Friday, 1 January 2016

A cut of the business: Easycouncil 2015 - or another year outsourced, in Broken Barnet



Time for Mrs Angry's look back at the year in Broken Barnet.

Fewer posts written this year, but the blog has focused on a number of issues which have developed, through the last twelve months, and continue to roll on into 2016.

In fact, Mrs Angry can reveal that over the Christmas period, Barnet Council received letters before action in regard to the legal challenge to not one but two major and highly controversial sets of proposals that have dominated the political agenda this year. Read on for more details.

Some themes, in Broken Barnet, are eternal, after all: or at least will remain with us as long as the present Tory administration has its sweaty hands on the machinery of local government in this borough.

Well, no: in truth the Tory councillors of Broken Barnet fondly imagine they are in control of the borough, but their role is closer to that of the performing monkey, rather than the organ grinder, and the greasy rag, rather than the engineer.

Behind everything that happens in Barnet, of course, there is a secret agenda, a  presented to our doltish councillors in such a way that will appeal to the ideological obsessions of their limited political understanding, wrapped up in corporate claptrap by their unelected, unaccountable senior managers, the men from Crapita, and an assortment of shadowy, overpaid consultants, looking out for more and more opportunities to turn our public services into private profit.

Thanks to the utterly impotent process of scrutiny in Barnet, the performance of contractual partnerships already in place are neither properly monitored, nor challenged: Capita continues to extract huge fees for their delivery of our local services - fellow blogger Mr Reasonable estimates we will have paid them £80 million this year- with no proof, despite his often repeated requests, of the savings that we were told made these massive contracts absolutely essential.

And the uncomfortable truth is that while the Tory members simply refuse to hold Capita to account, the Labour opposition looks on, all too often lacking any clear strategic direction - or credibility.

Towards the end of the year, a new Labour group leader was elected, after ten years in the post by Alison Moore. Her deputy, Barry Rawlings won the election, but it needs to be acknowledged that two separate nominative votes by local party representatives clearly indicated a preference for rival Ross Houston.

This is not a personal rejection of Cllr Rawlings, who is a veteran campaigner, and hard working member: it represents a desire amongst local activists for change - just as the national party and leadership has changed, a new direction, and a better strategy for opposing the Tory administration. First signs at the last Full Council meeting in December suggested that the outcome of the election represented business as usual, and no change at all. Let's hope we are proved wrong.

Apart from the general election, the last twelve months were dominated by a range of issues generated by, predictably, a renewal in commitment to further outsourcing, both in school services, and - in all but name, libraries, once an award winning, value for money, beacon status service, now on the brink of destruction; a blatant, defiant demonstration of what was once an exaggeration, but is now reality: the social cleansing of a capital city, the abandonment of any duty to the concept of social housing, and the shameless accommodation of private developers intent on avoiding a duty to provide any significant level of affordable homes.

Oh: and the curious tale of a blundering council depot purchase, costing millions of pounds of tax payers' money ...

January was to see the holding of a formal Inquiry into the compulsory purchase of properties on the West Hendon estate, leasehold properties, formerly council owned, now affected by the blight attached to all homes caught up in a development project like this. A private development, which Barnet Tories continue wilfully to misrepresent as a 'regeneration' scheme.


Residents' representative Jasmin Parsons, pointing to the part of the development which will force her to leave her home

The original scheme was exactly that: a genuine act of regeneration - one which promised better housing for the residents of the council estate. By degrees, and by stealth, the plans were changed, and, as we were to discover, the publicly owned land which lies by the edge of the beautiful Welsh Harp, a Site of Special Scientific Interest, and an area of immense historic significance to the local community, was simply given away to Barratt London to build luxury housing, in the form of the most monstrously ugly development, dominated by a group of, at highest, thirty two storey high tower blocks.

In order to do this, and clear the area of any obstacles to the profiteering of the development partners, it was deemed necessary to demolish the homes of any leaseholders, and of course to dispose of any nuisance in the shape of council tenants, who, being largely and deliberately kept on long term non secure tenancies, were exactly that: disposable - easy to 'decant' into other run down 'regeneration' estates also due to be offered up to private developers. Any tenant who refused whatever alternative accommodation was allotted to them, for whatever reason, would automatically make themselves homeless.


Leigh, who has lived on the West Hendon estate for forty years, and now awaits the demolition of her home

The Housing Inquiry hearing, to be held over two weeks, at Hendon Town Hall, into early February, promised to become more than a consideration of the compulsory purchase of leasehold properties: it was set to be something it was not supposed to be: an opportunity for the people of West Hendon to focus attention on the terrible injustice that was being perpetrated on them, and a deeply embarrassing process of public exposure for the developers and Barnet Council.

Mrs Angry herself became involved in the Inquiry in a way she had not expected: attending as an observer, in order to write about it, but then obliged to submit evidence, after realising that the council and Barratts, in their attempt to smooth the way for the compulsory purchase, and discredit the case put by residents in defence of their right to remain in their homes, were making false assertions about the significance of York Memorial Park: part of the area due to be demolished and built on having been the site of a massive bomb explosion during the war, with huge loss of life, and thousands of homes destroyed or damaged.

Nonsense, said the developers: the CPO area was entirely different, and the site had never had any 'memorial' status.

Wrong, and wrong, as Mrs Angry proved, after doing some fairly basic research in the council's own Archives, right next to the Town Hall.


How curious, is it not, that the planners who had approved the development had not bothered to check these readily available resources?

The hearing was an intensely moving experience, in truth. Listening to the evidence given by residents forced to live through the betrayal of their faith in the promises made by Tory councillor Brian Salinger, and now to live in the hellish reality of the destruction of their homes, and the construction of the towers of profit looming above them, behind the black wall of 'regeneration', it was good to see that at least they had a chance to tell their story.


Jasmin Parsons supports resident Hodan as she explains the terrible impact of the West Hendon development on her family

As they spoke, attending officers from Barnet, Capita, and Barratts looked on indifferently, even in one case falling asleep. All captured on film, for a shortly to be screened documentary, on BBC 1, about the West Hendon story.


West Hendon's Cllr Devra Kay, residents' advocate Dan Knowles, and residents Jacqui and Kalim

Also in January came the first intimations of what was in store for Barnet's library service, despite the outcome of the so called consultation process that the council was obliged to run, with residents, about the devastating cuts planned for this vital and much loved service.

Mrs Angry received what was alleged to be the transcript of an overheard conversation, at North London Business Park, between certain interested parties, on the subject of the opportunities offered by the outsourcing of our libraries.

"Selling Barnet libraries as a business ... bringing in partnership so others can get a ‘cut’ of the business ... We need to show investment. Revenue opportunities. Cabinet papers ... 

We would start with Hendon and Edgware ... Of course we want to present them with options, but let’s start planning now ... This has strategic buying power by selling the libraries. 

JV companies for Tri Borough arrangements. And we have a JV, they (Barnet) have to deliver statutory services. 

It’s a business idea to sell to other local authorities. Yes, we could definitely sell it. 

Commissioners have no commercial experience. They are the ones in charge of the money. Let’s keep in touch, lay out some bonds and security. “Here is what we are doing with the borough etc”. 

We can fill in the information gaps. Information gaps helps with the partnerships. We can have a customer focus group of course, but we are the ones who are paid to make the decisions ..."

It seemed hardly credible, perhaps, then.

As the year's events were to prove, this would appear, in fact, to be a pretty accurate prediction of what the hovering outsourcerers would like to do to our library service: once the initial stage of destruction, including the removal of staff, has been accomplished by the council, and £6 million worth of tax payers' money spent on making the service more tempting to those outsourcerers, under the pretext of modifications needed to implement "savings" of just over £2million, in the library budget.

Mrs Angry was invited to be a member of a panel speaking at a debate, in Mill Hill, attended by a large audience of local residents concerned about the library proposals. Also on this panel were rival election candidates for Hendon, Labour's Andrew Dismore, and Tory Matthew Offord. Sorry: Dr Offord. He's a doctor, you know: have we mentioned it, at all? He likes people to know.

Before the meeting started, Offord, whom Mrs Angry had never met before, tried to have her thrown off the panel - and then decided to direct at her, unprovoked, on arriving on the stage, a sotto voce but sustained volley of horrible comments, which set the tone for the tactics of a certain desperate Tory tendency throughout the coming election campaign, in both Hendon and Finchley & Golders Green.



Barnet's Tory politicians, of course, until the emergence of the local blogosphere, and an accompanying surge in local activism, were simply not used to being held to account by anyone, or their actions reported and challenged with any credibility. Things are different now, and they don't like it.

It should be noted that Theresa Villiers is always impeccably polite: demonstrating the superior intelligence - and diplomacy - which has helped her career take off beyond the wildest dreams of her parliamentary colleagues. But as we were to see over the coming months, all three MPs were to struggle with the impact of the library plans endorsed, if not created, by Barnet's Tory councillors

February saw the continuation of an initiative by Barnet Labour party: the idea of the councillor who should now be the leader of the group, Ross Houston, who set up a Housing Commission to report on the state of the housing crisis in Barnet.

There were several open sessions held over several months, with contributions by experts from outside the borough, as well as local residents. Mrs Angry and Mr Reasonable gave evidence to one session - having received a panicked last minute email urging us to concentrate not on the problems, but on finding 'solutions' ...

Well, of course Mrs Angry and Mr Reasonable took no notice, and discussed both the problems, and the solutions, which in Mrs Angry's view were related to the uncomfortable truth that the Labour party needs to try more efficiently to get elected, and at least become a more effective opposition, in order to tackle the gerrymandering, socially cleansing Tory housing policy that has this city, this borough, in its merciless grip.


An awful loss, in February, for many local Labour activists, with the death of the lovely Nick Goldberg, whose work for the party, and for the Zacchaeus 2000 trust, stand as testimony to the potential we all have to work for the good of all, rather than our own self interest.

March saw the library story continue with a lobby of a Full Council meeting, preceded by an Extraordinary Meeting (more Extraordinary than usual, that is) to discuss the library budget cuts.


A huge crowd of campaigners gathered outside, to make their fierce opposition, many brandishing copies of library books:


Owen Jones: good choice. May even have been read by one or two Tory councillors.

Kama Sutra: even better choice. Unlikely to have been read by any Tory councillors.

Two other big stories emerged in March: the first of these was another housing scandal - the evictions of social tenants on the Sweets Way estate, in Whetstone.

The houses in Sweets Way were originally built and owned by the Ministry of Defence, for service personnel but following the deal made in 1996 now belonged to Annington Homes, a subsidiary of Terra Firma, run by William Hague's chum Guy Hands (whose Four Seasons care home business, the largest provider in the UK, has just been reported as struggling for survival).

For some time these properties had been used by Barnet Council to house tenants, but Annington wanted to develop the site, of course, and once a risky election period was over, Barnet Council duly gave permission for them to proceed. They gave permission, and as became clear, eventually, simply failed to ensure tenants would be re-homed in suitable accommodation, leaving many families facing not only the loss of their homes, but the prospect of having no home at all, or at best sub-standard accommodation, which, as in the case of West Hendon, if refused, would mean they would be considered to have made themselves homeless.

Just by chance Mrs Angry met two tenants from Sweets Way, as they were in the process of trying to stall eviction notices served on them: the first was an elderly man with a heart condition, sent to live in Harlesden, and then told his accommodation was no longer available, and a woman with two children at local secondary schools, whose education would clearly be disrupted by the move, and who had been told to go and live in this filthy place on another "regeneration" estate, notorious for problems with crime, and high levels of social deprivation:


Not surprisingly, she could not agree to taking her children to live in such squalid accommodation.

The next development in the story of Sweets Way is perhaps predictable to anyone who has followed the history of Broken Barnet: members of the Occupy movement moved in, and with residents, formed an active resistance to the development.


Petra, Mordechai, and Daniel

Without the publicity provoked by the occupation, and the support of so many campaigners, it is absolutely certain that the families of Sweets Way would have been airbrushed out of that history of Broken Barnet, in fact. Oh, and publicity, of course, attached to an interest in the matter by one Russell Brand, who Mrs Angry met in the kitchen of one of the occupied houses, one cold Saturday morning. Yes: it's true. We had a short conversation about tupperware, as you're asking.


In March we also learned something very, very interesting about the West Hendon development.

In response to a Freedom of Information request, it was revealed that the land on which the estate was being built - public land, worth at the time of agreement as much as £12 million, and undoubtedly now worth an awful lot more - had not been sold to the developers, Barratt London. Or rather it had been sold for the grand total of £3: £1 for each piece.

One of the parcels of land, which includes York Memorial Park, was valued at £9 million. Its value, of course, in terms of significance to the local community, as a place of commemoration, and literally as a place of interment, is beyond material worth, but such sentimental matters are of no consequence, in Broken Barnet. Sold for a quid.

This now notorious 'Poundland' deal, agreed in secret, was approved despite an estimated - and probably modestly understated - profit margin for the developers of a whopping £92,234,108.00.

In other words, it would appear that this giveaway of public land has subsidised the profits of private developers.

What benefit has this brought to the taxpayers of Broken Barnet?

In fact the direct effect of a Tory housing policy which encourages such developments, and ignores the need for social housing, is that the poorest members of our community are being driven out of the borough - which is the blatant intent of the Tory administration.

April came along, and Mrs Angry decided to ask her friend, Mrs Alice Fulbright, to undertake some correspondence on her behalf with some of the Tory councillors of Broken Barnet, on the subject of the library cuts proposals.

Alice duly wrote to chief library cutter Cllr Reuben Thompstone to urge him ...  to persist in his relentless assault on our library service. As she wrote:

I am heartily sick of local 'left-wing' trouble makers and other professional whingers complaining about your plan to shut down libraries. 

If I had my way, they would all be shut, frankly, and the money saved spent on increasing your wages as councillors, just for putting up with all this constant criticism. 

Well: this was exactly what Tombstone had been waiting to hear, and he replied:

Many thanks for your thoughtful and supportive comments. Is there a possibility you might write to one of the local press establishments? We do not always receive kind words in these (sic) and it helps balance alternative views. 

Oh dear: an absence of kind words was just too upsetting to contemplate. Could she contact local press establishments? Yes, she could. One of the local blogs, anyway. A. Fulbright (Mrs), thought this was a very good idea.


A. Fulbright (Mrs)

Just in time for April 1st.

Another idea was to write to veteran Mill Hill councillor, keen linguist and man about town, octogenarian Tory member John Hart.

Mrs Fulbright now proposed that all libraries be demolished, and the money saved spent on more generous salaries for Tory councillors.

Cllr Hart was in full support:

What a refreshing email. 

I agree with most of what you write: the library purchases are mostly Millsey Boonsey rubbish; few people visit the book shelves; the premises need to be put to better use (plus library use on a reduced scale); premises may well be disposed of to raise capital for other uses (sadly, not for Conservative councillors’ emoluments). 

Rather prescient: this, in a few words, was more or less what the Tory council was subsequently to suggest, in their proposal for libraries.

Much as Mrs Angry tried to ignore it, something was looming, and arrived, in May, which could no longer be avoided: yes ...  the General Election.


The curse of Mrs Angry: days later, Ed Balls was out of a job ...

She stuck a poster outside her house, to instruct the voters of Finchley and Golders Green as to the correct way to fill out their ballot forms.

Tssk. Too many of them disobeyed her, with unfortunate consequences.


Painful to write about it still. In fact the disappointment, frustration, rage at the failings of the local Labour campaign - and sense of disgust at the gutter tactics of some local Tory activists - were enough to drive Mrs Angry to shelve the blog for a while, and consider retiring to a nunnery.

But then something happened.

A community event which took place days after the election: a march in support of our threatened libraries. Mrs Angry really didn't want to go, and lay in bed trying to think of good excuses not to turn up, but there weren't any, so she did, and how glad she was that she did.


Children at East Finchley library

The march was an act of defiance, and renewal of spirit, amongst the residents of Broken Barnet and those who came to show their solidarity with us. Writer and library campaigner Alan Gibbons addressed the crowd, and commented that the march was like an Irish wake:

That is to say, the end of something, mourned, but celebrated, a defiance of the darkness to come, but the recognition of another truth: that that life must carry on, and is worth living, in the companionship and consolation of family, friends, and community.

And so it was, after all. And so: back to business.

June saw the continuation of resistance to the West Hendon development. Mrs Angry, who had received a missive from Barnet Council trying to order her to stop using her own sourced images of the bombing of West Hendon, for some reason, went with the magnificent Jasmin Parsons to visit a Barratt's showroom, on site, and was not impressed. She left a message, in one of the drawers, in the bedroom. Did they ever find it?


Mrs Angry inspects the Barratt showhouse bedroom ...

Oh: and then came another interesting revelation, about another long running Barnet story: the tale of Abbot's Depot ... as we were to learn:

"The proposal to buy the same site for £13.5 million was agreed at full council last December. At the time much criticism was made of what seemed to be an exorbitant price, based on a former valuation of £8 million, 8 or so years ago. 

But what was not known then was that six months earlier a company had bought the very same site ... for only £750, 000. Yep. Only £750,000. 

Yet officers of the council had informed Labour councillor Geof Cooke, on the 19th May 2015, that: 

 ‘To the best of our knowledge, there have been no changes to the freehold or leasehold positions since 1/1/14’ ..."

Goodness me. How very odd: can that be true - that officers of the council forgot to tell the elected members of the London Borough of Broken Barnet about the purchase of this site, apparently from one Comer company, to another Comer company, when they were asked to approve the £13.5 million cost of acquiring the site for a council depot?

The Comer brothers, by the way, are the landlords of Barnet Council, at North London Business Park - a site which the council must vacate as the land is due to be turned into yet another housing development, the planning application assisted by Capita, for a fee, and the decision to be recommended, or not, by planning officers provided by ... Capita.

And the land purchased with £13.5 million of tax payers' money ... will soon be required for the Crossrail 2 extension.

Next up was news of competitive tendering, Barnet style, for the latest tender proposal: educational services, including school meals. Competitive tendering, as it became clear, without any, erm - well, competition. A marvellously understated statement from the council admitted there might be a certain lack of 'competitive tension'.

This is the joy of outsourcing, see: finding the best value service provision through a wide ranging procurement process, involving the participation of ... one candidate. Like sexual tension, without the sex, or the tension. No foreplay, and no happy ending. (Note to self: stop re-writing the same jokes).

Guess who won the bid, then? No, not Crapita - they pulled out, pretty early on - always disappointing, in the bedroom, or the boardroom - but even they had the sense to see there is no money in it - go on, go on ... Oh: yes. Well done. The winner was the only bidder, Cambridge Education, who have subcontracted school dinners to - oh: ISS, apparently. Good idea. In space, no one can hear you scrutinise the non delivery of an outsourcing contract, after all.

July brought more revelations on the subject of the depot purchase. Barnet had tried to prevent the publication of some of the information requested by Mrs Angry via the FOI Act - as it generally does with any material that is politically embarrassing - but: hard luck, Mrs Angry has seen off previous attempts of this nature by referring the matter to the ICO - and won her argument, of course. Information may not be withheld on such a pretext, and eventually the required material was released.


Combined with further information obtained by Labour's Geof Cooke, there are clearly some hugely important questions raised by this matter, which have yet to be answered. Our Tory councillors, and their senior management, and Crapita all must hope that this issue will simply fade away.

If so, they are mistaken.

The residents of the area surrounding the new depot are, as you can imagine, incensed by the idea of having the waste facility, with all the nuisance it represents, dumped on their doorstep, with what they maintain was a lack of proper consultation: they formed a campaign group RAAD, and now, at the end of the year, Barnet Council received a letter before action in regard to a legal challenge.

Mrs Angry returned to West Hendon, one sunny Saturday morning, and walked into the first open sales event in one of the monstrous new buildings.



Armed with a glass of Barratt's champagne, and a goody bag of lovely brochures filled with encouraging pictures of local amenities and shops (Hampstead and Primrose Hill, several miles away, rather than the kebab shops and re-spray garages of the Edgware Road), Mrs Angry was escorted by an indifferent young estate agent, who had never been there before, and didn't care who knew it, into a rabbit hutch sized apartment, with a charming view of the building site next door.

On every previous Saturday morning, and sometimes at other times over weekends, and all the time during the week, the residents of the estate have had, and will have to live on that building site, putting up with the most intolerable conditions: noise, dirt, traffic. Who cares? No one. They are of no interest, when profit is at stake.

Outside the black fence that marks the boundary between the private development and the urban ghetto wilfully created by the council as a transitional holding space for the nuisance represented by the residents of the estate, protestors stood with banners, speaking to prospective buyers, most of whom were appalled to hear the real story behind the reinvention of West Hendon, and the destruction of a community more ruthless, and more effective than the wartime bombing whose impact still lies, quite literally, beneath the soil here, and remains in the memories of many of the older residents.


Residents of West Hendon, holding pictures of the bombing and one of the memorials to civilian loss

It has been reported that of the first thirty eight new luxury properties that have now been sold on the new development, thirty six have gone to overseas buyers.

This is how you destroy a community: not by rockets, or bombs, but by a housing policy based not on need, but greed.

Meanwhile, also in July, at a residents' forum in Finchley, Tory councillors were urged to act immediately to deal with an issue causing distress to residents in another part of the borough.

A humanitarian crisis, as you will appreciate, on an unimaginable scale:

"What was upsetting the Suburbanistas? Stand by. 

Noisy leaf blowers. 

Yes. Just imagine! The horror. The horror. 

Noisy leaf blowers, used by - oh dear me, the council's private contractors.

Something must be done, of course: but what, and how quickly? Things are done quickly, in HGS, for residents, of course. 

Generally, that is. Or rather, in the good old days, BC: before Crapita ..."

Dear me. The Tory councillors squirmed in their seats, but said nothing.

"There is Quite A Lot of Noise, in Hampstead Garden Suburb! declared the resident, looking with dismay at the lack of interest in his predicament.

Of course the written response had admitted, with an admirable economy in punctuation, that: 

'the Contractors due to efficiency issues do not now sweep leaves'. 

Ah. Yes: there you go: the perfect metaphor for privatisation. Do not undertake to deliver a service, and resolve an issue. Move it somewhere else, for someone else to deal with, and at cheaper cost ..."

Mrs Angry went up to Durham, to the Miners' Gala, in July, and bumped into former fellow blogger Vicki Morris, Citizen Barnet, right there, below the balcony of the County Hotel where in the old days the Labour leader would address the Big Meeting, and endorse his commitment to the founding principles of the party. Yes! Just fancy that, you young folk! Of course Tony Blair never came, despite being the MP for Sedgefield, just down the road. Eww, no.


As we were talking, a BBC news crew asked to interview Vicki, having spotted she was wearing a vote for Corbyn t shirt, and asked her why she was doing so. Mrs Angry tweeted words to the effect that she thought it might have something to do with the novel idea of having a socialist back in charge of the Labour Party. Jezza immediately tweeted his thanks for our support, which amused us both no end ...

By August, it was clear that something immensely important, and quite unexpected had happened: not only had Corbyn proved to be a credible candidate for the leadership, there was a surge of support for him, for the possibility of change within the Labour movement, and a re-connection with the grassroots membership, and a resumption of the values which had created the party in the first place.

Then in September came a truly memorable day: the 12th of September, to be exact. A fabulous day.



Another march against the library cuts, organised by campaigners like the indefatigable Polly Napper, who is a member of the London Metropolitan Brass band, who accompanied the march to North Finchley. But also with us were representatives of the wonderful 'Lesbians and Gays Support the Miners' group, as featured in the film 'Pride' ...


As we marched along, the news came, with perfect timing, that Jeremy Corbyn had been elected as leader of the Labour Party.

As well as the LGSM people, the banner of the Durham Miners' Association had been brought to the march by their general secretary, Davey Hopper. How fabulous it was, to be marching with these people, on such a momentous day. For Mrs Angry, whose family produced many generations of Durham miners,  seeing the DMA representatives at the march was a moment of great pleasure - and she took delight in suggesting to Hopper that he and the banner pose for a photo opportunity outside the offices of the local Tory party: Margaret Thatcher House ...


The strength of feeling that the march represented was more than about the library cuts: because the protests against the library cuts represent so much more - fury over the assault on the very idea of public services, owned by and run for local communities, fury over the plundering of those services by profiteering private companies, and fury over the diminishment of the support those services offer to the most vulnerable and needy members of our society.

Also this month came the end to another long running story: the battle of Sweets Way, and the end of occupation.



On the last day, Mrs Angry made another visit, as our old friend, campaigner and occupier Phoenix held one last protest - trying to stall the eviction of the last remaining tenant, a disabled man named Mostafa - as the police, fire brigade and other less identifiable parties looked on:

"Balancing rather precariously up on the roof of one of the houses, yesterday afternoon, was the familiar figure of Phoenix, the veteran of many similar events here in Broken Barnet - and elsewhere. 

Do be careful, Phoenix, called Mrs Angry, in mum mode, as he waved cheerily down at her, 

Don't worry, Mrs A, he yelled: I'm used to it ... "

Mostafa never stood a chance, of course, nor any of the tenants in Sweets Way. He and all his neighbours were standing in the way of someone's profit, and had to be removed. But what happened in Sweets Way, and what is still happening in West Hendon, is a story that continues, and one of a wider significance.

In September, Mrs Angry went to the Labour conference, held this year in Brighton, full of expectation - often a mistake, in her experience.

It was a conference entirely different to the previous few year's events, as it turned out. In all sorts of ways.


In place of the moribund proceedings, the non debates, the clear gulf between party leadership and membership,  there was a genuine sense of something utterly new: with so many new members, and returning members, a feeling of excitement, and, at last, the possibility of change.

Change for the better, but one informed by the values and spirit of the people who founded the Labour movement, and a party that works for the good of all, rather than the aspirations of a few careerist politicians.


John McDonnell came to Barnet, early one morning, and stood in the rain to show support for Barnet workers striking in protest against the destruction of local services as a result of the Tory council's commitment to mass privatisation.


John McDonnell, Unison's John Burgess & Labour councillors & Mrs Angry at Mill Hill Depot picket line ...

McDonnell observed that Barnet's programme of outsourcing "had been the most brutal of all".

And now, of course, at the forefront of that programme is our wonderful library service.

Perhaps the Barnet Tory councillors - Reuben Thompstone, and Dan Thomas, and Richard Cornelius, believe their senior management team, and all those overpaid private consultants, when they are told the library proposals, built on a wobbling platform of assumptions, and aspirations, actually present a coherent plan for running a library service. If they ever expected the residents of Broken Barnet to lie down and accept what amounts to the end of a library service in this borough, they were deluding themselves.

Scared by the torrent of opposition from residents who took part in the first round of 'consultation' regarding the library cuts, and horrified by the political fall out demonstrated by the level of protest to local MPs and councillors by normally loyal Tory voters, the options chosen to go forward were what the council had thought would fool some into thinking their views had been taken into account.

Look, they said: no libraries will close. And look: they will be open for more hours!

Ah. Well, this all depends by what you mean by the word "library", doesn't it?

Is an old village telephone box with a few faded paperbacks in it, a library?

It is not.

Can a building, handed over to Crapita, with a corner reserved for some shelves of books, but no staff, in any meaning of the word meet the definition of what might reasonably be described as a library?

It cannot.

Is a library, a library, without librarians? Without staff? Without anyone on the premises at all? Will you feel safe, in such a place? In November, more details emerged of the potentially catastrophic, but unacknowledged risks presented by the unprecedented wholescale use of unstaffed libraries.

(You may wish to comment on such issues, as part of the token 'nonsultation' now soon to end - you can do so online, and may wish to consider the advice given here as how to avoid the pitfalls so cleverly prepared for you, as part of the survey. Please note the consultation period ends on January 6th).

Back in October, Mrs Angry and local Barnet Alliance campaigner Barbara Jacobson tried appealing to the members of the education committee responsible for libraries: Mrs Angry even attempted, probably not very convincingly, to assume the mantle of Margaret Thatcher, in order to chastise the Tory members for their assault on a service which their beloved leader had considered to be a vital resource for social mobility. And to point out to deputy council leader Dan Thomas, who wants to be elected GLA member for Barnet and Camden, that the library issue is electoral poison.

They wriggled in their seats, especially self proclaimed Thatcherite Helena Hart, who has managed to preserve her local library at Edgware from any real harm.


But the hypocrisy of their own policies, the abject denial of their own stated principles as Conservatives: this presents no intellectual conflict in the minds of Barnet Tories - largely of course because most of them have no intellectual capacity, and the rest of them don't give a flying you know what, as Mrs Angry was reminded on arriving at October's Full Council meeting, and raising the subject of the library cuts with former Tory leader Brian Salinger:


They think they are true blue Tories, loyal Conservatives: yet so many of the policies they embrace with such mindless enthusiasm attack the very heart of what they claim to believe in, that is to say, 'aspiration', and helping people to help themselves out of poverty, by education and access to the property ladder.

Not only have they, with such indifference, betrayed the leaseholders in West Hendon who accepted Margaret Thatcher's invitation to get on that property ladder, and follow the path to prosperity, they are now knowingly condemning the children of the least advantaged families in the borough to a future without access to a public library, without a safe place to study, to the professional support of trained librarians.

Once this borough was the centre of excellence in children's librarianship, the home of pioneering librarian Eileen Colwell, whose life's work brought new opportunity to so many generations of children not only in this country, but around the world.


Only in Broken Barnet could there be once more a place where opportunity comes to die, and history turned backwards to a society where education, housing and every other mark of civilisation and progress becomes once more the privilege of those who can afford to pay for it.

But the story of Broken Barnet, in 2015, is not one empty of hope. Quite the reverse, in fact.

In December the current library nonsultation consisted of little but a few forms, left unnoticed on library counters, and four 'open sessions' which no one except a few library campaigners knew about, or attended.

Those in charge of promoting the library cuts probably thought that all resistance had fizzled out, hence the minimalist consultation this time around.

And yet again, if so, they are mistaken.

A claim before action letter from Save Barnet Libraries was sent to Barnet Council this week, as detailed in a press release: full details of the letter will be published in a separate blog, but in the meanwhile:

"SBL points out that the Council’s claim of ‘Keeping all the libraries open’ is misleading, as reduced in size and resources and without full-time staff, these are libraries in name only.

The campaign has taken advice from respected solicitor John Halford, at Bindmans LLP, and a ‘letter before claim’ detailing the legal errors in the consultation procedure was sent to the council shortly after Christmas.

The letter maintains that the consultation is unlawful because it fails to seek the views of, and consider the impact of the proposals on, those most affected, and that the documents do not contain enough information to allow people to respond sensibly. It also raises the flaws in the pilot and the lack of any contingency plans, for example if not enough volunteers come forward. Another complaint is the Council’s failure to carry out its promise of October 2014 to actively explore co-location of council services within existing library buildings" ...

The legal action was made possible because of the determined efforts of local residents, campaigners and community representatives who crowdsourced the larger part of the necessary funds, to their astonishment, in a matter of hours. Such is the strength of feeling, in this borough, over this issue.

But it is not just a show of defiance over the library proposals: Barnet is well used, by now to organising itself in resistance to the impact of injustice perpetrated by the policies of the local Tory administration, and government.


Library campaigners Polly and Mary, centre and right, and Labour councillor Alon Or Bach

And now it faces not just protests, and marches, and heckling in the council chamber, but legal challenge, over two key actions, libraries and the depot plans.

This borough is lucky to have many residents who take on the roles of advocates and activists, who organise campaigns, and, in stark contrast to the self serving Tory councillors who are our nominal representatives, work tirelessly to try to make the place we live in a better one.

To witness the tenderness of Jasmin Parsons, sitting with her arm around a mother giving evidence to the West Hendon Housing Inquiry, exhausted by worry over her sick child, facing eviction from their home; following the redoubtable library campaigner Polly Napper along the roads of Finchley on the library marches; listening to the brilliant evisceration, by Barnet Alliance's Barbara Jacobson, of the semi-literate, villainous pieces of work that are often submitted as reports to council meetings; seeing the council staff and residents who stand in the rain for hours on picket lines, defending their public services ... magnificent people, courageous, intelligent, compassionate, strong, and so supportive to one another, and an honour to know: all this has been a real privilege, this year, for me.

The lessons of West Hendon and Sweets Way are that unless you oppose, with every breath you have, the relentless policies of this administration, the least advantaged residents will be treated with utter contempt: only campaigning and publicity achieved any fair outcome for the tenants and leaseholders facing the loss of their homes.

As Guardian journalist Aditya Chakrabortty noted in his recent piece on local Unison secretary John Burgess, we know how to fight, in this borough, for our community.



And we will fight you, Tory councillors of Broken Barnet: in the town hall, on the street, in words and deeds, and actions.

See you in court, probably.

Happy New Year.

Friday, 25 December 2015

Mrs Angry's Christmas Card




Mrs Angry wishes all her readers, dear friends - far and near; comrades and fellow campaigners, a very happy Christmas - and a New Year just stuffed full of ... peace, mercy, goodwill, and above all: hope. 

Real hope, that is - not the version offered today in the much vaunted declaration of David Cameron's professed 'Christian' values.

Hope for a better world, and a new Britain, where every life is valued, and honoured, and dignified; where government is run by the people, for the people: for the many, not the few; where those in need are not vilified, or humiliated, or stigmatised, but are supported, and respected, and given help - not according to their ability to pay, or as an act of charity - but as their right.

Merry Xmas. 

Next post: 2015 - A Year in Broken Barnet ...

Sunday, 6 December 2015

It does feel a bit meaningless: or - what is a library? - Another library nonsultation, in Broken Barnet


Updated Tuesday 8th December: 

SAVE BARNET LIBRARIES

We are pleased to present this new animated film, illustrating exactly what sort of awful fate your Tory councillors have in store for your local library service.

Please watch, and support our campaign to fight these terrible proposals.

                    

Ps: Mrs Angry is now available for all other offers of voiceover work, for a reasonable fee ...


North Finchley Library

The Judicial Review, in 2013, of Barnet Council's 'One Barnet' agenda of mass outsourcing was won by the authority not on the strength of its arguments, but because the High Court found the legal challenge was out of time. 

The judgement in the case, however, expressed a condemnatory criticism: the authority had failed in its duty properly to consult with the residents and taxpayers of Broken Barnet over the plans for mass privatisation of council services.

Yet here we are now, in the last weeks of 2015, poised to have imposed on us once again a programme of immense significance: the virtual destruction of our local library service - after a process of consultation that has become, once more, and continues to be, nothing less than a travesty of the principle of significant engagement with the residents of this borough.

What else could you expect, at a time when the elected representatives of the residents of this borough themselves fail to engage with the process of democracy in the way their roles should demand? In a borough where now, by default, the unelected senior management of the council, and their unaccountable accomplices, the private consultants who leech on our financial resources, and work to turn our local services into a marketplace of opportunity for the private sector?

Fellow blogger Mr Reasonable recently wrote about two committee meetings at which it was painfully clear how large a vacuum in democratic oversight has been created in Barnet by the failure in scrutiny by elected members of the current contractual performance by Capita, and in the current library 'review', which is nothing less than an act of softening up yet another council service for outsourcing.

As he pointed out at the Performance and Contract Monitoring Committee, the committee simply isn't holding anyone to account, councillors appear only to rubber stamp the decisions made by officers - and no one seems to be questioning why, in the course of a contractual partnership agreed under the pretext of making savings, we are, this year, likely to pay Capita a whopping £80 million in fees, and extra 'gainshare' payments. At this meeting, an indulgent Chair, Tory councillor Anthony Finn, allowed proceedings to conclude with no discussion of the largest contract, CSG: simply farcical.

At the recent Children's Education and Library Committee (CELS) meeting, again the utter impotence of councillors in their role of scrutiny was apparent: mutely accepting the recommendations of officers pushing the process of outsourcing educational services, even though there was only bidder, and the members had not seen the financial details.

This failure in scrutiny is the result of deliberate strategy by senior management, and a combination of laziness, and stupidity, on the part of members, of course. The Tories are happy to hand over responsibility for anything looking like hard work to their officers - and frankly cannot be bothered to hold to account the officers, consultants, or the men from Crapita, even if they have some suspicion that things are not as they should be. And if things are indeed not as they should be, they do not want to admit it, for political reasons.

There is also a failure on behalf of the Labour opposition: a failure in leadership, and strategy, in challenging the status quo, and fighting the cynicism and inertia of their Tory colleagues, and the actions of the senior managers. There is a new leader of the group now, Barry Rawlings: will anything change? Let's see.

The way in which the library issue has been handled is yet another example of the broken process of government in this borough.


Proposals recently have been presented to both CELS, and then Full Council, and approved for further 'consultation' by members without having sight of the full range of necessary information, and indeed given information that is both inaccurate and inadequate.

In the previous post you will have read about the risk assessment of the 'open library' model, which proves beyond a doubt exactly what a foolish, untested and deeply unsatisfactory excuse for a library service such a system would deliver. 

You have read it: your councillors did not read it, before cheerfully sending the current proposals forward through the process for approval. 

They did not read it, because it was not presented to them. And to be fair, it would seem they did not ask for it.

It was a member of the public who made sure the information was put in the public domain, through a Freedom of Information Act - but of course published too late to influence the two meetings described.

In the reports which did go to councillors, it was claimed that the open library approach was 'standard approach' in Scandinavia. This was, as Mrs Angry has pointed out, not true. It has not been corrected, however, and so councillors will have accepted it as fact. How convenient.

The many questions offered by members of the public, in the absence of any robust scrutiny from members, elicited the interesting fact that the so called business case for much of the financial arguments for the proposals are simply non existent: based on supposition, and assumptions. But this was good enough for our Tory councillors, whose entire belief system, and raison d'etre, is based on a creaking but happily untested mechanism of supposition, and assumption.

Following on from the risk assessment, Mrs Angry decided to make another FOI request, this time to put the assessment in the proper context of probability of risk - or likelihood, if you like, in audit terms.

This request was as follows:


In the last two years, how many entries have been noted in the Incident Books for each Barnet Library?



Please give each library's individual entries, in terms of figures, and types of incident eg theft, assault, accident etc.



The response was most interesting. Not all incidents are logged, of course - and there is variation between branches as to how likely an incident is to be reported in this way -  but here is an indication of the sort of behaviour and events that can and do happen in public libraries, until now addressed by trained, professional staff present on the premises. For example:



12 libraries have reported accidents. 



In addition, there were 8 injuries logged.



Incidents - (a definition which covers a range of possiblities): 28



Theft - 14 (not including stock, it would appear, which despite denials does go missing on a regular basis, according to staff reports)

Verbal abuse - 33 

Harassment - including sexual harassment of both users and staff - 11 reported

Other - including drunken behaviour, and disturbance outside libraries: 32


Library staff are trained in dealing with issues relating to safeguarding, health and safety, first aid, and in handling aggression at work. This is a necessity, as many users of libraries are vulnerable in some way: the role of a library within a community is - or was - includes the function of providing support for such people, and as a welcoming space for those who need it - a truth overlooked by our councillors and their officers, literally, as Mrs Angry was to note earlier this week, at another so-called 'consultation' event in one of the libraries under threat.

This event was not by any definition at all exactly that, more of a non-event: another nonsultation. Not so much paying lip service to the idea of consultation as baring the lips in a grimace of deathly irony, you might say.

In the previous round of 'engagement' with library users, a series of meetings in branches were organised, well attended by angry residents who made clear their absolute opposition to the library cuts proposals.

Because these meetings were well attended by angry residents who made clear their absolute opposition to the library cuts proposals, in this second, more important act of nonsultation, such events, brimming with risk factors on a catastrophic level, from the point of view of the would be library assassins lurking in North London Business Park, have to be avoided, at all costs.

They tried to spin the outcome of the previous public engagements, the yell of protest over the proposed cuts in service, by pretending to have listened to what the public said. In other words, they deliberately threw in some proposals so awful, that anything less offered in Round Two would seem comparatively sane. Hence the threat of closed libraries, and libraries shrunk to the size of a postage stamp.

The options now on offer - no, no, Mrs Angry, not on offer ... you must adopt an evangelical expression, like all senior Barnet/Crapita officers, and breathlessly refer to: the new library 'offer', which isn't an offer at all, but a bare faced threat in which all libraries will be retained, in theory, albeit on a nominal basis, ie they will become buildings run by Crapita for commercial exploitation, with the name Library outside, and a few books inside, and the space not at all the size of a postage stamp, but ... the size of two postage stamps.

Unless you live in an important Tory ward like Chipping Barnet, or Edgware, of course.

In fact, as Mrs Angry reminded Andrew and the library manager, unless a sudden avalanche of volunteers suddenly appears, and of course at the moment Barnet has a woeful shortage of such people, prepared to do the jobs, unpaid, of professional librarians facing the dole queue - unless they miraculously turn up, those four libraries planned to function with their use will close. Three in opposition held wards, funnily enough: Childs Hill, East Barnet and South Friern, and one in Mill Hill, where the local Tory councillors don't give a damn, and think they can get the local residents to play libraries instead of paid staff.

But the latest plans pretend that this faux library service is what residents asked for, demanding that no libraries shut. Of course they opposed not only the shutting of libraries, but clearly demanded that the service be left as it is, and not destroyed in the pretext of 'savings', but that does not suit the agenda of the outsourcerers, and has been conveniently overlooked.

The new 'offer' relies heavily on what, with becoming modesty, our council's officers and consultants refer to as 'technology enabled libraries'. Yes, I know: sounds like a good idea, doesn't it? As if we still needed to move on from the age of Browne issue libraries - (not as scatalogically focused as it sounds, and yet a system Crapita might well be interested in, you would think), when we all had card tickets, kept in those lovely long, narrow wooden boxes, fingered lovingly by well manicured lady librarians in horn rimmed spectacles ...

But no, technology arrived in libraries, senior officers, consultants and Tory councillors, well: about fifty years ago, even in Broken Barnet, and the self service use which is meant for readers is largely avoided by them, because the older residents don't like it: and because most library users actually prefer to interact with other human beings, at the counter.


East Finchley library

But anyway, what you really mean by the term 'technology enabled' is 'unstaffed libraries', isn't it, the library system that dares not speak its name?

A system which creates libraries which are not so much technologically 'enabled', in the sense of being improved by the support of it, but which you can only access by the means of technology; a library that is not a library, in fact, but a token gesture: an empty room, in an empty building, waiting for the revenue that will never materialise from a market already saturated with vacant office space: an empty building, devoid of the very thing that makes a library what it is - not a collection of books, or dvds, or computers, or information, or tables and chairs, but human beings, in front of and behind the counter, talking to each other, engaging in dialogue, supporting a sense of community.

The horrible reality of the latest library proposals cannot be spun in the same giddy manner as the previous version. The dangers of close engagement, and an informed response, that must be documented, are too much of a gamble. Hence the low key arrangements this time round.

Unless you already knew, you would not know there is any consultation on the future of the library service, in fact.

So you may not have realised there is a library cuts consultation form you can complete, behind the counter of your local library, or online: see here.

You really should take part in this process and complete a form, one way or the other, but before you do, please read this advice from Barnet Alliance, to avoid the pitfalls carefully laid for you, so as to mitigate the risk of more data demonstrating even more resistance to their knavish plans.

You might also wanted to have take part in one of the four 'drop in' sessions that were held, apparently under the restrictions of a superinjunction forbidding disclosure of anything that might alert library users to the very existence of said drop in sessions, in four libraries, in order to allow the council to pretend it had held public meetings about the latest proposals.

If you did want to attend these sessions: hard luck. You missed them. What do you mean, you didn't know they were taking place? What's the matter with you? Don't you scour the backpages of the council website everyday, looking for secret council policies and covert announcements, just in case someone somewhere might be trying to slip something past you? No? Then you are not a Barnet blogger, and have retained full control of your faculties. Congratulations. What are you doing, living in this borough?

Anyway. No need to panic. Because Mrs Angry DID attend one of these sessions, on your behalf, last Tuesday, in North Finchley. Read on.

A previous event of this nature had taken place in Chipping Barnet, attended by only three residents. Two of those, Barbara and Bob Jacobson, from Barnet Alliance, had only gone because Mrs Angry had alerted them to the opportunity, having found out herself only by chance that these sessions were due to take place. Barbara had reported that they had turned up to find Val White, the senior officer always wheeled out to defend the library cuts, some guy called Andrew who claimed to be involved in the proposals, and someone from library management. Nothing happened, there was no planned discussion, just three people prepared to engage in answering a few questions about the proposals.

Arriving at North Finchley, the assistant on the desk didn't even know there was any sort of consultation event planned. Then two people suddenly emerged from the staffroom behind here and greeted Mrs Angry, who was somewhat perplexed, as clearly they knew who she was, judging by their amused expressions, but she hadn't a clue who they were.

We've met before, of course, said Andrew, nodding, and - was he winking? Had we? Oh dear. Mrs Angry felt rather disconcerted, and rather ashamed, like some bar crawling cougar, presented with a forgotten face, the morning after the night before. Of course she spends a lot of time winding up officers of the London Borough of Broken Barnet, and Crapita, and assorted consultants, at meetings, and then instantly forgetting them as, to be frank, readers, they all seem the same after a while - that look of conspiracy, you know - and the smell of fear ...

And what do you do? asked Mrs Angry, in her default queen mum mode, as refined for the purpose of greeting corporate drones. Well, Andrew wasn't keen to be specific, but then, poor man, he may not be entirely sure himself.

Never mind, Andrew: Mrs Angry looked you up, when she got home. Impressive career, as listed in Linkedin.

Used to have a one-stop-shop Wedding Service operating in Hertfordshire and surrounding counties. Not a service likely to appeal to Mrs Angry, but since then he has moved on:

A "trouble-shooter" with extensive experience of managing a portfolio of projects designed to reduce costs and enhance resource efficiency, improve performance, increase competitiveness, boost customer satisfaction and take advantage of new opportunities through proactive implementation of strong leadership, risk management, stakeholder engagement and cultural alignment.

Cultural alignment. Good. And ... he has an 'end to end' portfolio, you know. Mrs Angry likes the sound of that. Entrepreneur, Business Angel, Gap Manager. Or is that, manager of Gap? When does the pre-xmas sale begin, Andrew? Need to buy some unwanted jumpers for male relatives.

Anyway, not sure how or why he fetched up in Broken Barnet, but now he is in charge of the library 'review', with apparently lots of experience in, well, filling gaps and being an angel and stuff, but no expertise in public libraries. So: ideal for the job. A dark angel, perhaps.

Also present was a library manager, to spare whose blushes, in line with the Broken Barnet policy in not punishing less senior officers for the policy decisions of their bosses, Mrs Angry will leave unnamed.

This manager was in the invidious position of having to defend a set of proposals which had been created in line with a political agenda, and by the senior management of the council, but no senior officer was there. Val White, they thought, was 'otherwise engaged', and no one else was replacing her. Hmm. So the manager and the mysterious Andrew were left to go through the motions with the only person who had a. found out about the event and b. could turn up, at two o'clock on a weekday afternoon.

The drop in session was actually a stand up arrangement: not just in terms of amusement, but literally: we stood in the middle of the library, by a table with a board pinned with a poster on it about the library nonsultation, while all around us the users carried on, choosing books, reading, using the PCs, unaware that the library itself was under threat.

At that point, thank God, the familiar figure of fellow blogger Mr Reasonable approached the table, and some time afterwards, the somewhat unrepresentative consultation process with two local bloggers was made even more atypical by the addition of Angela, a local children's author.

Until Mr Reasonable had turned up, Mrs Angry had been about to make an exit, as clearly the lack of participants made the exercise entirely meaningless. But now some questions ...

What is the point of this, asked Mrs Angry, and why, she wanted to know, had these events not been properly advertised? This was a question raised by the Jacobsons, at the previous session, and received the same complacent response. Oh, but it is on the website, and ... other places.

(Your views will be noted, and used in consultation, we were told later - How, when you haven't taken any notes, asked Mrs Angry? Would you like a copy of mine?

Here you go, then, Andrew: please feel free to download this, and Manage the Gap with Mrs Angry's lovingly transcribed account ...)

Who is likely to spot any reference to this meeting, hidden away on some obscure page of the council website, asked Mrs Angry?

It was also on "social media", they thought. Mmm, yes: a corporate tweet, likely to have been missed by 99.9% of the borough's residents.


Mr Reasonable was fuming over the plight of his local library, East Barnet: depended on by so many residents, but especially local schools and students who have no other place to study. He fumed, they shrugged: what is there to say?  Other than repeat the line about the need to make savings.

Why then, asked Mrs Angry, if there are such restraints on budget, are you spending £6 million in order to implement the library 'modifications', and prepare the service for outsourcing?

Oh no, they said: libraries aren't being outsourced. No, no, no ... there are no plans to do that ... Erm, yes,  we retorted: that is the next stage - and of course we know they have already conducted a market testing exercise with potential bidders. Oh, but even if we did go down that route, they thought, there might well be an in-house option for consideration.

Yeah, right.

Mrs Angry asked about the infamous risk assessment of the open library proposal, as outed in the previous post.

Why did councillors not see this report before approving the reports put to them proposing the scheme?

- Didn't they?

No, they didn't.

- Well, you know, the pilot scheme was a work in progress ...

And one, commented Mrs Angry which could have been updated as late as the day of the CELS meeting, or Full Council.

And why does the report contain inaccuracies, such as the false statement that open libraries are 'the standard approach' in Scandinavia?

- Well, it is used in Scandinavia. And ...erm ... Peterborough ...

It is used to an extent, in one country in Scandinavia, replied Mrs Angry, ie Denmark, in a rural context utterly unlike the proposed use here, and therefore that claim would give councillors a completely misleading idea of the appropriateness, or safety, of the scheme.

(And have you ever been to Peterborough, thought Mrs Angry, having a horrible flashback, involving a view of the Fens, a bleak and empty landscape, a sense of doom and a loss of all hope?)

Mrs Angry then, having lost concentration, as usual, looked around at the library, musing about the significance of this venue, the place where in February 1959 a young prospective parliamentary candidate by the name of Margaret Thatcher made a speech to the Whetstone Tories' AGM - where the meeting was told, with barely concealed horror:

 "In the local Ward elections there would be a Liberal candidate this time as well as the Socialist. This would serve as a spur to the committee ..."


And again, in 1970, Margaret Thatcher had addressed the annual meeting of Friern Barnet Conservatives, and while Nelson Mandela lay in his cell in Robben Island, criticised anti-apartheid protests that might disturb a planned South African cricket tour.

(Good to read, however, that the meeting also heard that Mr Leonard Juniper - and his wife Edna - "had organised a number of enjoyable social functions, and as a result had contributed £155 to ward funds ...").

As mentioned at the CELS meeting, Margaret was in fact a keen supporter of public libraries.

What would she make of the proposals her constituency councillors were forcing through now - or indeed the state of decline to which the library service has deliberately been allowed to reach, in order to justify cuts and privatisation?

Mrs Angry mentioned the horrifying decrease in volume and quality of stock, since her far distant time working in libraries.  Frankly it was a struggle to find anything to borrow. Apart from this, of course ... (Not as good as "Beth and the Barbarian", Julia ...)



Denied by the library manager: but she cannot have known what the library was like, when it was supported and invested in by the council, and valued as a vital service. Now the neglected buildings are deteriorating, even the wonderful listed branch at East Finchley, above whose door there is a municipal coat of arms, and a motto:


Regnant Quis Serviunt  

(Mrs Angry stood outside, yesterday, peering above the doorway, and trying to put her somewhat limited schoolgirl Latin to use.  Something about serving and ruling? She thought she might ask her best friend from school, who was the class swot, you know, whereas Mrs Angry was the pupil most likely to be sent to stand in the corridor, especially in Miss Cory-Wright's Latin lessons.

Best friend from school, class swot, but not half as smart as she thinks she is, was stumped, then said she thought it might mean 'May they rule, who serve'. Mrs Angry's racing correspondent, Mr Tom Roper, who is a classicist, you know, as well as a militant librarian, thought it meant 'They serve, who rule'. Either way, sounds like our Tory councillors haven't quite grasped the meaning either, have they?)

Angela, the children's author, was very worried about the impact of the library cuts, specifically on the standards of literacy amongst children: an impact which, as she pointed out, will take years to identify, and cause untold damage in the meanwhile. And she questioned the point of the 'drop in' session, as an exercise in consultation ... "It does feel a bit meaningless, " she suggested, tentatively, in tactful understatement.

Mr Reasonable again raised the issue of children and students being unable to use libraries under the new system, unable to visit the library unaccompanied after school, accusing the perpetrators of this new scheme of living in a world of middle class fantasy, where all parents were free to take children to the library, or could provide studying space and guidance at home.

What they proposed to offer, in place of what there was now, what was it? What is a library, he asked?

Oh, well: the open library pilot scheme was all part of the current 'review'. Footprints were being studied, you know. Yes: footprints. Mrs Angry looked down guiltily at her shoes, having walked over the grass verge from Sainsbury's. Bit muddy, to be fair.

To the right of us was a small room, with a printed notice on it, soon to be redundant: This room is for use by 12-18 year olds only ...

As we spoke, standing ridiculously in the middle of the library, in front of eight members of the public with no access to IT of their own, using PCs to search for jobs, or find information, or answer emails, while we were furiously criticising the plot to put an end of libraries as we know it, and attempted to debate the unquantifiable social value they hold, and the risk of impact on the most vulnerable members of our community, someone came and joined us, unnoticed.

Every library in the borough, probably every branch in the country, has regular visitors who spend hours there, especially in winter, because there is nowhere else for them to go.

Some of these visitors are lonely, and struggling with the painful consequences of profound social isolation; some are homeless, or have mental health problems.

One of the men who travels around the libraries in Finchley, and has done so for years,  was there on Tuesday, sitting down, watching the discussion from a distance, listening, and fixing us with an unblinking stare.

He got up and walked over, and stood between the two Barnet officers, right between them, inches away, staring into their faces.

They neither commented, nor acknowledged his presence.

Eventually he moved away, back to his seat, without speaking.

Where will he go, when the libraries are closed, or made for the exclusive use of card carrying readers, on a secured entry system?

He'll do what he does the rest of the time, and sit out in the cold, lying on a bench by the bus stop, and eventually disappear, another invisible, undocumented and unlamented victim of the age of austerity.

Just around the corner from North Finchley Library, outside Sainsbury's, incongruously placed at an angle, plonked in the middle of the pavement that runs along the Great North Road, that fault line that causes so much disturbance, here in Broken Barnet, there is another library: a model library, not a library model, and not so much an open library, as a library out in the open: a miniature version, like a road shrine, honoured in tribute, but safely within the footprint of the supermarket's embrace, a demonstration of the triumph of commerce, and private profit, over the ethos of public service.


Yes: this is Broken Barnet, in December 2015.

Move along: nothing to see here, except - the last moments of our public libraries, dying slowly, and about to see their lives ended in penury, bondage, and exploitation.

Except: this is not the end of the story, exactly.

The final library cuts proposals go to council for approval, with most unfortunate timing, just before the GLA and Mayoral elections. Blue eyed boy, and True Blue Tory hopeful Councillor Dan Thomas, who is a member of the CELS committee that will have to endorse these awful plans, is going to have the library issue pursuing him all the way to the ballot box.

Oh, and something else.

This: the raising of funds for a legal challenge ...

Within hours of launching an appeal, to the amazement of all concerned, the crowdsourced money flooded in, and there was enough to begin the process.

Did they think we would just sit back and take this?

They were wrong, if so.

The initial stage is underway, but to begin the expensive process of a Judicial Review would of course be difficult, and expensive. But this is an option that is possible, with funding.

If this process continues, campaigners will need to raise an awful lot of money - if you really do care about the future of your library service, please help by considering a generous donation: details will be published as and when necessary.

In the meanwhile, there is a seasonal fundraising event arranged by the magnificent library campaigner Polly Napper, which you might like to attend: a carol service, with the fabulous brass band, London Metropolitan Brass ... oh and a version of 'In the Bleak Midwinter', in which the lovely lyrics of Christina Rossetti have been recklessly rewritten by Mrs Angry, in defence of our library service. Do join us, come along, and donate to the library campaign: