Truth or dare, in Crapita Barnet

Are you a scrounger? The man from Capita thinks he knows who is, and who isn't ...

Mrs Angry is a little late with this story, due to other distractions this week, but this is too good a tale to ignore: the story of Cornwall County Council, Capita, and an astonishing proposal to use a lie detecting service for phone calls from benefit applicants, the adoption of which has led to the resignation of the Cornish Conservative group leader Fiona Ferguson. Full story in Wednesday's Guardian, see here.

Mrs Angry is a keen follower of political events in Cornwall, for several reasons: a personal attachment to the county (if you need a stroppy blogger moving down there to take over one of those empty holiday homes, please let her know, as she is quite keen to escape the foetid air of Broken Barnet*) ... but Cornwall is also of no little fascination,  because of its parallels with the situation here in Barnet, and the battle we are having over the proposed outsourcing of our public services. Mrs Angry follows the tweets and blogposts of Helston councillor Andrew Wallis http://www.cllrandrewwallis.co.uk/ with great interest, and recommends that you do the same.


Cornwall's tradition of independent political activity leads to a refreshingly different and less predictable pattern of decisions and policy making than we are lumbered with here in Broken Barnet, where our empty headed Tory councillors blindly follow the party line, and show no interest in intellectual debate, or an approach to public office based on a sense of duty, principles, or even conscience. 

Whereas our own mass privatisation of services has been nodded through by an unquestioning, uninterested group of Tory councillors, the Cornish councillors have taken their role as representatives rather more seriously, listened to the deep concerns of their constituents, and thrown out the proposals.

Cornwall said no to their version of One Barnet, then, but some Cornish Tory councillors are still keen to avail themselves of the temptations offered by outsourcing providers, hence the enthusiasm by leader Jim Currie for the 'VRA' software offered by Capita,  'voice risk analysis' - a system sold to them in order, it is claimed, to prevent fraud and produce huge savings for the council.

How does this work? Capita says that VRA is 'capable of identifying stress and emotion in a caller's voice pattern'. Well: fancy that.

The Tory leadership in Truro is keen to avail itself of this software, and has knocked up a cunning plan to catch out the many scroungers they imagine are making false claims for single person discounts on their council tax bills. 

Telephone interviews will now be conducted with residents, using the 'lie detector' technology to spot potential cases of fraud. The council asserts that this screening of claimants, using a system delivered in a contract worth £50,000, 'could' repay its cost by returning 'at least' £1 million. Oh. 

Where have we heard of this sort of aspirational saving, here in Broken Barnet? Aha: yes ... scattered amongst the 8,000 pages of our own rather larger contract with Crapita, of course. 

Subjecting ordinary residents to such an indignity,  in the course of attempting to secure a benefit to which they are entitled: this is an absolutely outrageous course of action for any local authority to undertake, but it is what we must expect from a future whose ugly face leers over us, courtesy of our Coalition government, looking down with contempt on those of us who are poor, or vulnerable, or ill, or dependent in any way on support, a future where such citizens are necessarily becoming an object of suspicion, a scrounger, a member of an underclass: an outcast. 

How does the detection of stress or emotion in a phone call signify an indication of intention to defraud? Most of Mrs Angry's phone calls, if monitored, would be likely to exhibit high levels of stress, and emotion, especially this week: but this is not due to any interest in fiddling her council tax, or any sort of fraudulent activity ... And many people would naturally be rather uncomfortable in such a conversation, especially if they know they are being scrutinised in such a way - assuming that they will be informed of the detection system.

We are told that 'a number of claimants' will be selected for this humiliating form of assessment. How will this selection be made? On what basis?

We are also told that the new screening process is necessary because, Cornwall County Council asserts:

"research carried out in other areas of the country suggests 4% of single person benefit discounts could be false claims."

Hmm. Whose research? And in other areas of the country: which areas? Are they comparable to Cornwall? And this 'research' only suggests that 4% could be false claims. So unattributable evidence taken from a totally different context is being used as a pretext to pay Capita to subject a number of residents, the vast majority of whom are bona fide claimants, to a screening process which would seem to represent a clear infringement of civil liberties.

There is seemingly little to suggest that this process is effective, anyway: the Guardian article reports that a pilot scheme of this type used by our neighouring borough Harrow was not continued, but more significantly:

"the techniques used by Capita were used by the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) on a trial basis in 24 local authorities on the processing of housing benefit between August 2008 and December 2010.

A subsequent report said: "From our findings, it is not possible to demonstrate that VRA works effectively and consistently in the benefits environment. The evidence is not compelling enough to recommend the use of VRA within DWP."

What has this to do with Broken Barnet, you may be wondering? Everything. Our Tory councillors are in the process of flogging off up to £750 million worth of our public services to Capita for their profiteering pleasure, and of course Capita is almost certain to get hold of the other package of DRS services as well.

And as we read in the Barnet Press here, despite the heading:

 'Council distances itself from scandal as Capita is discovered to use lie detectors', 

... and a statement from a council spokesperson that: 'there are currently no plans to use the technology in Barnet', our deputy Leader, Councillor Daniel Thomas, claims he has not heard of VRA but is quoted as saying:

'It is part of our contract that Capita will look closely at groups of residents where there may be an element of fraud. The council offers several million pounds of discounts and over the duration of the contract Capita would be able to save the council a lot of money by tackling fraud.'


If you are a connoisseur of Barnet Tory easycouncilspeak, this statement will set the alarm bells ringing: Thomas does not reject the possibility of using such technology ... so watch out, citizens of Broken Barnet: Big Brother will more than likely be listening in to you, in the near future.

You will note that lie detection monitoring software is not offered by Capita for the use of local taxpayers and voters when obliged to listen to the utterances of our Tory councillors.

Mrs Angry would imagine that a pilot scheme which offered this facility would prove to be highly effective here in Broken Barnet, where truth is a commodity in short supply, and so many corporate statements, so much false information, so much obscured information, are routinely used to mislead the residents of this borough.

Take for example the interesting statements made by senior Tory councillors at last week's Full Council meeting, and elsewhere, in regard to the Judicial Review. Leader Cornelius was reportedly informing the councillors on Tuesday that it was irresponsible to hold up the One Barnet programme by this legal challenge, that it would cost tax payers £1 million a month: how dare we, the plebs, question his judgement in consigning the next ten years of our lives to Capita, without any mandate, or consultation? 

Well, hard luck, Richard: we do dare, see?

And then deputy leader John Thomas has claimed that the council has secured an expedited hearing for the JR, which will take place in the second part of March.

Oh dear: Mrs Angry's patent pending crapitacrapometer is bleeping ... 

Naughty Councillor Cornelius: where have you found this £1million figure?

Ah: lost 'savings'. That is rather like the lost lottery winnings we all have on a Saturday night when we omit to buy our ticket: an aspirational fortune lost, no more, and besides, as blogger Mr Reasonable has pointed out, when he has previously asked the cost of any delay to implementation, he was assured that any loss would be made up in the course of the programme. 

So £1 million a month will not be billed to the taxpayers of Broken Barnet. 

Which is just as well, as we learnt a the same meeting that we are being forced to hand over the staggering amount of £50,000 PER DAY to external advisers in the course of this reckless programme.

As for the equally over imaginative John Thomas: the Judicial Review is taking place within the expected timetable, as all JRs do. 

And here is an interesting fact which Thomas chooses not to share with residents and fellow councillors: Mrs Angry is very reliably informed that up to 70% of all applications for Judicial Review are rejected as having no case to answer. 

The very fact that this application has been successful indicates the strength of the persuasive argument that this particular challenge presents. 

Our Tory councillors are worried. 

They should be. 

But it is an iniquitous statement to suggest that to dare to apply for such a review is irresponsible: this action has only become necessary because of the inaction of Tory councillors, and a serious failure properly to scrutinise and manage the One Barnet programme, and worst of all, their failure to comply with the statutory requirement for meaningful consultation with the people whose lives will bear the impact of this wholescale privatisation of public services.

When this case goes to court, the highest legal authority in the land will consider the arguments regarding this programme, fraught as it is with a risk of failure on the most catastrophic scale - so: if the judges have decided there is a case to answer - well, there is a case to answer, and whatever the outcome, the law which binds us all to the truth, and the cause of justice, must and will be obeyed.

*NB, Tory councillors: don't get your hopes up just yet - Mrs Angry still has work to do here in Broken Barnet ...

Sins of Omission: Barnet and the MetPro Audit

If, like all the best bloggers, you happen to have spent your formative years in the Catholic educational system, (thereby acquiring the warped sense of morality which leaves you with a life long hatred of institutional hypocrites), you will be familiar with the Confiteor, the act of confession, whereby forgiveness is sought 'for what I have done, and what I have failed to do'.

Sins of omission, the stuff we failed to do, rather than the more obvious, glaring acts of wickedness we may commit in the course of our lives, are so much more interesting, I always think. And so much harder to define, aren't they?

Failure to act can have consequences just as disastrous as the commission of a sin, or a crime, and a passive tolerance of wrongdoing is in many ways more culpable than a random act of lawbreaking.

Which brings us to the sensitive subject of the range of matters covered by the MetPro Audit, the seen and the unseen. Without a doubt this report reveals details of the breathtakingly awful sequence of corporate maladminstration by the London Borough of Barnet. But it fails to address the full impact of these failures, some of which are themselves sins of omission committed over many years, and during two Tory adminstrations.

In the excitement over the MetPro Audit, readers may not be aware of the wider implications of full findings of the council's Internal Audit Report, a subject referred to by Mr Reasonable earlier this week. I urge you to read his post and his summary of the findings of this Report. You will see that the gross incompetence of Barnet Council is not confined to the appalling breaches of procedures involving the MetPro scandal.

What is truly shocking here is the following indictment of the authority's failure adequately to address the issue of compliance with CRB checks on a corporate level. In regard to such requirements, the report comments:

• There were gaps in the scope and content of existing policies and procedures at the time of the audit and there was no robust monitoring process to assess compliance with these procedures

• There is a lack of clarity in terms of application/interview questions that recruitment officers should adopt for safer recruitment purposes
  

• There is a lack of an audit trail to substantiate pre-employment checks

• There is no common process at a corporate level to confirm compliance to the CRB requirements across all service areas
  

• Some CRB procedural processes have not been fully complied with
  

• Only limited site inspections are being carried out to confirm CRB arrangements within supply management in Adults Social Care and Children’s Services, no policy exists setting out the approach to those contractors not visited
  

• There are differing approaches to CRB checks within HR, Adults Social Care and Children’s Services and as inefficiencies exist
  

• Within Children’s Services disclosure notes in relation to CRB’s are being retained for more than 6 months, this is in contravention with the Data Protection Act

• For agency staff who start employment before their CRB clearance is received there has been no evidence of a risk assessment being completed as required by the HR protocol

These conclusions are simply incredible, aren't they? Looking at the MetPro case, we have an example where Barnet has allowed unlicensed security employees, acting illegally, whose CRB credentials have never been checked, to have close contact with residents to whom it must have a duty of care, and most worryingly including children and vulnerable adults. Look at the following excerpt from a pdf document published by MetPro, with the title 'Emergency Response at Barnet Council':

"Our mobile officers are a valuable asset where staff, such as social workers and housing officers, visit unpredictable clients. From performing this “on location” protection, to providing secure escorts for foster carers and “at risk” children, we are trusted to be involved with very sensitive cases. Working closely with Child Protection Services, we have been directly responsible for interventions protecting children as well as monitoring the safety of contact between children and parents to ensure no-one experiences any form of distress."

Amongst the other boasts in this ludicrous document, in which the company claims to have been described as 'compassionate steel' are references to working at Barbara Langstone House, a local hostel for vulnerable homeless residents. The company, incidentally, also claims to have had letters of commendation 'from local residents and councillors' on the beneficial effects of their presence at the hostel, and that its zero tolerance of drug and alcohol abuse had eradicated problems such as anti-social behaviour. This latter statement is absolutely untrue, in fact the situation, until recently, has been a major source of trouble for local residents and necessitated constant attention from the police. - with notably little support from the council.

On page 4 of this document there is a photograph of a MetPro employee with three children in a park. One of the young girls appears to be having physical contact with the male employee. Without implying any wrongdoing on the part of this individual, it is clearly inappropriate that an unlicensed security employee of a local authority, whose CRB credentials have not been established, to be engaging with children in this way.

Before the Report was published, I submitted a statement to the Audit Committee councillors in regard to the MetPro issue, and included a copy of this document. As far as I am aware, there is no reference within the Audit Report to the need to set up a separate inquiry to investigate the possibility of breaches of safeguarding regulations concerning children and vulnerable adults that may have taken place due to the failure of the authority to ensure proper validation of MetPro's license and CRB accreditation. Surely, in the circumstances, it is necessary for such an inquiry to be put in place?

Another issue which my statement raised, and is an area which has been omitted from the scope of the audit, despite assurances from the Director of Corporate Governance, in reply to a formal complaint, is the question of the breaches of the data protection law, and specifically the matter of the illicit filming of bloggers and other residents at the Budget Meeting of March 1st. This matter must also be, as promised, the subject of a full inquiry to address questions such as how many other residents have been filmed without their consent? Were any children filmed? What happened to the footage?

Another serious omission in this audit is the unresolved question of accountability. The report tells us what went wrong in the sequence of failures regarding the MetPro issue, but it fails to address the need for those responsible to answer for their actions. There are so many references to failures in procedure, and yet no one is being identified as to their involvement, or asked in any detail to explain why, for example, on so many occasions, officers failed to implement the procurement process.

Lord Palmer's investigation dismisses any possibility of fraud without actually looking any closer than an glance at councillors' declarations, and a naive acceptance that as no one confessed to any link with MetPro, there could not be any doubt over such a possibility, yet the thought that officers should be scrutinised for the same potential conflict of interest appears not to have occurred to anyone.

The Barnet bloggers are well aware of all sorts of allegations in relation to this unsavoury story, some of which we have not published, but there most certainly is enough information within this report and elsewhere in the public domain to suggest that a fuller - and independent -investigation into the possibility of fraud may well be necessary.

There is absolutely no evidence that the Tories in Barnet are in the slightest bit keen to do the right thing, and put their oft quoted committment to transparency into action, however: in today's online local Times, Councillor Daniel Thomas gives us, dismissively, in a statement of unsurpassing stupidity, even by Barnet Tory standards, the summary of his conclusion on the corruscatingly awful indictment of the MetPro audit:

“I know that contract management is an area we need to tighten up on, which is exactly why we have this report.”

The thing which is tightening up nicely, in the meanwhile, is the noose around the neck of the Tory administration of Broken Barnet.

What a difference a day makes ...

Tuesday evening's council meeting, and the installation of the new Mayor of Barnet, was as we know, overshadowed by the news of the illness of Tory leader Lynne Hillan, who is suffering from lung cancer, and has stood down from her position.

At the meeting, deputy Andrew Harper was appointed interim leader, and led tributes to Ms Hillan, remarking, at some length, upon the sombre mood of the evening, and stating with emphasis that 'no one can feel more sombre than I do ...' He said that he was taking on the role of interim leader 'with deep humility'.

The Barnet bloggers, and anti cuts activists, have all tried very hard to act with sensitivity after the news of Ms Hillan's illness was broken. The protest which was to have taken place before the meeting on Tuesday night was cancelled for that reason. On a personal level I feel particularly sorry for the former leader, as my own mother died not so many years ago from lung cancer, and I know what a huge fight she is facing, and the distress that her son must be feeling.

Like fellow blogger Roger T, therefore, I was frankly staggered to see the news story, published online yesterday, Wednesday, at 5.10 pm in the local Times group paper, headlined: 'Councillor Andrew Harper announces bid for Barnet Council Leadership'.

Less than 24 hours after his solemn address to the council chamber, Mr Harper is cheerily described as being the first to 'throw his hat into the ring' for the leadership contest.

The story is accompanied by a ludicrous picture of Mr Harper smiling happily - squatting, as it happens - by a pair of recycling boxes full of shoes, empty bottles and other rubbish. Perhaps this is a library picture, and perhaps he did not intend this story to appear so quickly in the press, but in that case I really would have thought it might have been appropriate to keep his mouth firmly shut about his own or anyone else's political intentions until a decent interval had elapsed.

Evidently we are going to see a desperate and undignified struggle here in Barnet now for the vacant leader's post. So much is at stake, after all.

It is of course an opportunity for someone to step up, take responsibility for the mess this administration has landed us all in, and - as has happened in Suffolk - put a halt to the programme of massive outsourcing of services that has been foisted on us, before it is all too late.

I really hope that this will happen, and I urge the long excluded, disaffected back bench members of the Tory group to do their duty to the residents of this borough, and elect a new leader who will not only bring a new direction to the management of this borough, but is capable of rebuilding the dysfunctional relationship that now exists between the local authority and the people it is supposed to represent.

Sadly, the leadership contest that has started with such unseemly haste is only likely to be viewed by the candidates amongst this Tory group as an opportunity for their own political ambitions and self interest.

Business as usual, then, here in Broken Barnet.

Legionella in third Barnet care home

Last year I wrote a much read post about my family's experience of a care home used by Barnet for elderly people with dementia and in need of residential care: http://wwwbrokenbarnet.blogspot.com/2010/06/growing-old-in-broken-barnet.html

- as it happens we now learn that Southern Cross, the interesting company which took this home over, and was in charge when Harrow council launched a safeguarding adults investigation into standards there, is now in severe financial difficulties. The curse of Mrs Angry, yet again.

I updated this post in February, with news of the discovery in two Barnet care homes now run by a contractor, Catalyst, where, horrifyingly, traces of legionella have been discovered:

http://wwwbrokenbarnet.blogspot.com/2011/02/couldnt-care-less-growing-old-in-broken.html

We have now found out that a third home has been found to have traces of this deadly bacteria.

Here is a press release from Barnet Council:


Enforcement order issued in Legionella incident

Barnet Council's Environmental Health Team has served health and safety improvement notices on the Catalyst Housing Group, following the discovery of Legionella bacteria at three of its care homes.

Higher than normal levels of the bacteria were found in the water systems at Apthorp Lodge and Dell Field Court in February and at Merrivale in March, following sampling by Barnet Council¹s Environmental Health Officers.

Recent samples indicate that a thorough disinfection treatment has effectively cleansed the water systems in the homes.

The enforcement notices require Catalyst to provide full and up to date Legionella risk assessments for each of their care home water systems.

Cabinet Member for Governance and Civic Affairs, Councillor Melvin Cohen said:

We take any breach of health and safety regulations very seriously and the council will continue to sample the water systems at all five care homes run by Catalyst and will continue to oversee their treatment processes.²

Although higher than expected levels of bacteria were discovered at three homes it is important to stress that no link has been established between these sites and any case of Legionnaires¹ disease.²

A full review of Legionnaires¹ disease cases since June 2010 in North East and North Central London, North West London and Hertfordshire has also been carried out by the Health Protection Agency. This review has found nothing to link any case of Legionnaires¹ disease to the care homes in Barnet.

Catalyst has so far provided the council with draft risk assessments for Apthorp Lodge, Meadowside and Dell Field Court, which the council is reviewing, whilst the remaining assessments are expected soon.

For more information about Legionnaires¹ disease visit: http://www.hpa.org.uk/Topics/InfectiousDiseases/InfectionsAZ/LegionnairesDisease/GeneralInformation/
Notes to editors:

Legionella bacteria are common and can live in all types of water including natural sources such as rivers and streams as well as water storage containers.

Infection with these bacteria is rare and can only occur by inhaling them in a fine water spray. Infection is not caused by ordinary washing or bathing and there is no danger at all from drinking water that contains these bacteria.

Mike Langton
Media Officer

It so happens that I have had experience of the inappropriately named 'Merrivale', as my late father was sent there for respite care, before being admitted to the home from hell where he was later incarcerated. While he was at Merrivale, we were contacted and told that they had been giving my father someone else's medication.

The press release evades some important questions: whether or not any cases of legionella have been identified, the risk was and is real: how did this contamination occur, and who is responsible for enforcing standards of cleansing that would prevent such occurances?

It is somewhat disingenuous for the press release to state that infection from legionella cannot be caused by ordinary washing or bathing, and can only be transmitted by fine water spray: surely this means that showers bear a high risk factor and many residents and staff members have theoretically been vulnerable to infection through this medium?

So: two blogposts with a common factor today (and possibly one more to come later): the salutory tale of what can go wrong when council services are outsourced to private contractors. Stories like these emphasise the risk of apparently inadequate monitoring of the services outsourced, of confusion over the responsibility for the maintenance of standards, and the impact on our community of a hands off council whose claim to 'better services for less money' is clearly demonstrated in these examples to be like so much else in One Barnet: shameless spin.

Welcome to Contract City.

Come into my parlour, said the spider to the fly ...

Now my friend Mrs X, being a concerned citizen, just like Mrs Angry, but much better behaved, has a keen interest in local politics. Obviously Mrs X and Mrs A have much in common, but generally speaking Mrs X is much more polite, shy and retiring than her mouthy friend. And, as she has been attending quite a few council meetings and forums recently, and was really looking forward to attending the Barnet budget consultation meeting this week (she doesn't get out much these days) she was therefore very annoyed to hear it had been cancelled.

Happily, being a devoted reader of the Barnet Council Facebook page, she had taken the step of registering her interest in attending and was therefore one of four lucky residents promised that they would receive a phone call from Councillor Daniel Thomas, who was going to hold a personal, one to one consultation, with each of the four residents.

Just think, mused Mrs X, as she sat with bated breath by the telephone: I am going to be responsible for 25% of the consultation meeting input ... how did that happen?

At last the phone rang, with a merry tinkle.

Councillor Thomas introduced himself politely. There was a an awkward silence.

'Er, well, what would you like me to talk about?' ventured Mrs X, in a silly opening gambit, then, worried that she sounded like a woman on one of those unsavoury phone lines, launched firmly into: 'Actually, I would like to ask you about the cancelled consultation meeting: do you really think that it was adequately publicised in the first place?'

Councillor Thomas, as it turns out, surely has an assured future in politics, because he is adept at talking at great length in a smooth, hypnotic and brilliantly evasive manner. Plus he has that sort of seductive Welsh accent that makes you think about Dylan (rather than Daniel) Thomas and How Green Was my Valley, Anthony Hopkins, bachelor sheep farmers and strange cheeses, rather than nasty neo Thatcherite Tory councils. A gift for the ambitious Tory would be politician. So. Adequate publicity? Oh, yes, he thought so, all in all. There had been an advert in the local Times and Press, you know. Oh and Barnet First. And some stuff online. And I am dumb to tell the crooked rose, my youth is spent by the same wintry force. What? Pull yourself together, Mrs X.

Hmm, she said, but what if you don't get the local papers? And how many people actually receive (or read) Barnet First? And what about those who don't have access to the internet - many older residents, for example? Or the many residents of our borough for whom English is a second language? It's not a very inclusive approach to consultation, is it? Why not publicise such consultation exercises, and other initiatives such as Residents Forums, more effectively, perhaps through local community groups, residents' associations, synagogues, churches, mosques? If you really want to engage with residents, wouldn't that be a good idea?

Well, said Councillor Thomas, he did know that there were some proposals to 'reinvigorate' the Residents Forums, and that might include wider publicity. There had been a Citizens Panel meeting last night, with all 400 members invited: oh, said Mrs X, that's funny, because I am a member of that panel, and yet, when I asked at the last Forum what had happened to it, I was told it had been too expensive to continue, and I certainly was not asked to attend this meeting: how very peculiar!

And as to the Residents' Forums, she added: yes - now then, you're a Finchley councillor, aren't you? I've been going to a few of our local Forums recently: I haven't seen you there, though ...

No, he said. I've never been to one.

What? Never?

No. No need. He was very busy doing other things. He is an executive councillor. Very busy.

Yes, but surely, spluttered Mrs X, - other local councillors of all parties regularly attend, not as panel members, but to listen to residents views, which is pretty important, isn't it?

Well, he didn't have to. Councillors can largely make of their roles whatever they want, you know, like MPs. (oh dear) He preferred to hold surgeries, and knock on peoples' doors. He was going to be knocking on doors in my road any day now, by the way, by an uncanny coincidence.

But my road isn't in your ward, Mr Thomas.

Ah.

Mrs X dropped that line of discussion, and moved on to a subject dear to Mrs Angry's heart: the lack of interest by the administration in a process of engagement and consultation with the public. The avoidance of free debate. The preference for 'surveys' which like the library one, are loaded with 'options' that oblige the participant to endorse a pre set agenda. Oh and had he taken a close look at the Ideas Barnet website? Was he aware that rumour has it a large proportion of the 'ideas' submitted to this site are not genuinely from members of the public, and have suspiciously pro Future Shaped suggestions? Oh, and if this was true, didn't it invalidate the whole project?

No. He wasn't aware of any rumour. He would take a look at it. Mrs X is not holding her breath in expectation of any imminent investigation, however.

Thing is, said Mrs X, you don't seem to understand how much damage has already been caused to the relationship between your administration and the residents of this borough ... I'm talking about the allowance rise fiasco, she added, helpfully, just in case he had forgotten ...

Oh, yes, that. Ahem. Well, of course the proposals were rescinded, after listening to the bla bla bla ... the sloeblack, slow, black night zzzz

Only partly, Councillor Thomas. If you remember, eight of your colleagues just voted themselves a pay rise from £7,000 to more than £15,000 for the extra 'duty' of chairing a few committee meetings, in some cases, committees that only meet twice a year. Do you not understand how inappropriate such an increase is, at a time when you tell us our services are going to be so drastically cut, and so many council employees are going to lose their jobs, or at best face frozen salaries for the foreseeable future? The £40,000 which this rise costs could fund the posts of two or three care workers, to look after elderly and vulnerable residents in the borough, couldn't it?

Well, yes, he saw her point.

So: nice that you see my point, but what are you going to do about it? Why don't you suggest to your colleagues that they forego this rise?

Well , he could, but then burble burble burble bla bla bla and I am going into the darkness of the darkness forever, I have forgotten that I was ever born ... STOP! Stop right there.

Because you know, apart from the allowance scandal, you and your colleagues do seem to act as if you are in some way not accountable to the people they are supposed to represent ... I've sat through council meetings in the last few months and listened in disgust as Tory councillors have ranted about there being no such thing as poverty, or that people actually 'thrive' in poverty, that people in receipt of benefits are lazy and lack aspiration, that people in the public sector should get 'a real job' - (this apparently from someone whose real job is selling tobacco), and oh, let's not forget your collegue Mr Coleman's charming references to people who live in the 'slums' of Grahame Park ... do you not understand how offensive these remarks are to the residents of this borough?

Oh! Something pierces the smooth and previously impenetrable surface of this councillor's defences: he is here to discuss the budget proposals, and he will not comment on individual councillors' comments.

Ah but, countered Mrs X, don't you see that there is a direct relation to your performance as councillors, and our rights as the people who pay your allowances? The people you offend by such remarks? Have you forgotten you are supposed to be working on behalf of us? Volunteering to do your bit for the community, Big Society and all that? Many residents do all forms of voluntary activities without demanding any payment at all, you know.

Well, he said, as regards Councillor Coleman's remark: it was an 'extreme comment' but we live in a free world, you know, a free country ... Mrs X shook her head in despair. And in the new budget proposals, you know, there are plans to 'streamline' the committee system, in order to make savings. Ok, said Mrs X, but it might be feared that this is an excuse to further increase the Cabinet system, and continue to restrict decision making to a few individual councillors, rather than sharing the process with your party colleagues ... Councillor Thomas disagreed, and seemed to think his colleagues were sufficiently involved in decision making.

That's not what your colleague Mark Shooter thinks, is it? enquired Mrs X: I was a the last full council meeting when he raised this very point ... oh dear. Mark Shooter appears to be something of a sore point with Councillor Thomas, for some reason, and for the second time he showed a spark of impatience with Mrs X.

Ok: the budget itself then. Why is it in council reports etc you state we have to save 26% in spending cuts, whereas in posters stuck up at bus stops and so on the figure is reduced to 20%?

Actually, he said the figure is 27%. What? Well, 26.7. So why the discrepency? Mrs X, like Mrs A, cannot understand any calculations more complicated than 12x12s are um whatever they are, without being walloped on the hand with a wooden ruler, so she is unable to recall what the explanation was. I am sure there was a perfectly reasonable one. Maybe.

Oh, btw: what happened to the what was it now, £9 million pounds of lost revenue from the council and business tax you Tories somehow forgot to recover last year? Any chance of that turning up? Only in dribs and drabs. Oh, what a shame. And the money in Iceland, another £27 million lost by a Tory administration? Nope. Those greedy Icelanders won't give it back. Tut tut. Because 27+9 makes (ouch) er £36 million pounds, doesn't it, and goodness me, I wonder how many wardens, and care assistants and vital services that would support? Hmm? Hello?

Before you go, can we just talk about Future Shape, or whatever it is called this week? Thanks. Er, now, again, Mrs X has a poor grasp of economics and accounting, but she understands that this was created two years ago in order to save money. How much money has it saved?

None. In fact it has cost money.

Oh dear. Really?

Another £3 million pounds lost. Let's see: £36 million plus £3 million = what, £39 million of our money lost ?

Thank God we have a Tory council, eh, citizens, to save us from the economic catastrophe of Labour incompetence.

Councillor Thomas said that Future Shape was going to deliver savings. Ah, yes, said Mrs X, savings have been 'identified' but if they do materialise they still have to offset against the costs, don't they, so there is still no net gain?

Oh, and the Grant Thornton report was rather worrying ,wasn't it? Telling us there has been no business plan, no costings, no timescale, no detail? How have we got two years down the line without such a basic structure? If I went to a bank manager with a proposal to set up my own business without any such fundamental information, I would be shown the door, yet your administration is proposing to run the borough on a business model which does not exist in any detail. This seems rather peculiar, you know.

Councillor Thomas became quite impassioned at this point. He has obviously been extending a certain amount of thought as to the value and direction of Future Shape.

He said that he too had at times been 'impatient' with these plans. But the Grant Thornton report had really come 'too early' in the process. (well, that's always a disappointment, and what a shame the council wasted so much of our money on paying for this report then, eh?) and he assured Mrs X that, and I have her notes here to confirm this, readers, that we are 'on the cusp of getting results', and if these results do not materialise, if things aren't 'working out', if for example 'outsourcing' is promising to look 'too risky' well then, and get this: 'we won't go ahead' with Future Shape.

You heard it here first, citizens. Future Shape is living on borrowed time.

I want to believe Councillor Thomas meant what he said, that this council will abandon its ideological committment to the Future Shaped future of this borough, unless we are soon presented with the evidence that it really can run this borough satisfactorily.

Unfortunately, as we have seen so many times before, life in Broken Barnet is not quite so straightforward, is it? And if there is a choice between saving face, and sacrificing us all on the altar of an ideological nonsense, or admitting that this bunch of twats have made a major mistake and sold us down the river, well, my friends, I think we all know which way this will pan out, don't you?