Brave Crusader Coleman trashes Council Leader Freer

As you may know, I've criticised Brian Coleman over the years, but I read an article by him in the New Statesman (click for full article) today which succinctly summed up all of the problems we are currently seeing in Barnet with the Mike Freer regime.

Brian Coleman says :-

When I was first elected to my local council the annual allowance payable to a councillor in suburban Barnet was £600 (less income tax). There was also a complicated attendance scheme that necessitated filling out a monthly form which most members, including me, couldn't be bothered with for the sake of a couple of quid.

----

Cabinets were devised, councillors became "portfolio holders"; substantial allowances were paid, and members became eligible for the Local Government Pension Scheme.

Some council leaders now receive up to £65,000 per annum and, for being an executive member, the average in London is about £30,000.

To keep the backbenchers happy so-called 'Special Responsibility Allowances' now have to be paid for all sorts of minor, functionary positions: £2,500 for being vice-chair of the Trees and Cemeteries Scrutiny Committee or for turning up at a Licensing Committee once a year. In short big money for local politicians.

The danger of this, of course, is leaders now win or lost their positions on the strength of who they had promised well paid jobs to.

And I fear getting to form an administration in local government has more to do with how all the allowances are distributed than which councillor is best for which job.

---

The repeal of the 2000 Local Government Act, the ending of executive powers for councillors and a return to proper, accountable, local democracy would be a first step to ensuring that service rather than salary was the driving force for Local Councillors.

Political service should be a calling not a career!

It couldn't be clearer could it. Would Mr Coleman have written this if Mike Freer was running a tight ship? He can only speak of his own personal experience, which is in Barnet with Mike Freer. As I look back on the repeated incompetance - huge stealth taxes for parents of dead children which raise less than Council Leader Mike Freer's raise this year, £27.4 Million lost in Iceland, undisclosed millions overspent on the Aerodrome Road project, a million on reopening Partingdale Lane, a dangerous ratrun, £16,000 spent on plasma screen TV's for top council official's desks - I have to conclude that Brian Coleman is right in his comments. I support his crusade to clean up local government 100%.

In Statler and Waldorf's blog, they detail a few of the raised allowances this year.

Councillor _____________2008/9_____ 2009/10 __%age
Maureen Braun _________£19,470______£22,382 __15%
Mike Freer ___________£51,109______£53,782 __5%
Lynne Hillan __________£34,559______£38,692 __12%
John Marshall _________£19,470______£22,143 __14%
Robert Rams __________£13,629______£15,815 __16%
Andreas Tambourides____£23,364______£27,984 __20%
Joanna Tambourides_____£16,063______£18,249 __14%
Daniel Thomas _________£13,629______£15,815 __16%

This against a background of recession and unemployment. Barnet Council has set the 4th highest rate of Council Tax Increase in London. Whilst the London Average is 1.2% (click here for details), us poor mugs in Barnet are lumbered with a 2.8% rise. This is a council which won't even divulge it's bill for expensive consultants working on "blue sky" projects.

Mike Freer deposed former Tory Council Leader, Brian Salinger just after the last election, promising to be a Thatcherite Tax cutter. Has he succeeded. Well it seems to me that he's failed miserably. Could his Tory Council support base have more to do with the figures listed above and the effect these have (as described by Brian Coleman) than his ideology or competance? The truth of how Barnet is being run has been valiantly exposed by Mr Coleman. It is there in black and white for all to see.

In my fullsome praise for Brian Coleman's article there are just three small problems.

1. He wrote the article in December 2007 and yet he's been happy to go along with all this ever since, despite his deep misgivings.

2. When he criticises the scheme of allowances, he is being a complete hypocrite as he trousers over £100,000 in allowances from the public purse. The Local Government act allows him not to claim these, but he happily banks the cheques.

3. He completely contradicts himself in this article in the Barnet Press

I simply cannot square the arguments he made in the New Statesman with those in the Press. As I said I completely support his sentiments in the New Statesman. Unfortunately as he's shown himself to be a hypocrite, it hasn't changed my opinion of him one iota.