A Beautiful Life, or: 'The Estate We're In' - a BBC documentary on the story of West Hendon

Barratt Project Manager Nathan Smith and Barnet Tory leader Richard Cornelius

It is a curious experience, watching a film that features people you know, or have met, retold in a documentary, made for television, following the events of their lives through a sequence of events already familiar to you. 

Such a story, if you are lucky, in the hands of a gifted director, may become not just a process of documentation, but something else, a piece of work that reaches beyond the unfolding narrative and outline of the facts, and the sequence of events, and reveals something not seen before, or not acknowledged.

And this is what you find in watching  last night's BBC documentary,  'The Estate We're In' - the story of the destruction of a community in West Hendon, directed by Fran Roberts, and shot with assistant Alexis Wood - shot over a period of more than a year, during a crucial stage in the so called 'regeneration' of a council estate, by the side of the beautiful Welsh Harp. 

I've written many posts about this subject, but perhaps The Last Betrayal will give the best background to the film itself.

Faux regeneration: nature imitating art

The cinematic quality of the film at times creates a sense of unreality, as if the story were fiction: a drama, whose ending you could not predict, and which just might end more happily than you knew it would: than you know it did. 

And throughout the film, you wish desperately that the residents whose lives you follow could achieve a better outcome: a decent ending, if not a happy one, that recognised what is after all a basic human right, enshrined in law: not the right not to housing, but to the peaceful enjoyment of your home. 

This story is one that needed to be told, and told now, just before the London elections, not just because it is the story of one council estate in West Hendon, or a development that illustrates the merciless policies of one Tory authority, but because it tells the truth about the single most important issue facing our capital city.

That is of course the London housing crisis - and the myth of 'regeneration', that is devouring the social housing stock of our capital city, and creating vast profit for developers, at fatal cost to any community that might be in their way.

'The Estate We're In', filmed by a team of two women, focuses largely on a group of female residents, all of whom tell the story of West Hendon with great articulacy, expressed in the way that only comes from living in a time of heightened emotion, in the most distressing circumstances. 

Tenants, some of them, secure, and non secure - most tenants moved onto this estate over the last twelve years have been deliberately kept there on non secure agreements, so as to minimise their rights to rehousing, and only a few long term residents have security of tenure which was supposed to guarantee them homes on the new development. Supposed to. It didn't. 

The story of West Hendon, in Broken Barnet, is the story of broken promises. 

In the end, secure tenants were herded into an ugly building outside the luxury development, that denies them a view of the waterside, of course, and instead leaves them encircled by busy roads, and looking onto the backyards of kebab shops, and respray garages. 

Trying to exploit the motif of birds, an annexation that is so central to the virtual appropriation of West Hendon, down there, by the water's edge, Barratt London, who refused to take part in this film, have until recently refused to acknowledge the local history of the area, and named the new build properties after the birds who live around the harp, and whose protected status must be something the local residents view with envy.

And that is how the holding centre for the inconvenient secure tenants they cannot so easily dispose of became 'Bullfinch House'. Unsurprisingly, the building is better known to residents as 'Bullshit House'. It is also now plagued by an infestation of rodents, according to local councillors - the Labour members curiously annexed by the Tory leader as proof of the council's consideration for the people of West Hendon. 

Also featured in the film are leaseholders, former tenants, who bought their properties in good faith, encouraged by the local Conservative council - and who have now been utterly betrayed by that same Conservative council, offering them below market values for the compulsory purchase of their homes, which meant, conveniently, that they could not afford the shared equity purchase of new properties on the Barratt development, agreed in secret by the council, built on land given away for £3, despite being worth £12 million ...  

Another broken promise, having assured them they would have 'like for like' properties to replace their former homes.

Jacqui P

The estate itself is - was - on the edge of the waterside of the Welsh Harp, a Victorian reservoir, and a place of rare beauty: rare in the urban sprawl of North London, and here only yards away from the ceaseless traffic and and increasing dereliction of this part of the Edgware Road. Yards away, yet there, hidden away, a place of seclusion, bordered - until now - by trees and green spaces, the silent waters drawing the eye, from every angle, watched over by the geese and swans, and moorhen, and all the other species that make this location a site of Special Scientific Interest, and part of the uniquely lovely landscape that made this such a special place to live, for the residents in the film.

In truth, therein lies the reason for their eviction: the West Hendon estate was too beautiful for them to be allowed to enjoy, and in a time when everything has its price, such beauty must be inevitably be reserved for the exclusive use of those who can afford to buy it.

Barnet Council has apparently been trying to oblige the BBC to give them a preview of the film, which was refused. One can understand why they were so worried: not because of anything done by the production team, but simply because of the utter foolishness of the remarks made in the course of the programme by the Tory leader, Richard Cornelius, seen below laughing with his Tory colleagues, at the impassioned address made to them in the council chamber by a resident of West Hendon.

Cornelius looms over this film like a Victorian landlord, who sees slums all around him, and castigates the poor for living there, forgetting that the conditions they live in are his making, or at least the result of a Tory council, over many years, neglecting the maintenance of the buildings, so as to try to create the myth of a 'sink estate', worthy of condemning, or more importantly, ripe for development.

Barnet Tory councillors, including Barnet & Camden candidate Dan Thomas, left, and Leader Richard Cornelius, awfully amused by the speech made by a West Hendon resident.


'The buildings are grotty down there, he announces: They need rebuilding, there can be no doubt ...'

Yes, Councillor Cornelius, there can be doubt: there is doubt. They needed renovation, not demolition, and your council refused to consider that, and preferred to facilitate a luxury development, in its place, which has evicted and displaced the residents who lived there, has destroyed a happy, stable, and united community.

And what is 'grotty' to a Hatton Garden diamond merchant, who lives in well heeled comfort in Totteridge?  ... oh, hang on: not just grotty, actually no less than ... ghastly ...

'It is not an option to leave something ghastly for people to moulder in ...'

If the estate really were something 'ghastly', you fool, that is because your Tory chums have allowed it to become just that. And show some respect: you may not recognise the definition of 'community' in this context, or elsewhere - but you are talking about people's homes, their lives, and their families.

'One of the satisfactions of being a councillor is when something actually gets done, he says, in that self congratulatory way of his, on being shown round one of the new properties'.

'This is what makes it all worthwhile, seeing someone's new home, and comparing it with the former estate, and it's very important that people do have decent homes ... and this is an achievement ..'

Does this man really not understand what he and his Tory colleagues have done? That the people who are losing their homes, being evicted, watching them demolished, cannot live in these new properties? 

Only eight of the former residents, after a huge amount of protest, and publicity, have managed to be rehoused here, on latterly improved shared equity plans, and subject, after the end of capped agreements, to massive yearly charges which most of them will probably not be able to afford.

The film also interviews one of the new residents of West Hendon: 'Nicholas', a man of evidently substantial means, who looks like someone who features in Barratt's rather amusing sales brochures, in fact -  who bought one of the first penthouse flats on the waterside development, and has a property with a fabulous view. In fact he loves it so much, he bought another property. Lucky man.

When he belatedly becomes aware of the dispute which has involved the residents of the estate, he tries to be sympathetic, but says: 'they're living in accommodation which is clearly in disrepair, and falling down, and they are going to be moved into places which are bigger and better, and much more modern ...'

No, Nicholas, they are not. Read on.

They call this a slum, says Leigh, bemused, at the beginning of the film ... she has lived there for forty five years, and is a remarkable woman: intelligent, charming, sensitive, hard working: one of the many residents you see portrayed here who confound the offensive Tory demonisation of people who live in council estates.

Leigh, in her home of forty five years, now lost

Watching her forced from her home, with nowhere to go, is unbearable. I thought I had experienced every human emotion, until now, she says. 

It'll never, ever leave me ... it's just gone far too deep.

As she leaves for the last time, she leaves two roses on the floor of her home, and closes the door. How does that make you feel, she is asked? She cannot say. 

Because there are no words. 

Meet the two Jacquis: older women, with fierce determination, quiet dignity, and a slow burning fury that slips, at times into palpable distress, and deep sadness, that they should find themselves in this intolerable position, at this point in their lives.

Jacqui P, in the course of the film, visibly resigns herself to the merciless machinery of the 'regeneration' process, accepting, in the end, a one bedroomed flat, after being driven into ill health by the stress of the year's wrangling. As you will see from this post, she took part in the recent commemoration of the bombing of this part of West Hendon, and was clearly very upset when she read out the names of family members lost in the events of that terrible night: her roots in this community are far reaching, but this counts for nothing, when her presence here becomes an obstruction to the process of profit.

Jacqui S, a soft spoken, thoughtful Irishwoman, speaks sadly of her dilemma, watched over by an image of Christ, the light of the world, and one of a Polish saint, whom she trusts will deliver her into safety, in the end. She talks about those broken promises, and the cat and mouse treatment of residents by the developers, whose agents, it must be said continued what one residents referred to as 'psychological warfare' until the very end, when deals over properties were reluctantly agreed:

'... they prefer to slowly build in front of you, and torment you as they go along, torment you with the building work, torment you with the noise, torment you with the lorries, torment you with the dust and the grime that you have to breathe in, then torment you with threats: if you don't move, the CPO's going to come in and we're going to take your home from you .. how can you trust anybody after that? You can't trust them ...'

Jacqui C

Both Jacquis, in the end, are two of the lucky handful of residents who manage to force the developers into upping the offer to the minimum level that would enable to have shared equity in a flat in the new development. Nice, shiny new properties with a view: but not what they were promised, and at what cost in terms of the battle to achieve justice? 

Jacqui S looks around at her new home and observes, in a deeply moving remark that perhaps might serve as an epitaph for the community of the West Hendon estate, that a beautiful home does not make a beautiful life: friends and family, she says, do that. 

And that is the message which this film leaves, for those who can read it: the support of neighbours; family networks, and friendship are what have helped these residents through the ordeal they have been forced to endure: but the forging of those bonds was in the old estate, and in a sense of community built up, in some cases, over generations. And that has been destroyed by the development as effectively as the bulldozers knocked down their old homes in Marriotts Way, the residents scattered in the new diaspora of the dispossessed, evicted, moved away, and largely driven out of the borough.

But let's not forget those who remain to continue the fight - such as the indefatigable Jasmin Parsons, who has fought the 'regeneration' process with everything she has, and represented residents at the CPO hearing, as you will have seen. 

This was a process of staggering inequality, with developers and the council fronted by a hugely expensive QC, whose patrician manner you may witness in the film, dismissing out of hand, in his summing up, when he could not be contradicted, allegations in what he described as 'political' complaints made to the CPO about the way residents were treated, claiming falsely, he said, that their views were ignored, and that bullying and harassment had occurred. 

These allegations are simply not accepted, he says, as Jasmin looks on, silently, her expression unwittingly revealing the vulnerability which lies beneath her bravado, and apparently limitless resourcefulness. 

Jasmin Parsons

As someone who sat through all of the days of this Inquiry, it seemed to me that there was on the contrary, plenty of evidence of all of those claims: certainly the perception amongst residents was that they had been excluded from consultation, and as in the case of Jacqui S, threatened and intimidated by the process imposed on them.

Consider now the case of Dorothy, also featured in the film: shocked to find she and her nine year old daughter had no security of tenancy, or rights, when it came to re-housing, other than to be summarily evicted, and wake up one morning to find a complete stranger in her house, with keys, and power to throw her out, with only an overnight bag, and a direction to emergency accommodation. 

If you want to talk about grotty housing, Richard Cornelius, or even slums, you might find a better definition here, in the squalid bedsit you assigned to Dorothy, and her little girl. 

Except Dorothy's daughter could not be allowed to sleep there,  in a damp room, with a hole in the skirting board gnawed away by rats, and only her mother was left to sleep in the unfurnished rooms, with not even a duvet, or pillow,  a pot or a pan to cook in, while she was denied access to her personal possessions, for three long weeks.

Dorothy, allowed back home to West Hendon to pack her belongings, after three weeks

And do you know, Richard, the most heartbreaking, gut wrenching thing of all, about this hard working, 'aspirational' mother, that you condemned to this pitiful end? 

After recalling the pride she felt in moving into the home from which she was evicted, she tells us, in the film, 'I don't want to be a member of society that's unable to support myself ' ... And as she leaves her home, with her few belongings in a small suitcase, she says she only ever wanted 'to make myself somebody in this world ...' 

And here it is, neatly nailed, by Dorothy, and Jacqui S, and Jacqui P, and Cindy, Katrina, Joe, Jasmin and all the others: the lie that is at the heart of the Tory ethos, more bullshit than could ever be accommodated at Bullshit House: the pretence that they are acting according to some sort of moral principle, that they emulate the ideal, created by Margaret Thatcher, of an aspirational, property-owning working class that seeks to become socially mobile, to work towards a better future.

There is nowhere more fitting than here in Broken Barnet to witness this ideal being destroyed, by the same viral infection that Margaret introduced into the laboratory of political experimentation. It cannot be contained: mutating now into an uncontainable crisis, spread by the rampant greed of the right, the unstoppable progress of market forces, and the worship of profit, it threatens now to undermine the foundations of Tory ideology - and could bring the whole edifice crashing down.

The property market in London, the rental sector, and now the cost of housing: all has become unsustainable: an unregulated market is turning our city into something similar to how the Hendon MP, Matthew Offord would like to portray the community of West Hendon, and other estates in his own backyard: a no go area for ordinary people.

Barnet's housing spokesperson, Tom Davey, who wisely avoided being filmed for this programme, once said he was glad that places like West Hendon, with their monstrous towers of luxury accommodation, and penthouse flats, were being built not for local people, who would 'depend on council services', but for 'Russian oligarchs'. We want only well off people in Barnet, according to him.

Jacqui C's home

At least he was more honest than his group leader. It is reported that of the first 38 properties in West Hendon to be sold, the vast majority of them went to overseas buyers, most of whom will no doubt never live here, but have been bought off plan, in cash, for investment. 

Even by the Tories' standards, this cannot possibly be presented in any way as meeting the housing needs of this borough, or this city.

If Zac Goldsmith is elected as Mayor, or Dan Thomas, who speaks so glibly in the film about the 'success' of this development, is elected for Barnet and Camden; and if David Cameron's government have their way, every council estate in London will be subject to a 'regeneration' process similar to West Hendon. 

Sadiq Khan has commented on the documentary shown last night:

"I grew up on a council estate in South London which meant my brothers, sister and I had a stable and secure place to call home. We had a strong local community when we were growing up - the kind of community that, in Barnet, the Tory council is uprooting on the West Hendon estate.


"If I'm elected Mayor, I'll make sure estate regeneration only takes place where there is resident support - and where there are full rights to return for displaced tenants and a fair deal for leaseholders."

The plans - threats - to 'regenerate' the council estates of London by Zac Goldsmith, followed by vague assurances of rehousing for existing tenants, must be measured by the history of promises made by Tory administrations here, in Barnet: and the message is clear, then - if you watched this programme tonight, and it appalled you, as it should, remember this, in May, when you are at the ballot box. 

This is the future you do not want to see,in your borough, in your estate, or your community: but if we do not speak up now, the story of West Hendon, and every other regeneration estate in this borough, will be the story of London, and the end of social housing, in the capital city -  and everywhere else.  

All pics courtesy BBC/Two Step Productions

Barnet Libraries' meltdown: we apologise for any inconvenience - but not for the catastrophic cuts we're about to introduce ...

Cuts in Barnet's library service appear to have arrived rather quicker than we expected ...

Updated below, with press statement from Barnet's Labour group on the IT crash: and again Monday:

Later this month, devastating new plans to cut Barnet's library service are due to be considered by the Children, Education and Libraries committee. 

It is expected this decision will be referred up to Full Council, where it will be expected to be approved by our treacherous Tory councillors, and the destruction of Barnet libraries officially sanctioned. 

And it will be destruction: what will remain of the service will be nothing comparable to most library user's expectation of what it should be, what it has been. Plans are already in motion to hack the library buildings to pieces, and cull the library book stock, as well as reduce the staffing levels to the absolute minimum. 

For some months now, a bogus pilot trial of the new unstaffed library system that will be imposed on users has been in place. We say bogus, because it is not a pilot of the system as it will be in reality, watched over as it is by security staff, who will not be available when these dangerous experimental libraries are introduced for real. 

And yes: they are experimental, in this context, despite the absurd and inaccurate information given by officers to members and residents claiming that unstaffed libraries are the 'standard approach' in 'Scandinavia'. This claim, in truth, is as about as much rooted in reality as the Moomins, or the easy assurance of the build it yourself guide that comes with a flat packed bookcase from IKEA.

Last month Barnet Unison published a statement from librarians' representative in Denmark, the only country which has a limited use of 'technology enabled' libraries, in some rural areas, which makes it quite clear that such a system works only in a particular context, in support of properly resourced, full time and professionally staffed libraries, not as a replacement: 

Statement from Tine Jorgensen, Chair of the Danish Union of Librarians

“Libraries play a crucial role in a modern, democratic society as cultural, social and educational institutions. Libraries offer access to information, literature (fiction and non-fiction) and digital resources and engaging the population in active citizenship regardless of social and economic differences.

Libraries support learning activities in terms of reading, information seeking and validation of search results. Studies show that children who are keen readers in their spare time read considerably better than those who do not show interest in reading.  Librarians support this with their knowledge of books and reading levels.

Libraries also play a role in terms of digital resources. When the Danish Business Authority introduced the digital mailbox the libraries and library staff supported the digital strategy by offering assistance and learning activities for the citizens 


Therefore self-serviced or unstaffed libraries are only to be seen as an enhancement of the opening hours, not as a replacement for the important tasks that librarians, information professionals and other library workers perform every day.”

We have yet to see any evidence of a successful, widespread and long term use of such a system in use in urban or metropolitan areas in any part of the world, in fact. For obvious reasons: no one with any sense would resort to such a practice. Even in the few libraries in Denmark where technology extends normal opening hours there have been problems with 'misuse' of the facility by an increasing number of homeless people, and also with the entry systems.

And Barnet Tories' library plans to use open libraries are as replacement, to cover a frenzied assault of savage cuts in staffing, book stock, library space, study space, and the shrinkage of the service, most definitely not in any way as 'enhancement'.

I've already written about the council's own risk assessment of the pilot, which was not put to members before they approved the present options for 'consultation', despite the potentially catastrophic danger inherent in such a system - and campaigners have demonstrated clearly the possibilities for disaster that lie in wait should unstaffed libraries become the norm.

And now, this week, we have further incontrovertible proof of the risks of this bonkers idea: and indeed proof which is far reaching by implication, beyond the issue of the 'open' library, or libraries themselves, but to the performance, now under review, of our contractual bondage with Capita.

For more than a week now, our library service has been in crisis, due to a massive IT failure which has thrown the entire system into a state of chaos. 

This happened after Capita took the system down, supposedly for scheduled maintenance - reportedly on the evening of March 2nd - and then were unable to retrieve it. 

It is now believed that the system will be down for perhaps as long as another three weeks: and it is rumoured that there has been - and here is that word again - a catastrophic loss of data. One story claims the loss may extend as far back as December, another suggests as much as two years. 

Mrs Angry has asked Tory leader Richard Cornelius and Library Cutter in Chief Reuben Thompstone to comment on the current crisis, but has not as yet received a reply. She does not expect to receive a reply, but will update the post, if so.

The council has tried to minimise the impact of this meltdown, of course, as much as it can  - the website explains the loss of services as follows:


Due to a server failure, extended hours at Edgware are currently not available as of Friday 4 March. All libraries are open during normal staffed time. User logins and item availability for our Online Catalogue are not functioning and this has also affected Overdrive and reservation access. Adult PCs and Wifi are working at all of our 14 libraries. Fines for overdue books due during this outage will be waived.  We apologise for any inconvenience.

Ah. A server failure. Hmm. Whose fault is that, by the way? No, don't be shy, speak up? Is it your private contractors? Or is it an Act of God? 

What the council doesn't say is that it is impossible to process books at the moment, or calculate fines, and that there is significant loss of revenue, as well as huge backlogs of stock piling up in every branch. Agency staff will probably have to be employed to deal with that, when the system come back. If it does.

If data on loans has been irretrievably lost, for any period, that could mean it would be impossible to track any books or other material currently on loan. 

Has user data been lost? 

Has there been a breach of data protection requirements?

We do not know.

The coy reference in the council's statement to 'extended hours at Edgware' is deliberately disingenuous. This is of course not extended hours of normal library service, but the unstaffed library pilot scheme, that isn't a pilot scheme - and is now, it seems, inoperable.

The timing of the IT failure is very interesting: just before the crucial library proposal votes take place. 

It might even cause some to wonder if the crisis will be spun as proof that Barnet libraries are in need of that 'modernisation' our Tory councillors pretend their catalogue of cuts represents. 

Of course this would be an absolute misrepresentation of the truth, as IT provision is the responsibility of the current contractors, ie Capita.

It is nearly three years now since the Capita contracts began. 

In that time, dissatisfaction with, for example, the contact centre, the phone system, councillors' email and other IT services have all been raised, and dismissed with promises of improvement. We are always 'working towards a better outcome', here in Capitaville: the promise of a new dawn that somehow never breaks on the blasted landscape of Broken Barnet, where we live in perpetual shadow, and the fear of worse to come.

We now have a failure on a massive scale that perfectly demonstrates all the risks that campaigners have highlighted in their long battle against more and more privatisation of council services. 

Most acutely, in this case, it reveals the literal, physical and theoretical risk of unstaffed libraries, in which residents will become vulnerable to the inevitable failure of technology, and the absence of any help from library staff.

On a wider point, this breakdown also demonstrates the fundamentally flawed basis of the case given for this contractual agreement. 

The deal with Capita was promoted as being with one of the market leaders in IT provision, and necessary because it would provide the investment in IT that we could not otherwise afford. 

An in house option was categorically refused for consideration, in fact, on the basis of the need for that capital investment. 

It was stated that Capita would be providing Barnet with £16 million of capital investment, upfront.

It then transpired that - oh dear - on the contrary, we, the residents and taxpayers of Broken Barnet would have to pay Capita the £16 million. Upfront. More on this here: 

http://wwwbrokenbarnet.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/broken-barnet-plc-bank-that-like-to-say.html

There's a good chap ... Just write the cheque out for £16 million, to Capita Plc...

The excuse given, in response to protest about this turnaround, was that we would get the money back in the shape of those eternally elusive 'savings'. 

Of course, aside from the core cost of the contract, Barnet has paid and will continue to make, massive extra payments to Capita which mean this feeble excuse is exposed as a total myth.

And where, anyway, did our investment go? Clearly it has not been spent on technology, software, or processes that prevented the most calamitous failure in the library system: a failure on a scale unprecedented in any time before the present contracts were in place. 

Tory councillors of Broken Barnet: we were promised better services, for less money. 

Where is the proof of that, three years in to this contract you so easily approved, without reading the small print?

Apparently the Labour opposition has asked for a briefing on the current crisis: all enquiries from elected members of all parties now have to go through a filtered, officer run scheme, 'Members Enquiries', rather than allow a member to speak directly to an officer - but at the time of writing, no response has emerged from the senior management of Barnet Council.

I wonder why not?

Updated 9pm:

Barnet's Labour councillors have just issued a press release about the library crisis:

Labour demand answers on failed library IT system

Barnet Labour’s Libraries spokesperson, Cllr Anne Hutton has criticised the Council's handling of IT services, after the library services' core ‘Vubis’ system crashed last week during an update taking other systems offline as well.

Cllr Hutton said:

"Many library services have been unavailable to the public for over a week now, including the on-line catalogue and the e-library and children can’t access the computers.  Many cannot renew books with the result that the council is losing up to £200 a day in fines.

“This is totally unacceptable, given that the Barnet Tories want to leave our libraries unstaffed and rely on this technology to prop up the service, it beggars belief that the system would collapse like this. It shows that the council must rethink their plans.”

Labour Spokesperson for Performance & Contract Management Cllr Geof Cooke added:

"This is another failure of Capita’s management of the IT service. When the contract was in negotiation and being scrutinised we were promised only the best systems, and told that Capita were the best in the world at delivering IT. Well this shows those promises to be completely hollow.


“We need to know how this happened, why there was no back-up system, when it will finally be resolved, how much money has been lost and who will be paying for it. As the core system has been corrupted we need to know what data loss has occurred, and we need to be clear that security has not been breached and there are no data protection issues. We have asked for an urgent briefing on these issues."

Monday update: 

The system is still crashed, senior officers have until today ignored Labour councillors requests for information, and the information given today is mystifying: the failure 'just happened', they weren't doing anything: look, wasn't me, Mum, and officers claim that there was no loss of data, in the sense that it didn’t 'go anywhere’. So, in other words, data has not been stolen, but is merely lost: very reassuring.

Tory leader Richard Cornelius has not replied to Mrs Angry (he is always too scared to engage in debate with her, and is anyway probably lying down in a darkened room, dreading tonight's BBC documentary on the faux regeneration of West Hendon, for which he was filmed - 10.45pm, BBC 1 - not to be missed).

Library cutter in Chief, Reuben Thompstone has been very brave, however, and replied to Mrs Angry's question to him:

Can you please explain to me why it is that, despite the £16 million the residents and taxpayers of Barnet were obliged to give Capita for investment in our IT systems - an investment we were initially told was to be made to us, and not by us - and the assurances given about the wonderful standard of service the Capita contracts would bring, our libraries are now in a state of crisis, with a systems failure on a massive scale, and a catastrophic loss of data?

Can you also please explain why you think the unstaffed library system you want to impose on this borough is such a marvellous idea when the pilot experiment has failed, for the same reasons as the IT network?


What penalties will you be demanding from Capita as a result of this meltdown?

Brace yourselves, here is the reply:


We are currently fully focussed on restoring all elements of the library service to residents. Once this has been achieved there will be an opportunity to look more closely at what caused the issues and what lessons can be learned. Steps will then be taken to ensure the system is more robust for the future. In the meantime, all of our libraries remain open and people are still able to borrow books as normal.

Mmm. Libraries are open, yes: wide open ... except the 'open' (unstaffed) library pilot, which is ... erm ... shut.

This terrible invention is entirely dependent, in the absence of any staff on the premises, on technology, which has catastrophically failed, and we now see demonstrated, with perfect timing, just before the library cuts vote, exactly why it is so dangerous.

People are not able to borrow books as usual, or use libraries, as usual: they can take books home, and if they feel like it, they can bring them back again - but no one can do anything else, use the catalogue, check readers's records, reserve books; revenue is being lost, children cannot use the computers, because there is no parental filter, and backlogs of unprocessed books are piling up after nearly two weeks of no IT system.

There must be an urgent, thorough and independent investigation into the failure of the library IT system - and this must form a central part of the three year review of the Capita contract. If the contract is not performing as we were promised, the way forward is clear. Pull the plug.

In a time of difficulty: the fight for Barnet Libraries continues

Mrs Angry was rather disappointed to find, on attending the Full Council meeting last week, that the Mayor's chaplain was not present. Very disappointed, in fact.

Usually this part of the otherwise preposterous proceedings is the only time in which there is any contribution of any value, and the only time in which our Tory members at least pretend to have any sense of moral duty; bowing their heads in an affectation of piety - before proceeding, in the most self serving and heartless fashion, to agree a series of decisions that inevitably will have a massively detrimental impact on the lives of the less fortunate members of our community.

Still, in the absence of chaplain Dayan Abrahams, the Mayoress, Mrs Shooter, announced that she would speak. Uh oh. Mrs Shooter, it must be said, (first left in the pic below) is a lovely woman, very charming, and yet with a certain glint in her eye, which hints at an independent mind, unfettered by party prejudice. 

She now welcomed the assembled councillors, and members of the public, (and her husband, as 'Worshipful Mayor', which worried Mrs Angry, who took her aside later and discreetly inquired if this was compulsory, at home. Only in ... certain circumstances, it seems.) 

I  believe nothing happens by chance, remarked the Mayoress, after pondering the beautiful gift of an extra day, the day before, a Leap day, with a sky that was blue, air that was crisp, and which had left her feeling glad to be alive, even here, in Broken Barnet ... and then she pretended to make a slip of the tongue: addressing the Tory councillors sat indifferently on the benches:

You all have an ego, she said, looking at them, swiftly followed by a well rehearsed correction ... You all have the ability to put aside your ego ... and work for the common good, she suggested. 

You what?

Hmm, thought Mrs Angry. Let's see. 

The Tory councillors were bemused. What was she banging on about? Why did she think they were there, anyway? Tonight wasn't just any council meeting. Well, no: it was the budget meeting too, the most serious decision of the council year; but forget all that tedious nonsense - the thing of real importance ... was something much more dear to their little wizened, mummified hearts. The appointment of a new Mayor.

Playing the role of Mayor, as Mrs Angry has explained to you so many times before, is the highest ambition of any Barnet Tory councillor. They spend years jostling for their chance to be nominated, lobbying each other, schmoozing their colleagues, keeping their noses clean, so as to maximise their chances. 

The fact that such is the ultimate honour, in the eyes of our Tory members, tells you everything you need to know about them: cut off from the reality of life for the majority of the residents they represent, measuring themselves by the standards of a mothballed view of town hall politics, perpetuated in an oak panelled chamber from the 1930s, reached by a stair case lined with portraits of pre-war aldermen, bristling with civic pride, and an innate sense of entitlement, as a result of their municipal status.

Their successors in the Town Hall now, are mostly small time businessmen - and reluctantly declared landlords - and a handful of Tory matrons, relegated to the margins; neo-Thatcherites, still living in the far off, heady days when Margaret ruled the country, and all was well.

Rather amusingly, from Mrs Angry's mischievous point of view, was the background to this year's competition for the Mayoral nomination, as leaked to her by one of her spies in the Tory group.  

Yet again the Tories turned down long serving councillor Brian Salinger, a veteran of thirty years of - of what exactly? Wearing interesting ties to council meetings, and reading golfing magazines when he gets bored? 

Oh, well: he was once council leader, group leader - until Brian Coleman (remember him?), always the bridesmaid, and never the bride, and fortunately never leader Himself, organised a coup to ensure the ineffable Mike Freer, now MP for Finchley & Golders Green, took over the role, thus setting the scene for the nonsensical easycouncil era, and the road to disaster which we are now following, after handing over control of the borough to Capita. 

Salinger's tendency to take his own line in things, and make enemies, has scuppered his chances of gaining the reward he no doubt feels entitled to, with his feet up in the Mayor's Parlour. Oh dear: and sadly Cllr Salinger has now fallen foul of the curse of Mrs Angry, and the law of karma, for this act of impertinence, and serve him right: 

And yet again he has been spurned by his colleagues, and the golden mace of office passed to one who is uniquely suited to the role, the small but perfectly formed Cllr David Longstaff, (they might have to get a cushion for the Mayor's chair, so he can see over the top of the table) - a sometime Actor, don't you know, who once, presumably in the course of his professional career, but who knows, posed naked, from the rear, covered in gold paint, pretending to be an Oscar statuette. Hang on, Mrs Angry, have you made that up? Nope: see here.

Of course even in Broken Barnet, the law of karma is in a state of perpetual motion, and the latest snub for Cllr Salinger may just have repercussions which his Tory colleagues, always ready with knife in hand, for him and his wife, a former councillor, may just live to regret. 

It should be noted that the current administration hangs by the slenderest thread: a majority of one. And the Salingers have a record of giving the finger not just to stroppy bloggers, but to their own party, when they feel justified. And Salinger's support is crucial, in any major vote.

Cllr Longstaff's nomination was seconded by Cllr Wendy Prentice for no other reason, it seems, that she could think of, other than that he is, as she assured us, very good at playing the role of a drunken gnome. As well as a golden *rsed statuette. (These qualifications, in truth, are all that is required, for the job of being Mayor of Barnet). And although he is rumoured once to have played the role of a Labour party supporter, for real, he is now the most loyal of Tory members, and has received the appropriate reward.

The Tory leader's budget speech perfectly demonstrated the curiously atrophied extent of their political grasp: a man who only understands a duty to cut taxes, as a Conservative tenet of faith - presently covered by the demands, as they perceive it, of austerity - and sees no further.

We are in a time of difficulty, Cornelius explained, with patronising ease, like an autocratic parson in the nineteenth century, worried about the national economy, and seeking to justify, to his obedient parishioners, sitting in their shawls and smocks, the imposition of the Corn Laws. 

He lurched forward with a jolt then, not up to the present day of course, but to a time and place where he feels most comfortable, the twentieth century, with Alec Douglas-Home, Mrs Thatcher, Gordon Brown - and Derek Hatton. Derek Hatton? He tiptoed into the present day, then, throwing about references to skinny lattes, and red herrings: an indigestible mix, one might think.

In a later response to members' comments on the budget, the Reverend Cornelius waxed even more lyrical, and biblical, raving about things 'withering on the vine' and demanding, with a pantomime hiss appropriate to the occasion, that we should not 'get entangled in the bindweed of SOCIALISM' ...  

SOCIALISM, and reds under the bed generally, are still a major concern for the Tory leader, living as he does in a cold war bunker in Totteridge, hiding from a world that does not, has never, and will never exist. But one issue which he avoided, tellingly, except in passing, and with clearly fading confidence, was this: the mythological beast that delivers the elusive 'savings' that are supposed to be the point of our ten year contract of bondage with Capita.

Labour's budget was a very good one: (no, really) ... funded by cuts to areas where Tory extravagance knows no bounds: such as the continual splurge on private consultants, and agency staff, running into millions each year, at the behest of Capita and senior management; the whopping extra allowances that our Tory friends award themselves for committee posts, even at a time of a hollowed out council, where they have made themselves practically redundant. 

The new Labour leader, Barry Rawlings explains their alternative budget

Oh, and a radical 'restructuring' of senior management, which would save huge amounts of indefensibly high salaries enjoyed by the latterday, crapitorially inclined courtiers who line the corridors of North London Business Park. These 'efficiencies' would not only save our libraries from the catastrophic cuts the Tories are waiting to approve, but safeguard our local policing. A better use of resources, one might think.

Cornelius now is unable to defend the Capita contracts with anything like the conviction he once deployed so glibly to sell the deal to his fellow members. He muttered feebly only that we couldn't provide the services ourselves cheaper.

Mrs Angry reminded him, from the other side of the chamber, that he cannot say that, as he does not know, as the Tories were so easily persuaded by their own senior officers, and attendant outsourcing advisers, that they should not even consider an in-house option. And now we are handing bucketloads of taxpayers' cash over to Capita - £18 million in December alone, because the devil is in the detail of all contracts, and our Tory councillors couldn't be bothered to read the small print which allows huge extra payments to be made, outside of the core agreement.

Mrs Angry sincerely hopes that Cllr Cornelius and the other patsies in the Tory group will at least make the effort to read this article in the Guardian, in which the Tory leader of another authority reveals how much less expensive it is to manage services now, post Capita: and the interesting fact that 36% of such contracts now end in failure.

And oh: the question of libraries too is clearly a matter for severe discomfort, amongst the ranks of the Tory councillors, and so it should be. 

Here we are, in the run up to the May elections, and here they are, by an act of extraordinarily bad timing, about to sanction the most swingeing,  and yet utterly unnecessary, cuts to our once magnificent library service.

Ah, no, Mrs Angry. Library cutter in chief Cllr Reuben Thompstone declared that they were not cutting libraries, but were about to 'freshen them up'.

Well, yes. This is an acceptable and accurate description of the proposals. If you accept that say, the Blitz was not an attempted obliteration of our capital city, but merely a courtesy call by the Luftwaffe, intent on creating a more open and inclusive urban landscape. 

Sneering at those who proposed an alternative budget, making jibes about 'motherhood and apple pie', Cornelius gave a chilling assurance:

'Libraries will be modernised.'

Modernised?

No. Decimated, destroyed; robbed of their function, staff sacked, books culled, the former libraries will become buildings managed by Capita, with nominal library areas, shrunken in size, and a parody of the idea and function of a public library.

Some of the Tory members recognise the danger of what they are doing, and have lobbied furiously, secretly - and of course successfully - behind the scenes, for their own nimbyist purposes, making sure the worst impact of the cuts will fall on those not in Tory wards, but those who are in greatest needs of access to a public library, with books, information, computers, studying space, and the help of professional librarians. 

The children of the least advantaged families in this borough, who so much rely on all these facilities, will be the most affected by the Tory cuts: completely barred from the new unstaffed libraries, and destined to struggle to find such resources elsewhere. But they live in Labour wards, so who cares? 

In fact Tory deputy leader and aspiring London Assembly member Cllr Dan Thomas made it absolutely clear that he and his colleagues do not care one jot. 

Thomas appears to think he will be elected by the grateful residents of Barnet and Camden as a result of a cunning strategy of a. not having any opinions on anything, and b. not expressing the opinions he does not have. 

This is probably because he has realised, rather belatedly, that whenever he does open his mouth, something rather unfortunate is likely to emerge. So silence is clearly the better option. 

An interesting approach, but sadly not one to which he remembers to adhere. He is prone to letting drop clangers, for example, in meetings, and elsewhere, which is unfortunate, and betray a certain lack of discretion. For example, see this tweeted exchange between him and his rival Labour candidate, the current AM Andrew Dismore:

Dan Thomas for GLA ‏@BarnetandCamden  Jan 27

Is it true @Andrew_Dismore couldn't even be bothered to vote on the Mayor's budget today?  Only AM who left early?  Has he given up already?

‏Response from @Andrew_Dismore:

@BarnetandCamden I was at National Holocaust Day ceremony, invited as a founder of the Day so had to leave meeting early.

Oops.

Have you been wondering where the Tory candidate stands on the EU? Is he an inner or outer? No one knew ... until yesterday.

Yesterday, when it was revealed that Cllr Thomas had, for reasons unknown, deleted a forthright blog post written by him in 2014, before he was selected as a Tory candidate, on the subject of ... immigration, and the need to leave Europe, if we can't regain 'control of our borders'. 

Immigration is a favourite subject for our Daniel, who stood in Neil Kinnock's old constituency, in 2010, with a manifesto that also focused on this subject. Rather puzzling, as one imagines immigration to Islwyn is on the low side, and was then even more so - but then, this topic is always a useful tool for prospective Tory candidates short of other ideas, isn't it?

Daniel Thomas: ignored by the voters of Islwyn in 2010, and due to receive the same treatment in 2016, from the voters of Barnet and Camden, many of whom are, as it happens, immigrants, or the descendants of immigrants, as are, incidentally, most of his Tory colleagues.

How amusing: seven out of ten working people: are you better off? Or worse off?

Stirring up fears about immigration, of course, when standing in one of the most ethnically diverse areas of the country for election to the London Assembly, is perhaps not the best of strategies, if you really want to stand a chance of being elected ... 

Oh dear. Is that why ... no, surely not ... why he deleted the post?

Never mind. Barnet Eye blogger Mr Roger Tichborne has thoughtfully retrieved this post, and reblogged it for your reading pleasure here. 

(There is, as you will see, a danger of Cllr Thomas making himself appear more interesting than you might have thought, what with a Cherokee great grandfather and all. Mrs Angry, of course, can match that with her - admittedly rather distant - cousins in the Kiowa Nation,  on the Irish side, you know, from Sligo. Don't ask. Long story. John Wayne made a movie about it.)

Yes, Dan Thomas is very worried about towns being 'flooded with immigrants', here and in the US. Presumably he is a big fan of Donald Trump, then? Uh oh. 

Of course Mrs Angry has her own concerns about immigration, and London being flooded with blue eyed Tory boys from the Welsh valleys, intent on seeking their political fortunes in our capital city, taking our (non affordable) houses, and jobs in building societies, and imposing their way of life and foreign food on us, such as this abominable looking, Tory fundraising, 'Welsh cake ice cream':

Dan Thomas for GLA ‏@BarnetandCamden  Mar 1

Just made some home made 'Welsh cake ice cream' for St David's Day fundraiser supper #lickthespoon 

Really not tempted to lick that particular spoon, as it happens, thank you.

Thomas may be trying to keep his mouth firmly shut during the approach to May's election, but he cannot quite manage to stick to his own rules. And during last week's Full Council meeting,  playing to his own group of boorish Tory members, he rather foolishly made another gaffe, and ventured an ill advised foray into the dangerous territory of opinions better left unexpressed: on the subject of ... libraries.

Libraries were not worth saving, he suggested, because, as he now informed the room, with cool contempt, "they are not used by most residents".

As soon as he said, it, Mrs Angry is willing to guarantee, he regretted it. Not the sentiment, but the admission. 

And what a typical Barnet Tory sentiment: services that are not used by 'the majority' of residents are irrelevant. Like meals on wheels: only used by a few scrounging old people: get rid of them - oh, they already have. Respite care for disabled children: they tried getting rid of that too. What next?

Thomas was uneasy, after his stupid remark about libraries, as he knows perfectly well that this is a toxic subject for aspiring Tory politicians, in this area. Why? Because, as Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell stated on his recent visit to Hendon, the idea of a public library system is one which is embedded in our sense of national identity, and British values, as much as the NHS, and all the other measurements of civilisation which have been so hard fought for, and now stand to be destroyed by Tory ideologues in government and their profiteering friends.

Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell, supporting Barnet library staff

Here in Barnet, especially, all Tory politicians know, or should know, the danger of attacking our library service. 

During the General Election campaign last year, the threat of cuts and closures incensed many normally loyal Tory voters, and all three local MPs were terrified of the impact on their electoral chances, issuing panicked statements about libraries as the extent of the influence of the issue on voting intentions became clear, and safe constituencies suddenly became marginal.

This anger amongst residents has not gone away: every library demo and march has brought out middle class, conservatively minded voters, joining in political protest for the first time in their lives, because unlike their Tory councillors and MPs, they care desperately about the issue. 

Barnet is one of the most literate, well educated, well informed, and well read areas of London:  a borough largely populated by residents who grew up with a library close to home, an essential resource for the extent of their literacy, and reading pleasure, as part of their childhood, school years, student life, lives as parents of small children, as the children of elderly parents. They expect their library service to be supported by their local council, not destroyed.

Even those who are not dependent on libraries understand the need for their survival, for those who are: another concept that Tory politicians cannot grasp, due to their own abject lack of empathy with the experience of lives less fortunate than their own.

Well: last Thursday was World Book Day. 

Just two days after Dan Thomas dismissed any concern over the future of libraries in this borough as irrelevant to 'most people', the children of East Finchley came to their local library to demonstrate exactly what this building, this service, means to them, and their families: 

Not just children, of course: yes, their parents, and their grandparents, neighbours, and many other representatives of the residents of Barnet who will suffer the impact of the Tory cuts, should they be approved in a few weeks time. 

A disabled woman, who can only walk, very slowly, with the use of crutches, spoke to Mrs Angry about her fears for her local library, should these cuts be imposed: access is difficult enough for her now, and how on earth would she manage to use an unstaffed library? And she cared enough, Councillor Thomas, to come out on a freezing day in March, to join the protest outside East Finchley library.

With long term library campaigner Keith was his friend Mike, who has been blind since birth, and also felt very strongly that he must come along to give his support. 

Mike explained how vital libraries and their audio books were to him. 

Mrs Angry was reminded of a film shown at a recent Speak Up For Libraries campaign, which featured one award winning council that was actually investing in libraries so as to provide, for example, support groups for sight impaired users, with activities like book clubs, aided by new technology that could provide multiple audio versions for their members. A vision of public service as it should be, rather than the betrayal of trust, and evasion of responsibility, that is enacted in this borough.

But it was the children's event, really: and really, it was quite heartbreaking for anyone, like me, whose love of reading was nurtured entirely by the books at my local library in Edgware as a child, to see a new generation having to plead for the right to visit their own branch, and be provided with what should be a universal right, and is indeed a statutory obligation for all authorities to deliver: the right of access to a public library, near to home, for the benefit of all who need it, a safe space, free of charge, with proper funding, and most important of all, a library service run by professional staff.

Councillor Thomas lives in Edgware now. I don't know if he has children, but I'll bet he has never borrowed a book for himself or his family from his local library - now being used as a pilot for the terrible 'open', unstaffed library model he and his colleagues want to impose on us.

Present at the protest outside East Finchley library, however, on World Book Day, was local Labour Assembly Member Andrew Dismore, and local Labour councillors, all of whom have, in stark contrast to local Tory politicians, and aspiring Members, supported residents campaigning against the cuts from the very beginning.

It's simple then: let your local Tory councillors and MPs know how you feel about the plans to destroy your library service. And if, as expected, the plans are voted through anyway, you will have a chance, in May, to punish them at the ballot box, and vote for something else; something better.  

A life without libraries is unthinkable, but that is what, in all effect, will be the future for our children, and grandchildren, if we let this go. 

It's up to you, and me, now, to see that that doesn't happen.