Brian Coleman and an election campaign that dare not speak his name

Brian Coleman: is he chicken?


Mrs Angry is having a few technological problems at the moment. In fact, to be honest, Mrs Angry's life at present would appear to consist of rather too many problems, and too few pleasures. Mrs Angry does not like January anyway, but this is not a good start to the new year, and Mrs Angry would quite like to go backwards to December, like her blog feed, and start again. Or back a little further, perhaps. Quite a lot further. If only time could be rewound - and yes, yes, please don't take this as an opportunity to tell her about neutrinos and the speed of light and all that stuff, because Mrs Angry's son has tried this, at great length, until his mother's eyes glazed over and she fell on the floor in a dead faint, and nothing about it has stuck in her feeble brain, so you needn't bother.

Well anyway: there is some good news to restart the new year, here in Broken Barnet.

In less than five months time we will be facing an election for Mayor and for the London Assembly. Boris Johnson has of course asked for, and received, a certain amount of help from Mrs Angry in his campaign, and perhaps it is this warm encouragement that has persuaded him now to gird up his loins, and to make a rare visit to our borough.

On the 17th January 'Talk London Barnet' will take place at the Peel Centre, in Hendon, from 7 to 8.30pm, and the Mayor of London will be there with a panel of guests 'for an opportunity to question them on investing in Outer London'. Interesting turn of phrase, isn't it? Investing in outer London. Mrs Angry believes that means handing out grants to favoured Tory voting areas in the last few months before an election, rather than supporting the needs of residents in a fairly assessed and regulated programme, so try not to get too excited.

You may not have heard of this interesting event, as it happens, as the publicity for it has been, well, awfully discreet. So discreet that even obtaining tickets has been a test of initiative, involving registering on a website, trying many times to submit an application, eventually receiving a ticket, but then being told that one must turn up an hour before the session starts as entry will be on the basis of first come, first in. If Mrs Angry were of a cynical disposition, and not the trusting, open hearted woman that she is, she might think that actually Boris' people don't want anyone to know about the event, don't want anyone to turn up, and don't want to let anyone in if they do. Why would that be, do you think?

The Tory candidate for the Barnet and Camden constituency is the current member, our much loved local hero, Brian Coleman. Coleman has had his backside firmly wedged in the seat since 2000, and indeed receives the greater part of his £130,000 publicly funded income from the GLA post and associated position as Chair of the London Fire Brigade. If, as many expect, he loses his seat in May to Labour's candidate and former local Labour MP Andrew Dismore, this will be a devastating humiliation for Coleman, albeit a cause for celebration in the streets of London by the liberated populace, on a scale unseen since VE Day, 1945.

Now then: since news of the the Talk London event has emerged, there has been a curious lack of uncertainty regarding the other participants. At first it appeared to be the case that Brian Coleman would be chairing the event, but later publicity inexplicably failed to confirm this. Some naughty suggestions were then made that Brian, who is not, let's be brutally honest, awfully popular in these parts, was too chicken to turn up. Not an idea entirely to be discounted. Every town centre and forgotten street in Broken Barnet is rapidly becoming a no go area for any Tory councillor, thanks to the catastrophic parking scheme, and a heavy catalogue of similarly disastrous policy actions, and now they are all shit scared of engaging in any public forum in which the hostility of the mutinous residents might be openly expressed - and so they should be.

The Tory campaign for the May elections has been a most remarkable thing: poor old Lynton Crosby has clearly decided that the only way to neutralise the Coleman factor, and prevent the toxic stain of Colemanism and Broken Barnet lunacy from creeping over Boris's election prospects, is to shut Brian up, and keep him as far away from Boris as possible, a bit like the embarrassing uncle at a family wedding. Uncle Brian, therefore, is locked in the cupboard under the stairs with a bottle of babycham until the wedding is over - although the guests can still hear him yelling through the crack under the door and demanding more sandwiches.

Our GLA member has issued no press release since July 15th, interestingly: his rival candidate Dismore, on the other hand, has issued numbers of them, many based on information extracted from FOIs regarding the activitities, or lack of them, of our Brian on behalf of constituents.* See below.

No, Brian's own campaign of gentle persuasion and wooing of voters has been carefully based on a charm offensive, all centred around his militant defence of the Titanic flagship parking policy, and supported by memorable utterances on the subject of housing and instructions on 'living in the real world', not subsidised by 'the system', or any local charity, and the burden of cost presented by the transport needs of children with special needs and vulnerable adults - 'these people'. Brian has thus endeared himself to every driver in the borough, every resident with a disability, or with a disabled relative, and every elderly person in the borough who foolishly wishes to use a car, but does not have a mobile phone. Brian has told these senior citizens, in fact, that they do not exist, so presumably they would not qualify for a vote anyway.

Local Tories and the wider Conservative party appear to be deeply concerned about the Coleman effect: dear, dear - tragically, only a few months ago, a fund raiser event for the May elections had to cancelled, despite the glamorous allure of star guests Brian and escort Raine, Countess Spencer. How times have changed. Rumours abounded not sop long ago that many Tories want to dump Coleman as candidate, and every Labour voter in London held their breath, fervently praying it was not true, but - thankfully it's too late to change now - the dangerous moment passed, and our biggest election asset remains in place.

After some probing today it now appears that Coleman has now been listed as Chair for the Talk London event: whether he turns up or not will be interesting to see. Others attending will be Isabel Dedring, Deputy Mayor for Transport, someone called Gail Laser, 'Chair of Barnet Traders & Barnet Town Team', oh, and easy to overlook - Richard Cornelius, the so called leader of Barnet Council. (Mrs Angry hears the dear leader Cornelius has been inspired by North Korea to work up some sort of cult of personality, Coleman style, here in Broken Barnet. Sadly, at the time of writing, he has so far been unable to locate one.)

Mrs Angry has been racking her brain to try and remember where she has heard of Gail Laser before ... oh, and then she did - here is a Barnet Council press release from the 9th August:

Chipping Barnet residents 'thrilled' at £400k town centre boost

"Chipping Barnet traders and residents had reasons to celebrate after hearing of their success in obtaining £416,000 from the Mayor of London’s Outer London Fund to improve their town centre.

The Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, announced that Chipping Barnet will be amongst the 30 winners of the first round of £10m made available for outer London to “bring the buzz back” to their high streets.

Set up in March, the Mayor’s Outer London Fund is a £50m three year initiative to grow economic activity and drive employment in parts of London benefitting less directly from large-scale infrastructure investment in the capital such as Crossrail and the 2012 Games.

The proposals for Chipping Barnet include physical improvements such as enhancing the green space at St John the Baptist Church in Wood Street. as well as clutter removal and tree planting on the High Street along with other economy boosting initiatives.

A number of these schemes will be delivered in time for Christmas to provide financial help for this historic town centre to attract additional local shoppers over the festive period and beyond.

A bid for Edgware Town centre was submitted, but was unsuccessful.

Chairman of Chipping Barnet Traders’ Association and local resident Gail Laser was “thrilled” to hear that their close partnership with the Barnet Society, Hadley Residents’ Society and Barnet Council enabled a successful bid to the Mayor of London that will now “inject economic vigour into our high street”.

Councillor Brian Coleman, Cabinet member for Environment, said: “This is a much needed boost to Chipping Barnet during these difficult financial times. It is important that we all try to support our local economies so they can continue to serve us long into the future.”

Clearly Ms Laser has reason to be grateful to the Mayor and Brian Coleman. Let's hope she has the nerve to stand up for all the other retailers and small business owners in the rest of the borough who are watching their businesses bleed to death through loss of trade caused by the fatally idiotic parking policy, the gift of Brian Coleman and his Cabinet colleagues.

That the already affluent Chipping Barnet town centre could be deemed in greater need of the Mayor's grant than Edgware is an absolute scandal, in Mrs Angry's opinion. Edgware town centre is of course on the border with Harrow, and populated by substantial numbers of less advantaged residents ... shh, you know, Labour voters. Chipping Barnet is the home of the most influential Broken Barnet Tory councillors, the heartland of their core voters, and a source of lucrative fund raising.

So: with Brian in the chair, a hand picked panel, and the topic of 'investment in outer London', do you think we will be able to have an honest and open debate on the issues that really matter to the residents of this constituency?

Who knows, but Mrs Angry believes that many in the audience will do their best to make sure these issues are raised anyway. Coleman might do well to stay away: it's not going to be an easy night.

*Here is another press release from Andrew Dismore:

As fare rises hit Barnet and Camden commuters returning to work today, Londoners have a clear choice in 2012


Barnet and Camden residents were today suffering a fourth year of inflation-busting fare increases from Boris Johnson, as new research shows that fares in London are now costing over a quarter of minimum wage take home pay.

Today is the first working day back under the new high fares package. It hits Barnet and Camden residents hard at a time when people are facing a squeeze on their quality of life and the London economy continues to struggle under George Osborne’s failed policies.

Ken’s Fare Deal would wipe out Boris Johnson’s planned increases for 2012 and saving the average Barnet and Camden commuter £1000 over the next four years.

Under the Conservative mayor the cost of a single bus ticket has risen by a massive 50 per cent since 2008, whilst the price of a monthly zone 1-2 Travelcard is up 21% costing £230.40 per year more, and the price of a zones 1-6 Travelcard is up a fifth.

New figures from the House of Commons library show that this means an office manager in central London earning £25,600 living in zone 1 or 2 would have to work for three weeks and three days before the cost of their travel was covered. A cleaner on the minimum wage (£11,730) would have to spend 27 per cent of their take home pay in order to pay for a weekly zones 1-6 Travelcard. A newly qualified nurse working in inner London (£25,411) and living in Zone 4 would have to have to work for 5 weeks and a day before they'd paid for their travel, whilst a shop assistant earning the London Living Wage (£16,013) would have to spend 21 per cent of their take home pay to be able to afford to pay for a weekly zones 1-6 travelcard.



Andrew Dismore, Labour’s London Assembly candidate for Barnet and Camden said:

“Before residents even arrive at work this morning they will have felt the pain of a fourth year of above inflation bus, tube and train fare hikes under Boris Johnson.

“This is the wrong fare rise at the wrong time, taking money out of people’s pockets when the London economy is struggling and when people are very hard pressed.

“The impact applies across Barnet and Camden and London as a whole and across ages and income brackets. Yet every year the Mayor rakes in more income from fares than his budgets and business plans says he will.


Ken Livingstone said,

“It’s time for change. Exactly four months today Londoners will face a very clear choice – a Labour mayor who will cut the fares, or a Tory mayor who raises fares, forcing many to spend a quarter of their wages merely getting to and from work. In elected in May I'll cut the fares saving the average Londoners £1000 over four years.

Part Two: In your face: a Residents Forum, continued

Consultation with residents, One Barnet style


So - Finchley & Golders Green Residents Forum: where were we?

Last night's meeting took place in a new venue, a church hall, just opposite Mrs Angry's old school, in fact, which she took as an omen of some sort. The evening certainly turned into the sort of performance you might expect from a hopeless, desperate teacher who cannot control the class and totally loses the plot. Mrs Angry thought nostalgically of the time the school's German teacher, Fraulein B, whom all the girls suspected of being a man, due to an excessively large moustache, lost it big time one afternoon, locked a load of pupils in the library, asked them intimate questions about their fathers, and then had to be taken away in an ambulance, as we all watched, in ghoulish fascination.
Happy days.

Anyway: there we all were, crammed into a tiny room, residents faced by a panel of glowering Tory chair Reuben Thompstone, his sheepish, largely silent colleague Graham Old, a governance officer Ms A, and the manager of Highways, Mr Neil Richardson.

Also present were several Labour councillors, including Kath Mc Guirk, Ross Houston, Jim Tierney, Anne Hutton, Jeff Cooke, and Alan Schneiderman, and Libdem Jack Cohen. Former chair Tory Dean Cohen came in late, missing most of the fun. Where were any other Tory councillors? Mrs Angry has never seen Eva Greenspan at a Forum, which is pretty shabby, and deputy boy leader Daniel Thomas told Mrs Angry himself that he does not need to attend, ever - which is what you might expect. And where was the Garden Suburb housewife's choice, Councillor Andrew Harper? Had something come up at the last moment?

And John Marshall: how could you stay away?

Mrs Angry bumped into Councillor Marshall, the other day, in Waitrose - he was, rather fittingly, standing by the organic nut display, looking bemused, and trying to pretend he wasn't following her. Feeling sorry for the old boy: he can't help it, after all, who could - she made polite conversation. For some reason he told her about the magazines he likes to read (no, not that sort), like Private Eye. Ah, said Mrs Angry: yes, an excellent publication. Very interesting story a few weeks ago about Barnet, wasn't there? Was there? What about? MetPro! Remarkably well written, she thought. John gulped, and said the first thing that popped into his head: of course we have an election coming up next year, don't we? Hmm, said Mrs A: poor old Brian, he must be getting rather worried ... Oh, he said, panicking, well:I am not Councillor Coleman's spokesman ... Ha, no: said Mrs Angry, moving off, who would want that job? A few minutes later, Cllr Marshall came over to Mrs Angry and her daughter by the fish counter. He said to Miss Angry: Can't you control your mother? She gave him a steely look: NO, she replied firmly, I cannot. And then went and spoilt it by adding: I only wish I could. Mrs Angry was obliged to lecture her about her disloyal attitude all the way round Waitrose, and most of the way home.

But back to the Forum.

Mrs Angry grabbed the question sheet to see what written responses her three questions had received. If you recall, out of the several she had submitted, only three were allowed, under the new rules, which are aimed at preventing any useful or awkward questions being put to the panel or debated. Or that is the theory: things don't quite work out like that at our Forum.

Two of the questions had been given limited and evasive answers: the third, asking about councillors' free parking permits, was listed: but with no response other than:

'This is a policy issue and therefore not within the remit of the Forum.'

In which case, thought Mrs Angry: why was the question put on the sheet, unlike the other questions which were rejected for the same reason?

The Forum began with a stern lecture from the pompous, dictatorial Councillor Thompstone on the subject of how the meeting would proceed, and the many new regulations which we, the residents of the Residents Forum, must observe. This performance took five minutes, by which time Mrs Angry was wound up like a coiled spring, ready to leap up, grab hold of Councillor Thompstone's tie, and shout in his self satisfied face 'LISTEN, SON: YOU ARE THE ELECTED REPRESENTATIVE OF ALL THESE PEOPLE, NOT THEIR F*CKING SLAVEMASTER, AND YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO SPEAK TO THEM IN THIS WAY!' But of course Mrs Angry is far too polite, and anyway she didn't need to jump up and shout in his face, because another resident did it for her, a little later in the proceedings. Oh yes.

You have to imagine the rest of the meeting taking place, as it did against a backdrop of vociferous discontent, yelling, arguing, barracking, laughter, applause, jeers, and an increasingly red faced Thompstone barking commands at the mutinous residents. It was terrific entertainment.

We were about to launch into the staged event that now passes for question time, when an elderly gentleman stood up to protest about the format of the Forum and the repressive control of debate that has taken place. The chair tried to shut him up, in his charmless way: he failed. The elderly resident was in fact Mr Julian Silverman, the Barnet Alliance member who had his banner snatched by Tory vicar, and chum of Brian Coleman, Father Adrian Benjamin. Mr Silverman had brought along copies of his own emergency resolution for the Forum to consider, which he had handed out. It was a pefectly reasonable resolution:

"We regard the coming decision of the council to sell off all council services to one-for profit company as an impending threat, which, on top of present government and council policies can only mean further attacks on libraries, the Health Service, education, welfare, social care, small businesses and ordinary householders, housing, the loss of adequate care for the elderly, children, the sick, etc. As responsible citizens and as participants in a forum intended for residents, we therefore call upon this meeting to suspend the new restrictions on questions so as to allow an urgent discussion of how to save jobs and services in Barnet."

As you might imagine, Mr Silverman's reading of this proposal enraged Cllr Thompstone, who tried to shout him down amongst disorder from the residents who supported him. In fact there was complete pandemonium. Thompstone was furious and carried on trying to impose his authority: 'What is a Forum for?' demanded an unstoppable Mr Silverman. 'May I remind you ...'

'NO, YOU MAY NOT' yelled Thompstone.

Mrs Angry, trying to be helpful to the Chair, suggested that such scenes were only to be expected in view of the censorship enforced by the new rules, and, she added, to applause from residents, if Mr Thompstone didn't like it, he might like to go back to his fellow Tory councillors, and the constitution committee which created these repressive regulations, and get them withdrawn. Councillor Thompstone appeared not to welcome this suggestion.

A resident asked if we could shut the open doors, as there was noise in the entrance hall. Cllr Thompstone nodded his head gravely. Yes, that was something he could agree to. Oh: very good of you, said Mrs Angry. He added that he had wanted them open because he wanted people to come in. No you don't, shouted a man at the back, Mr Smith, who was getting increasingly agitated.

The first three questions were of the type approved of by the new order of Forum management- submitted by a resident asking about litter picking and path mainenance. Phew. No dangers there: street based, public works, any problems can be blamed on low level council officers. Marvellous. Ah: a certain senior officer's name is mentioned: let's call her Ms Y. The chair recommends that she is contacted. SHE NEVER ANSWERS HER EMAILS, yelled Mr Smith.

A couple more litter problems, yawn: but the resident had not turned up, so no supplementary questions. Moving on nicely. Ah: a question from Mrs Angry:

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

Mrs Angry suggested that this might be 'discussed' at the same time as a later, more specific question:

2.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 casem 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?
  

Ah. Well: the written answer to the first question was a list of charges already in the public domain, although we note the charge for events sized in excess of 5,000 to be 'by negotiation' and the remark which states: 'A discount may be applied to the daily rate for Charitable/Community events at the discretion of the Director for Environment and Operations'.

The written answer to the second question repeated most of the first response, blamed the organisers of the Finchley Carnival for not taking up an unspecified 'offer' from the council, and again referred to the Director of E&O.

Yes, said Mrs Angry - but you have not answered the question, have you? I asked why charges were made in one case, but not the other, and I asked about the involvement or not of the Cabinet member, ie Councillor Brian Coleman, in the decision to waive charges for the Friern Show ... you have not addressed these points.

... oh yeah, yelled a resident helpfully, to much cynical laughter in the audience: Coleman is the Chair of directors of Friern Show, isn't he?

Ah. Silence from Councillor Thompstone.

Mr Richardson, the Highways manager stepped in. Bla bla bla, the Director has discretion, bla bla bla ...

ANSWER THE QUESTION yelled Mr Smith, who has been yelling angrily all the way through, objecting vociferously to the Forum's repression of debate, refusing to shut up when Thompstone interjects.

Does the Cabinet member discuss the waiving of charges? asked Mrs Angry, again. Is he present at the meetings where this is discussed? Did Friern Show have the full charge waived?

IT'S DISCRIMINATORY! shouted a resident - which of course is a very good point. Mr Richardson looked uncomfortable. He could not comment on the attendance at meetings by councillors.

And Councillor Coleman is not here to defend himself, added Thompstone, attempting introduce a note of pathos into the proceedings, a foolish move, and one fiercely rejected by howling residents who expressed their enthusiasm for the future attendance of Councillor Coleman in no uncertain terms, and in a manner that might suggest he would be better advised staying at home, hiding behind the wardrobe.

A member of the Finchley Carnival community organising committee was also present and she had more questions regarding, for example, the £3,500 that was allegedly going to be imposed on the event by Councillor Coleman, in contrast to Friern Show.

Mr Richardson thought that there had been some very valid points made. He did not have the answers to hand.

WHY NOT? yelled Mr Smith: You knew the questions, you should have prepared your answers. THIS FORUM IS A FARCE! A battle between him and Thompstone ensued, which resulted in the Chair ignoring Mr Smith entirely despite his putting his hand up to speak patiently for long periods. Thompstone objected to Mr Smith's tone, which was funny, because Mrs Angry objected to Councillor Thompstone's tone but was obliged to sit and listen to it all evening, and pay him an allowance to perform in this bullying manner. Other residents attempting to speak were similarly, rudely ignored, in a blatant decision to prevent any meaningful debate. This quite unsurprisingly enraged the appalled audience of residents.

Thompstone, who although as portly and pompous as some elder statesman can only be thirty something, has the most patronising approach, even when not laying down the law, for example addressing a woman at the back old enough to be his mother as 'young lady', and another resident almost as old as him as 'young man'. He was also less than sensitive to the needs of one or two speakers with disabilities in the course of the evening, which Mrs Angry would think was unintentional, but a direct result of the huge gulf between our Tory councillors and the broad range of their electors.

Continued later.