense of entitlement was palpable: two women vied with each other to be the most outraged over the council and police failing to remove homeless people daring to sleep in shop doorways, and spoiling the high street with their poverty and mental health needs, urinating in public and Worse, as one enraged woman at the back hissed across  the auditorium. Defecation! 

No shit. 

No: shit happens, even in Chipping Barnet. And it isn't at all Nice.

The Tory leader promised to 'clamp down' on such unspeakable acts, and said they were all foreigners, anyway, theses homeless people - as some of us looked on in horror, and instantly objected.

Another resident objected to investment in the less advantaged western side of the borough: why should they have 'so much' rather than Chipping? This was a step too far even for the Tory leader, and for one shining moment - a theatrical moment as breath taking as anything ever seen on the boards of the Old Vic - Mrs Angry and Richard Cornelius agreed with each other, and remonstrated with the woman. 

An event so unexpected, in fact, that he stopped to inform the audience it that such a thing had never happened before. 

It is unlikely ever to happen again.

The event was meant to be a consultation on the corporate plan.  Fellow bloggers Mr Reasonable, Mr Tichborne and Mrs Angry all tried to bring the discussion back to this point, and raise serious questions about the massive deficit, and the damage from the failure of the Capita contracts, but to little avail. Cornelius seemed, under any difficult questioning, to cringe, and even shrink in stature: less of a Shakespearean performance, than a puppet whose strings have been cut. 

He denied that successive Tory administrations had been guilty of financial incompetence. He insisted the Capita contracts were making savings. He blamed all financial shortfalls on funding shortages, without attributing this to the policies of his own party in government. Yes: a load of old bull, spouting forth, at the Old Bull. 

In short, Cornelius, and Barnet Tories generally, are in a state of absolute denial. Or at least that is their public facing approach - to deny to others what they must know to be the truth - that the borough faces financial meltdown, and may well end up in the dire straits facing Northamptonshire and other council authorities. Stare it out, deny it: bad news is fake news. 

A twitter follower spotted something rather alarming about the photo of Barnet's Tory leader at his recent stand up/sit down roadshow ...

In order to maintain some sense of equanimity, they have adopted a defence mechanism of total silence - a sworn allegiance to the code of omerta, defiantly maintained in the face of the earlier revelations - immediately after the local elections - of the gravity of our perilous financial position. This was inadequate then: after what has now emerged in the course of Friday's revelations, they find themselves with no cover at all, and exposed for all to see as they really are.

Eventually the Capita fraud case was brought to court, and the culprit pleaded guilty to 62 incidents of fraud, involving payments for non existent cases of Compulsory Purchase Orders of properties in regeneration schemes -  to the value of more than £2 million. He was given a five year prison sentence.

The council had commissioned a report from Grant Thornton to look into the circumstances in which this incredibly serious fraud had occurred. But they refused to publish it, or disclose the contents to members, citing as an excuse - preposterously - that it was 'not in the public interest' to do so. Why not? 

Tory leader Cornelius, Chief Executive John Hooton and senior managers earlier in the summer

Because, they said, it 'contains financial and business information about Re and Capita'. 

Quite clearly public interest is not the same as the commercial interests of Capita: but such is the extent of power, the inversion of power, between customer and contractor in this perverse relationship that Capita has been allowed to move into the more dominant position, leaving Barnet Tories too frightened to hold them to account. And of course the contract requires the council to promote the reputation of its own contractor, making it even harder to hold them to account. 

What sort of fools would sign up for such a contract, you may ask? 

Ask them yourselves: most of them are still sitting at the committee table.

By September, the report had still not been published. 

On 3rd September, Mrs Angry had decided to submit a Freedom of Information request for the report: 

Please give me a full copy of the report of the investigation undertaken by

Grant Thornton into the recent £2million+ fraud perpetrated by an employee of

Capita.

Please do not claim it is not in the public interest for this report to be

published, as quite clearly that cannot be true, and the ICO will not allow such

a pretext.

Please do not refuse publication on the pretext of future publication as the

report should already have been published, in the public interest, and anyway

no date has ever been given for publication.

There was nothing to lose by formally requesting the report: and it would force the authority, if refused, to explain itself to the Information Commissioner, a body which has always been very supportive when dealing with complaints about Barnet's attempts to obstruct the disclosure of material that is demonstrably in the public interest, and indeed has put the authority into 'special measures' when found to be in breach of statutory requirements.

And it was a timely test of Barnet's culture of counter transparency, as over recent months, almost every politically sensitive FOI request made to the authority by me and others appears to have resulted in delays, delayed demands for 'clarification', and other difficulties.  Last week patience ran out, and a complaint was made to the ICO about two such requests, on two matters that are of serious significance, and should most definitely be put in the public domain. 

This seems to have had a beneficial outcome in one way at least. Within days, the Grant Thornton report was - with no public announcement - at last published on the council website, and Mrs Angry informed that her response had been supplied - and five days early - albeit, as we know, with some redactions. The timing may or may not be coincidental. 

It is now clear, however, why it has taken the authority so long to release this document. 

The report - which you can find here - commissioned under the code name 'Project Rose' - is a devastating exposure of both contractual failings, and the failings of the commissioning side of the council to manage with any measurement of competence, the safeguarding of its own financial investment in services, and the process of privatisation. 

Ultimately, of course, it is an absolute indictment of the Tory group, and the Tory leadership. 

It must be noted, as observed within the report at several points, that Capita does not lend its endorsement to the contents, and that the report had to be redrafted no less than seven times. One hesitates to guess what the original version was like, bearing in mind the state of the final one.

'Project Rose', then.

O Rose, thou art sick.

Where to begin?

First of all it is confirmed that the massive fraud, perpetrated over an eighteen month period, was only detected by the employee's own bank. It was not spotted, throughout this period, by any manager, in either of the two Capita organisations: CSG, or the joint venture Re, or anyone in the commissioning side of the council, or in internal audit, or CAFT, the Corporate Anti Fraud Team. 

The way in which 'the Individual', as he is referred to throughout the report, managed for so long to perpetrate this series of fraudulent acts, was by taking advantage of the inherent vulnerability of a privatised council with complete disregard for basic accounting safeguards,  let alone any adequate system of financial control - or indeed any proper mitigation of the risk of fraud.  

This open larder of opportunity was made all the easier to access, due to something we have so often reported in this blog: the multiplicity of roles played by Capita, the conflicts of interest so deeply embedded within their range of functions - and the double contract system that increases the risk of fraud or corruption, with a lack of protocols guarding against any potential for such activity. The interaction between Capita CSG and Capita Re has been effectively unregulated, or insufficiently regulated. A failure that has been compounded by another, overarching role in which the same contractor is responsible for overseeing the authority's accounts - and reporting on its own financial performance. 

Above and beyond this mess, there is something which goes right back up to the highest levels of governance, and accountability. Something noted repeatedly in a phrase used throughout this truly shocking report, and that is -'insufficient oversight'. 

(Part of) the Capita contracts that Tory councillors did not read fully before approving

The story of the Barnet Capita contracts has been chronicled in detail here, over the years, and elsewhere. 

Go back five years, if you like, and follow the genesis of this reckless process, right from the beginning, and the ineffably vacuous 'easycouncil' model of local government promoted by former Tory leader Freer, now MP for Finchley & Golders Green, one which was fostered and developed by a succession of neo-Thatcherite councillors, senior management officers, and consultants, in order to soften up the ground for the mass outsourcing of our local services. 

Read how Barnet Unison, and anyone with any sense, tried to warn Barnet Tories what would happen. Remember the reports that were submitted to committees, and ignored, unread.

Remember the staff who lost their jobs, the services moved out of the borough to all around the UK.

Remember how the Tory councillors allowed the tendering process to develop, with only one contender, in the end. 

How they were not 'allowed' to read the full contract, and how the same lawyers who worded it approved it on their behalf, and how the Tory councillors voted to approve contracts they had not read.

Richard Cornelius signing away direct control of our local services in 2013

How after they had done so, some of them allowed themselves to express grave doubts about the whole process - too late.

How in the years that followed, one man - fellow blogger John Dix, Mr Reasonable - has continued to scrutinise the performance of the contracts, and explain, in forensic detail, the reasons for his serious concerns about the risks of failure that were evident to anyone with even the least critical eye.

Think about the consequences, for our least advantaged residents, of any serious failure in the local services on which they rely. Combined with a self inflicted lack of funding from council tax frozen for purely ideological reasons, by Barnet Tories, who at the same time were happily endorsing the most brutal cuts in those local services, magnified by a policy of further slashing of funds from central government: and we have a disaster on our hands.

Who will take responsibility for this? 

And has anyone been sanctioned in any way for the gross failure of the authority to prevent the fraudulent activity and widespread financial incompetence uncovered by the Grant Thornton report? 

The line of accountability goes right up to the top. The Tory leader, the Chief Executive, the senior management team; the Chairs of council committees - have any of them accepted responsibility, or lost their posts? 

No chance of the Tory leader standing down: in fact it is rumoured he has only recently seen off a challenge for the leadership. So we must accept that his captaincy of the ship that is now hitting the iceberg somehow equips him to lead the rescue mission, must we? 

What will happen now? 

What has the opposition said about this completely avoidable disaster?

Hard to tell, as there has been no statement on the party website, they say because they have lost access to it - and there is little to see on twitter. Some members have tweeted part of a statement emailed to them, in which apparently the local party is calling for the resignation of the Tory leader and the deputy leader, Dan Thomas, (who has always been the strongest supporter of the Capita contracts, but now appears to have been struck dumb: and who left twitter, by chance, earlier in the year, when the stuff now appearing in the shop doorways of Chipping Barnet began hitting the fan).

Barnet Labour are also now calling for the termination of the two Capita contracts. Better late than never: but really, far too late in the day to have any impact.

Since the contracts were signed, Labour in Barnet has largely failed to communicate successfully to electors the significance of the contractual bondage, or to express any effective condemnation of the continuation of the arrangements, citing the potential financial penalties that might accrue should we threaten to make an exit - without fully exploring whether or not this is correct. (In regard to this, it is also significant that it was a team of local activists - including the local bloggers - who sought legal opinion, backed by Labour lawyers, about the One Barnet outsourcing programme, and saw it through to a Judicial Review, whose judgement found the contracts to be based on flawed consultation, and would have been won if not deemed out of time). 

As to Cornelius's ship of fools, sailing full steam ahead towards and over the edge of the horizon, what is there to say? 

Denial, evasion, and a refusal to accept a duty of accountability will not stop the inevitable conclusion to their years of folly. They will struggle to free themselves of Capita: Capita will desperately try to retain as many services as possible, despite everything that has happened. The Grant Thornton report, incidentally, says very carefully that they 'understand' the £2 million stolen from Barnet has been 'reimbursed' - but where is the proof? Has it been paid in cash, or will it be deducted from fees?

Well: let the Tories sink their own political lives, and leave the careers of the three local Tory MPs clinging on to the wreckage: but let's not allow them to take us with them.

Time for the Labour party in Barnet to shape up, step up: show real opposition, effective strategy - and real leadership. A radical, robust fight is what is needed, not a consensual approach to politics, and an indulgent relationship with senior Tories, and senior officers - the latter habit often excused to Mrs Angry on the basis of having to work with them in the future. Friends, there is no likelihood of gaining power for the foreseeable future, and there never will be, if we carry on like this.

It is not enough to call for an end to the contracts, when in the meanwhile there are largely still the same senior officers in place, the same management structure, the same dependence on hugely expensive agency staff and, unaccountable consultants. Heads should, and must roll: and cuts made in a top heavy, hugely over rewarded senior level of management.

There are also many unanswered questions that emerge from any reading of the Grant Thornton report. 

The failure of the internal audit process, and CAFT, to identify the CPO fraud. The possible occurrence, in the years since the contracts were signed, of other fraudulent or corrupt practices, as a result of the absence of proper safeguards. Planning and enforcement clearly needs a closer look, and regeneration: has there been any wrongdoing in any of the the previous CPO programmes? 

All of these areas clearly require review, and an independent investigation - Project Rose was limited to the scope of immediate impact of the CPO fraud, but the implications go far wider, and in my view that is why we must all now demand a fuller inquiry - for the reassurance of residents and tax payers that their money, and their services, and the community in which we live, are safe from further exploitation, and further financial loss.