Sweet Nothings: or - Mrs Angry's guide to outsourcing.

For all the tweeting Barnet Tory councillors, including the leader Richard Cornelius, and deputy leader and aspiring London Assembly member Dan Thomas, who appear not to understand the basic rules of outsourcing, which may be the reason why they will not answer her requests for evidence of the 'savings' our two whopping Crapita contracts are meant to deliver ... here is:

Mrs Angry's 'Outsourcing for Dummies':

Dick likes sweets.

He uses his £1 pocket money, every week, to buy a bag of Inequality Street chocolates, and then hide them under his pillow, as he is going to grow up to be a Tory councillor, and is rather greedy.

Look: there is a new boy in Dick's class, called Peter. 

Peter is a very clever boy, who has a lot of pocket money, but no sweets. 

Dick is not a clever boy. 

Peter says: Dick, if you give me half your pocket money, I will buy your sweets for you.

I can buy my sweets myself, says Dick.

But if you let me buy them, you won't have to walk to the sweetshop, says Peter.

And Dick, I can buy you even nicer sweets, and save you money. 

Also, I will give you one of my sweets, if you let me get yours too.

Dick is quite a lazy boy, and this seems like a good idea. 

Alright, Peter, he says: here is half my pocket money. 

Peter goes to the sweet shop.

Here you are, Dick, says Peter, on his return, and gives him a couple of sweets. 

Now you owe me fifty pence, Dick, says Peter. And you promised me one of your sweets. 

But I gave you half my pocket money, says Dick, and you said I could have one of your sweets! 

And look, Peter: you have given me only two sweets. I want more!

No, said Peter. The sweets cost more than I thought. 

And that means now you have to give me one of your sweets, and reward me with more money, for my efforts, in the form of gainshare payments. 

And by the way, I need a loan to buy some new shoes, in order to keep walking to the sweetshop for you. 

Hand it over, Dick, and be a good boy.

But that's not fair, says Dick, crying. 

And: these sweets are horrible, and I have no pocket money left, and Mummy will tell me off.

Serves you right, you great eejit, says Peter. Next time  someone makes you an offer that seems too good to be true, read the fucking contract, son - and listen to Mrs Angry when she tells you not to sign it ...

Hmm.

Now just look at this picture.  A memorable day, in the forgotten history of Broken Barnet, that is to say, the history that your Tory councillors would like you to forget, but Mrs Angry intends to remind you about, at every opportunity.

'Saving Barnet's taxpayers £126 million'. Got that? 

£126 million.

Of course, what you cannot see in the picture is that Tory leader Richard Cornelius is signing the contract with a magic pen.

Mrs Angry has one of those pens. It really is a magic pen, and writes in invisible ink, impossible to decipher, if you are a Tory councillor, for at least two and a half years after use.

So, anyway. 

Fellow blogger Mr Reasonable, who unlike Mrs Angry is numerate, and a very sensible chap, you know, has been following with a keen eye the progress of the two massive Capita contracts we have been lumbered with, here in Broken Barnet, since 2013.

He has just posted his latest assessment of the state of play, so far: see here ... and in his opinion, well: things are not quite working out as our Tory councillors assured us they would, are they?

According to Mr Reasonable:

"December supplier payments are out and Christmas clearly was a season to be merry. Capita billed £18,264,588.36 in December on both the Re and CSG contracts. That brings their running total for the financial year to £61.26 million, £10 million more than the whole of 2014/15 and a total of £168.3 million since the start of the contract two and a half years ago. While certain Councillors keep repeating the mantra "Capita are saving money" I keep asking them to show me the evidence because the amount of money we are paying seems immense compared to the core contract value".

Yes, councillors: where is the evidence?

Mrs Angry has asked some of them, via the medium of twitter, to explain to her how it was that we could possibly be making savings, when we are giving such vast wads of cash to Crapita, in the form not just of fees, but in 'hidden' costs, extra payments. 

Not one councillor has replied.

Now then. Mrs Angry is not very good at adding up, although this has never been a disadvantage in her career as a local government auditor, which really only requires the ability to detect the slightest whiff of ... bullshit.

Still: if only the infant Mrs Angry had paid more attention in maths classes at school, and spent less time in the corridor, or in detention, and thank you, Miss Bender, she might have been able to assess if indeed the Crapita contracts are saving us, the residents and taxpayers of Broken Barnet, the bucket loads of cash that we were promised.

As it is, well, readers, especially you, Tory councillors: already spending £168 million, in only two and a half years of a 10 year contract meant to save erm ... £126 million: how does that work out? 

That works out, Mrs Angry thinks, readers and Tory councillors, as a 'saving' of £126 million, over ten years, set against projected expenditure of ... £672 million? 

Or possibly more, if costs rise incrementally, over the ten year contract period.

Oh dear. 

No wonder they don't want to comment, our Tory councillors.

What could they say?

Goodbye Broken Barnet: hello Capitaville

As Mrs Angry predicted on Friday, it has been announced today that the second tendering process of the £1 billion One Barnet privatisation programme has come to an end, and that the preferred bidder for up to £250 million worth of our council services is, surprise, surprise - Capita Symonds. 

This means that the vast majority of council services here in Broken Barnet will no longer be delivered by our Tory council, but will be handed over to the grasping, sweaty embrace of outsourcing giant Capita, for their profiteering pleasure, for the next ten years - or even the next fifteen years. 

Direct democratic control of almost every council function you can think of will be lost: in the case of  DRS this will include -

• Regeneration, Strategic Planning and Housing Strategy, Highways Transport
and Regeneration and Highways Strategy

• Building Control, Planning Development Management, Land Charges,
Highways Network Management and Highways Traffic and Development

• Environmental Health, Trading Standards & Licensing, Cemetery and
Crematorium and Registration and Nationality Service.

- all of these functions will be surrended to a private company, which will use you, and me, and every other resident of Barnet, in order to generate wealth for their shareholders, while our services are run according to an agreement which your elected members, your Conservative councillors, will approve without any real scrutiny, just as they did when they rubber stamped the 8,000 NSCSO contract in December.

Once Capita won the larger contract, it was always inevitable that they would be handed the DRS services bundle, and here they are, and here we are, bound, gagged and tied, delivered to our clients as agreed. 

Who agreed, exactly? Was it really our complaisant Tory councillors? No: this was already dictated by the senior management team, of course. 

Are they supposed to be in charge of this process? 

They are not. 

They are supposed to manage the process on behalf of elected members who are supposed to make all the crucial decisions as to the direction and form of the underlying policies. It is a matter of fact, in the case of DRS, that this was not what happened, and that this is the truth has been demonstrated by Mrs Angry.


Let us travel back in time to August of last year. 

Yes, the silly season, especially in Broken Barnet, and a very good time to bury bad news, or to try to get away with something while your boss is away in his holiday home in France, perhaps.

As explained here:

http://wwwbrokenbarnet.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/one-barnet-tory-panic-and-whole-new.html

a rather sensational development in the One Barnet story emerged, by accident: while everyone in Broken Barnet was away, or, like Mrs Angry, busy making rhubarb jam and sulking, Ms Pam Wharfe, on behalf of the absent Chief Executive sent a fortnightly newsletter to staff members, casually mentioning that there had been a fundamental change to the business model of the DRS tender.  

We have decided, she said, to form a Joint Venture ...

Unfortunately for Ms Wharfe, it was soon revealed, largely to Mrs Angry's poking her nose in, that this decision had been made by senior management, in secrecy, with no knowledge or involvement by Leader Richard Cornelius, the Cabinet, or any elected member of the council.

 

http://wwwbrokenbarnet.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/the-lull-before-storm-brian-colemans.html

Mrs Angry made a Freedom of Information request for details of the meetings in which it was claimed this decision which was not a decision was made, or discussed. 

For eight months the council tried to defy this FOI request, withholding material, and then illegally redacting it, until such a point as the Information Commissioner became infuriated by their deliberate obstruction, hence the position of Barnet on the naughty step, and a period of monitoring by the ICO.

What was revealed by the eventual publication was that the meetings in which all sensitive One Barnet issues were debated by senior officers and private consultants were not minuted.

In short, a body which has no executive powers, ie the Directors' Group, in league with unaccountable directors of a private consultancy, paid, so far, more than £6million of our money in fees, and one of which now employs a member of the Directors' Group, made, in secret, in defiance of  the need for transparency and without any involvement by our elected representatives, a 'decision' which it was not entitled to make.

The material released - after such a long struggle - under FOI shows that, according to the minutes of CDG, the Directors' Group of 10th July 2012 were attended by: 

CEO Nick Walkley,  now departed to Haringey, and serve him right

Kate Kennally, Director of Adult Social Care and Health now bearing the ludicrous title of 'Director of People', 

Jeff Lustig, Director of Corporate Governance, shortly to retire

Maria Christofi, for deputy CEO, now acting interim CEO Andrew Travers, 

Julie Taylor Assistant CEO, and ... 

Pam Wharfe, (very long term) Interim Director of Environment, Planning and Regeneration (now bearing the equally ludicrously title of Director of 'Place')

Also present were a mystery person, name veiled in secrecy still, and a Mr Alex Khaldi from iMPOWER, and a James Mace, (seemingly a typo and meant to be James Mass), also from iMPOWER, but apparently on secondment to Barnet Council.

This group of senior officers and private consultants between them came to an agreement to'consider' the change to a Joint Venture: as the minutes report:

"The group received a paper setting out a proposal to explore forming a Joint Venture (JV) company for the delivery of the DRS contract and some of the associated commercial issues ..."

That was early July, and clearly the proposal was not a new idea, but formally presented at that stage - by mid August the decision had been made, as announced by Ms Wharfe, and accidentally revealed before the Leader of the Council had even been aware of any such plan. 

By the 19th September, incredibly, Richard Cornelius had still not been consulted by his own senior management team, over this fundamental issue, as quoted in my post written after a scrutiny meeting that night:

"Leader Cornelius sat and admitted quietly that he had not seen ANY outline papers relating to a joint venture proposal. He said this not once, not twice, but three times, with an almost disarming simplicity.

Furthermore, he explained that the proposals had in fact emerged after the bidders had been 'closeted' with senior officers. 
Everyone in the room sat still in astonishment.
I'm every bit as curious as you are, added Richard Cornelius, yes, the same Richard Cornelius who is paid to be leader of the council, and nominally in charge of a £1 billion programme of outsourcing.
After some frantic signals from the blogging side of the room, Cllr Mittra asked the question that had to be asked, the email that Pam Wharfe sent to staff. Mrs Angry twisted round to see her reaction. Keeping her head down, but smiling to herself."

Why does this matter? The matter of the JV itself is of concern, as such an option - which is of greater benefit to the commercial partners - was previously dismissed by the council as being of even higher risk than the strategic partnership approach. This was around the time when an in house option, the most obvious one of all, was dismissed out of hand, with no real consideration. Why is that, do you suppose? 

And why then did senior officers and their consultant partners connive to present the JV at a later stage, without the involvement of the council executive, the leader and Cabinet? We do not know.

After the embarrassment of this disclosure, Cornelius' naive - albeit honest - protests of ignorance were carefully covered by a more discreet veil of damage limiting statements from deputy leader Daniel Thomas, who murmured soothing words about a JV being an option they should now consider - and this has in turn, eventually, evolved seamlessly into an obedient approval by the executive. 

To do otherwise would have created an unprecedented confrontation with senior officers, and called into question the whole process by which the One Barnet programme has been conducted, at a time when - oh dear, the whole process by which the One Barnet programme has been conducted has been called into question by Judicial Review, at the High Court, the appeal for which is, as we write, about to be given a date for hearing. 

This appeal is based, of course, on the premise that the technical reason for dismissal of the application, ie one of being out of time, is unfair, and that the finding of the judge that Barnet Council had failed to consult residents on the One Barnet privatisation plans should overrule the timing issue.

As things stand, almost every one of our council services is about to be handed over to Capita with no mandate from the residents, taxpayers and voters of Barnet, with no proper scrutiny of the proposals by elected representatives - and after a process overseen in secret by a body of senior officers, private consultants and bidders, which is clearly in defiance of all principles of transparency and accountability. 

There are of course, also very serious issues of conflicts of interest which have already been highlighted in relation to this process, as revealed here in this blog. 

At the last Audit meeting, which our usual auditor from Grant Thornton, Mr Paul Hughes, did not attend, for some reason, the questions re officers' interests and declarations, which Mrs Angry had been raising for the last couple of years, were at last addressed. 

Well, no: not addressed, as such: a belated appraisal of the NSCSO process dismissed any real concerns, despite the evidence it found of non compliance with declarations, and the auditors refused to address at all the question of the DRS package, despite its clear and urgent significance. Why?

Readers may draw their own conclusions as to whether the whole One Barnet programme, and the entirely notional, aspirational, 'savings' that we are told will justify our ten to fifteen year bondage has really been promoted for our benefit, as we are so often informed.

*Update Tuesday : 

As Mr Reasonable points out in his post this morning here , which is essential reading, we were promised savings of nearly £20 million from the DRS deal: the tender with Crapita will bring in only around the paltry sum of £5 million, savings generated from inspired ideas such as increasing the number of burials in Broken Barnet (watch out for that Barnet Council van when you cross the road) an amount which could very easily have been found without privatisation - for example without wasting more than the obscene total so far of £6 million - let's repeat that - £6 MILLION  - and rising - on the bills for One Barnet private consultants Agilisys/iMPOWER ...

Capita undoubtedly will have a very profitable time over the next ten years or so, our private consultants Agilisys/iMPOWER most certainly have had and will continue to have a very profitable time.  Senior officers will come and go and continue in their careers here or elsewhere, in the public sector and in the private sector, and our elected representatives? 

If the appeal fails, and we are stuck with the £1 billion deal, and council services are run on a commercial basis, and residents begin to live in the new normal Barnet which will ensue -unaccountable service delivery, call centres in Lancashire, decline in standards, loss of control - they are not going to be awfully happy with their Tory councillors. 

Will they care? Not really. Not immediately, anyway. 

As demonstrated in graphic form by the case of Helen Michael, and the assault on her last September by former Tory Brian Coleman, and the continuing failure of any Tory councillors to condemn such an attack, our Tory councillors have only contempt for the residents who trusted them with the care of this community. 

The actions of Brian Coleman, and the indifference shown by his colleagues, are bad enough in the immediate sense, but they also represent something more profound in the pysyche of this administration, a sickness: a deeply dysfunctional relationship with their electorate, expressed in an abuse of power, a deep seated need to maintain at least the illusion of control at all costs.

Our Conservative councillors facilitated the One Barnet sell off with a shrug, and turned their backs on the duty to scrutinise and direct the process. They don't understand it, don't want to understand it. They don't see why we, the residents should have been consulted anyway, or why we should dare to challenge their policies, or their hypocrisy: what business is it of ours? 

So: goodbye to Broken Barnet - hello to the House of Fun, in Capitaville. 

The gentlemen in the parlour, waiting and sweating on the sofa: they now have exclusive rights to the pleasures on offer in this House. 

Wait for the knock on the door: and if you don't like it? 

Well, you can try fighting back. 

From Barnet, to Storyville, to Capitaville - fighting, the triumph of power over those with no defence - it's the only language they understand: but if you fight back - it's you who'll get the blame.

A song for Boris: What a Waste ...

Mrs Angry hears that today Boris has been making another of his flying visits to Broken Barnet.

Isn't it funny, citizens, that since he took office, the Mayor has entirely ignored us - oh, until the run up to the next election? Recently we have seen some generous high street handouts to the Tory stronghold at Chipping Barnet, and a deliberately delayed grant to the Dollis Valley Green Walk, sadly misspent, and not at all the PR success it was meant to be.

Thanks to the antics of Assembly Member and local Tory councillor Brian Coleman, the Barnet and Camden constituency has become the most marginal Tory held seat in London, and now Boris seems to feel a magnetic attraction to our borough, and has been making unannounced appearances.

Boris Johnson's new interest in Barnet, however, is expressed only in terms of a series of lightening strike photo opportunities, and no real chance of engagement with residents who might like to pose a series of challenging questions for him. That would be too risky, of course.

Remember the unfortunate chance meeting that our Mayor had, on his visit to the Boris Valley Greenwalk? Local resident Dennis Pepper took the opportunity to inform Mr Johnson of the unfortunate cock up by Barnet Council in spending the grant: local Tories were humiliated - and furious - at the embarrassing intrusion of reality into their big moment.

Well, never mind. Look what we have here, a tribute, in the form of a lovely message to Boris - a musical interlude, neatly expressing the views of so many voters here in Broken Barnet, and elsewhere - enjoy.

Wham, Bam: thank you Ma'am: Jubilee celebrations in Broken Barnet

Marvellous news: a press release has issued forth from the bowels of North London Business Park in regard to the Diamond jubilee celebrations here in Broken Barnet for HM the Queen. The Queen has been queen for sixty wonderful years, apparently, and is getting quite good at it now, so here in Broken Barnet we are marking the occasion with some events involving our Tory councillors and their immediate circle of friends.

Civic service to mark accession in Queen's Jubilee year

This weekend sees the first major event to mark Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II’s Diamond Jubilee in Barnet, with a civic service set to coincide with the 60th anniversary of her accession to the throne in 1952.

The service, taking place at 3pm on Sunday 5 February, will be at Golders Green Parish Church in West Heath Drive.

It will be a multi-faith service, including readings from Bishops of both the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church, and prayers from representatives of the borough’s main religions. It will also see the debut of a piece of music written especially for the Diamond Jubilee in Barnet, by composer Tim Benjamin.

Councillors, school headteachers and members of the clergy, as well as the Queen’s representative in the borough, Deputy Lieutenant Martin Russell, will join with members of the Golders Green Parish Church congregation for the rousing service which will end with a rendition of the National Anthem. [Members of the public are also invited to attend the service).

Following the service, the borough’s attention will turn to the Diamond Jubilee Festival scheduled for Monday 4 June in Golders Hill Park.

Meanwhile, residents across the borough are starting to sign up to hold street parties to mark the occasion via the council's Pledgebank website . 18 streets have already signed up to hold a party in their street during the double Bank Holiday weekend. All residents need to do is visit pledgebank.barnet.gov.uk, register their street and if four of their neighbours pledge to join them, the council will provide free public liability insurance and advice on road closures.

Councillor David Longstaff, Cabinet Member for Safety and Resident Engagement, said: “I am looking forward to this weekend’s Civic Service and think it will be a great opportunity to show what high regard our monarch is held in our borough. A lot of planning has gone into this event and I believe we are one of a few places in the country to be officially marking the anniversary of the Queen’s accession.

“2012 is set to be a memorable year for many reasons and it is clear that residents from across the borough are already getting their plans underway to mark Her Majesty’s Jubilee.”

Mrs Angry is of course keen to get a place in the very front row of the church for Sunday's civic service, where a number of seats have been designated for the borough's much loved blogging community. Perhaps she will take the opportunity of asking Mr Tim Benjamin, son of Brian Coleman's friend, the banner snatching Reverend Adrian Benjamin, what he intends to do with the £1,000 of tax payers' money that has been given to him for his Jubilee composition, in circumstances that are as yet unclear, as Mrs Angry's Freedom of Information request about the way in which this commission was made has been obstructed, in breach of the law, and delayed with no good reason. This is what she asked:

1. When was the Steering Group for the Queen's Jubilee Celebrations set up, by whom, and what are the names of all the members of this group?

2. How many times has this group met?

3. I would like a copy of the minutes of the group's meetings and decisions.

4. Please give me copies of all correspondence by Councillors Longstaff, Cohen and Coleman or council officers, relating to the work of the group

5. Please give me copies of any material or correspondence held by the council relating to the award of £1,000 given to Tim Benjamin for a composition to celebrate the Queen's Diamond Jubilee.

When Mrs Angry complained about the lack of response last week, she was assured that it would arrive 'shortly' ie implying the same day. Nothing arrived. On Monday she complained again: she was promised it would be with her by the end of Wednesday. At the end of Wednesday afternoon, she asked again where it was: no response at all. Oh: please don't think that this is in any way unusual, by the way, because for any politically sensitive response, this is how Barnet always responds. Mrs Angry remarked to an officer earlier this week:


"If this delay were unusual, I should not be inclined to be so annoyed. It would appear, unfortunately, that those answering FOI requests in Barnet are under the impression that it is acceptable continually to flout the law.

The Freedom of Information Act defines a very important principle of the right of access to material on request by members of the public. This legislation is essential to the proper scrutiny of local government, and the success of the new policy of localism and open data supported by the Secretaty of State for Communities and Local Government.

Responses to FOI requests are in fact meant to be made well within the twenty day period, not days or weeks beyond that limit. I have never received a response earlier than the statutory limit. There is also a clear correlation between the length of delay and the extent of political sensitivity of the material requested. This is not acceptable in a properly run, open and honest system of government.

In this instance, there is absolutely no reason why this response should not have been addressed within the time limit, and while I appreciate this is not your fault, I do not intend to accept any more feeble excuses from the authority regarding these deliberate delays in reply."

Now one of the things that worries Mrs Angry about this commission to the Rev's son is this: the delegated powers report authorising the payment to him was published at the end of December, and the piece is due to be performed this Sunday. Did he really come up with a bit of a tune over Christmas, rehearse it & have it ready so quickly? How much of the creative process has gone into the conception of the work? For £1,000 I want something pretty substantial, Mr Benjamin, not something cobbled together in a couple of weeks ... Oh ... unless of course it was written quite some time before, in the knowledge that it stood a pretty good chance of winning the contract? Fair enough, so. (Do you think that it might be Bishop 'Don't call me Len' Arnold coming to the service, by the way, Mr Hanley?)

It might have been nice to have had a local competition - any competition, actually, but preferably involving some of our schools, or one of the brilliant musicians and music groups in the borough, but no, Mrs Angry is sure that Councillors Coleman and Longstaff know best and it is much better to spend money we are always being told we do not have to spare on a commission to someone they know and trust.

Mrs Angry notes with amusement that the two events scheduled to celebrate the sixty year reign of our monarch are both in the same area, ie the Hampstead fringes: one 'rousing' (rabble?) service at St Jude's in the Garden Suburb, safe now that the Gaddafi house and the Congolese Ambassadors' homes have been cleared of squatters by the concerted campaigning of local Tory MP Mike Freer - and then a festival in Golders Hill Park. Lovely. Hope Councillor Coleman's park hire scheme is up and running by then, and that he charges us all for the pleasure of entry. Ooh er, Mrs Angry.

But to be serious, sort of, for a moment: why should two such privileged parts of the borough be the focus of all this fuss? Mrs Angry would imagine that actually the Queen would expect a rather more inclusive and diverse celebration, involving the less advantaged areas of the borough, elderly citizens, children and young people who might benefit from a free community event.

The truth is that Coleman and his pals want an excuse to show off to an audience in a setting that matches the grandiose imaginings of his fantasy life, a world festooned with moth eaten civic ritual, where Brian is forever Mayor, and everyone is obliged to bow before his majestic glory.

Send Him victorious, Happy and glorious, Long to reign over us ... but only til May.

Ha. Here is a rousing tune for you, Brian. Commission free.

Mrs Angry x

Old Bill, Bill Bratton, Boris, Brian & a load of balls

Some useful advice for Brian Coleman, AM, FRSA, on policing, American style


Well, here is a funny thing.

Mrs Angry's google alerts came up with a interesting item yesterday. (I'm telling you how I came across this story, incidentally, because I don't want you to think I read the Daily Mail regularly. Although I do, secretly, guiltily, online, when no one is looking).

According to Mail columnist Andrew Pierce, Bill Bratton, the American crimebuster extraordinaire that Cameron thinks has so much to teach the Met about policing in London, has, in fact, already visited London and already given us the benefit of his wisdom.

You'll never guess what Bratton got up to, in fact, over here on a visit back in 2006: he spent a whole day in Camden, in the company of one Brian Coleman. Yes, that Brian Coleman.

Nothing in his long career of fighting crime, gang warfare and antisocial behaviour could have prepared Mr Bratton for an experience like that, poor man. What impression of life in London must he have carried back with him to the States, after hanging out with Brian and his homeboys? I can see now where he got the inspiration for a policy of zero tolerance, mind you. I maintain the same position myself, where Coleman is concerned. Firm but fair, that's Mrs Angry.

According to Pierce:

"The rage from Labour politicians and certain chief constables over David Cameron’s decision to consult former New York police chief Bill Bratton on gang culture is utterly synthetic. Ken Livingstone, when he was London mayor, and John Reid, who was the Labour Home Secretary, met Bratton in London in 2006 to seek his advice on policing. Brian Coleman, a Tory member of the London Assembly, spent a day with Bratton in Camden, north London, in 2006 with Livingstone and senior Metropolitan Police officers including the then commissioner Ian Blair. ‘We have been employing Bratton’s safer neighbourhood techniques in north London for years,’ says Coleman. ‘It’s Bratton’s strategy, and Livingstone, the Labour Party, and the Met were completely signed up to it."

Mrs Angry is surprised but very pleased to see Brian so enthusiastic in his endorsement of Bill Bratton, and his strategy of safer neighbourhood techniques.

What a shame, though, that Brian has forgotten, apparently, that his boss Boris has forced through a scandalous reduction in police officers in the capital. By 2013/14 London is set to lose 1800 police officers: an average of 50 for each borough. And in terms of SNT officers, nine sergeants, the most experienced officers, will be lost in Brian's GLA constituency of Camden and Barnet: four in Camden, five in Barnet.

As Mrs Angry mentioned in a previous post, she happens to know that one of the sergeants who will lose his post is expected now to join, ha ha - the riot squad. His services are being dispensed with, even though he was part of a team which has successfully, determinedly, dealt with the problems caused by a local gang, using local knowledge and no doubt at least some of the tactics Bratton is now supposed to be bringing for the first time to this country.

An article in today's Guardian confirms the new plans to increase the size of riot police staffing in the wake of last week's events. This surely underlines the foolishness of the Tory response to the incidents: cutting back on frontline policing, preventative measures, and directly undermining the strategy they say they want to promote - whilst moving staff to the riot squad. That is a political statement: a decision to enforce the ability to respond to crime and civil disorder rather than put money into policies and strategies that can prevent such disorder happening in the first place.

Mrs Angry is appalled at the cynical appropriation of the issues raised by last week's riots for the political profit of the Tory led government. (Let's not bother with the LibDem side of the Coalition, shall we, as no one gives a toss what they think, or do, anymore?) The vengeful, salacious emphasis on such heavy punishment for the pathetic, anarchic looting of last week is coming from whom, after all? Eton educated ministers and mayors, who have no experience of economic deprivation or life in the farther margins of society - and by members of parliament who refuse to acknowledge that the moral decline they so abhor might have some connection to the lack of propriety in their own looting of the public purse: quite sickening.

But back to another fine example of service in public life: a wonderful role model for our young people, Councillor Brian Coleman, who tells us approvingly that we have actually used Bill Bratton's safer neighbourhood techniques for years, yet, as Andrew Dismore, his Labour rival for next year's GLA elections pointed out recently, in this press release:

ASSEMBLY MEMBER COLEMAN FAILS TO STAND UP FOR LOCAL POLICE

Andrew Dismore, the Labour candidate for the London Assembly for Barnet and Camden, has just received the response to a Freedom of Information request to the Metropolitan Police which has revealed that in the 3 years since he was last elected Conservative Assembly member Brian Coleman has not written to the Met. even once, raising concerns about Safer Neighbourhood and Safer Transport Police team numbers and deployments. (FoI attached below).

Mr Dismore said:

“It is appalling that the police have no record of Assembly member for Barnet and Camden having written with any concerns about the strength of our SNT and STT teams. It has been clear for some time that they have been under threat from Boris Johnson, the Mayor of London. The boundaries of the ward based teams are breaking down and we have just learned that the two Boroughs are to lose 9 SNT sergeants between them.

As for the STTs, when they were first introduced by former Mayor Ken Livingstone, Mr Coleman dismissed them as a “gimmick”.

Oh, really, Brian? Hmm. And er, despite the fact that Labour introduced Mr Bratton and his techniques to London, you actually seem to approve of them ... so why aren't you speaking out now, against the cuts which are going to fatally damage the effectiveness of this approach?

Mrs Angry grew up in a world where respect for the police, for law and order, was always an integral part of the Conservative philosophy. Incrementally, over the years, as the police and the courts have increasingly failed to follow the political agenda set by their government masters, so this bond has been broken, and the relationship between politicians, the police and the judiciary is continuing to fracture.

Nowadays it seems the more right wing the Tory, the more they mistrust the police and increasingly seek to undermine their autonomy and independence. How this benefits the citizen stuck in the middle of such arguments, is difficult to explain.

Cameron, Coleman, and all politicians, national and local, need to stop trying to score political points on an issue of complex causes and difficult solutions and start considering how best to help repair the damage of the last few days, last few decades. Nothing is going to get any better without support, without proper resources, and without a radical change of attitude by Tory politicians, up there, in the rarified atmosphere of central government and down here, down among the deadmen, in the council chambers of Broken Britain.