The Important questions for the Barnet Council elections in May - Number 5

Today is question no 5 in our series dedicated to looking at the important questions which face voters in Barnet as we approach the Council elections on May 6th.

Question No 5.
Standards of behaviour in public office
Is it important to you whether the people who run for public office maintain high standards of behaviour whilst in office. I am not talking about their sexual preferences or what they do behind closed doors. I am talking about how they conduct their business. This shows whether they are honest, decent and trustworthy. The two highest posts within Barnet Council are the Leader of the Council and the Mayor. Both of these positions were appointed by the Conservatives using their larger block vote. How have these people conducted themselves and their business in the time they've been councillors.


Council Leader Lynne Hillan. In 2006 the company Lynne Hillan ran, Ashurst Direct Marketing Ltd was liquidated, leaving debts of over £100,000. As a result, the creditors were significantly out of pocket. The largest creditor was you and me, the taxpayer. Whilst not illegal, if Ms Hillan cannot run a small company successfully and thinks knocking the taxman for tens of thousands pounds, whilst serving as a councillor is a good grounding for taking over as leader I'm flabbergasted. What is even more amazing is that a majority of her Conservative Councillors don't seem to mind either. It is worth pointing out that Ashurst Direct Marketing went bust before the credit crunch bit and the economy was in good shape and growing. It is also worth pointing out that Lynne Hillan has displayed the same grasp of economics when setting the Council budget. She has raided the council cash reserves to institute a Council Tax freeze in an election year. This means that the Council, like Ashurst Direct marketing is running at a loss under her tenure. If she'd raided the reserves for a genuine purpose to deal with an emergency, such as an emergency road resurfacing program, to deal with the pothole crisis in Barnet, I would have agreed that this is sensible. To raid them purely for an election bribe is scandalous.

Mayor of Barnet Brian Coleman. Brian Coleman is the only Mayor of Barnet to be found guilty of a breach of the Barnet Council code of conduct whilst in office. How did he react to the verdict? He went out celebrating with other Conservative Councillors. Mr Coleman also stated that the Standards Committee was a waste of time, rather hypocritically, given that he had reported an opposition Councillor to it (a complaint that was slung out). Mr Coleman has publicly supported disgraced Brent Councillor Bertha Joseph, who was suspended for using charity donations to buy ball gowns. He was banned from driving for speeding offences. He described Middlesex University as "crap", insulting thousands of hard working tutors and students. He insulted the successful British Olympic team for taking part in the Olympics in China, stating they had "blood on their hands" whilst not saying a dickybird about Mayor Boris Johnsons embassy in Beijing. Everyone in Barnet knows exactly what sort of a person Brian Coleman is. The Conservative group thought he was the best man to be Mayor.

I was talking to a local Councillor last night. He told me that an ex Barnet Councillor now holds office in St Albans. He is an opposition Councillor there. He said that in St Albans, party politics plays very little role in Council politics. People just want to do a good job. He said that after Barnets toxic mix, it was a very pleasant change. Mayors are selected from all parties as recognition of their long service and civic mindedness. Sadly this isn't what happens in Barnet.

Question No 5.
Do you believe that Councillors should have a track record of good judgement and good behaviour, especially in senior positions within Barnet Council?

Barnet Conservatives: The appointment of Lynne Hillan and Brian Coleman to their jobs says it all.

Barnet Lib Dems: The Barnet Lib Dems will support all measures to improve and strengthen the quality of Barnet Councillors, the sanctions for serious breaches of the standards code and the improvement of the public image of Barnet Council. Note : No London Lib Dem MP was found to have claimed second home allowances or flipped property allowances in the recent expenses scandal.

Barnet Labour Party: Sadly the two local Labour MPs in Barnet featured promenently in the criticism of MPs behaviour in the expenses scandal.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REMEMBER  - WHETHER THE CONTEMPT FOR STANDARDS IN PUBLIC OFFICE CONTINUES IS DOWN TO HOW YOU VOTE ON MAY 6TH

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Other parties and independent candidates are welcome to leave comments outlining their position on this issue. Comments will only be deleted if off subject, racist, sexist or abusive. This is a debate we must have

You won an election, not a raffle - You work for US !

Live from Westminster, it's the quiz of the week

A Mortgage on a second home (applause)
A House for Your Ducks (applause)
Free Swimming Pool Servicing (applause)
Free Moat Cleaning (applause)
A sit and ride Lawnmower (applause)
A Glittering toilet Seat (applause)
A Compost bin for your Garden (applause)
3 Inflatable sex dolls
3 Mucky Video Downloads
A packet of paperclips (Groans)



Just in case you've been in a coma for 3 months, these are not prizes in a fantastic new TV show. These are just a selection of "Expenses" that have been claimed by our MP's. I've tried to steer clear of this issue. I try to stick to local politics, but once in a while I see something which scares the hell out of me. That happened today.

The reason that I put up the above list is because (paper clips apart), it shows the complete contempt in which us, the smelly public are held by the political classes. Many politicians now want the taxpayer to fund political parties. That way they won't even have to pretend to try and keep us happy. I was looking at a rival blog today, one called "Local Democracy". As a rule, I've found that blogs with such names usually promote the opposite of what "it says on the tin". The title of this particular entry?

Should MPs and councillors take up cases on behalf of individuals?

I'll give you three guesses as to the answer?

So what does Mr Paul Evans - The author think they should do?

"I’d suggest that – if we were defining the role of an elected representative from scratch – based upon an understanding of representative government should work, that some protocol would have been established confirming that MPs don’t meet lobbyists except in open hearings, and that they should never do casework for constituents. Instead, they would make a point of meeting local lawyers – especially the local Citizens Advice Bureau – to discuss failings in the law."

So there you go - he thinks they should sit in nice cozy committee's with lawyers and shut out the public completely. I can honestly say, I've never read such a load of old tosh in my life. It seems that Mr Evans hails from Barnet. He will be in good company with our local Tories. Councillor Mike Freer makes a point of never responding to comments on Leader Listens unless they agree with him. Richard Cornelius won't visit sheltered housing scheme's because it "would be too upsetting" and his "emotions may cloud his judgement".

MP's have little enough to do already. Dealing with Constituents problems is one of the few useful things a backbencher does with his time. In my opinion, there are far too few "ordinary people" and too many lawyers in Parliament already. I'd introduce quotas for trades. Barristers learn advocacy, therefore have a natural advantage over bus drivers and nurses, but do they know as much about Transport or Health? Parliament should represent society and year by year this becomes less so. As for Councillors, what on earth does he think they do? The whole point is that they represent the people. I suppose he prefers the model of a certain Mr Coleman who shuttles around in a taxi at the taxpayers expense and "never answers questions about his expenses".

Looking at the Local Democracy blog really disturbed me. I've seen blogs of all shapes and sizes but this one looks very professionally put together. It has the feel of a "semi official" blog. I couldn't really figure out it's motivation or purpose. It's author's descriptions says :-

"Paul Evans is a local democracy practitioner with a long track-record of running e-democracy projects at a local level with a particular focus upon the promotion of local representative democracy."

Rather strange then that he wants to completely exclude MP's & Councillors from engaging with the people who elect them. MP's and Councillors must never forget who they work for - US. Even though some act like it, they win elections, not raffles.

P.S. I just noticed that the blog in question does have a link to a Local Barnet Political blog at in the sidebar. Which one does Mr Evans like most? Mike Freer's Leader Listens? Explains it all really.

Daily Telegraph plays a dangerous game

Sex scandals destroy Tory governments, money scandals destroy Labour governments. With this mantra in mind, the Daily Telegraph continues it's daily drip feed of revelations regarding MP's expenses. The Telegraph is a Tory leaning paper and has no doubt concluded that the scandal will damage Labour more than the Tories.

This is a dangerous game. UKIP are waiting in the wings and whilst the Telegraph may agree with much of UKIP's program, they wont agree with a split of votes between the Tories & UKIP, if it lets Gordon Brown sneak in through the back door. Whatever happens in the Euro's is unlikely to have much effect a year down the line when the job of Prime Minister is at stake, with direct voting intentions for left leaning voters. Voters on the left have no natural protest vote, wheras disaffected Tories have UKIP.

Those who switch to UKIP for the Euros, may not automatically switch back next year at a General election. This will be especially true if UKIP does well. I think the time has come for the Telegraph to just close the matter. By this, they should give away a special supplement detailing all MP's not yet covered. That is unless they really would like UKIP to torpedo David Cameron. I totally agree with their mission to expose dodgy MP's, but theyv'e still got 4/5th's of the MP's to get through. For those who've done nothing wrong, this is unfair. I'd be surprised if we get any more revelations of moats or duck houses, we are at the dregs.

Bye Bye Darling

There are two things we expect our chancellor to be, given that he's in charge of the nations cash.

1) Trustworthy
2) Good with money

Mr Darling has shown that he fails at least one of these tests. He really should resign, it is as simple as that.

Andrew Dismore & Expenses

Andrew Dismore wrote to me to explain his position on expenses. I thought I'd publish it here without comment. Make your own mind up.

20th May 2009 Dear Mr Tichborne, In view of the widespread concern about parliamentary allowances I thought I should write to you with my views. May I firstly start by saying that I have been as shocked and horrified as the public has been, over some of the claims put forward by some MPs. Indeed, people forget sometimes that I, and other MPs, are taxpayers, too, and do not like to see public money misspent any more than you do. The recent revelations clearly show the need for change, and I have put forward my own suggestions for reform to the Committee on Standards in Public Life (the “Kelly” committee) including a complete abolition of the “Second Homes Allowance”, to be replaced with a system of renting or hotel accommodation which would overcome these difficulties. This might work out a bit more expensive for the taxpayer, but I believe such a price is necessary to restore the reputation of Parliament. Having said that, I have always been open about my own allowances claims: By way of example, please feel free to read my most recent press releases, issued of 12th March (click here) and 15th April (click here), giving the background explanation, where appropriate. You will see, amongst other things, that I have renounced the right to claim the “second home allowance”. I do not have (and never have had) a country house, with or without a moat, a tennis court, swimming pool or chandelier. My trouser press was a gift from my mother, and not part of any claim! I did not go into politics for money. When I was a local government councillor, my very modest responsibility allowance (£1200 per year, a pittance compared to what leading members of Barnet Council claim) was entirely donated, in full, towards providing a service for my ward constituents. When I stood for Parliament, I knew I would far worse off than in my previous occupation as a solicitor. The pay cut was almost 50%, for almost double the hours of work. I accepted this willingly, because I went into politics to serve the community and to try to make life better for all, individually, locally and nationally; not to enrich myself. Indeed, since I was elected, I have spent tens of thousands of pounds of my own money, supporting my constituency office, particularly in the early years of my time in Westminster, when the then staffing allowance was not enough to provide the quality of service I believe you, my constituents, are entitled to expect. The Daily Telegraph has been trawling through MPs’ allowances claim forms, and supporting receipts. The only comment on mine so far, has been to compare me favourably, with the Conservative MP for Chipping Barnet, in the neighbouring constituency. I note it was only after this exposure, that she decided to publish her returns, and (in 6 month’s time) follow my lead in giving up the second home allowance. In relation to my own large pile of documentation, unsolicited, I invited the Evening Standard to send a reporter to read through them and to take whatever notes or copies he wished (though publication would obviously need to exclude personal data like account and card numbers). I have offered similar access to the Hendon and Edgware Times. I believe that the Evening Standard reporter was satisfied that there was nothing untoward in any of the claim forms or supporting documentation: I am sure if there had been, it would have been reported in the Evening Standard, by now! I am starting a new section on my website, on which my expenses returns will appear regularly, as soon as possible after their submission (click here). As to the historic records, which the Evening Standard inspected, I asked the Commons authorities if there was any way I could make them public, electronically, before they are formally published by the House in a few weeks’ time. The volume of paper is such that it is not practical to publish them in any other way. I was told there was no easy way of putting them on the internet, but once they are published I will then try to create a link from my website. The “journalist” inspection is the best I can do in the meantime. As to other Parliamentarians, it is quite clear that there have been some appalling abuses carried out, for which I believe that we have all been found guilty by association, but inevitably we must all share the common criticism, of not having amended the rules before. I am a member of the Commons Standards and Privileges Committee, and we have made a number of recommendations, which regrettably were not all taken up, for example relating to the designation of which home should be the second home. One of our most recent recommendations was that MPs should be taken entirely outside the allowance setting process, and this should be left to the Kelly committee. We tabled unanimous, cross party, amendments to this effect for the debates in April, which explains my votes, then, as the Government accepted one of those amendments but not the others. In the past, I have supported disclosure of MPs’ allowances, contrary to what my opponent suggests. I did not support the disclosure of MPs’ private constituency correspondence which was at risk from the Freedom of Information Act. This also explains my votes on that issue at the time. I also think it is fair to say that some of the newspaper reports have been somewhat disingenuous and have not given a full picture of the circumstances of particular claims; and there has been an element of party political bias or choreography in the way the Daily Telegraph, a Conservative leaning newspaper, has released the information. For example, while focussing on the minutiae of some of the “furniture” claims, they have virtually ignored the claims by the Leader of the Opposition, a multi-millionaire, for almost £24,000 a year just for his mortgage interest payments, which have passed without criticism. My political neighbour, the Conservative MP for Chipping Barnet, has also claimed substantial sums for the purchase of her second home. When I was claiming for the “second home allowance” for my Burnt Oak flat, I claimed for running costs only. I did not claim anything for the cost of buying it. Nevertheless, this cannot justify in any way the outlandish cases that have been brought to the public’s attention. It is right that action is taken, and I am pleased the Prime Minister has suspended offenders from the Labour Party. I do not think it would be appropriate for me to comment further on individual cases, because, as a member of the Standards and Privileges Committee, I may well be called upon to be one of those passing sentence, if the Commissioner for Parliamentary Standards, who is an independent investigator, reports to us on breaches of the rules, which may well have been committed despite protestations to the contrary. It is necessary that urgent action is taken, and I am pleased that interim measures are now being proposed, pending the Kelly review. I hope, though, that this gives you an indication of my own concern on the issue, and the fact that I have personally tried to be as open as I possibly can as far as my own claims are concerned, which I published long before the Commons required it, each year. If you have any specific questions about my own claims, I will certainly do the best I can to respond to them.

Yours sincerely,

Speaker Michael Martin: A deluge of hypocrisy

If Michael Martin has been a naughty boy, sure he should go. Having said that, how many of those queuing up to stick the knife in are blameless. Martin didn't force them to fiddle thier figures or claim for outrageous items, which in any other walk of life, no one would dream of even thinking of claiming for. By all means sack him, but he should be just be one in the queue for the dole office.

Cameron, Brown & Clegg can't force Martin out & leave people such as Chipping Barnet MP, Theresa Villiers, who racked up a whole range of claims for second homes, whilst living less tham an hourfrom the job, in place. If they do they are being hypocrites.

UFO's over Mill Hill

Dug up this rather interesting article about UFO's over Mill Hill. Do you believe in UFO's? Do you believe in Alien Abduction? Do you believe in the Tooth Fairy? Do you believe in Father Christmas? Do you believe that MP's are sorry for having their snouts in the trough?

I think it's fair to say they are sorry they've been caught, that is the extent of their remorse.

MP's expect us to believe stories such as that they "forgot" they'd paid off their mortgage. Yup I believe that. They were too busy greeting the delegation from the planet Zob.

Trust

When I left school, a mate of mine got a job at Nat West bank. He worked there for a couple of years and one day got sent on a course. When he returned he put his expenses claim in, all right & proper and nothing excessive. When he got his bank statement, he found that they'd paid him twice. He said nothing. Six months later, his mistake came to light. He was summiraly sacked. He was told that as his job involved dealing with the publics money, they couldn't afford to have people who their was any question of trust about.

Although I was upset for my friend, I was reassurred by Nat West's actions (they were my bank). I think that running the country is more important than being a cashier at Nat West.

That is why I believe that chiselling MP's should be sacked.

The Barnet Eye round up - Council Leader Mike Freer Exclusive Interview

Just to remind you, you heard about it here first. Seem's like everyone agrees with me now. My favourite comment on the subject was the 4th letter down here from Patrick MacNamee.

The Hendon Times has started putting it's letters on line again. Here's one which I agree with.

One thing I've noticed is the recent trend of continually announcing the same news repackaged. Here's a prime example. I'm sure I've heard all this before.

One last thing. It seems that the LEADER LISTENS blog has gone rather quiet? Seems a shame that all that Taxpayer's cash is being wasted supporting it. There were 3 blogs on it in March. One was by Matthew Offord writing about a meeting in December. One was plugging his "One handed Bloggers" podcast. The third was a googly on the council loosing a star in the latest review. Well now we know !

In an unexpected turn of events, Mike marched into the Bridge Tavern this evening as I was finishing my Guinness. He confessed that I was the only person he trusted in Barnet and he wanted to set the record straight.

He demanded that I interview him and he gives the full dirt on One Handed Bloggers, The BNP, Brian Saliger, Iceland, Leo Boland, Future Shape, Matthew Offord and Plasma screen TV's. He also makes a stunning admission about Underhill and David Miller. In this no holds barred interview, he only stipulated one precondition. That I publish it on THIS WEBSITE. Enjoy - you'll be shocked and stunned - I was.

Your local MP - Value for Money?

Our local Barnet MP's have published their full expenses. Now why London MP's need a second home is clearly a big bone of contention. I cannot possibly support this, although to be fair to Rudi Vis, he is retiring & his family have moved to Suffolk. Having said that, if he was in any other line of business he'd have to pay out of his own pocket.

What I've noticed from the figures is how similar all of the amounts are. (ie wages, office costs). This leads me to ask the question, are the wages a true reflection of the value of the staff or do they get the allowance and then figure out how to spend it?

I guess that some MP's will just give the money to their spouse or other close relative, whilst some will employ professional researchers and competent secretaries. I've had dealings with my MP, Andrew Dismore over the years. He prides himself on being hard working and conscienscious. I recently had to ask him to intervene on behalf of my ex business partners widow, who was being threatened with eviction by Barnet Council. He certainly gave her much worthwhile assistance and help. She speaks very highly of him. Being a Labour party member, I sometimes put his leaflets through local doors, so I guess I'd say in a horribly flawed system, he does a good job.

As for Rudi Vis and Theresa Villiers, having not had the pleasure, I couldn't really say how good or badly they do. I'd like to see MP's produce some sort of report as to their caseload. I'd also like to see how many people they help and how satisfied those people are. They give stationary costs, but I'd like to see how this is broken down. Could they send more emails?

Here are some changes I'd make if I was Gordon Brown or David Cameron.

1. All staff employed by MP's must be vetted by a Commons HR department to ensure that they are adequately qualified. Their salaries must reflect an appropriate civil service grade.

2. As with London Assembly members, all London MP's should be given a free Travelcard for London Travel. Any MP travelling (with good reason) between 10pm and 7am can claim milage or a taxi.

3. London MP's can claim overnight hotel expenses if it can be justified.

4. MP's can claim rail travel for long distance meetings in UK and connecting Taxi (in exceptional circumstances air travel).

5. Recalculate MP's salary to truly reflect their workload & responsibility. Set all future raises at the RPI with a 7 yearly review.

MP's with an average journey time of more than 1 hour each way, will be provided with a Government supplied flat free of charge. This will be owned and managed by the House of Commons and relinquished upon loss of seat. MP's will receive a moderate allowance for fixtures and furnishings.

Let's be realistic, non partisan and honest. We all want our MP's, whatever the party to be honest and decent people. The system we have encourages poor behaviour. This cannot be right. I am sure that when all MP's were initially selected they put their name's in the ring for the right reasons. They should get back to that. Gordon Brown is paying a heavy price for the current system, which he didn't invent. It is in his, David Cameron's and members in generals interest to reform the system, make it fair, transparent and honest. Through my work, I've met many MP's of all parties and I'd be dishonest if I said they struck me as terrible people (with one or two notable exceptions). I just think they need a system which doesn't have so much clear opportunity for abuse.


(please note these figures do not include the MP's salary).

FULL EXPENSES, 2007-2008

Andrew Dismore, MP for Hendon (Lab):

• Second home allowance - £3,815
• Office running costs - £21,377
• Staffing costs - £90,459
• Centrally purchased stationery - £752
• Stationery associated postage costs - £6.205
• Central IT provision - £1,265
• Staff cover & other costs - £0
• Commons allowance - £9,930
• Mileage (between home, constituency, Westminster) - £2,144
• Travel (Europe) - £1,419

TOTAL: £137,366

Theresa Villers, MP for Chipping Barnet (Con):

• Second home allowance - £18,181
• Office running costs - £21.096
• Staffing costs - £84,892
• Centrally purchased stationery - £1,904
• Stationery associated postage costs - £4,965
• Central IT provision - £1,385
• Commons allowance - £7,558
• Mileage (between home, constituency, Westminster) - £1,261
• Rail (between home, constituency, Westminster) - £33
• Misc - £118
• Mileage (other) - £82
• Rail (other) - £1,221

TOTAL: £142,696

Rudi Vis, MP for Finchley and Golders Green (Lab):

• Second home allowance - £23,083
• Office running costs - £21,328
• Staffing costs - £88,910
• Centrally purchased stationery - £1,904
• Stationery associated postage costs - £4,965
• Central IT provision - £1,385
• Commons allowance - £9,390
• Mileage (between home, constituency, Westminster) - £5,292
• Travel (Europe) - £613

TOTAL: £133,200

Harry Cohen is a disgrace

Just been reading about Labour MP Harry Cohen claiming £300,000 for a second home.

Cohen told the Press Association that the arrangement had been cleared with the House of Commons authorities. He said that the former Conservative minister John Moore had told MPs "go out boys and spend it" when he introduced a big uprating of the allowance in the 1980s to head off a pay revolt by backbench Tories. Quite sickening really.

As far as I'm concerned, MP's should try and set some sort of example. The likes of Cohen bring them into disrepute. I recall Hazel Blears comments that bloggers were damaging the political process. Maybe she should look a bit closer to home.

David Cameron has been strangely silent on this issue. It may not make his exisiting backbenchers too happy, but he really should show some moral courage on this issue. That would force Gordon Browns hand.

Mandleson looses the plot

When was the last time someone said to you "It would be really great if they privatised the Post Office"? If anyone has ever said that to you, were they anything other than an Uber-Thatcherite? The reason I as is because of the bizarre comments by Peter Mandleson in The Observer.

Mandleson reportedly said that "The Party would be kicked out of office if it retreated and showed itself to be tired and afraid of making a decision". Well Mr Mandleson, I'm sorry to say that Labour will be kicked out of office for imposing stupid and unpopular policies. In their Thatcherite pomp, the Tories sold privatisations as they funded tax cuts and were seen as a way of making a quick buck. The Post office privatisation will achieve neither of these politically useful goals. Any extra revenues raised in the next year, will merely be shovelled down the black hole which the bank bailout has created.

Labour has about a year before the election must be held. The only thing that might save them would be to come up with a few genuinely popular policies and rush them through Parliament. Put the Tories in a corner where they either back them or lose votes. Given that there is no cash to splash, what could catch the public imagination. Here's a few suggestions. If Mandleson pushed these policies, he might actually achieve the public admiration he craves :-

a) MP's to take a 5% pay cut.
b) Full on-line access to all MP's expenses.
c) Limit all expenses to genuine out of pocket costs.
d) Ban ALL sale of playing fields for redevelopment
e) Force councils to publish full details of all council house waiting lists (not names or addresses) and the way points are allocated to achieve one.
f) Allocate seats to members of the public (elected by common vote) on all state ownbed companies.
g) Have complete transparency on all public sector pensions (including recently Nationalised (or semi nationalised) banks - give the public a veto on excessive awards

So what would you prefer Labour to implement - Post Office Privatisation or my list above? Which do you think would be better for the Country? To be completely honest, although I'm a lifelong Labour Member, I am so disgusted with Mandleson's Post Office plan, that I'd probably vote for any non Racist Party which scrapped PO privatisation and adopted my plan above.