The devil is alive in Salem: Residents Forums in Broken Barnet

Mrs Angry asking an awkward question at the Finchley & Golders Green Residents' Forum

'A fire, a fire is burning! I hear the boot of Lucifer, I see his filthy face! ... For them that quail to bring men out of ignorance, as I have quailed, and as you quail now when you know in all your black hearts that this be fraud ...' The Crucible, Arthur Miller Act 3, Scene 3

Update Wednesday: see below -

Well, anyway:

This week sees the second round of the newly censored local Residents Forums.

In the tradition of Broken Barnet, because the Residents' Forums worked perfectly well, and offered citizens the opportunity to question their elected representatives, and hold them to account, the Forums had to be broken, and put together again so that they do not represent any threat to the comfort and well being of the Tory tyrants who sit on Barnet Council and dictate to us what we may or may not discuss.

Last week Mrs Angry duly sent in a few questions for the meeting:

Dear Ms xxxx

I would like to ask the following questions at the next Residents Forum:

1. At the last Forum it became clear that the new restrictions and format was hugely unpopular with all residents who attended. When will the council reconsider the changes it has made, and make the Forums a proper process of consultation with residents, in line with Eric Pickles' idea of localism?

2. When, in the interests of transparency, will the interests, gifts and hospitality of senior council officers be made accessible to the public?

3. Why are some local events in parks charged the full new rate, and others charged nothing at all? Who decides which event will be charged?

Thanks,

Mrs Angry

Oh dear: the response came back,almost immediately, from the long suffering council officer charged with dealing with this Forum ...

I confirm receipt of below email. Please note that full Council at its meeting on 17 May 2011 agreed the type of issues to be discussed at Residents Forum meetings as per below in italics. As Issues 1 and 2 do not cover public works, I will not be including them on the Issues List.

Residents’ Items

The Residents’ Forums will give residents the opportunity to raise local matters (basically “Public Works”). Items must be emailed to the Governance Service 24 hours before the meeting on a dedicated email address. There will be a guarantee that if a qualifying matter is submitted as above it will be discussed. A Six Month Rule shall apply preventing matters that have already been dealt with from being raised again within that period.

The types of matters that could be covered are:

• Parks and Greenspaces
• Trees
• Allotments
• Highways
• Pavements
• Traffic
• Parking
• Utility issues
• Refuse
• Street cleaning
• Local crime

This may also be forum for certain consultations from the Council as decided by the Chairman. (This would not be referred to the Area Environment sub-Committees).

Petitions (on matters relevant to the Constituency only) can also be presented. Matters raised must not relate to Planning or Licensing Issues. “

Kind regards,xxxx

Hmm, thought Mrs Angry. Very disappointing, but as it happens, there are some street based, public works type of issues which having weighing heavily on my mind recently:

Dear Ms xxxx,

Here are some questions that I would like to submit to next week's Finchley and Golders Green Forum, and I am glad to inform you that these do meet the new One Barnet criteria of approved subjects, and that therefore there is a guarantee that they will be included:

1. Parks and Greenspaces:

The Friern Barnet Summer Show takes place every year in a public park, ie Friary Park in North Finchley. At this year's Barnet Council sponsored event, a local community group was, after initially being given permission for a stall, barred from the show and members of the group were later thrown out of the event, and had their banner taken from them by show organisers including two Barnet councillors. This banner was then 'lost' by the same individuals.

I understand from a reliable source that a few years ago, the council attempted to ban Hendon Labour Party from having a stall at a fun day festival. Legal advice was sought, and this brought to light the law report of a case establishing that community organisations, including political parties, in fact cannot be banned from having a stall at such events. The defendants in this case were the London Borough of Barnet. After reminding the council of this legal finding, the authority was obliged to back down and allow the stall to be included in the fun day. I would therefore like to ask if the council would agree that the Barnet Alliance/ 'BAPS' were wrongfully treated at the show and will ensure that in future the group will not be banned from council sponsored events, and will the council ensure that BAPs will receive an apology and also be compensated for the loss of their banner?

2. Parks and Greenspaces:

I understand that this year's Friern Barnet show took place in a public park but was not charged the full new rate by Barnet Council for the event. By contrast, I believe the 100 year old Finchley Carnival which takes place in Victoria Park had to be cancelled this year because the full charges were going to be imposed.

• Can you confirm that this was the case, and if so clarify why charges are made in one case, but not the other?
  
• Can you confirm that the decision to charge or to waive the charge is made by the Cabinet member for Environment, or if he was present at council meetings at which the show was discussed?

3. Local crime:

Earlier this year Barnet Council was found to have been using a local unlicensed security company without a contract and in breach of various very serious regulations. Can you confirm whether or not any criminal investigations relating to possible fraud have taken place in regard to the five year long 'arrangement' with this company, and if not, why not?

4. Parking:

Barnet Council has just approved the withdrawal of cash based parking services, and expects any resident who does not have a mobile phone or credit card to use the PayPoint facilities as an alternative system. We are told that drivers will be timed by parking attendants and allowed three minutes to find a PayPoint, pay, and return to the car.

• my elderly neighbour drives a car, but does not own a mobile phone and does not wish to use a credit card to pay. He also cannot use the internet. How will he know where the PayPoints are, and how can he be expected to sprint there and back in the three minutes allowed by Councillor Coleman's new rule? Will the council be holding free fitness classes for elderly residents wishing to avail themselves of this payment process?

• it seems that as Councillor Coleman does not approve of non cashless payment, the PayPoint system is only an interim measure and will be removed. How long is 'interim', in this case: is it as long, for example, as the 'interim' description for semi-permanent consultant senior officers?

5.Parking:

Can you confirm that councillors still qualify for free parking permits that ensure they do not have to use any payment system when parking in the borough? If so, can you confirm that this generous gesture for our elected representatives will continue, despite the 'ruthless drive for efficiency' and aim of 'better services for less money' of the One Barnet programme?

6.Refuse:

Can you explain why the council continues to refuse to allow Residents Forums to allow free debate and the freedom of expression, in direct contradiction of the policy of localism and the empowerment of the citizen being promoted by Eric Pickles, Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government?

Many thanks,

Mrs Angry ("as she has every right to be": Eric Pickles)

cc Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

*Update Wednesday:

Rather to Mrs Angry's surprise, two of these questions will actually be allowed at tonight's Forum: goodness me, citizens, how did we manage that? Mrs Angry has an interesting theory, in fact, which she will explain later. Here is the explanation for the censorship of the other questions:

Thank you for below email. Questions 2 and 5 have been added to the Issues List. However further to my earlier email advising of issues that can be raised at Residents Forum meetings, please note that the following Issues do not cover public works and will therefore not be included on the list.

Q1. These are allegations/civil matter which are not appropriate for a forum discussion.

Q3. This is not a public works issue and has been dealt with in the last 6 months.

Q4. This is a Policy Matter and also has been dealt with in the last 6 months.

Q6. Not public works issue.

xxx

Netroots UK: an online rebellion

So: there is trouble in paradise, and, here in Broken Barnet, the natives are restless.

But what is happening elsewhere in the country, around and about this earth of majesty, this septic isle?

Are there signs of resistance beginning to emerge in opposition to the apocalyptic political agenda of the Coalition government, or are people just sitting back and waiting for the worst to happen? What can we do about it anyway? Well, quite a lot, as it turns out.

A few years ago, while America was still squirming under the heel of the Bush administration, across the nation there emerged a new grassroots political phenomenon, the Netroots movement, which, through the use of new online resources and social media, created active opposition to the Republican government, and strengthened support for progressive political causes, directly contributing to the success of the Obama election campaign. The Netroots movement has become so well established and influential, in fact, that the President himself sent a video address to the 2010 conference.

On Saturday, the first Netroots conference was held at the TUC HQ in Bloomsbury, drawing more than 600 interested bloggers, tweeters, journalists, and other online activists, to hear speakers from the media and politics, and take part in various workshops. Mrs Angry was there: she would not exactly claim to see herself as an organised activist, but thought it might be interesting to attend, and it certainly was. And it was amusing, and flattering, to -ahem - hear this blog singled out for praise in one of the workshops by someone I guess we have to describe as a 'veteran journalist' (tweet that then, Dave Hill - although of course, really, I'm only a girlie blogger writing about knitting & kittens & stuff ... )


This event even attracted the interest and attendance of a few token Tories, including Sam Coates, who, we were told towards the end of the afternoon, had described the day as 'chaotically brilliant'. Even poor old Guido Fawkes got his knickers in a twist about it (I'm guessing he wasn't invited) and with all the wit you might expect from him, labelled the event - go on, go on - yes, 'Nutsroots'. Actually, it was markedly short of spotty geeks and nutters (apart from the token Tories in their kipper ties) and contrary to Fawkes' prediction, we were not plied with unlimited amounts of alcohol and subsidised food all day long. The hosts being the TUC, I had of course expected beer and sandwiches, but disappointingly we were handed paper bag mums packed lunches of the sort, in a post Jamie Oliver world, that you're actually not allowed to give your kids anymore: stuffed with crisps and Ribena. Ribena! But anyway ...


What was a real revelation to me, throughout the course of the day, was that much of what is happening in our borough, with the flourishing blogosphere, and the unprecedented interest - by normally apathetic voters - in both local and national political issues, is part of a much bigger picture. People are restless, and frustrated, and not connecting to mainstream politics or finding expression in media such as the press, tv and radio. they are taking matters into their own hands.

One of the first speakers on Saturday was a guy from the TUC, who made some very interesting points about the changing perception of electors, as recorded in a series of opinion polls since the May election.

When the Coalition government first announced the necessity for a blitzkrieg of spending cuts of such ferocity, the good old British public accepted, like the dimwits they take us for, that this course of action was unavoidable. Increasingly, however, people are beginning to have serious concerns about the speed in which the programme of cuts are being introduced, the effects they will produce, and they are rapidly realising that the cuts are in fact inherently unfair. The number of voters who think they are going to suffer directly is rising, whilst those who think the cuts will be good for the economy is falling to zero. And of course all this is happening before any of the proposed changes have really begun to take practical effect: what happens then will be very interesting indeed.

Journalist Polly Toynbee spoke eloquently about what is heading our way: the full impact of change on our society, the effects every citizen will see in their local community, and in their daily and family lives. The impact of loss of budgets for schools, further education, training, libraries, hospitals, the police, ambulance and fire services. The effect on young and old: childrens' centres, youth centres, elderly day care centres. Tuition fee rises, the loss of EMA. Old and young, the most vulnerable will be the hardest hit. She pointed out that most cuts will fall hardest, of course, on children, the poorest children. Forget about 'every child matters': staff in certain government departments have already been forbidden to use this phrase. Benefits lost or cuts or frozen rates; changes to housing policy and the increased difficulty of finding affordable accommodation: almost every cut you can think of will have a direct impact on the youngest and most dependent members of our society.

Every child suffers, in Coalition Britain.

Toynbee warned that Cameron and friends, in what she described as a 'brutal' government, are recklessly creating 'a social deficit of incalculable cost'. The repair of such damage will be so much harder than any kind of financial repayment, becaus what is being planned, is so much huger than anything that Margaret Thatcher ever dared to do. She left her own legacy, of course: a lost generation of young people, brought up dependent on a welfare system: Thatcher's children, the point where Britain got broken, in my humble view, Dave. Your turn now, you, and George and Nick: see how big a mess you can create, why don't you?

But there is hope, as well as bleak foreboding, in what Polly Toynbee had to say. She noted how political opposition to the government is so much more united than in similar situations in past history. And if the impact of the cuts is going to be felt on such a local, personal scale, then perhaps much of the solution to fighting the onslaught is also on a local, personal scale.

Time for communities to fight back, and take control of the argument. And in the age of online activisim, blogging, tweeting, social media, there is a new accessibility for ordinary people to do just that. I think it's true to say that there is obviously now a completely dysfunctional relationship between Parliament and the vast majority of voters, and there traditionally has been little interaction between local government administrations and their local constituents. I think that fury and frustration is already forging a new lack of tolerance for the self serving politicians of the parliamentary world and indeed those misfits skulking about in the Town Hall chambers of local authorities. Voters are wising up. So much information is now available online, and this is where so much political debate is taking place. Politicians need to rethink their preset ideas, and the mainstream, traditional press and media, both national and local, need to adapt and change if they want to survive.

One of the later speakers was a very interesting guy, Ari Rabin-Havt, who runs 'Media Matters', an organisation in the US which monitors press coverage of politicial issues. This, as we are reminded so horrribly today, is a very important function. He warned of the 'Fox Effect': the way in which a right wing television channel presents political issues in sensationalist and seemingly unregulated ways; a practice which can have a truly catastrophic effect.

Many citizens in America form all their political views from such toxic sources. We watched a film of a presenter called Glenn Beck, raving, ranting about Nazis and Socialists, footage reminiscent of the movie 'Network', you know, 'I'm mad as hell etc ' - which appeared to be a spoof: it wasn't. Think of Sarah Palin, and her surreal world view: we laugh, but many Americans hold the same attitudes and dangerous opinions, having been fed for years on a newsdiet of such crap. What happened in Tucson this weekend is already being linked to the poisonous atmosphere engendered by such dangerous and irresponsible political coverage and debate.

Will we face problems like that over here? Hopefully not. But we have our own difficulties: most of our national newspapers are tediously right wing, and the famous neutrality of the BBC is something which requires eternal vigilence. But that takes us back to the Netroots idea: cutting through the barrier of the hostile or indifferent old school media, and giving ordinary people and ordinary communities a voice, and a say in their own futures. Empowering them, you might say, if you were a Big Society kind of person. Who'd got hold of the wrong end of the stick.

Because - it's localism, Dave.

But not as you know it.