I didn't go to Conference last year. Not altogether a bad thing: rather like Glastonbury, having a year off gives the opportunity of a time of peace, and calm, and a chance for the grass to go back/arguments to die down ... or so one might hope ...
As it was in Brighton, this time, it seemed like a good idea to attend. A few days at the seaside: a non-naughty, non-weekend in Brighton, full of factionalism, argument, and over heated debate - what's not to like? Better than staying in Broken Barnet, with the familiar factionalism, argument and heated debate of one's own household.
Booking so late meant difficulty in finding a hotel room for three nights, so it meant another stay, for the first night, in nearby Lewes: avoiding the haunted hotel rumoured to be owned by a local 'businessman' of interesting character, which local cab drivers will tell you all about, at some length: (all the way to Brighton, if you don't change the subject). First cab driver was easily distracted with his own Lewes tales, however: explaining how he takes the mickey out of American visitors about Lewes's most famous son, Tom Paine, radical thinker, father of revolutions - of their revolution.
It was Tom Paine, of course, who wrote, in his pamphlet 'Common Sense':
Men who look upon themselves born to reign, and others to obey, soon grow insolent; selected from the rest of mankind their minds are early poisoned by importance; and the world they act in differs so materially from the world at large, that they have but little opportunity of knowing its true interests, and when they succeed to the government are frequently the most ignorant and unfit of any throughout the dominions ...
Not hard to find any contemporary examples of such men, and women, and such insolence, is it? And not hard to wish for another revolution, in order to remove them.
The Tom Paine Printing Press, Lewes
Two right wing extremist attacks took part in Lewes the other night, by 'pro Brexit' thugs: a brick thrown through the front door of an anti Brexit campaigner, Jim Cornelius, with the word 'traitor' written on it - and, around the same time, in another part of the town, vile antisemitic graffiti aimed at 'whores and traitors' daubed on the front fence of another resident. This can only be directly the consequence of the forces unleashed by the Tory leader the day before, in his shameless, smiling and deliberate repetition of the term 'Surrender Act', and his deeply offensive, pejorative dismissal of the fears of female MPs over the incitement it represents to those minded to follow the violence that led to the murder of Jo Cox.
Arriving at the Conference centre in Brighton, greeting the sight of our perennial favourite Labour Party metaphor, the ruined West pier stranded out among the crashing waves - arson, claimed the cab driver, hinting at dark financial motives, midnight torchings and speedboats heading off across a moonlit sea - the last day of summer gave a misleadingly sunny background to the usual frantic leafleting and drifts of stop me and take one campaigners lining the path to the turnstiles.
A bunch of Remain protestors in their EU/Brit fusion themed cloaks and hats stood together clutching their flags, possibly slightly disappointed by the lack of disagreement from any bunch of Leavers. Protest without someone to shout at is always disheartening.
In the hall, Diane Abbott had just started speaking, slowly - very, very slowly, and very, very carefully, as if worried she would accidentally say the wrong thing. Constant hate channelled at women like her in public life takes its effect: for the first black woman MP, pioneering a path now followed by so many other strong women in Parliament, respect is due, but rarely given. "Haters gonna hate ...", she remarked, ruefully, with a slow shrug, with a hat tip to that other great radical political thinker, Taylor Swift.
Women were the focus of the debate that followed later in the afternoon: a motion from the women's conference about the rights - or rather lack of rights - of migrant women was deeply upsetting, and perfectly illustrated not only the execrable impact of the 'Hostile Environment', but also the utter lack of humanity at the heart of Tory Britain, demonising the most vulnerable residents, withholding access to basic rights of healthcare, or access to legal protection as victims of domestic violence or trafficking.
Militant Brexiteers and xenophobes fondly imagine hordes of migrants flocking here to take advantage of our NHS. The truth is, we heard, that migrant women who give birth are being handed hospital bills of £7,000: bills too for those who suffer the trauma of miscarriage. This means many women are avoiding medical care when giving birth, with all the risks and distress that creates.
Women like this who have been the victims of domestic violence have been handed bills for the treatment of their injuries. They are often denied access to justice, because of lack of legal aid, or fear of being exposed without proper documentation should they go to the police. Trafficked women forced into sex work often face the choice of continuing to be exploited and abused, or returned to the country where they were first enslaved.
One brave woman spoke to Conference about her own experience of escaping years of violence: of having watched another Conference from her kitchen table and thinking it was nothing to do with her, to becoming strong enough to address this Conference from the stage. The power of politics - radical politics - to change lives for the better is sometimes too easily dismissed. For some women, taking the first step to freedom may only come from such a route - and may inspire others to do the same.
Two other women speakers gave a frightening insight into the progress, or rather lack of progress, over the last twenty years in terms of provision for abused women. Both speakers had worked in domestic violence support in Tower Hamlets more than twenty years ago: and both said that the situation had not improved at all. In some ways, for some women, it has become worse.
Listening to all these testimonies, many of them harrowing, one after another, was a sharp lesson in reality, and a useful reminder of the founding principles of the Labour movement, as relevant today as it was a century ago, with still the driving need of a party that stands up for the disadvantaged, those in poverty, distress, and want.
This point was driven home again at a fringe meeting later that evening organised by Unite: the problems of social inequality, created entirely by year upon year of Tory policies of 'austerity', are greater than ever.
As we heard from speakers like Diane Abbott, and the Mayor of Newham, austerity might be over as a useful term for Conservative propaganda: but a huge section of society is still caught fast in the consequences of these merciless creations: Bedroom Tax, Universal Credit, sanctions, humiliating assessments, inexplicable decisions to withhold support from terminally ill people, or with life long conditions: a war on the poor and disabled.
Leaving Lewes the next day meant another cab driver, this time not a Tom Paine enthusiast, but a man whose family has lived in Brighton for many generations: the 3x great grandson of Martha Gunn, the famous 'dipper' who had attended the bathing machines that first made Brighton a fashionable place for aristocratic visitors in Georgian times. Stuck in traffic jams, we inched along the narrow roads of Brighton, most of them lined with Georgian houses in a state of raffish decay, many unoccupied, even in the midst of the area closest to the seafront. We sat outside the old Hippodrome, covered in the Brighton vernacular style of graffiti, too clever by half, school of Banksy, without the skill of Banksy. Saw the Beatles there, said Mr Gunn. And the Stones. We stared up at the derelict building. Someone had left a couple of canvasses propped up against the entrance, untouched. Art for arts sake: unwanted.
Tom Paine, in 'Common Sense', had attacked the King, George III, whom he saw as a tyrant, 'the Royal Brute', in league with Parliament, intent on depriving the nation - and its American colony - of their rights. The law, he said should be King.
Curious to think that we are now in the hands still of another Hanoverian - Boris Johnson, direct descendent of George's father - intent on defying Parliament itself, for the same purpose.
Martha Gunn supposedly 'dipped' the baby son of George III, later to become the Prince Regent, and then George IV, in the chilly saltwater at Brighthelmstone, and thereby turned the quiet seaside village into a metropolitan retreat: London by the sea, centred around the oriental fantasy Pavilion, now visibly crumbling, in a suitably Brighton shabby genteel way, mistaken from time to time, by intellectually challenged EDL supporters, for a mosque.
Fashions and prosperity come and go: Queen Victoria hated the Pavilion and the town fell into a slow decline; by the twentieth century it was a seedy place, famous for furtive assignations, and the production of evidence for divorce, conveniently witnessed by accommodating hotel staff.
Brighton today, as well as accommodating a large student population, and the influx of an array of hipster faux bohemians, now depends on a different sort of visitor, and the annual return of Conferences. Still plenty of furtive assignations (if you are lucky), betrayals (if you are not), and deceit, but largely - although not entirely - political in nature.
Last time I was in Brighton for Conference, two years ago, the number of homeless people living on the streets around the seafront was horrifying: nothing has changed for the better, other than some of the luckier ones now have pop up tents to shelter them at night.
The weather on Monday changed dramatically for the worse, as if in synchronisation with the political mood; the sky darkening, the sea increasingly rough and crashing hard onto the pebbled beach. Gusts of wind blew along the front, rapidly building in strength.
Outside the secure zone, another homeless man sat uncovered, stoned, completely still in the driving rain, staring unblinkingly across the pavement. Conference goers rushed passed him, unnoticing.
In the hall, John Mc Donnell was giving his Shadow Chancellor speech.
Here at least, was some hope of something better: to aspire not just to survive, but to live a 'rich and full life'.
He wanted to end the 'modern evil of in work poverty', to build a million new affordable homes; to see freedom from drudgery, workers having a stake in the future of their employment, to work to live, not live to work.
A reduction in the hours of the working week, a ban on zero hours contracts, the provision of public services free at the point of use, free personal care: and all funded by a fairer tax system.
This is what people want, what they want to hear: it is not an unattainable fantasy, but a necessity for any society intending to meet the needs of - well - the many, not the few. Anathema, of course, to the Tories now wrecking the foundations that lie beneath every public institution that supports the things we once took for granted, created in the post war reforms of a Labour government.
Later that day I slipped into a fringe meeting organised by Finchley's own Frances Crook, Chief Executive of the Howard League, on the issues facing women in the justice system. A well meaning senior police officer talked about the idea of supporting female offenders - or, as he put it, women who presented non typical behaviour - rather than banging them up in jail for short sentences, traumatising their children, and breaking up their families.
'Non typical behaviour' by Prime Ministers and their supporters in Parliament is perfectly acceptable, of course: defying the law is your prerogative, when in a place of power.
If you are a woman struggling to survive, battling all the challenges of social exclusion, and make the mistake of committing petty crime, however, you must be be punished, and put in prison.
Again we heard about the impact of domestic violence - criminal assault - on women at risk of offending. An astonishing number of women in prison have at some time experienced a brain injury as a result of such violence: estimated to be two thirds of all female prisoners. These are traumatised women, whose imprisonment will achieve nothing, except further damage to their families.
Universal credit, and all the other punishments created by the new age Poor Law, the policy of 'austerity', are forcing women into crime - 'untypical behaviour', call it what you like, the outcome is the same. Sex work, addiction, poverty: where is the way out, when the support that should be there is cut by government? When women are too scared to speak out, or ask for help?
I asked the police chief about the claims made the day before about migrant women, trafficked women, too frightened to go to the police when exploited or assaulted, in case of the police informing the government about their status, leading to their deportation. I didn't receive any clear response, other than that he hoped that didn't happen.
Off to the Irish Labour party reception then. This was not as easy as it might have been, despite being only a short distance away from my hotel. As soon as you stepped into the street, a gale force wind swept over the sea and along the front: it almost impossible to walk into, once in, sucked into a vacuum, and spat out, with difficulty, and if you managed to escape, into hotel foyers hosting a myriad fringe events.
As usual the analysis of the speakers from Ireland was pithy, apt and to the point. This may not have entirely been the main attraction of the evening, however, due to the generous supply of a free bar at the back of the room.
Childs Hill councillor, and councillor for Co Cricklewood, Anne Clarke
Among the speakers was the TUC's Frances O'Grady, who spoke of the pride those of us who come from migrant Irish families have in our roots. Here we are, so many generations later, having to defend the rights of newer migrants, in our turn.
Frances O'Grady, and in the foreground, a feast of Taytos
The next morning, while wandering in to the Conference centre, news of the Supreme Court decision had just emerged. The stunning outcome, unanimous as it was, had news teams and reporters rushing about, grabbing anyone who looked vaguely like an MP, or with an opinion, and interviewing them.
Hilary Benn was mobbed: a crowd formed around the live news screen.
As I entered the hall, Corbyn was angrily informing members of what had just happened: the government found to have acted unlawfully in shutting down Parliament, purely for its own political purposes. It was one of those moments you know you will never forget, although - you can hardly believe it is happening.
Unexpectedly at a loose end, and the Conference agenda all in disarray, the best option was to return to the hall, and bag a seat before the newly re-arranged Leader's speech.
We listened to more motions, and more speakers: for example, a strikingly beautiful woman from Western Sahara, dressed in red hijab, spoke eloquently of the strife in her country: a crisis I had no knowledge of, but learned a lot about from her impassioned speech.
Another speaker reminded us all of the emergency in Kashmir.
A woman with a three year old child with a chronic, life long health condition spoke about her appalling experience of eviction and eventual placement in private housing fifty miles away from her support network: a former council house, of course, for which the rent represented two thirds of their income.
It was then time for the Leader's speech. He had clearly re-written it in the light of the Supreme Court decision. The PM, he said, as a giant moth flew on a kamikaze mission, straight into the lights above the stage, with his government of the entitled, had acted illegally: but he had failed.
The democracy that Boris Johnson describes as a “rigmarole” will not be stifled and the people will have their say.
Corbyn then outlined an alternative route for the nation, addressing not just Brexit, but the issues that some of us seem to have forgotten about - that are keeping so many people in this country in the hellish trap set for them by Cameron, May and Johnson, as the gap between those with means and those without gapes ever larger and larger.
Proposals then on giving workers a stake in their own futures; a ban on zero hours contracts, a shorter working week, bringing back public services under the control of those who use them:
we'll bring rail, mail, water and the national grid into public ownership so the essential services that we all rely on are run by and for the public not for profit.
He announced plans for a new publicly owned generic drugs manufacturer to supply cheaper medicines to the NHS, free prescriptions, free personal care, free childcare, a new Sure Start system - no more student loan fees.
All of this to be paid for by a fairer tax system, taking the greatest burden from where it is now, balanced on the backs of the lowest paid, and forcing the top 5% and corporate tax dodgers to pay their share.
These are the changes that people so desperately need, and the truth is that only Labour is offering this as a manifesto, as well as choice on Brexit to voters.
Later that night, at the reception given annually by the Labour Friends of Israel, the manifesto, and all the policies outlined in the speech faded away. The feeling of anger, and distress, over the failure of the party properly to acknowledge the fears of the Jewish community were palpable. There were no obvious answers. It was a depressing evening.
Since Conference ended, further plans, much welcomed, were announced to abolish the much feared tool of state punishment, Universal Credit, directed at the most vulnerable members of our society, with its careful, detailed construct of moral judgement, and a regime of humiliation, meant to starve and humiliate its recipients into a state of abject obedience.
Which brings us neatly to a return to Broken Barnet, of course, and the state of flux in our current local political parties, poised as we are on the brink of a general election.
Over the summer break there have been no meetings, so no chance to test the new gagging laws voted in by our shameless Tory councillors, so frightened of challenge and scrutiny from their own electors that they have resorted to effectively preventing them from taking any significant part in the decision making process. No more questions - other than two token ones in total, no matter how many residents submit them, no matter how complex and serious the issue, no right to speak to your elected representatives.
The signs of the same disease that has eaten its way through the Tory party in Parliament are erupting now in our local Tory Council, here in the rotten borough of Broken Barnet: if you don't like what people say - shut them up. The reaction, in short, of every partner in an abusive relationship: first coercive control: the removal, by stealth, of choice, and then, wham: the hand over the mouth.
At the moment, on stage in the theatre of the absurd at the heart of the political scene in Broken Barnet, there is currently a frenetic game of musical chairs, in which members of all parties are swopping places, or standing down, and frankly, it is quite hard to keep up with it all.
On the 20th of this month,Tory councillor Gabriel Rozenberg resigned from the Conservative party, and joined the Libdems: as a fervent opponent of Brexit, and appalled by Boris Johnson's attempt to prorogue Parliament, he could take no more, and bailed out of the party to which he had belonged for twenty years.
He remains a councillor for Hampstead Garden Suburb: whether or not the Suburbanistas will return him to his seat at the next local elections remains to be seen.
Rumour has it, from various sources, that certain other Barnet Tory members are now urgently 'considering their position'. The split in the group over Brexit, Capita, the gagging of residents, and other major disagreements, is taking its toll. Unity under the new right wing Leader is breaking down. There may be (more) trouble ahead ... no: Mrs Angry predicts: there will be trouble ahead.
Trouble too for Labour.
Sara Conway, Labour's candidate for the constituency of Finchley and Golders Green, stood down, citing personal and family reasons, and amid controversy over an interview in Jewish News. She remains a Labour councillor: but we still have no idea who the new candidate will be. This appears to be a decision in the hands of the NEC: but no one seems to know for sure.
A startling announcement next from the Libdems:
Former Libdem parliamentary candidate for Hendon, Alasdair Hill, who stood in two elections against Tory MP Offord, announced that he has left the Libdems.
He could no longer remain in a party whose Brexit position is now one of Revoke, and has other differences with current Libdem policies. Alasdair is a really decent guy, very bright and politically astute - and will be a serious loss for local Libdems.
And then: as expected, the local Libdem candidate in Finchley and Golders Green has been shoved aside, and we are told that Luciana Berger, ex Labour, ex Independent Group, who joined the Libdems three weeks ago, is standing in her place.
After the abuse and lack of support shown to her by the Labour party over the antisemitism issue, one can hardly blame her for wanting to leave: but to end up as a Libdem is a curious choice, in the light of her former views on the party.
The decision to stand Luciana in this constituency runs the risk of opening up the most painful and distressing conflict here, unfortunately. One hopes those who encouraged her to stand know exactly what they are doing. Or, perhaps, you might argue, it is offering a positive alternative choice. You would hope, then, that the election period will be conducted with respect, and an absence of aggressive tactics.
Having just been the target of smear attempts and attacks by one or two local Libdems on twitter - usually the tactic of local Tories - frankly I now despair of anything but the worst sort of campaigning from them, if this is an indication of things to come.
It seems any Labour member is now fair game: simply for being a Labour member.
The slur that all members are by default now all antisemites is vile, and indefensible. Abusing in this way the vast majority of members who are decent people, committed to Labour values, working hard to speak out, and fight for those suffering antisemitism, is utterly wrong. For Labour councillors and candidates who happen to be Jewish, such treatment is even more to be deplored, especially in the current climate.
Luciana will undoubtedly gain votes from disaffected Labour voters, especially, and understandably, within the Jewish community - and from those who want a Revoke solution to the Brexit crisis. For the many voters who might have doubts about the wisdom of an outright Revoke policy, or still harbour fury over the student loan U turn, and indeed the years of a Libdem party supporting the punitive austerity policies of the Tories, support might still remain out of the questions.
The Libdems will also, of course, take votes from the incumbent MP Freer, who is already in a perilous situation: a Brexit backing Tory in a Remain voting constituency, and one who, by an unfortunate sequence of events, is a junior whip central to the imposition of party discipline demanded by the government led by world class fool Boris Johnson.
Many moderate Tory voters are already horrified by the spectacle of a Conservative PM attempting to defy the law, defy Parliamentary convention, and shut down the central function of our democratic process, simply out of party political expediency. Many moderate Tory voters in Finchley and Golders Green will simply not understand why their MP continues to support Johnson, and his behaviour, not least the expulsion of the 21 MPs, including such stalwarts as Ken Clarke, and Nicholas Soames.
The outcome of all this, I would therefore predict - will be impossible to call. Splitting the opposition vote might well seem likely to return Freer, with a narrow margin: but then - he already had a narrow margin. His electoral support will be now be further damaged by his loyalty to Brexit, and to Johnson; his low profile locally, and his close relationship with the hopelessly incompetent local Tory council, will not help at all.
Tory voters are now furious with the debacle over local issues like waste collection, litter in the streets, pot holes, rampant development - including a block of flats in his local park - facilitated by a privatised easycouncil planning service, which depends for its income from fee based activities that have disadvantaged the ordinary resident in favour of developers, large and small.
And then we have the forgotten voters, who never vote Tory, and would never see any point in voting Libdem: those living in disadvantaged circumstances, with the worst healthcare, the worst schools, support services cut, GPs overstretched, waiting lists for hospital appointment, or mental health support so long they have to hide them in a (privatised) system of re-referral. Families dependent on our local food banks, families whose children go to school hungry: which party gives them a hope of something better?
The young men sleeping in the shop doorways of Finchley, begging at the tube station, or sleeping in the bushes in the park: who will offer them hope of something better? The Tories, still so proud of their Universal Credit? The Libdems, who were complicit in voting through this iniquitous policy, and Bedroom Tax?
As many of the debates at Conference so painfully and acutely reminded us, the continuing deployment of austerity measures, and the newest rolling out of the 'Hostile Environment' bears most heavily down on women, the elderly, the disabled, minorities - and most of all, children.
When the Labour party fails swiftly and fully to deal with complaints of antisemitism, when it fails to give a clear lead on Brexit - when it indulges in factionalism, accusations, counter accusations, the price of disunity is paid by those least able to afford it.
But whatever the failings in leadership, the underlying truth remains: only Labour's manifesto and policies can offer hope to those whose lives depend on support, on care, on better access to education, medicine, jobs - and justice.
Returning a Tory government led by Johnson returns the reality not just of a leader prepared to align itself with the most right wing agenda we have ever seen in government in modern times, but one flirting with the base tactics of populism, fake news, and blatant lies, a new political philosophy sanctioned by Trump, Bannon, and in tune with the rising tide of alt right lunacy, and dangerous nationalism in Europe.
We all have reason to fear a future ordained by Johnson and his backers: it is unthinkable. And the way forward is unclear.
Government, according to Tom Paine, is a necessary evil: and - as we know only too well - politics present always only a choice of evils, or as he put it, in 'Common Sense', our duty is, 'out of two evils to choose the least'. Each of us must make their own choice now, but our duty demands that we do what is best not just for ourselves - but for those least able to face the worst consequences of our decision.
A Barnet Tory fantasy: gagging the Barnet bloggers
The outcome was always inevitable.
The extent of dissent amongst the Tory ranks was not.
Yes, I'm talking about the other night's Full Council meeting, in Hendon Town Hall, where Barnet Tories, as noted in the previous post, proposed to end the right of residents and taxpayers to hold their elected representatives to account, by asking questions, at council meetings.
That they had to be whipped into doing so, was evident (although this was not entirely successful): not one of them spoke in support of this shabby proposal, and all of them sat in silent shame, avoiding eye contact with the public, and the opposition, studying their phones, hiding their faces, and most tellingly, two of them leaving the room just before this item was discussed.
Outside the Town Hall before the meeting a large crowd of residents, campaigners, union members, and other supporters - including councillors from other authorities, as you can see at the end of this post - had assembled to show their contempt for what our Tory administration was about to do.
As a mark of how desperately undemocratic this proposal was, and is, the situation had required the attendance and encouraging words of one resident of the borough who happened to have been a close friend and comrade of Nelson Mandela, fighting by his side against the repression and injustice of the apartheid years in South Africa.
This was Paul Joseph, who now lives in Mill Hill: he spoke to the residents gathered on the steps of Barnet's town hall and urged them to fight for their right to protest - and to hold their elected members to account.
Friend and comrade of Nelson Mandela Paul Joseph addresses Barnet residents
It has been a while since so many people turned up to demonstrate before a council meeting: such is the strength of feeling amongst residents in regard to the removal of their rights freely to question members on policies and decisions that affect their lives, their environment, and their public services. The public gallery was packed, and indeed overflowing. Barnet Tories have scored a spectacular own goal by galvanising the resistance amongst local residents to their administration, in this way. Hats off.
We started as usual with the pantomime procession so beloved by our Tory councillors: what is meant to be the solemn entrance of the Mayor in the moth eaten robes of office, accompanied by Cinderella's footmen in breeches, white gloves and tricorn hats, noises off provided by deeply unimpressed residents in the gallery, suitably restrained from throwing rotten fruit by a (non-metaphorical) glass wall between them and their 'betters'.
Next up an address by the Mayor's Chaplain. Ah, good.
As someone who spent her childhood years listening to the rambling sermons of various Catholic priests, and has a lingering fondness for being lectured by clerics, I must say, frankly, this was up there with the best of them: decorated as it was with references to a pair of snowflakes celebrating their own individuality, Toscanini, Unfinished Symphonies, and so on.
No one was any the wiser at the end of it, but as usual the Tory members sat with assumed pious expressions, as if entirely unaware that God was in His Heavens, his beady eye on them, the black hearted elected representatives of the London Borough of Barnet, when they were about to vote through the most ignominious change to the constitution which is supposed to safeguard the integrity of the local democratic process.
Time for some self congratulation: Tory members were awfully proud of having launched some 'Healthy Heritage Walks', (part of their new PR gambit, trying to co-opt lovely things and people who are lovely entirely despite, rather than because of, anything they do, hoping the loveliness will somehow become confused in the minds of voters with the unlovely Tory councillors, and an unlovely council that leaves the borough strewn with litter, unemptied bins, broken pavements and potholes ... )
The first Heritage walk - look, a lovely landscape created entirely by Barnet Tories, (in partnership with Capita) - starting in Hendon, and passing by the church where - (as Mrs Angry has pointed out in this blog, in fact), Bram Stoker was inspired to set one of the scenes in Dracula, in which Van Helsing drives a stake through the heart of the unfortunate, (undead) Lucy Westenra ...
Next to the church is the former beautiful, listed Church Farmhouse Museum, which the unfortunate, (undead) Tories shut, hoping to flog off the property for a quick return, but couldn't, and then ransacked the local history collection donated by residents, and flogged that off instead.
There really can't be much Heritage left in the borough that the Tories haven't tried to sell, or hand over to developers, in fact. The arts & crafts park keeper's Lodge in Victoria Park is now destroyed, the site - yes, in the park - awaiting the erection of a block of flats, thanks to them (post to follow on this) - and of course where they can't sell it for a quick buck, or give it away, they allow someone to steal it.
They have now admitted that, for the second time in a year, 'Heritage' items have been stolen while allegedly in the safekeeping of their own contractors: this time, the irreplaceable stained glass Grass Farm window panels from the old Church End library. They promised to remove and secure them: now we know they did nothing of the sort, and no, as the admitted at this meeting, they were not insured. What price our heritage? Walk around that one, feckless Tory councillors, why don't you?
Donated from the Heal family to the people of Finchley: stolen while in the care of Barnet Council
This emerged during the long, long sequence of questions - eighty five in number - which Tory members allow themselves, but is not a right extended to the people they are meant to represent. Total hypocrisy, to lecture residents about daring to submit questions about bona fide matters of public interest, when indulging in this back-slapping posturing, many of the Tories' questions being designed entirely for, yes more undeserved self congratulation, or rhetorical, cheap, political points, admiring their own questionable achievements, or giving unsatisfactory responses to the genuine enquiries of the opposition.
On to the item in question: the gagging proposal.
A more than usually sheepish Cllr Melvin Cohen, Chair of the Constitution Committee (and father of Dean, the er, erm, Chair of the Environment Committee) read out a faltering justification of this shameful motion, claiming to jeers from the public gallery that the fuss about it was 'a storm in a teacup' ... and appearing not to understand the implications of his own proposals, or, as fellow blogger John Dix, Mr Reasonable, explains here in his account of this meeting, to have checked the accuracy of the accusations made, in order to defend the gagging: for example the number of questions asked in the period used as an example:
The report was factually incorrect stating the period in question was 5 months when it was in fact 6 months and over stating the number of questions asked by 100. But in Barnet facts don't matter, just say something often enough and people will believe it.
Mr Reasonable's chart disproving Tory claims of misuse of public question time
As you will see, the questions posed - by a range of residents - are on hugely important matters: the Tories have chosen this rather arbitrary period, in fact, because: most unusually, it includes a unique example of when a record number of questions were submitted to a meeting. This was because - uniquely - it was a meeting where several hugely significant issues were being discussed: the review of the Capita contracts, and the massive Brent Cross Cricklewood development, being two of them, each in itself of unprecedented importance.
At a rough guess, in the eight months of this year I have asked a grand total of, oh dear: as much as ... well, in fact only 20 or so questions; and I think given a couple of three minute comments. A shocking misuse of council time, apparently.
Those questions included a few made at the last Audit committee - knowing I would be blocked in the future from doing so, on such issues as the failure by the authority to replace ANY of the 1800 Grenfell design fire doors in our social housing, and about the risk posed by senior Capita planning officers who are able to leave the service and immediately begin work as consultants dealing with their former colleagues, and/or for clients with whom they have previously acted on behalf of the authority. Also about failures in the administration of the Pension scheme, and, oh, how the proposed gagging of questions would be compliant with the authority's own Code of Governance, and the requirement to consult with residents.
I cannot begin to wonder why 20 such questions in seven months would be considered excessive, can you, reader? Unwelcome, yes, but: excessive?
In the future, no more than two questions will be allowed on any item - in entirety.
It doesn't matter how important or complex the item might be, for example, the Brent Cross Cricklewood development, the Library review, the Pensions crisis: the first two questions to arrive will be the only questions considered, and they must be of less than 100 words. No one else may ask anything.
There will be no speaking to your elected representatives. How dare you even think of it? No eye contact, either. Stare meekly down, as if you were an extra in the Handmaid's Tale.
At this last Audit committee, it should be noted, in the same week Lord Pickles criticised Barnet Tories for their attitude to public scrutiny and the plans to gag residents, the external Auditor also went out of his way to praise the involvement of people like us in holding the authority to account, as did Lord Palmer, the former Libdem Chair of Audit.
Rabbi Jeffrey Newman came to give his support to Barnet residents: talking here to Labour councillor Reema Patel: in the background, John Dix - and a suitable display: 'Barnet as it Never Was' ...
At this week's meeting, the new Tory 'Leader' Dan Thomas launched into a frankly childish rant, looking across at me and John Dix, raving about 'unelected political activists' being to blame for asking too many questions.
I might be accused of being politically active: at least I hope so. But my questions are made out of a sense of civic duty, and utter horror at the incompetence of the local Tory administration, rather than driven by disagreement with their political agenda - to reach that point of polemical debate they would have to be capable of carrying out their own policies with some level of competence.
They can't, and they don't.
John Dix, Mr Reasonable, the most reasonable of men, it must be emphasised, has no political allegiance, and asks detailed, patient and forensic questions about budgeting and accounting matters, and most importantly, about the dire performance of the Capita contracts.
This is based on his long years of experience in management practice, professional experience, and an ability to add up, and draw conclusions - a quality sadly lacking in those among the Barnet Tory administration who have been tasked with scrutiny of their own accounts and contractual performance.
I've been gagged, says Mr Reasonable
Unelected? This from the chap who cannot get himself elected to the GLA, or to a parliamentary seat, holds a safe Tory council seat, and reportedly stood for Leader of the Tory group unopposed!
Poor Thomas is not, you might say, the sharpest knife in the box: he has no real contribution to make to political debate, but looks very nice in a blazer and cravat, and is therefore a worthy group leader for the mass of empty headed Barnet Tories.
Unelected they may be, but the four Barnet bloggers between them have had a huge readership over a period of ten years, and maintain a wide reach on social media. Other informed residents like Barbara Jacobson, of Barnet Alliance, who care passionately about our community, and our services, pose intelligent, probing, necessary questions as what should be a healthy conversation that forms the basis of any relationship between government and voters. This is a good thing: this is what democracy looks like, Barnet Tories. Did you know?
That the Tories choose to spend nearly £1 million a year in spin trying to counteract our reporting of their own cockups proves the point that Daniel Thomas avoids: the effectiveness of residents' involvement and engagement in that process of government.
A million pounds, FFS! What's the (fake news) price of £42K for residents' questions by comparison?
Barry Rawlings telling Barnet Tories, to loud cheers from the public gallery, to withdraw their gagging proposals
Labour leader Barry Rawlings tried reasoning with the Tory numpties on the other side of the chamber. He pointed out their proposals were in breach of their own constitution. Meh. So what? Well: almost certainly none of them have ever read any of it.
Labour's Kath Mc Guirk tore a strip off them, demanding to know what on earth they were so scared of, observing that the questions usually came from people who knew better about the issues than they did. Well - yes, that in fact is what they are scared of: it becoming widely known that they are simply not up to the job of governance.
The gagging plans were voted through, of course, to a riotous response from the public gallery.
But it is not the end of the story.
One thing of note, during the course of the meeting, and from watching the footage later uploaded, is highly significant.
As confirmed today by governance officers, two members of the Tory group were not present when the gagging vote was taken.
Roberto Weeden Sanz, the young man who wants to be, but will never be, the Tory GLA member for Barnet and Camden got up just before the item, and returned after the vote.
Veteran Tory member, and former Hendon MP, John Marshall also left at this point: and did not return. This is unprecedented.
It was evident from the fact that no other Tory member spoke to support the gagging, and the looks on many of their faces, and the fact that several have told us privately that they do not agree with it, that there has been strong disagreement over this ludicrous proposal.
It does not bode well for the new Leader that, within only weeks of taking his post, he was unable to maintain a grip on his own group. That two members had the courage to follow their conscience is quite astounding, by Tory standards. Let's hope it catches on, that sort of thing. The splits in the Tory group are real, and will tear them apart, eventually.
And there were other tensions evident: Gabriel Rozenberg, probably the brightest member of the group, or at least - yes, steady on, Mrs Angry - along with John Marshall, the only one capable of intellectual thought, was evidently uncomfortable throughout the meeting, hid his face entirely during the gagging item, and was at loggerheads with his own leader over Brexit preparations - Gabriel is fiercely for Remain, whereas Thomas entirely relaxed, not to say brimming with excitement at the prospect of a No Deal Brexit.
Tensions too over the preference for tenants' rights (Gabriel Rozenberg) versus landlords' best interests with Brian Gordon, who appeared to ask - and answer - most of the 85 councillor questions, in another sign of how much to the right Barnet Tories are moving.
Here we were, I reflected, with Cllr Gordon, the one time Nelson Mandela 'tribute act', watched in the public gallery by one of Madiba's closest friends, who had come to give support to those opposing the removal of their civic rights: from the sublime to the ridiculous, in one council meeting.
Cllr Marshall, on the other hand, who had absented himself from the vote for the repression of residents' rights, had once paid his own tribute to the great man, spoken with moving words, at a special council meeting to commemorate his passing, speaking of his visit to Robben Island, and the tiny cell where Mandela was incarcerated for so long.
Tory councillor Brian Gordon's 'tribute' to Nelson Mandela
The message is clear: goodbye to the paternalistic, laissez faire Conservatism of Richard Cornelius; to the hope of some sort of coherent political leadership guided by intellect, or vision, or even compassion - hello to the world of Trump and Johnson and empty rhetoric; the denial of truth, the repression of free speech, the betrayal of heritage, and history, a panto season of clowns, fools, and slapstick politics.
Why does it matter so much to our Tory members to silence the voice of their own residents?
Because it reflects the brutish nature of their political regime: and for a party that so much enjoys the act of bondage to a contractual partner, for up to fifteen years, it is a natural step to take, to throw in the added thrill of gagging.
Outside the chamber of horrors of Hendon Town Hall, however, there are ways and means of seeking address for those who abuse the rights and privileges of the people they are meant to represent.
The fight continues.
Residents may have lost access to the process of democracy, but there are still ways of holding these eejits to account, and we will not stop reporting, at every point, the truth, and exposing the nasty little secrets of this shabbiest of backwater council administrations.
Watch this space.
As you may know, at a recent meeting of the Constitution committee, Barnet Tories, despite all reasoned argument to the contrary, decided to approve a motion that would effectively end all challenge of councillors by residents at future committee meetings.
That this would be a deeply regressive measure, and run counter to all notions of transparency, and accountability, and open government, and engagement with residents would appear to hold no interest for the new Tory leader, Daniel Thomas, which is regrettable.
There could be no more important moment for residents to exercise their rights to scrutinise the activities of their elected representatives in Barnet: with the perilous financial situation, the decline in the provision of council services, and the refusal to end the disastrous partnership with Capita.
The timing of this proposal is therefore crucial, and gives all the more reason to challenge it.
One of the former councillors who has always encouraged the involvement of residents in meetings, and welcomed their questions was the LibDem peer Lord Palmer, who was an effective and fair Chair of Audit, at a time when in order to guarantee independence of the committee, it was always chaired by an opposition member. As part of their regressive tactics, in more recent times, the Tory group then installed one of their own members, which has been a mistake, for several reasons.
I wrote to Lord Palmer asking for his view on the gagging attempt: he immediately replied describing the development as 'disturbing', and adding:
'I suspect that they are not breaking the law but what they are doing is against guidance'
Indeed it is, as you would know if you read the Local Government Association's guide to engagement: 'New Conversations', in which, oh dear - Barnet appears three times as an example of ... how not to do it, unless you want to end up in the High Court.
Neither the Chair of the Constitution Committee nor the Monitoring Officer, when I asked them, had read this guidance, which proves the point that the gagging proposal was formed not out of a desire to improve engagement - or due to unreasonable cost - but to censor dissenting opinion of the Tory administration by its own electorate, and to prevent scrutiny of its abysmal record.
After some thought, it occurred to me it might be interesting to ask another member of the House of Lords, who was well aware of the history of counter democratic blunders made by his Conservative colleagues in Barnet. Yes: Mrs Angry's No 1 fan, Eric, now Lord Pickles, (former Secretary of State for local government, and keen promoter of greater transparency and engagement in the democratic process.
Some readers may recall that way back in 2011, Pickles went out of his way, in a speech to the CIPFA conference, to praise Barnet bloggers for their reporting of local council activities - condemning the Tory administration for its squandering of public money on the MetPro arrangement, and warning all authorities to take heed:
Irony of ironies - this misuse of public money was uncovered thanks to the determination of local bloggers and activists … Including Barnet Eye. Mr Mustard. And Mrs Angry. (As she had every right to be) Exactly the same people MetPro snooped upon.
I've got news for Barnet. Liveblogging from council meetings. Microjournalism. Call it what you like.
It's here to stay.
Others might remember this photograph of Eric with two former Tory members, Kate and Brian Salinger, after the appalling treatment of Kate after she was the only Tory member to refuse to endorse massive increases in allowances for themselves, at a time when they had announced austerity measures for everyone else in Barnet.
Kate Salinger is now a member of the new Barnet Fairness Commission, an idea from the local Labour party but intended to be a cross party body that will hope to address social inequality and improve community cohesion.
An email, then to Eric, yesterday:
Dear Lord Pickles,
I hope you won't mind my writing to you about the following development in Barnet, which I think will be of some concern to you, as someone who fought for greater openness and accountability in local government.
You may perhaps recall that, some years ago, you were kind enough to praise the efforts of a group of 'citizen journalists' in Barnet, of which I am one, writing the 'Broken Barnet' blog in the persona of 'Mrs Angry' - others include John Dix - 'Mr Reasonable', Roger Tichborne - "Barnet Eye', and Derek Dishman, 'Mr Mustard' - and we should not forget the late Daniel Hope, a former Conservative councillor who produced the 'Barnet Bugle'.
We hold a range of personal political views, but work together as a group and individually, out of a sense of civic duty, due to the absence of any other effective scrutiny.
Over nearly ten years now, we have reported on many subjects, and brought to light many injustices: for example the MetPro scandal, in which the council was illegally deploying unlicensed, jackbooted thugs to act as security guards and keep residents from council meetings, as well as covertly film us - this in turn led to the exposure of many thousands of unlawful 'contracts' used by the same administration.
Other stories have included the cutting of respite care for young children with multiple and complex disabilities (later rescinded as a result), the fee based project by Capita that led to the unlawful cancellation of Freedom passes for disabled residents, leaving young people with autism and other special needs stranded and confused when attempting to use public transport (later rescinded after being reported by us), the extraordinary cost of a new council depot of around £13.5 million, for a site that had cost £750,000 the year before; the suppressed discovery of legionella in public libraries; the West Hendon faux regeneration, in which land worth £12 million was secretly given to Barratts for £3, and tenants and leaseholders forced out of their homes to make way for luxury housing; the destruction of our public library service, supposedly to save money, but which has cost £14 million; the recent use of the Public Works Loan Board to facilitate a high risk council loan of £22 million to Saracens rugby club to build a new grandstand, etcetera etcetera.
When it was proposed that the council would undertake a mass outsourcing programme, we investigated the background to this and warned that it was not going, as they claimed, to bring better services for less money.
In fact, as soon as the Conservative administration was re-elected last May, they revised their financial statements, admitted the council was facing a serious deficit, and that the Capita contracts were not performing well, and needed review. They were going to bring back many services in house. They also admitted that a Capita manager had defrauded the council to the tune of £2 million, unnoticed by the council, who had to be informed by the culprit's bank - it then became evident that there was a wide scale absence of any adequate financial controls of the two massive Capita contracts. All of this was reported by us.
Throughout the years of the mass privatisation of council services, one blogger in particular, that is to say John Dix, who is a management consultant of thirty years experience, has doggedly reviewed the financial performance of the contracts, and reported his analysis of the council's accounts. His work is taken seriously by Tory members, as well as external auditors. He has demonstrated over and over again that the Capita contracts, other than a small core of promised nominal savings, is costing Barnet residents ever increasing amounts of cash, through such waste as the huge dependence on agency staff through Capita, and having to pay Capita 'rewards' via gainshare payments.
There has recently been a change in the Leadership of the Tory group, and there is now a very worrying development as some members of the Group now intend to force through changes to the Constitution which will effectively prevent residents holding their elected representatives to account. We understand other Conservative members are quietly uneasy about these proposals.
At the last 'Constitution and General Purposes Committee' * (they have removed 'Ethics and Probity' from the committee's name - and apparently from its remit) - three Tory members voted to change the rules on engagement.
This means that now only two residents' questions in total (not per person, but in entirety) on any item will be allowed, no matter how many are submitted. Residents may no longer speak to the committee - any comment must be written and anyway only accepted within the two question limit. The two questions per item may not be any longer than 100 words. Residents will no longer be allowed to speak to councillors at meetings, either in making comments, or answering their questions.
I asked the Tory members and Monitoring Officer if they had read the LGA guidance on engagement, ie 'New Conversations': they had not. Had they taken legal advice on their decision - in 'New Conversations', Barnet appears three times as example of the folly of not consulting properly with residents, citing three Judicial Review)? They had not. Would they please defer their decision until after they had done so? They would not.
The pretext for this repressive move was that residents' questions cost £42,000 a year. This is nonsense, as it is part of the duties of governance officers, the figure appears to have been plucked out of thin air - and frankly on a level of consultancy fees is a drop in the ocean by Capita standards ... but as I pointed out, the Tory group currently spends the best part of £1 million a year on its own political spin, on a huge Communications Team (expanded in the run up to elections) and the propaganda rag, 'Barnet First'.
Most council meetings, in fact, have no questions submitted at all.
It is true, of course, to say that when any particularly significant or controversial issue, such as those already mentioned - there may be a fairly large number: but these enquiries should be welcomed by any authority with a commitment to transparency - these questions are not 'vexatious' in nature, or trivial, they are from well informed, concerned residents attempting to exert their right to take part in the local democratic process.
The real reason for the attempt to gag residents is of course because the current administration is fearful of being held to account, has no interest in any commitment to the Nolan principles, and actively works to prevent public debate of its decisions and policies in action.
This is deeply regrettable.
At a time when the Capita contracts continue to fail, there has never been a greater need for active and well informed citizens to become involved and engaged with their local representatives.
Some of us have wondered if there is anything you can do or say to persuade your Conservative colleagues in Barnet to withdraw, in its entirety, their decision to end our right freely to question their activities and decisions? We would be most grateful for any support in this matter.
I have also written to former Barnet councillor Lord Palmer who is very concerned by these proposals: as former Chair of Audit he welcomed questions from local bloggers and residents, and indeed former Tory Chair of Audit expressed the same sentiment last year. I understand that one of my fellow bloggers will also be writing to James Brokenshire.
Rather to my surprise, a very supportive response arrived promptly this morning:
Dear Theresa (or Mrs Angry, if I may)
I am pleased to see that you and your fellow citizen journalists and armchair auditors are continuing to highlight how councils can further save taxpayers’ money. I hope that the legal rights to report and film council meetings under the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014 have proved useful.
You might find of interest that MHCLG has announced a post-implementation review into the 2014 Act yesterday, which will include looking at whether the financial information provided in local authority accounts facilitates scrutiny by local taxpayers and the local press.
https://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2019-07-10/HCWS1706/
In relation to your concerns about questions from the public at council meetings, public participation is an important part of council scrutiny and helps keep councillors (of all political colours) on their toes. I will table some Parliamentary Questions on the issue of questions to Ministers on this matter.
With best wishes,
Rt Hon The Lord Pickles
If you want to support Barnet residents' right to question their elected representatives, please sign the petition started by fellow blogger John Dix.
Many thanks: 'Here to stay': Mrs Angry, (As she has every right to be) ...
