Barnet Council gagging rules - A victory for the loudmouths!

Last week the new leader of Barnet Council, Barry Rawlings  appeared on the Eddie Nestor show as part of the meet the leader series. I'd suggest everyone has a listen. It is important to know what you voted for. I sent Eddie a question concerning the rules on public questions to ask Barry. After the last council election in 2018, the Conservatives imposed strict rules on the number of questions that could be asked and put a limit of 100 words on the questions. This meant that it was almost impossible for residents who found issues with council policies to get proper answers. The Tories pretended that this was to 'give everyone a chance to be heard'. This was highly dishonest, as anyone who attended meetings would know the chair went through questions in rotation, so you only got to ask a second question after everyone else had asked their first. If you CLICK HERE and listen at 13.07 you'll here the question and Barry's answer. I was very disappointed with Barry's answer where he said he didn't want to give a megaphone to already loud voices and wanted everyone to have the chance to participate. I made my views known immediately in a blog in response. I know Barry and I know that he probably realised immediately that he'd said something that he really couldn't justify and probably didn't mean. When I spoke to Barry at the count after the election, he told me he wanted me to continue to scrutinise the council and be critical as it was the only way they'd ever improve. I believe that this was the real Barry and the loudmouth comment was an abberation, but regardless he'd said it and true to my word, I gave Barry the feedback he sought. 

Barnet blogger Mr Reasonable made his views known on Twitter

Gagging means you can only ask 1 question on an agenda item and only 2 residents ask a question on the same agenda item. When you have complex agenda items like the budget or Capita contract then lots of questions go unasked.

— Mr Reasonable (@ReasonableNB) July 2, 2022

I'd could describe John as many things, but he's not a loudmouth. What was really sad was that there seemed to be a concerted campaign of trolling myself and John for our comments by a small group of local Labour activists. I can't be bothered with such nonsense, so I blocked the said characters. I don't mind people saying I'm wrong but when they post Tweets like this, I really think that intelligent discussion is not worth the effort. 

Now your calling the rest of us thick? We can all read pal. Just cos your write a blog don't make ya special

— Patrick Bannatyne (@PatrickBannaty1) July 2, 2022

What right have you to save money? I want my elected representatives to decide not a self appointed individual. Whether right or wrong they have accountability you don't.

— Paul Gwespyr (@GwespyrPH) July 6, 2022

.

Everyone has an opinion and anyone can post whatever they like on Twitter, but really? Why on earth would anyone post such idiocy? I was starting to wonder whether the local Labour group was morphing into some sort of Stalinist monster, where anyone who dissented would get remorselessly trolled. Happily it appears that sense has prevailed and Barry has reflected on the matter and changed tack.

The Barnet Post publised a story late last week detailing a U-Turn. Interestingly the Post didn't seem to listen to Barry's comments on the Eddie Nestor show and just regurgitated a press release, but to be quite honest, so long as the Labour group has done the right thing, it doesn't really matter. They have done the right thing. Rescinding the Tory rules is a sensible move and I hope that the local activists who decided that trolling John Dix was clever, feel a little bit ashamed, now it is clear that the Leader of the local Labour Group disagrees with them. Anyone who know John Dix knows he's a huge asset to the London Borough of Barnet. He should be getting a civic award not brickbats.

It seems that the new adminstration is listening to residents concerns and taking sensible views into account. That has always been what I've asked for. I don't expect anyone to agree with me all of the time, but all residents who have concerns should be listened to. If the administration disagrees it should be able to lay out it's reasons in a clear and transparent way. My biggest criticism of the Tory administration between 2006 (when Mike Freer took over as leader) and 2022 was that they were completely unprepared to engage. Individual councillors would privately engage in dialogue, but this was always off the record and any changes to policies were done through gritted teeth. I want Barry and his team to succeed, not because they are Labour (I'm not) but because it will be good for me and all of the other local residents. I started blogging as a result of Barnet Council changing my disabled Mum's care package in a manner that caused her huge stress and upset, as a result of a botched outsourcing decision. I believe it contributed to her death in 2008. When people call me a loudmouth and tweet that I have a 'monster ego' it goes with the territory of writing a popular blog and standing as a candidate for the local elections. If you want to have a pop, then don't expect to let it go without a pop back, though as us loudmouths are like that!

Good one. I can be lots a things pal but at least am self aware of it and can handle criticism comes my way. Unlike the monster ego u have i can still learn n grow. U will always be to busy bein self important

— Patrick Bannatyne (@PatrickBannaty1) July 10, 2022

I am OK with it, but the reason I embarked on this was nothing to do with me. It was because I saw first hand what effect bad decisions by Councillors could have on people who couldn't argue their own case (my mother had a stroke and could not communicate effectively). The fact that over the years my blog (and the other Barnet bloggers) have managed to give a voice to hundreds of people who wouldn't have otherwise had a voice and exposed and changed bad and illegal council policies makes it all worth while. The rules that Barry is changing will make it easier to give those people a voice. Ill informed activists of all parties may not like loudmouths like me putting the boot into bad policies from their parties, but those people who have been given a voice, such as the victims of the Freedom pass scandal, the removal of overnight wardens in sheltered accomodation and those that have paid less tax through the Barnet bloggers exposing the Metpro Scandal have a different view. Everyone should welcome sensible criticism, councils, oppositions, bloggers all should be prepared to take criticism and scrutiny on board. If someone tells me I've got something wrong, I change it. If they call me a a loudmouth, I'll take some aspects of the Loudmouth criticism as I've had to shout to be heard to survive. Where I would dispute the term is the implication that my shouting is uninformed. I'd dispute this as I do everything I can to get my facts right. Getting one's facts right when writing blogs about the council is far easier when the council is open and transparent. I've lost count of the times when a councillor has challenged me about a statement I've made, where their response has been "If you saw the secret papers you'd know you were wrong" only to be proven 100% right as another mess has unfolded. When the same councillors would say "The officers assured me". They hadn't read the papers and just asked for reassurrance. Public questions put that on record. That is why this victory is important.  

Sorry Barry, us loudmouths don't want a megaphone, we just want reasonable answers to reasonable questions

 I have to say that I was more than disappointed to hear the answer of the new Leader of Barnet Council,  Barry Rawlings to a question I sent into BBC Radio London's Eddie Nestor show, who was being interviewed. Eddie asked for questions.  Eddie posted this tweet

Our #MeetTheLeader series is back

First up is new Labour leader of Barnet Cllr Barry Rawlings

If you have a question
📩 Email Eddie@bbc.co.uk

📻Listen live https://t.co/5wxIKa6FEI @EddieNestorMBE | @BarryJohnRawlin | @BarnetCouncil

⤵️More on Barnet with @susana_mendonca pic.twitter.com/jesTrnNAhq

— BBC Radio London (@BBCRadioLondon) July 6, 2022

I sent this in.

Hi Eddie, I'd like to book a question with Barry Rawlings for the show on Wednesday. In 2018, the then Conservative administration changed the rules regarding questions from the public at council meetings, imposing strict limits on what could be asked and how many questions could be asked, making proper public scrutiny almost impossible. Barry was highly critical of this and lead everyone to believe that a Labour administration would change the rules. They have not done this. Can Barry explain why he's gone back on his word and whether this is due to a desire to restrict scrutiny whilst the Capita one Barnet contract is being reviewed. Regards Rog

I'll post a link back to the interview, which was quite interesting. However, I was deeply disappointed with Barry's answer. He said that he doesn't want to "Give a megaphone to those with already loud voices".  Yes, I have a loud voice, I don't need a megaphone. The reason I sent my question to Eddie was because I had a chat with Mr Reasonable, AKA John Dix about raising the issue of Barnet Labour not changing the rules back. We were discussing whether to go public about the fact that Barry in opposition promised to remove the restrictions on public questions at meetings and has changed his mind. This is what John said.

Part of me was also tempted to leave it till September but they will have to discuss the Capita contracts by September and I am worried the delay on the gagging rules is to keep us out of the scrutiny/debate that will take place.  

I felt I had to ask the question. John is 100% spot on. The meetings where the Capita contract is being discussed are massively important to Barnet's residents and residents should be given the opportunity to have their say.  Barry has heard me ask hundreds of questions over the last fourteen years, I'd like to think he recognised the fact that every single one was the result of hours of reading council papers and doing homework. Yes I'm not a shrinking violet, a loudmouth, but I had liked to think that people recognised that I was serious and that my questions were the result of proper research. 

At the election count Barry suggested that I should not give up on scrutiny, when it was clear that Labour had won. I assumed that the first move would be to remove the Tory restrictions, so I could carry on as Barry suggested. Barry said on the show that he was putting together a People's Assembly, so people in Barnet could have a voice. As someone who is interested in the council and knows how it works, I know it would be far less effective for actual scrutiny purposes. It is committees where decisions are made. When there are technical issues or gaping holes in policies, it is the commitee where this can be rectified. I can recall dozens of instances of the Tories listening to questions and making small tweaks that lead to bad policies being changed and stupid ideas dropped. It resulted in the Metpro scandal being exposed. It resulted in the Mapledown respite changes being dropped. This was all prior to the 2018 rule changes. Former Tory Audit Committee chair Hugh Rayner, personally thanked myself and John Dix on many occasions for raising issues and he fixed them. This may have been a drop in the ocean, but it did make a material difference to how the Borough operated.

After the rule changes, I rarely bothered asking, unless there was a slam dunk issue. I developed a reasonable relationship with a couple of Tory Councillors. I realised that I couldn't ask questions, so I'd email them and they'd do the dirty work if they accepted my arguments. It was only when they didn't I'd bother showing up.  The problem with this was that there was no public accountability or recognition that the council wasn't putting its papers together properly. It gave Dan Thomas, the former Tory leader, the figleaf that his councillors were doing their job, when they weren't.

As to Barry's assertion that a Peoples Assembly will fix the problem, People's assemblies are good at setting direction and strategy, they are not good at allowing residents to forensically challenge specific defects in council papers. I suspect that they will provide a far better forum for a loudmouth like me to spout ideological nonsense and waffle for hours than when specific questions are required on specific issues in relation to specific policies.

I'm happy to make a deal with Barry. If he wants me to refrain from asking questions, I'll retire from going to meetings completely, so long as he changes the rules and allows people like John to ask questions, if thats what he really wants. Many people in Barnet fought for years for a change of regime and to oppose the policies of the Conservative regime. We genuinely believed that things would be better. I'm used to being called names by Leaders of Barnet Council, I don't take it personally, but I really expected a little better. 

The reality is that I'm in it for the long haul. I don't ask questions for the benefit of the two other bloggers sat in the public gallery at Council meetings. I do it because I want the London Borough of Barnet to be the best place possible for people like me and you who live here. I had rather hoped that this was recognised.

There is one good thing that came out of this. It gives me a chance to play one of my favourite tracks by the Ramones. Enjoy!

Letter to Barnet Councillors

Dear Councillor,

We are about to hear which company has been awarded one of the two massive contracts that constitute the £1 Billion One Barnet privatisation scheme.

Barely a week after the recommended bid is announced, Cabinet will vote on the proposals, and this borough will surrender control of a huge number of its services to an unaccountable private sector provider, for a minimum period of ten years.

Leader Richard Cornelius has written to a resident of Barnet stating he feels that a week allows sufficient time for the scrutiny by councillors of a contract of this size and significance, one that has taken four years in creation, by a process which has itself cost millions of pounds of taxpayers' money in fees to consultants.

We suggest to you that a week is self evidently a completely inadequate length of time for councillors to inform themselves of the details and full significance of what is clearly a hugely complex undertaking, and one with enormous implications for the future of all residents.

One Barnet is the most ambitious privatisation exercise that has ever been attempted by any local authority.

Despite the unprecedented scale of this project, NO independent assessment has been made of the enormous risks such an enterprise must inevitably present.

Equally astonishing is the fact that the internal assessment, the One Barnet Risk Register, has never been presented to the council's own Audit Committee.

Not only does this represent the most irresponsible disregard for the security of local residents' investment in One Barnet, it quite clearly makes the authority liable to legal challenge on the basis of failing properly to consult with members and residents, as required by the demands of the democratic process.

We ask all councillors to consider the very real concerns we raise: resist the demand to rubber stamp a decision from which, effectively, you have been excluded by the leadership and senior management team of this authority. Ask yourselves why you have been excluded from the process of scrutiny.

And then please have the courage do the job you were elected to do: to protect the best interests of the residents and tax payers of the London Borough of Barnet, and act immediately to call for a suspension of this reckless programme.

Yours sincerely

Derek Dishman
John Dix
Vicki Morris
Theresa Musgrove
Roger Tichborne

The smell of a huge rat in Barnet - Councillor Jack Cohen exposes the sale of Hendon FC ground as sham

From last night's Cabinet resourses committee, we have details of the latest legal cock up to hit Barnet in regards to a land sale. Barnet Council spent £1 million on the inquiry into the cock up of Barnet FC's Underhill ground. It looks like they haven't learned. Councillor Daniel Thomas starts by explaining why the council are seeking to exempt the process from scrutiny. Jack Cohen makes a compelling case for completely re-examing the decision and exposes some highly dodgy sound shenanigans. Jack also explains that the preferred bid is not the highest and the company making it is not legally allowed to.



I suspect that the lawyers will be rubbing their the hands together (yet again). I should imagine that all connected with the Jewish community will be especially interested in why the Council has snubbed their offer for the site, for a lower offer from a property developer. Note must also be made of the intervention of Hugh Rayner, who quite correctly expressed his displeasure at the way the Cabinet resources committee were seeking to bully the scrutiny committee into backing off.

The Barnet Eye commends both councillors for their good work.

The Barnet Eye covered this subject back in February, full details here -

http://barneteye.blogspot.co.uk/2012/02/london-jewish-girls-high-school-issues.html

The more I hear about this case, the stranger it sounds. I fully support the efforts of the efforts of the London Jewish Girls High School to get to the bottom of the issue. Whilst I do not support the loss of the site to football, if the council is intent on selling it, then they should take the highest offer, especially since there is a clear community benefit to doing so.

Stop Press : Barnet Council withdraws report on New Jewish School from Cabinet resources meeting

Following the publication on the Barnet Leaks website of details of plans for the New Jewish school, Barnet Council have withdrawn the paper from consideration at tonights cabinet resources meeting. Nick Walkley announced this in a letter to a local resident, stating that more work was needed on the paper. I have published this letter on the Future Shape leaks website

http://barnetfutureshape.blogspot.com/2011/02/new-jewish-school-for-mill-hill-latest.html

From Mr Walkleys letter it was quite clear that the whole process was being rushed through. Barnet have made many costly mistakes rushing such papers through in the past. A typical case in point was the sale of Underhill Football ground. The resulting legal enquiry cost nearly a million pounds and the potential loss to the taxpayers of Barnet is several times that.

This blog has no objections to the concept of  a school for Jewish children in Mill Hill. We do however have many concerns about the fact that Barnet Council has a history of rushing things, not drawing up contracts properly and not paying sufficient regard to process. As a result, the whole community is left with huge bills. I completely understand the desire of parents pushing to get a good school for their children, I raised thousands of pounds to help rebuild my childrens school. I just urge those parents to make sure that Barnet Council do not botch the sale and end up with court cases, legal bills and delays due to "unforeseen circumstances".

Barnet Council always say "no one could have predicted that....." when things go wrong. I can predict one thing with absolute certainty. This isn't the only thing in Barnet which needs more time spent on it, more proper scrutiny doing and more attention to detail. Sadly whilst putting the details of this proposal on a blog will without doubt ensure that things are done properly, there are plenty of other things that will slip by.

The real reason for the failure of Great Britain !

If you'd asked me two years ago what the biggest problem with Great Britain was, I'd have said "Haven't got a clue". Over the past couple of years, mostly as a result of writing this blog, I have a very clear idea. It may surprise you to hear that the problem isn't the Tories and it isn't Labour. It's not the Lib Dems or the BNP.

It is nothing to do with Party politics. It is however the major problem with party politics. What am I talking about? Secrecy in Government. We all pay taxes but the powers that be make all of the important decisions behind closed doors. In the USA this is not the case. The culture of Freedom of Information in public office is a fundamental right. Expenses are publicised, meetings are minuted and documented. The opposition have access to all of this so the rulers have to do a good job. There are no dodgy deals behind closed doors. That is why the USA has become the richest and the most powerful nation on Earth.

Over here things are done slightly differently. If you go to the public gallery at the Council to watch meetings, you'll know that all of the important discussions are taken with the public excluded. Are they discussin national security? What do you think.

There is a truly disgusting story in the Guardian today. It illustrates to me that Jack Straw is just not up to the job. The government and the judiciary can continue to conceal the names of more than 170 misbehaving judges, a freedom of information tribunal has ruled.

The ruling came out in favour of justice secretary, Jack Straw, and the judiciary as they have fought a four-year battle to hide the identities of miscreants.

The three-member tribunal, led by David Marks QC, dismissed a challenge from the Guardian which had argued that the public should know which judges had been disciplined and why.

The reason for this? Members of the judiciary who have been sacked or reprimanded for misconduct would suffer "great distress" if details of their misdemeanours were made public.

These people are paid a great deal of money. They are paid this in expectation that they behave themselves. How anyone, let alone a justice secretary could possibly claim that it is not in the public interest for bad apples to be exposed is beyond me.

Until we abolish secrecy and open the whole system up to proper scrutiny, this country will never be fair, free and honest

Exclusive : Top Barnet Tory says Vote Lib-Dem !!!!

I've a couple of questions for you.

A) In Westminster, which opposition politician has proved the most effective in holding the governments record to scrutiny?

B) Who in Barnet has been the most effective srutineer of Council Leader Mike Freer's disasterous Icelandic investment policy?

You may have your own views, but as far as I'm concerned, in Westminster the Lib Dem spokesman, Vince Cable has been head and shoulders above anyone else. I was out for a beer with a friend a couple of weeks ago who is a very senior Tory and he was bemoaning the lack of a Vince Cable in the Tory front bench. He went as far as to say that if Cable was a Tory they'd be 25 points ahead in the polls (admittedly after six pints and a splendid curry at the Rajasthan in Monument).

As to locally, anyone who went to watch the Council debates would know that the Lib Dems destroyed Mike Freer. I'm a Labour member, so it doesn't really fill me with glee to say that it was the Lib Dems who administered the duffing up, but it was true. Wayne Casey, Jack Cohen and Monroe Palmer have lead the way in forensically examining the Tories disasterous policy, exposing the fact that Mike Freer should have known from the reports that he had last Autumn, that the council had breached its own policy.

In todays Barnet Tory Bugle, sorry Barnet Times, there is an article on the forthcoming Euro elections. As seems to be the current policy at the paper, only Tories are interviewed, but in this report, Barnet's cabinet member for policy and performance, Councillor Richard Cornelius, said: "This is the opportunity for residents to choose representatives who will scrutinise decisions made in Brussels that affect Barnet."

If you want an MEP to voice Tory views, then vote Tory. If you want an MEP to voice Labour views, vote Labour. If you want effective scrutiny, I'm sorry but from what I've seen you vote Liberal Democrat at local and National levels. It couldn't be clearer to me that if you trust Richard Cornelius and follow his advice about good scrutiny, the Lib Dems will be getting your vote. It has been widely reported that the Barnet Tories have done everything in their power to circumvent the scrutiny of the Icelandic investment strategy, to protect their leader and head of resource management, Mike Freer. I think that Councillor Richard Cornelius has done us all a favour by drawing our attention to how important scrutiny is. He may not openly say it, but I'm sure he knows every word I've said here is true.