Friday, 14 December 2012

Not relevant: the process of scrutiny in Broken Barnet

Resident Keith Martin leaves the committee table after his address is cut short by the Chair: Libdem Lord Palmer looks on, bemused.

Mrs Angry was tempted not to bother taking her notebook to last night's scrutiny committee. The result was a foregone conclusion, and the positions taken, and indeed some of the script had already been written by Labour councillor Barry Rawlings, who gloomily predicted the answers and questions that would follow in his own contribution, and had written them down before the meeting. 

If only, thought Mrs Angry, keen to leave the Town Hall as soon as possible and reconvene herself in the more appealing environment of the Greyhound, if only the Tory councillors would be so frank, and hand out transcripts of the meeting as we arrived, to save us all the bother of sitting through the stage managed tedium of what passes for scrutiny in Broken Barnet. Mrs Angry comforted herself with the thought that now we are about to enter into our long years of bondage to Crapita, no doubt in future their employees in Blackburn, Belfast, and Southampton will be obliged to email us copies of the minutes of all council meetings before we leave home, to save us the inconvenience of involvement in the democratic process.

Last night's scrutiny meeting was chaired by Councillor Hugh Rayner, in order, he explained to consider the call in of the NSCSO erm .... he seemed lost for words ... 'scam' suggested a member of the public. Item, corrected Hugh, sternly.

As Mrs Angry had arrived in the committee room, only two people were sitting in the public area, La Bloggeuse, the delightful new Barnet blogger, and Councillor Brian Coleman, the delightful new Barnet blogger: oh - how did that happen? Mrs Angry was tempted to ask Brian if he wished to examine her gusset, after his rather disgusting comments last week, but decided instead to grin horribly at him and sit in the same row. He looked awfully pleased.

When the councillors came drifting in it was very interesting to see deputy leader Daniel 'John' Thomas come straight over to his suspended colleague, keen to shake his hand, and then spending a long while whispering furtively together over some pressing matter. At the end of the meeting, again, Thomas came to Coleman and they continued their conspiratorial discussions. Bearing in mind Brian's vehement opposition to One Barnet, albeit a position that is lately adopted, and the prominent lead Thomas has taken in pushing on regardless with the programme, one might wonder what mischief, exactly, they are up to.

Blogger Mr Reasonable has been known to  make presentations on the subject of One Barnet, and when he does so he explains the concept in the guise of a big black box. It may be, thought Mrs Angry last night, that we have all been entirely wrong about the whole thing, and Mr Reasonable has completely misunderstood, because One Barnet, or at least half of it, is in fact a big white box. Tut tut, Mr Reasonable.

Yes: there was one arrival in the committee room, last night, which went largely unnoticed, but did not escape the all seeing eye of Mrs Angry: the ceremonial entrance of the Capita contract, in a large white cardboard box, the ark of the covenant that is One Barnet - or perhaps, in truth, more of a whited sepulchre. It was carried in with loving care and all due reverence by the High Priest of Barnet outsourcing, Mr John Newton, of our obscenely high maintenance 'implementation partners' and consultants iMPOWER, and then shoved under the table, to work its evil influence unmarked by the blackhearted councillors and their scheming officers.

There was only one public question, from a Mr Ron Cohen, the resident to whom Brian Coleman was forced, eventually, to 'apologise' to for calling him an antisemite and disloyal Israeli in a highly offensive email.

Mr Cohen asked a long and detailed question about the so called 'investment' promised by Capita. The officers looked on, bemused, and the response was typical of Barnet, officer John Hooton informed Mr Cohen what his question really meant to ask, and responded accordingly, rather than listen to what he said. He told him that he was asking: did the council know what it is getting in terms of investment? And the answer was yes, it did know. Mr Cohen left the table.

A few members of the public had been given special dispensation by the Chair to address the meeting. This seemed like a hugely generous gesture - until the first speaker, Mr Keith Martin, began to speak. After a minute or so, the Chair stopped him, claiming that the theme of his address was not 'relevant'. Relevance in the context of engagement with residents in Broken Barnet is decided of course not on the basis of reasoned argument, but on whether it touches on dangerous, subversive areas, ie philosophy which does not meet the approval of Barnet Tory thinking (let's call it thinking, for the sake of convenience). Keith protested and pointed out that he had told by an officer that he could raise the issues he was speaking about. He was told by the Chair that he had been misled. Mr Martin left the table.

Chair of Barnet Alliance, Barbara Jacobson 

Next up was Barbara Jacobson, the formidable Chair of Barnet Alliance. She gave the assembled committee a well deserved tongue lashing for their performance at last week's Cabinet meeting, where they approved the Capita deal. She quoted back to acting CEO Andrew 'Black Hole' Travers his remark, as reported by Mrs Angry, that dealing with so much of the potential trouble that will inevitably be caused by the contract will, in his words, 'be the job of our successors'. 

Travers glowered, and sat throughout her speech with arms gripped across his chest, making 'I have to listen to you but I really, really resent it' faces all the way. Barbara carried on, again picking up on a sensitive point, the question by Tory Cabinet member Tom Davey as to what would happen if Capita goes bust. She made a reference to 'Colonel' Andrew Harper, which made Mrs Angry laugh far too much, imagining that he therefore outranks Captain Craig Cooper, who clearly also found Councillor Harper's unexpected rise to a new position to be of no little source of amusement.  

Resident Julian Silverman sat down next. He is a magnificently obstinate man, in the finest tradition of the older citizens of Broken Barnet, rebellious,cantankerous, refusing to lie down and do his duty and accept the judgement of our Tory masters in the council chamber. The Graph of Doom bites back, in Broken Barnet. He invited the meeting to contemplate the foreword written by Oliver Letwin introducing a recent report by Capita, in which he tells us the government is committed to transfer control of the delivery of public services into the hands of users. 

Mrs Angry has looked at this foreword. Indeed this is exactly what Letwin claims. In his introduction to the report, entitled 'Catalyst Councils' he tells us councils must have regard for the 'nuances of local need'. He continues:

"That is why this Government is committed to the transfer of power and influence over how services are delivered – away from the center, and into the hands of those who use them. It is why we are seeking to support innovation, excellence and greater access to capital investment by opening up the delivery of publicly funded services to a diversity of providers."

Yes: away from the centre, into the hands of those who use them, from a diversity of providers. In other words, a pragmatic approach, a mixture of different solutions to different needs.

What Mr Letwin does not say, empty headed Tory Councillors of Broken Barnet, is that we want public service delivery to be taken out of the hands of those who use them, and handed over to one giant company to exploit, whilst removing the process of democratic control over a ten year period.

Yet again, bonkers Barnet Tories are deliberately moving in the opposite direction to that of their own party's policy: not a Catalyst Council, a Catastrophic Council, incompetent, financially reckless, and heading for political meltdown : the Three Mile Island of Conservative local  authorities.

And this is only Part One, readers: can you bear to wait for the rest?

Thursday, 13 December 2012

Glad to be gay, in Broken Barnet? A tale of two Tory MPs.



What is it about the Conservative politicians in Broken Barnet? What drives them to behave in such a relentlessly attention seeking, contemptible fashion? 

Why are they so intent on self destruction? 

Much of it is due to an obstinate refusal to adapt to a post Thatcherite world, a nostalgia for the certainty of a time where the enemy was clear: socialism, the unions, the public sector ... and here they are, in 2012, unable to see beyond their own blinkered prejudices, unable to think for themselves, and unable to see the ground slipping from under their feet.

Until the rise of the local blogosphere, and the subsequent birth of the current insurgency amongst residents, there was no real challenge to the political status quo in this borough, and the individual eccentricities and outrageous behaviour of our local Tory politicians went pretty well unremarked.

Things are different now, though, aren't they? 

Brian Coleman: career over: positions on the GLA, LFEPA, NLWA, Barnet Cabinet, all lost and gone forever - and now even his membership of the Conservative party suspended.

Barnet Council: last week the Tory Cabinet was driven out of the committee room into private session by the mutinous opposition of residents. In 2014, it will be driven out of power.

And our local MPs? The only dominant female Tory in Barnet, Theresa Villiers, keeps her head down, and her opinions anodyne enough to avoid controversy, and has seen her career flourish as a result. Her seat is still not as safe as she might like to imagine, however, thanks to the insane behaviour of her local Conservative councillors.

Mike Freer, the promoter of easycouncil, now trying to distance himself from the toxicity of its most recent metamorphosis, One Barnet, and keep quiet about his endorsement of the NHS 'reforms', struggles to achieve any preferment in Westminster. It is rumoured that this might be because Uncle Eric is not awfully keen on him, for some reason. Uncle Eric is awfully keen on Mrs Angry, of course.

And that leaves us with Matthew Offord.

Oh dear. 

Where to begin? 

Mrs Angry refers you to all her earlier posts - there are plenty to choose from. The series of unfortunate events that comprise his time as MP for Hendon almost defies belief. The strange accidents: a broken wrist suffered in the bathroom on honeymoon ... the eye injury caused by a mug flying out of a kitchen cupboard, the alleged incident with another MP at the previous Tory conference, the mysterious disappearance in Belize during the riots, the attack on a previous colleague's reputation under the protection of parliamentary privilege; the invocation of the Human Rights Act in order that his political adviser Max, the Jack Russell, could accompany him at work in the House of Commons, the dinner with army chiefs of staff where he allegedly shouted abuse at a speaker & called him a gobshite,  and then ...oh yes, the latest thing. 

Gay marriage. 

Matthew Offord does not approve of gay marriage, as we know. 

See these posts:





This week, in the House of Commons, Offord's contribution to the debate on this issue took the form of demanding to know if the government planned to solicit views on the sanctioning of polygamous marriage - not once, but twice.

To the Barnet Press, in an attempt to justifiy his childish, deeply offensive remarks he managed to make matters even worse by suggesting that equal marriage might as well be extended not only to polygamous marriage but to marriage between 'blood relatives'.

The fact that he thinks a comparison between a loving union and an act of commitment between two people who happen to be of the same sex to that of a couple engaging in an incestuous relationship is staggering enough. 

That he is stupid enough to suggest this to a journalist - and expect people to agree with him - is beyond belief. 

With Offord the problem is not just with what he says, and thinks, however: many other Tory MPs hold the same or similar views, we can be sure. It is his lack of judgement, and his continual failure to gauge what is appropriate behaviour or comment for someone in his position that singles him out, and makes it inevitable that he is seen as yet another dangerous Barnet electoral liability for the Tory party.

Will he be standing as the Conservative candidate for Hendon in 2015? If the Tories are happy to lose the seat, then yes, maybe. He won last time, standing against Andrew Dismore, by only just over a hundred votes. There is no chance he will win again.

'Dr' Offord may have imagined that there are votes in expressing such intolerance of equal marriage. Mrs Angry would suggest that if so, this is a grave miscalculation.

In this borough, in Hendon constituency, it is true, there are large faith groups and cultural communities in which he probably hopes he will find electoral support for his apparent moral crusade in defence of what he sees as 'traditional' marriage, an institution to which he is a recent convert, having only married at the age of forty, just before the last election.

There are those who may have religious objections to equal marriage - but of those who do, how many are likely to visit the polling station and vote simply on the basis of this issue? 

There are also undeniably the usual collection of homophobes, hate driven nutters and mindless bigots who inhabit every section of society: again, probably not inclined to vote en masse on such a matter. Too busy standing for parliament, one imagines.

But the vast majority of people in this borough are decent, reasonable people, who at worst will be apathetic about the whole business, and in many cases will feel strongly that it is perfectly reasonable for gay couples to be able to claim the same rights as anyone else, to have their relationships recognised with the same level of respect as any other long term partnership.

Oh, and last, and perhaps most important of all, and the one glaringly obvious fact that Offord and all the other bigots overlook.

There must be thousands of gay residents in this borough, of course, who will be hoping that this legislation is approved, and who are horrified by the statements made by Offord. Mrs Angry knows that many gay voters living in Hendon have contacted their MP to express their sense of outrage at the position he has taken, and has indeed seen some of the correspondance.These residents will most definitely be going to the polling station to male their views count, in 2015.

Coleman is finished, and now Offord is finished.

Freer? He will have a real fight to hang on: by May 2015, the One Barnet mess will have polished off the local Tories, the NHS, benefit 'reforms', the continuing recession, and all the other policies included in the Coalition government's war of attrition on the foundations of our social welfare structure will have made the election of a Labour government almost inevitable. 


During the last election, Freer, who describes himself as openly gay, produced a campaign leaflet which had no mention of his own civil partner, and chose instead to feature a nice photograph of what we were told were his mother, and his mother in law. At the time, it seemed to be a feeble acknowledgement that in some sections of the Finchley and Golders Green constituency, an openly gay MP might not be seen as acceptable. This struck Mrs Angry at the time as a pretty shabby deference to bigotry. 

Freer appears to have left such equivocation behind, however, and had the courage to defend the new proposals on equal marriage, publicly condemning the remarks of his former Barnet councillor colleague as 'barking and offensive'.

How interesting it is to see the previously close Tory politicians, in neighbouring constituencies, taking such opposing views on the same issue. Will it have an impact on their political futures? 

Sex, religion, and politics: an uneasy combination at the best of times, but especially here, in Broken Barnet.

Tuesday, 11 December 2012

One Barnet: Apocalypse - well not now, exactly: it doesn't happen over night




Public Questions Special Cabinet Dec 6th 2012 from The Barnet Bugle Ltd on Vimeo.

Thanks to the determination of former Tory councillor turned blogger the Barnet Bugle, all our council meetings here in Broken Barnet, over the last couple of years, have been filmed and made accessible to residents who want to see how their elected representatives disport themselves on our behalf. 


Barnet's bloggers of course produce written accounts and analysis of the events taking place in the Town Hall, but film footage also plays an important part in the function of holding our cabal of fumbling, furtive Conservative councillors to account for their ill deeds. 

Take a look at the footage above of the public question time at last Thursday's tumultuous Cabinet meeting, where the privatisation deal with Capita, at least the NSCSO part of it, was  approved by our doltish councillors. See the contemptuous dismissal by leader Richard Cornelius of the majority of questions by residents, the attitude of scorn: all questions are, in his view, rhetorical, as they can only be in an environment where real debate is not allowed.

(Mrs Angry's is at around 14.30: see Councillor Andrew Harper's look of excitement when Mrs Angry lets slip she is not actually Mrs Angry. Down boy). And Cllr John Thomas's body language is interesting, too: in fact during the last few meetings he has exhibited a markedly less complacent demeanour, in the face of so much criticism and hostility from the public).

That the councillors are deeply rattled is apparent in the second piece of footage, which was filmed once the public took over the meeting, requiring the councillors and senior officers to move into a small ante chamber next door, to the aptly named Heritage Room, where our elected representatives continued with their mission to sell off our heritage and assets - in this case lending our council customer services to Capita for their profiteering pleasure.

This really was an extraordinary meeting, in all sorts of ways. That a Tory leader and his Cabinet should be driven into private session by the ferocity of opposition from their own residents is bad enough, but the farce that ensued in the Heritage Room, participants crowded together like the guilty conspirators that they are, makes for some fascinating viewing.

As the meeting resumes, the noise of the residents' alternative debate taking place around the committee table resounds in the antechamber: like the court of Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette, they go through their pointless rituals, deferring to one another, admiring the cut of each other's One Barnet frockcoat, while outside the mob is howling for their blood. (Or no, in truth, pretending nothing is happening, like some Broken Barnet version of that scene in Carry on Up the Khyber, when Sid James and guests continue with their dinner party, plaster falling into the soup, while under siege from the enemy ... )


Carry on Broken Barnet:  as residents mutiny outside, CEO Andrew 'Black Hole' Travers, Councillor Helena Hart, and Captain Craig Cooper entertain themselves

Deputy leader Daniel Thomas's face is a picture: his eyes wide with the effort of assuming a nonchalance he clearly does not feel, presumably calculating, even as he speaks, the strength of opposition being enacted in the room next door, in terms of an indication of voting patterns in the year 2014 ...

Interestingly, his opening words betrayed a change in confidence by him about the miraculous healing powers of the medicine bottle labelled Capita: he told us, after an assurance that it was the job of elected members to make these huge decisions on our behalf, and that they do have a mandate, that they do not do this lightly, he said that the benefits of the deal would emerge 'over time' ... 'it doesn't happen overnight' ... 

Oh: hang on ... so already they are preparing us for 'teething problems' which will last for a couple of years, until the next elections, when any problems will be all Capita's fault, and our Tory councillors will tell us that they have been misled, and are holding Capita to account and bla bla bloody bla ... 

Thomas is no doubt hoping that at the next general election he will, as he did last time, be standing as a parliamentary candidate far, far away from Barnet, so whatever shit hits the fan here will have nothing to do with him. Please don't make that assumption, John Thomas: the magic of google will bring everyone back to what you did here, as chronicled, with such loving care, by the most attentive blogosphere in the country.

Robert Rams: the same applies to you. You have even less credibility. No: you have no credibility.

Rams takes the lead throughout this meeting, for some reason, not the actual leader and Chair, Cornelius, or the deputy leader.  

This should in itself strike a note of fear in the hearts of all who care about the future of our borough. Robert Rams, the man who does not know, or care about, the difference between an options appraisal, and an in house comparator. The man who thinks, according to his statements here, that the examples of Capita's meddlings in Birmingham and Southampton are the best references for us here in Broken Barnet. The man who started a campaign to save his constituents from the boroughwide parking policy he has voted for. The man who builds invisible libraries, shuts perfectly good ones, shuts museums and sells off our heritage at auction, sits in the Heritage Room at the Town Hall, and sells us off to Crapita. The man who will lose his seat at the next local elections, in the marginal ward of East Barnet, and serve him right.

Earlier that day, Barnet had been served notice that there will be a very well founded application for Judicial Review of the One Barnet programme ( there are now two separate notifications, by the way) and many of the statements by loyal cabinet members and senior officers at the meeting were clearly panicky attempts to put on record the fact that they had done absolutely everything that the legal challenge will say they have not done: eg consult, consider, play by the rules. Too late, councillors.

CEO (interim CEO) Andrew 'Black Hole' Travers is, like all One Barnet fans, fond of using the word 'robust' as a lucky charm to ward off such potential challenges. 

In his opening words to the reconvened meeting he is obliged to invoke the magic word three times, in relation to the taboo subject of procurement. A sensitive issue, here in Broken Barnet, in any circumstance: in regard to the competitive dialogues, oooh, dear me - robust, robust, robust. Close your eyes, keep saying it and maybe it will come true, Andrew.

Councillor Helena Hart: yes, a woman, but one of mature years, so allowed to be a Tory councillor under sufferance, and even allowed to speak occasionally, on subjects of leaden worthiness, while the men smile politely and stifle their yawns, spoke now to say what a shame it was that the ungrateful residents outside were not present to hear the searching discussions (ie half truths and twisted justifications) between Cabinet members that would now follow. 

Helena Hart, eyes darting about as if to say, look at this, me having to ask such unnecessary questions,  asked the sort of questions that might have been acceptable at this stage if a. you were a. not a Cabinet member, b. not even a councillor, c. had never heard of outsourcing, or One Barnet, and d. had been living on Mars for the last two years (with the rest of the Tory group). 

Would the call centre be Abroad? No. 

Would customers be asked if they were satisfied with their experience of phoning a Capita owned slave somewhere Up North? Yes. 

Had anyone had a bit of a word with any other councils in hoc to Capita, to see what they thought of them? Good idea, Helena.

Robert Rams told the meeting, rather astonishingly, but with no sense of it being at all unreasonable, that Capita had thought about having the call centre in - wait for it - South Africa. Yes, really. South Africa.

Yet again, with a lack of shame that only someone who really has no grip on reality could assume, he cited the experiences of Birmingham and Southampton as the best examples of partnerships with Capita. (Oh please: Mrs Angry just can't be bothered: have a look at my earlier posts on these particular councils, if you want the truth). Robert said their corporate bondage had worked well, as will our ours, and I believe him, don't you, citizens?

Hello: up stands a man at the side of the room who wants to confirm the sterling examples of Capita success stories Cllr Rams has just mentioned. Suddenly a familiar voice is heard interrupting his blather. Brian Coleman demands to know who he is. John Newton. Who? Is he a council officer? He says he is the Commercial Leader for the contract. Oh. An officer? He is forced to admit he is 'an outside consultant'. Aha. For whom do you work? An almost imperceptible hesitation, but there is one: iMPOWER, he says. Ah ... iMPOWER. Friend of Max?

Cllr Andrew Harper asks about the financial responsibiliies of bringing back services in ten years time. Here is another example of a Cabinet member asking something he should have asked long, long before now. How does he not know the answer to a question like this, and why is he asking it at the meeting where he is present merely to approve the deal, worth up to a possible £750 million? Such a casual approach to such fundamental issues is simply not good enough, especially in a man who prides himself on having such a firm grasp of his portfolio. You're all talk, Councillor Harper.

CEO Travers eventually says it is impossible to really estimate or predict something that may happen in ten years time - well, yes: yes, Mr Travers, it is.

Kind hearted councillor Tom Davey also asks about redundancy payments to staff at the end of the term, not wanting Barnet to have to pay off any more staff ... oh and by the way, what happens if Capita goes bust?

Travers says airily that in regard to future redundancies at end of term, well, that will be 'the job of our successors' - yep, because none of them, not Tom Davey, and especially Andrew Travers, will be hanging around for very long after One Barnet is all signed up, will they?

One Cabinet member who has noticeably kept very quiet on the subject of One Barnet is Sachin Rajput. He sits through most meetings these days in sphinx like stillness, head raised, watching without comment. As a barrister, he must know quite how unsatisfactory has been the preparation, or lack of it, for the programme. At this point in the meeting, he decided to repeat the question Mrs Angry had put to the scrutiny committee the week before: why had the 'confusion' arisen over an apparent disparity between the value of the contract in the OJEU notice and the value given in all press releases since the announcement of the successful bid by Capita.

Now, as a lawyer, as well as a Cabinet member, you might have thought Rajput should have thought of this question himself, without taking the lead from Mrs Angry, but such is the state of things in the Tory administration, citizens. They are unable to think for themselves. Mrs Angry tries her best to guide them, but sadly, they do not always listen.

Robert Rams tried the line of oh, it was meant for the 15 year period, and then, it was just a nominal maximum  cap. Well, which is it? Who did the original valuations? Why did no one explain this five year extra value factor to the councillors? So many questions, Robert Rams, and so few answers. You will note that neither the leader nor deputy leader answered these points, and clearly the leader is completely in the dark about most of the detail of this contract.

No further question of any real challenge was made: not that it would have made any difference, or been appropriate at this late stage. 

There was a sudden rush of enthusiasm now by Tom Davey and Richard Cornelius to show gratitude to officers who worked so hard on the contract and the dialogue. They hoped there would be scope for some of those to 'transfer over' and thought they might even include that happy thought as a recommendation. Mrs Angry is confident that some of these senior officers will indeed go on to have long and happy careers, wherever that might be. She looks forward to following their progress.

Davey twice made the point of stating that his boundless gratitude to officers was based on the fact that they had helped him to make an 'informed' decision. Hmm, thought Mrs Angry. It's not a bad idea to try and get that on the record. An informed decision. Wonder how other Cabinet members and Tory backbenchers feel about that, and goodness me, might that even be part of the grounds for judicial review? Surely not, Mrs Angry.

They nodded the deal through, of course. But their rubber stamping may just have been irrelevant in a way they had not previously imagined. If the JRs are successful, then all their plotting, and planning, and pushing and shoving of the One Barnet madness will come to nothing. We can only hope and pray that that will prove to be the case, anyway. Let's see what happens next. 

Saturday, 8 December 2012

We'll talk about what WE want to talk about: the Barnet rebellion continues




Cornelius informs residents that he and his treacherous colleagues have just handed over this borough's services to Capita, and committed political suicide

There is a local landmark, here in Finchley, a large statue, which features in the first of the two short films made about our borough: 'The Tale of Two Barnets'. This statue is named 'La Délivrance', and was created to celebrate the success of the Battle of the Marne, when the German army was kept from capturing Paris. Lord Rothermere, the fascist supporting proprietor of the Daily Mail, who often drove through this borough en route to his mother's home in Totteridge, (the ward now represented by Councillors Cornelius and Coleman),  presented it to the people of Finchley in 1920.

Mrs Angry was rather amused, therefore, when a fellow committee room occupier murmured to her admiringly on Thursday night that the magnificent sight of Citizen Barnet, whose politics are somewhat to the left, and a bit further still, to those of the Hitler fancying press baron,  reminded him rather of our much loved statue - also known locally as the naked lady.

Rest assured that Citizen Barnet kept her clothes on at all times, whereas Mrs Angry - no, joking, joking. She did think about taking her cardigan off, at one point. And in fact Citizen Barnet did remove her shoes, before standing on the chair, in case they left a dirty mark.

It was a very British revolution, after all.

Instead of a sword, our intrepid defender of democracy brandished a statement, which she yelled from the back of the room in the direction of our shabby Tory Cabinet and their glowering senior officers.

Referring the meeting to the infamous act by our tyrannical councillors to amend the local constitution, so as to forbid all discussion of council policy at any residents' forums, and the refusal by the Tories to allow any debate on the One Barnet programme, Citizen Barnet announced that residents would be now taking charge of the Cabinet meeting, and would remove any restrictions from the issues to be discussed. We are, she said, fighting to take back our democracy. 

At our meeting you can talk about One Barnet.

You can talk about policies.

You can talk about things that affect the whole borough.

They tried to stop us talking about them: we'll talk about what WE want to talk about.

These are OUR services.

This is OUR council.

And you: YOU have NO MANDATE!

The crowd picked up this last phrase and chanted it: YOU HAVE NO MANDATE! YOU HAVE NO MANDATE!

The councillors looked on, stunned. The officers looked mutinous. Sitting across from Mrs Angry, Councillor Brian Coleman sat impassively, and other Tories visibly blenched at the up close and personal reality of the rebellion going on around them. The leader's wife, Councillor Alison Cornelius, gulped some water. For once even the normally ebullient Andreas Tambourides was rattled, surrounded by disrespectful residents for perhaps the first time in his life as a Tory councillor: he hid in his seat, visibly shrinking, as if pretending he was not there. 

After some minutes of chaos, the Tory leader decided to try to assert some authority. He wondered if he might address the gallery. NO, said the gallery. Cornelius patronisingly told the residents that he really did not want to call the police, but he would have to, if they continued in this way. They ignored him. 

A handful of police drifted into the room, and stood by the door, but did nothing. In contrast to the outrageous behaviour by the council's former illegal, unlicensed, blackshirted thugs (Lord Rothermere would have rather taken a fancy to MetPro, one imagines) masquerading as security officers, at this meeting the new security staff acted perfectly properly, as did the police, wisely choosing to keep a distance and allow residents to continue unabated.

Predictably, the Tory Cabinet decided to rise and move out of the room, adjourning to a side chamber where they all squeezed into together, and carried on with their rubber stamping of the Capita contract. OUT OUT OUT chanted the residents ...

Naughty old veteran activist Mr Shepherd, the radical scourge and one man chorus of disapproval at most council meetings wandered about upsetting the Tory councillors as they began to leave: keep the Tory councillors IN, he suggested, revelling in their discomfiture. See, he said, gleefully: you've lost control. He was right.

Residents all moved to their vacated places around the table. Mrs Angry found herself sitting in the seat occupied by the Director of Corporate Governance. Unfortunately a spoilsport officer removed his place name, but she enjoyed the role, and informed him later in the corridor that she had taken the opportunity to amend the constitution, and reinstate the right to free expression in Broken Barnet. Poor Mr Lustig tried very hard to maintain his composure, but was unable to prevent an inadvertent and almost imperceptible twitch of his moustache that might, in other circumstances, have been mistaken for a smile.


We sat around the table, ready to enjoy the rare privilege of a free debate. Revolutionary days, observed Mr Shepherd, approvingly. One of the library occupiers remarked that what was happening was probably the most democratic thing that had happened in this building for a very long time. 

The security staff went about the table, removing the microphones, which was more of a symbolic act than anything. 

One of the telling features of the way in which council meetings are held in Barnet is that the sound system is seemingly designed to make communication as difficult as possible: every meeting is punctuated with demands from the public for councillors to remember to speak into the microphones so we can hear them, and every member of the public who dares to sit at a committee table to ask a question struggles to make themselves heard. 

The resulting dialogue is fractured, fraught, and characteristic of the whole dysfunctional relationship between members and residents: a lack of interest in being open and accountable, and contempt for the opinion of the electorate, representatives of whom now sat around that same table, making themselves heard, without need of amplification, to the councillors who were cowering next door, packed into a windowless room to hold their secret meeting.

Barbara Jacobson, the wonderful Chair of Barnet Alliance, first read out a statement of intent which was repeated, line by line, by the residents present. It was, thought Mrs Angry, rather in the line of a declaration of independence. No taxation, without representation, councillors of Broken Barnet. 

It also occurred to Mrs Angry to enjoy the thought that it is the women of this borough who have done the most to challenge the dictatorial regime imposed by our misogynistic Tory councillors. This revolution, the insurgency, would never have taken fire without the outspoken female residents who have simply had enough and taken matters into their own hands, taking on a role which they probably would never have envisaged for themselves.

Look at the people in the pictures: these are not professional activists, seasoned trouble makers. They are retired civil servants, and librarians, and gardeners, nurses, law students. They are occupying a committee room in the Town Hall that was the bastion of Thatcherism, a building that groans with the weight of Conservative political history. And here we are, in 2012, with a Conservative cabinet hiding in a safe room, selling off the council services to their friends in the private sector, surrounded by their electors, holding them hostage in their own meeting. What do you make of that, Eric Pickles, and David Cameron?


There was a door connecting the two rooms where two such different meetings were taking place last night in the Town Hall, neatly serving as a metaphor for the two Barnets: one in which the secret act of betrayal by our councillors went through its faux consideration of the Capita contract, and in the other, the first and only free debate about One Barnet that has taken place in a council building. 

Around nine o'clock the door opened, and the Tory leader Richard Cornelius stood before us, looking very pleased with himself. Once the yelling had been stopped, he was allowed to speak. He wanted to tell us that the Cabinet had approved the contract. He then left the room swiftly, while he still could.

During the Cabinet enclave, the residents had commenced their own meeting with the invocation read by Barbara Jacobson. We cannot be sure that the councillors were able to hear the entirety of the statement: here then, for their benefit, is the text of the declaration: a declaration, in truth, not of independence, but of war, issued on the evening of 6th December, 2012: the residents of Broken Barnet v their elected representatives:

We will not sit by and watch our community, local economy and livelihoods be destroyed. 

We will be there to protest when Capita turn up to claim their prize. 

While the Barnet Cabinet makes the biggest mistake of their political lives, we are taking over the Town Hall, because there is no democracy in Barnet.

Where has our democracy gone?

The One Barnet programme was not done in consultation with us, the public.

(The People, observed Mr Shepherd.)

It will affect each and everyone in Barnet.

If One Barnet contracts go ahead, it will be irreversible. 

Once our public services are gone, they are gone forever.

We are not going away. 

No matter what the Cabinet decides, whatever the Cabinet decides, it is only the beginning.

We are fighting to take back our democracy. 

We will keep on the fight.

We will keep on the fight.

We will keep on the fight, and reclaim our democracy.

Friday, 7 December 2012

About the old localism thing, Eric: was this what you meant? Taking over the Town Hall, Broken Barnet style

Citizen Barnet informs the councillors of Broken Barnet that residents are reclaiming democracy from their grubby little hands

Well. 

As you may have heard, there was a small but perfectly timed revolution in Barnet last night. 

Yes, a very British revolution: polite, sort of; respectful of the furniture, mindful of the need to thank the police for their good humoured attentions, and leaving a roomful of Tory councillors in a state of fear and trembling, as they contemplated the now certain prospect that they will lose control of this borough at the next election. 

Or rather no: they have already lost control of this borough, and last night the people of Barnet picked up the last pieces of the Tories credibility, as representatives of their electorate, and threw it all back in their faces. 

It was a magnificent sight.

Last night's Cabinet meeting was of course convened in order to 'discuss' the recommendation by senior officers that the authority should allow the giant outsourcing company Capita to take over control of £750 million worth of our council services. The Tories are now trying to present the value of the deal being 'only' £320 million, but the larger total is the real value of the deal if, as both sides intend, it lasts fifteen years. Yes, fifteen years.

There was never any doubt that this contract would be approved by the quisling councillors. They have colluded with senior officers and private consultants in arranging and agreeing this deal in secret, in the absence of any meaningful scrutiny or consultation, betraying the best interests of the residents and taxpayers of Barnet, acting in defiance of all reasonable criticisms, and refusing to engage with the electorate in any debate on the most significant policy decision ever made in the history of this borough, representing the largest act of privatisation by any local authority in the United Kingdom. 

And their mandate for undertaking this monstrous commitment? None whatsoever. One Barnet and the wholescale outsourcing of council services to the private sector was not included in their pre election manifesto, and has been imposed on the residents of this borough by stealth, by deception, and in breach of the most fundamental demands of the democratic process. 

As a Conservative Secretary of State for local government attempts to convince the country that he is empowering every citizen with greater control over their own lives, with more choice, with more freedom, with greater transparency, and greater accountability, here in Broken Barnet his Tory colleagues are doing everything they can to expose the great fat lie that is the localism agenda. They have demonstrated the impossibility of influencing an elected authority which is determined to follow its own crooked course, with no fear of restraint, and no respect for the people it is supposed to represent, an authority which is so frightened of expressions of dissent from its own electorate that it resorts to amending the constitution to forbid entirely the discussion of any council policy at local residents' forums, a ruling which is enforced with iron fisted determination at every meeting. 

What can we do? There is no accountability, in Barnet, until the next election: or so our councillors believe.

No accountability in this borough, but there is a world beyond the boundaries of Broken Barnet, and there are laws which protect the citizens of this country from injustice, and injury. Solicitors have been instructed to fight Barnet Council's attempt to sell us into bondage with Capita, and as you will have seen from the previous post, there are many grounds on which a judicial review may be pursued. 

Yesterday, just before the meeting, Barnet Council received notification of intent to apply for a review of One Barnet, based on the allegation of failure to consult, failure to consider best value for money, failure to address issues of equality, breaches of procurement law, and placing undue pressure on councillors to vote in party line rather than by individual choice.

The news of this legal challenge undoubtedly gave rise to a greater intensity of mood amongst the residents present at the meeting last night: a sense of euphoria, and renewed strength. The room was packed, and an overflow rooom was used: around two hundred people altogether. Also sitting at the front of the public area were several Tory councillors, who later had cause to regret their attendance. 

The meeting began with public question time. Leader Richard Cornelius simply ignored the majority of questions, declaring them to be rhetorical, and therefore unworthy of response. He had nothing to say, therefore, to Julian Silverman's musing on the subject of the words of outsourcing guru and sometime BT, sometime Barnet consultant Max Wide and his alleged remark: 'Never waste a good crisis, and learn to love a recession'. Mrs Angry laughed to herself. Mr Wide now works for iMPOWER, the company which, with Agilisys, acts as the One Barnet 'implementation partners' at a cost, last month, of a staggering £780,000.

Mrs Angry's question was to Councillor Cornelius, wondering why he thought we should trust someone who could not remember on Sunday which services he is outsourcing, and who had no idea that his own officers had changed the model of the DRS tender to a Joint Venture without any authority, and by the way, in view of the fact that a notification of intention to apply for Judicial Review, should he not do the sensible thing, and call a halt to One Barnet. Councillor Cornelius did not like Mrs Angry's question, and it appeared that his view of what comprises a sensible thing does not equate with hers. Or words to that effect: she wasn't really listening, to be honest.

After the questions, Labour leader Alison Moore addressed the committee and pointed out that One Barnet meant an end to local democracy as we know and understand it. The Tory councillors looked on, thinking to themselves that yes, that was exactly their intention.

Councillor Daniel Thomas now launched into one of his 'I am now going to speak very quickly and smoothly in the belief that you will not notice the torrent of shite which is spewing out of my self satisfied face' diatribes, not quite quickly enough to prevent Mrs Angry commenting that he was not going to be around to see the progress of One Barnet. He replied without so much as batting an eyelid that yes, that was how strongly he felt about the marvels of One Barnet - how noble of you, retorted Mrs Angry, admiring his Sydney Carton performance, as he stood on the scaffold, with his head in the block.

The background of French revolutionary politics was a fitting theme for the events which then transpired, as it happened, because - oh look, fellow blogger Citizen Barnet was now standing on her chair, fist in the air, declaiming like Mme Defarge. Citizen Barnet is usually very quiet, considered, and well mannered - but when she is riled, she can give it out like the best of them. Last night she was riled, and she was the best of them: see the following footage, and enjoy, while Mrs Angry takes a break. More later.