Brian Coleman update

I was going to have a day off highlighting the issues raised by Councillor Brian Coleman, but I couldn't help but comment on the fact that he's started blogging again, albiet on the Conservative Home website.

http://conservativehome.blogs.com/localgovernment/2009/07/fire-brigade-worked-magnificently-over-southwark-blaze.html

The most interesting thing on this is the comments. There is a marked reluctance of anyone to say a single nice thing about Brian Coleman, on what should be friendly territory. So much so that the Conservatives, you know those fearless defenders of free speech closed down the comment thread with this comment.
-------------------------------------------------------

Tim Montgomerie said...

This thread has exceeded its useful life.

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

Note to Tim Montgomery : It's not the thread which reached the end of it's useful life, it's the career of Brian Coleman. Wake up and smell the coffee mateypoo !!!!!

A few questions I'll be asking Mike Freer on Tuesday

I'm having breakfast with Leader of Barnet Council, Mike Freer on Tuesday. He's invited me over to North London Business Park to discuss the way Barnet can help local business. I bet you're thinking "lucky old Rog T, hobbing with the knobs" and that if you write a marvellous enough blog you get special access to the Leader of Barnet Council. Well, you'd be wrong. Mike sent an invite to all of the businesses in Barnet inviting them to the same event. I suppose you'll all be yelling hypocrite at me, having criticised the "FREE DINNER CULTURE" of certain high profile Barnet Councillors, but I actually believe this type of event can be quite useful.

I speak to lots of people who run small businesses. As you may or may not know, I run one myself. I employ nine people and run a music recording, rehearsal, equipment hire and sales business. I'm very successful. Brit award winners, Amy Winehouse and Kate Nash started their careers at our studios and Kate is still a regular. We have about 1,000 musicians a week passing through. We are a supplier of services to Barnet Council, Barnet Homes and Harrow Council, although 99% of our business is private individuals.

Whilst there are many issues I'd like to raise with Mike regarding social provision in Barnet, this business breakfast isn't the forum. We are there to discuss business. I've been a good boy and I've been canvassing other small businessmen I know to find out what bugs them and what the council could do to make their companies run more smoothly. Here is a list of the things we've come up with.

1) Rates appeals. If a company's business rates are too high, there is a system of appeal, administered by Barnet Council. The process can take up to three years to resolve. The Council collects rates at the high rate until the appeal is resolved. I personally got a cheque for thousands of pounds back after my last appeal. Many firms go bust for want of this money in their cashflow. I will be asking Mike to overhaul this and set a maximum time to hear appeals of 6 months. This measure will save hundreds of jobs in Barnet.

2) Business waste collection. All businesses pay rates, which covers refuse collection. A business such as mine, produces very little and what it does produce is actually items the council can recover and sell profitably (aluminium drinks tins). Other firms have a totally different waste profile (and presumably get a better deal for their money as they produce more rubbish). Mike complained at the last Cabinet meeting about the cost of waste collection. Here's my suggestions.

a) Improve recycling operations for business waste
b) Remove waste from the business rate and charge per kilo
c) Encourage private schemes to collect waste from business, especially those which recycle valuable items

3) Future Shape. As you probably realise, I'm fundamentally opposed to the scheme for a number of reasons. As a local small businessman, the thing which greatly alarms me is that the scheme has no provision for small business and preference for local suppliers. You may say "It's a scheme to save money, why should it?". Well for a number of reasons.

a) Jobs moved out from Barnet cost the local economy money. Many of these jobs are for low paid workers and they'll move out of jobs onto the dole queue and benefits. This will cost the council money in the long run.

b) The council recieves much of it's income from local firms in the form of business rates. Why should this money be used to subsidise multi nationals at the expense of local firms.

c) Local firms have a stake in the community and as such have a vested interest in good service in a way multi nationals never will.

So what should Barnet do. Firstly they should have an online business register of every firm in the borough and what they do. Companies trading in these business areas should automatically be notified of any tenders for services which they could provide.

4. Tendering for business. The council's process is not transparent. All tenders should be published and advertised. All relevant information regarding the selection of suppliers should also be published as should the costs. Barnet Council claim that this information is commercially sensitive. This is nonsense. Firms should be able to see why they lost the bid. Council Taxpayers should be able to see why decisions were made. If firms don't want the public to know how much they charge, then they don't have to tender. I guarantee that this would deliver the single biggest saving of any measure they could possibly conceive.

The council, in my experience, never engage with local firms who could provide services (unless they are friendly with the owners, maybe?). Let me give you an example. Barnet Council have spent a fortune on renovating Canada Villa and turning it into "Rythmik Sound Studio". This provides rehearsal and recording facilities to young people aged 13-19. One of the reasons the council spent hundreds of theousands of pounds and sought lottery money, was "lack of provision locally".

This rather surprised me as my business "Mill Hill Music Complex" is less than 1 mile down the road. We have 10 fully equipped studios and have been established for 30 years. For a fraction of the cost of starting an operation from scratch, we could have provided a far superior service to the council. Did the council ask my advice as a local business who have done this for 30 years? No. You may ask when I found out about the Rythmik project? In February, when we participated in the Barnet Beat Weekend.

In principle I have no objection whatsoever to anything which improves the facilities for young people in Barnet. I don't particularly see Rythmik as competition, but for what they spent setting it up, they could have provided 10 times the amount of services at our studios. They could have also spent the money on other projects across the Borough where there really is a "lack of provision". As Rythmik are less than a mile down the road, you'd think they'd be talking to us about joint ventures. Are they? No. One of our associate companies put in a bid to Barnet to provide some courses at our studios. What happened? They were told "If you want to do that, you have to do it at Rythmik as we need to make it work". They are now in discussion with other funding providers. They have decided that Barnet are too difficult an organisation to deal with. The program will be a groundbreaking project and will deliver massive benefit to young people. The sad thing is that Barnet Council will be completely excluded, as they tried to force the development of the project down a path which was completely unsuitable.

Let me contrast the attitude of Barnet with that of Harrow Council. We've worked with Harrow for several years on the "Gig in the Park" concert. This gives young people a day out and has been developed in association with the Metropolitan Police. It has a strong anti knife crime message. As a result of our links, we were approached by the Council to assist with the setting up of a project rather similar to Rythmik. I arranged for several site visits to the project and for one of my staff to oversee the procurement of the equpment. As a result of this partnership, we were able to advise on equipment costs and have a far more professionally put together operation. They got a far better studio than they would have otherwise had. Many items which they'd hoped to procure in stage 2 were bought for stage one. They also had two qualified engineers on site to oversee the installation. This wasn't in the original budget.

I've no idea who has advised Barnet on Rythmik, but don't you think it's rather odd that they :-

a) Never sought the advice of a local business less than a mile down the road
b) Never offered a local business less than a mile down the road the opportunity to tender for any of the equipment or maintenance
c) Have never sought to engage in any joint ventures for our shared client base
d) Didn't invite us to the relaunch

Don't get me wrong, I hope Rythmik is a roaring success. After all, their client base will be our client base in a couple of years and the more people who play, the better. We fully participated in the Barnet Beat Weekend, organised by Barnet Council, with all of the other Barnet musical suppliers. I thought it was a great idea. I was just really disappointed that there was no follow up from Barnet with us, as it was clear that we staged a highly successfull day. We had a quick meeting after, I sent a couple of emails suggesting ideas and then nothing. I was especially disappointed that Rythmik never even bothered to get in touch regarding the recent Mill Hill Music Festival. We staged several events over the road at the Church. I suggested to Barnet in February that they stage something at Rythmik to coincide, for young music makers in Mill Hill. They never got back to me.

I've read the Future Shape document several times from cover to cover. It is quite clear to me from their flagship music project, that it is pie in the sky. Future Shape is all about big bucks for big business. If they treat every small business in Barnet like they treat Mill Hill Music Complex, it's no surprise that the Council Tax is so high.

Anyway, if you run a small business and want me to make any suggestions to Mike, please leave a comment.

Which petard shall we hoist Brian Coleman from today?

Q: Which petard shall we hoist Brian Coleman from today?

A: His own !!!!!

Brian Coleman told Paul Waugh at the Evening Standard (in relation to disclosing his expenses) :-

“I won’t do it vountarily. It’s none of the public’s business. They have coped well without knowing this kind of detail for more that 75 years."

“They are not entitled to drool over our personal lives. I’m not going to help the mad, bad and the sad, the bloggers on the internet. I’m not pandering to mob rule. It undermines democracy to suggest that all MPs, all politicians are the spawn of beelzebub.

“Nobody is going to go into public life if they think the minutiae of their grocery bills are going to be looked over.”

When it is pointed out that fellow Tory Andrew Boff managed to pull on the hairiest of hair shirts with zero expense claims, Mr Coleman replies:

“Politicians with lower expenses tend to be the politicians who do least work. Those with higher expenses are the ones who do most work.”

Mr Coleman adds that he has nothing to hide and points out his exes are audited. But he adds:

"I'm from the Boris school of anarchist thinking. If somebody tells me to do something, I don't want to do it."

Lets go through this. Firstly, Brian Coleman doesn't like bloggers does he?

Strange that he used to write a blog for the New Statesman then, here's the directory :-

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/brian-coleman

Brian Coleman doesn't think he should disclose his expenses because "They have coped well without knowing this kind of detail for more that 75 years"

Well in one of his blogs - http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/brian-coleman/2007/12/local-government-service - He 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."

He clearly was operating under a completely different set of rules when he started, which the public new very well. This "75 years" nonsense is pure rubbish. Especially since the GLA only came into being 9 years ago.

Brian Coleman goes on :-

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.

Brian is quite right to criticise these political bungs. he knows all about them. He earns over £100,000 for these grace and favour jobs.

Brian Coleman says that politicians who claim least expenses do the least work. His colleague, James Cleverly, who claimed for a Travelcard and nothing else says on his blog :-

Brian's candour can be refreshing. The by-product of that candour is the occasional gaff.

And his recent comments about expenses, transparency, bloggers and the work rate of fellow Assembly Members sits squarely in the gaff side of the equation.

The only thing I'd disagree with James Cleverly about is the word "occasional".

Finally, Brian Coleman claims that both he and Boris Johnson are anarchists. He may be right. I thought I'd Wiki Anarchism and it says :-

Anarchism is a political philosophy encompassing theories and attitudes which consider the state, as compulsory government, to be unnecessary, harmful, and/or undesirable, and promote the elimination of the state or anarchy. Specific anarchists may have additional criteria for what constitutes anarchism, and they often disagree with each other on what these criteria are. According to The Oxford Companion to Philosophy, "there is no single defining position that all anarchists hold, and those considered anarchists at best share a certain family resemblance."

It certainly looks to me as if Brian Coleman's behaviour could be construed as something which undermines faith in the institutions of the state. I have yet to meet anyone who condones his behaviour. People look at him and say "they are all the same", which is unfair if you look at the expenses of most of the other members (eg James Cleverly, Roger Evans).

I've long wondered why Boris ever promoted Coleman to run the Fire service. If they really are both anarchists as Coleman claims, it is a perfect job for a Boris anarchist henchman. Could this by why Wiki talks about "a certain family resemblance" ???

The worst job in the whole universe !

One of the organisations I despise most is News International. I don't like their papers, I don't like their politics or ethics and I hate the fact I have to give Sky TV nearly £50 a month to watch football. In light of this it gives me great satisfaction to think that the person with the worst job in the world is on their payroll !

Who do I mean? I mean the bloke who's job it is to listen in to the phonecalls of all the celebrities that they were bugging. Just consider some of the victims.

Alan Shearer, Vanessa Feltz, John Prescott, Alex Ferguson to name but a few. Can you imagine how mindnumbingly boring some of these conversations could be, especially with the accents of some of the victims. Have you ever sat next to someone on the train, who is chatting on the phone? Can you imagine having to suffer that for 7 hours a day. Especially if you are expected to come up with juicy scoops. Just imagine the scenario

In the NI Office :
Editor : "Ted, pick up Line 1. We've got Alex Ferguson calling John Prescott, bound to be a story there"
---
Fergie "Aye, Prezza, scoon dein hurgle"
JP: "Oh Hi Alex, I was just putting some peas on to boil"
AF: "Theet Blar scunner, hays a dungle furgle, Scurdle, Yurdle durdle"
JP: "Oh that was at quarter past three"
AF: "Ach aye. Deedle gurdle yet orgle borgle"

20 Minutes later

JP: "Oh Alex that's hilarious"
AF: "Aye, Aye, scurdle durdle and burdle"
JP: "oh yes, Oh yes, Oh Yes"
AF: "aye, aye, scurdle burdle and durdle durdle"
JP: "Oh dear Alex, I've let the peas boil dry, Pauline will be furious, must go"
AF: "Aye, Aye, scurdle durdle"
---
Editor : "Ted, I see the Fergie call has dropped. Any exciting scoops"
Ted (lying through his teeth): "Erm, oh, yes, Fergie told him that he's signing Alan Shearer for £18 Million".
Editor: "Great, we'll make some enquiries"
---

30 Minutes later.
Editor: "Quick Ted, pick up line 1, Shearer's Agent is calling him"
Ted (Rather worried) : "Oh Ok"

Agent: "Hi Alan. The News of the World have just called. They've been tipped off that Manchester United are going to bid £18 million for you !"
AS: "Oh dear. I've just planted some tomatoes in the allotment"
Agent: "But Alan, this is your chance to make a fortune"
AS: "I'm thinking of putting a shed there as well. Do you think Argos will give me a free shed if I say 'I like Argos sheds' next time I score a goal"
Agent: "Alan, Manchester United are GOING TO BID £18 MILLION FOR YOU"
AS: "Look I'd better go, I think we've got greenfly on the runner beans"

Editor : "Ted, what did they say"
Ted: (Lying through his teeth) - "Shearer said he wouldn't go for less than £35 Million and he wants £200,000 A WEEK."
Editor : Great.

20 Minutes later:

Editor : "John Prescott is calling back Fergie. Ted, quick pick up the line"

JP: "Alex, Alex, I've just had Tony on the line. He's livid. He's heard you are going to pay £35 million for Shearer and give him £200,000 a WEEK. Alex he's a Newcastle fan. He watched Jackie Milburn on the terraces for years. He's blowing his top. Apparently MI6 have just intercepted a call from his agent."
AF: "Theet grady scunner sharher wents £200,ooo a wek. The grady battard, the greedy greedy battard. Well yae cun teel ya meet Townee thet, sharher can feek raight arf. Aye wunnae pey the grady battard 50p a wek. Hees troouble, hes a skunner, skin landy gurtle snortle, maust gae"

Editor : "Ted, Ted, whats the news?"
Ted : "Deals off boss, United wouldn't meet his demands" (deep internal relief)

2 minutes later :

Editor: "Ted, Ted, quick pick up line 2 - Vanessa Feltz is calling her fiance"

VF - "Hello darling I'm feeling hot, really hot are you"
Fiance - "yes Darling"
VF - "I'm wearing stockings suspenders and I'm covered in Chocolate..."

At this point Ted, takes off the headset, runs to the top of NI Towers and jumps.

Would you really want that job?

**** John Prescott

John Prescott has the hump because News International may have hacked his mobile phone.

Big ****ing deal. Lets remind ourself what John Prescott did from 1997-2007. He was deputy Prime Minister. Did he get the hump about the RIPA legislation? This supposedly anti terrorism law has been used to catch people letting their dogs foul the footpath. It is a tool of intimidation for many Councils. Did Prescott get thehump about it when he was in power?

Did he get the hump about the complicty of MI5 operatives in torture of British citizens by foreign governments?

Did he get the hump about dodgy intelligence dossiers being used to justify invasions of foreign sovereign country's in the House of Commons?

Did he get the hump over the fact that the government, through GCHQ can read any Internet communication they like, can listen to any phone call and intercept any email?

Did he get the hump when people who he knew had done nothing, were held for years in Guantanamo Bay by the US authorities, purely as a fig leaf for the failed President George Bush.

Sure I accept that the world is a better place withour Saddam Hussein, I accept that sometimes our civil liberties will have to take second place to National security issues, but the British Government has gone way beyond what is reasonable in achieving it's aims. Prescott may not like the fact that the News of The World made him look like a plonker on many occasion, but surely the justification he used time and time again for all of his lousy decisions holds true. If he wasn't up to anything dodgy he had nothing to fear from the surveillance.

I despise the standards and ethics of the News International group, but John Prescott was Tony Blairs figleaf. Without his active participation, keeping Old Labour onside and in check, maybe we'd have got the Government we thought we'd voted for in 1997. I don't have a big problem with Tony Blair. He was following his instincts. John Prescott wasn't. he took the Kings shilling and forgot his principles. If he doesn't like the feeling that his texts were read and his private conversations were listened to, he's in good company with everyone else who's suffered as a result of these practices. I'm sorry, but sometimes it's nice to see people get a taste of their own medicine, however harsh that may sound.

Take your pick - a Tour of Barnet Council's Finest moments

Yet another gem of a press release from Barnet Council - A new scheme to help poor hard up property developers. Ah diddums you think. Interesting to see that of all the people struggling in Barnet, the ones they single out for help are the property developers. How do they plan to do this - by allowing them to defer "section 106" payments for up to 2 years. You may ask what a "section 106" payment is? Well in effect it's a tax that property developers have to pay. In return they make huge profits (although I'm sure some bright spark will point out that it's not a tax - it's a contribution). Anyway, to get planning permission, you sign up to make an agreement to pay this. Now the whole concept of getting the private sector to do things is to take the risk away from the public purse. As ever this works until things go wrong. Then, the white knight taxpayer rides to the rescue, using your cash for a big baleout. Now at the moment, there is a recession. Barnet is a commuter suburb. Many people working in the City have lost their jobs. Has the Council said "you've lost your job, have a 2 year Council tax holiday"? Nope, of course not. You see the Councillors and Officers of Barnet have a rather different relationship with developers to us taxpayers. Earlier this year it was disclosed that a couple of Council officials ran up £5,000 expenses bills attending a property conference in Cannes. That's more than my 2 week family holiday, for 5 people in Florida. I suppose if the developers didn't get the tax breaks, our council officials might not get an invite next year.

Lets do a little tour of Barnet Council's other finest moments.

They went £11 Million over budget on a £12 Million budget with the Bridge replacement project at Aerodrome Road. Why? because they couldn't control Contractor and Partners effectively.

They spent £1.4 million on obsolete laptop computers and warranties for ALL of them, even though a large number were immediately put into storage (Computers which many local schools, OAP's, community groups are crying out for). These are being stored at huge cost to the taxpayer. A clear failure of the council's procurement procedures.

They lost £27.4 Million pounds in Icelandic banks, because senior council officials did not follow their own policy for making investments. A recent report has shown their was no supervision of the individuals making the policy. They were able to throw your cash around like confetti. There is clearly a lack of any form of financial discipline in Barnet council's treasury management team.

Burnt Oak Library refurbishment overran by many months, due to mismanagement of contractors.

They incurred legal costs of £1 Million because they couldn't draw up a contract to sell Underhill to Barnet FC properly.

Lastly (there are plenty more but I'm sure you are busy), and this one is close to my heart because it affected my own dearly departed mum and is probably the reason I started my crusade to sort the council out, the outsourcing of the Meals on Wheels contract to Sodexho.

My Mum, like many old and vulnerable folk in Barnet, relied on the Council for her daily meal. In April 2007, this contract was taken from the Council and given to Sodexho. They constructed rounds where they allowed 3 minutes per drop. Some drivers had to do 40 drops in the llunch period. Some old dears take 3 minutes to answer the door. My mum had several days where her dinner never arrived at all. The stress nearly killed her and I am convinced it contributed to her deterioration and eventual demise. It made her realise her total vulnerability and powerlessness. Why was this done? To save cash. Who benefitted? The shareholders of Sodexho? Who suffered? The weak and the vulnerable. Just to clarify one point. My mum paid for the service. The quality of the meals vastly deteriorated, but the cost stayed the same.

What does all of this tell us? That Barnet Council only care about the rich and the powerful, such as property developers and the shareholders of corporations such as Sodexho. They don't give a stuff about frail pensioners. This has yet again been shown with the cuts to sheltered housing wardens. You may believe them when they say "Yes, but it will save the Taxpayers money", but consider this. They have shown that they can't manage contractors. Aerodrome Road proves this. They don't have procedures to manage outsourcing migration properly - Sodexho & the Meals on Wheels contract proved this. They don't have the expertise to manage their cash, Iceland proved this. They don't have the skills to even manage small projects - Burnt Oak Library proved this. They don't understand procurement or IT. The Laptop fiasco proved this. They don't know how to draw up a legal contract or manage a legal process. The Underhill fiasco proved this.

If I want to back a horse in a race, I check the form of the Horse. Barnet Council have a massive project to privatise the Council called future shape. What are the key elements of outsourcing.

1. Effective contracts
2. Tight financial management
3. Effective controls
4. Effective contractor management
5. Robust service migration planning

Barnet have shown themselves to be useless at all of these. There are high profile, well documented failures to prove it. They say they'll save £11 Million from Future shape. That is how much they overspent on one small bridge replacement project at Aerodrome Road.

So if (when) Future Shape goes wrong and huge bills start arrriving for "out of scope of contract work", who will pay? We will, the old mugs, the taxpayers. Worse than that, the Council will be legally tied to the contractors, so it'll go on for years, regardless of who is in power.

The current regime responsible for all of this came into power when the bloke pictured at the top, Brian Coleman, the man who thinks that a taxi bill of £500 to take him to dinner is good value for the taxpayer, tabled a no confidence motion against the guy who lead the Tories at the last council election. As a result Mike Freer came in and the litany of failure began. In return Freer handed Brian Coleman the job of Mayor, something he has dreamed of for years.

Captain Useless - dishes it out but can't take it

Matthew Offord is in the papers again. It seems that a politically active kid of 15 has rather upset him. It seems he's had the audacity to do the following according to the papers

The 15-year-old, who we cannot name for legal reasons, is said to have bombarded Hendon ward councillor Matthew Offord and the Barnet Conservative office with political enquiries and requests for a meeting until as late as 10pm.

Ah diddums. If he was poking dogmuck through the door or shouting obscenities, maybe I'd have some sympathy, but "asking political queries and requests for meetings". It's rather sad really. Offord called in the police. If he had half a brain, he'd have said to the kid "come with me, watch me canvassing & giving advice and then once you see what I do, I'll answer your questions".

The artcile says that the kid did work experience with Andrew Dismore, he clealry has a much better attitude to youth. Surely Offord should have seen this as an opportunity to recruit a motivated young man. Sure kids can be a pain in the butt, but you don't set the police on them for engaging in political activity in a democracy. I don't know much about the kid, but it tells me all I need to know about Matthew Offord (and Andrew Dismore).

Leader of GLA Tories issues withering rebuke to Brian Coleman

Roger Evans, Leader of the GLA Tories doesn't do stinging rebukes. He's invariably polite. He did however make this comment on his blog today

I see no evidence that people who claim more work harder

Trust me, coming from Roger Evans, in the context it was made, this is as withering a rebuke to Brian Coleman as you are likely to see.

Unlike Coleman's largess, Roger Evans has claimed a London Travelcard.

It rather looks to me as if the Tories are finally getting completely sick and tired of Brian Coleman and his buffoonary. I can't say I blame them. His comments were crassly insulting to GLA Tories such as Roger Evans and James Cleverly who get on with the job and don't take the mickey out of the system.

I hope Mr Coleman has the good manners to publicly apologies to his colleagues on the GLA, for his implied criticism of their work rate. I will say this about Roger Evans. He made some intemperate remarks on his blog about protestors against the Docklands Airport expansion. He realised he'd spoken rashly and out of turn. He issued a fullsome public apology. As a result he persuaded me that he is an honest and decent chap doing his best for London, even though I disagree with his political views.

Let's see if Brian Coleman follows his fine example.

Brian Coleman tells a rather funny joke

I've been contacted by one of my moles, who tells me that Brian Coleman told a rather funny joke about his expenses yesterday (and at his own expense). At least I assume it was a funny joke.

Q: Brian, why don't you just reveal your expenses like the rest of the GLA

A: Because life is much too short !

Or word to that effect. Of course my mole may have made it up to make me look silly, this is the internet after all. If Brian Coleman could contact me to verify the veracity of this, I'd be more than happy to print a clarification. Of course he never ever comments on his expenses, does he?

I'd vote for David Cameron, it's the rest of them ....

Last night Vicki Morris asked Mike Freer, Conservative Leader of Barnet Council if he agreed with this quote from David Cameron.

Right now most people feel totally insignificant in the political process. Frankly, that's because - in the current over-centralised system - they are insignificant. If you're unhappy about decisions made by your council there's very little you can do about it outside election day. We're going to change that by giving people the power to instigate referendums on local issues

Mike Freer said "No I don't, I know better than the people of Barnet" or words to that effect. This was at a public meeting of the Cabinet of Barnet Council Cabinet. As well as the members of the Tory Cabinet, the hall was packed with press and members of the public.

Another quote that I saw from David Cameron :-

"If we win the next election, we’ll be asking the whole country to come together to show social responsibility, personal responsibility and thrift. So the least we can do is to ask Parliament to live by those values as well"

Fine words. But how does one of London's senior Tories view the public? Talking about disclosing his expenses, Brian Coleman said this :-

"I won't do it voluntarily. It's none of the public's business. They have coped well without knowing this kind of detail for more that 75 years"

When David Cameron's son died, it emerged how he had a deep personal commitment to the NHS. I actually believe that he is the first Tory politician who I'd trust with Great Britains finest institution. The thing is, the more Cameron says, the more he seems out of step with his own party. Coleman flaunts his extravagence, when he could quite easily disclose his expenses - what has he got to hide? Freer is in a position to impliment Cameron's suggestions. He's the head of Barnet Council. What happened? He scoffed at the idea. Boris gave Brian Coleman his post at the Fire authority. Has he sacked Coleman? Nope.

The point is whilst I actually trust David Cameron, it is as clear as daylight that the behaviour of his senior colleagues shows they see him as a useful stooge, the acceptable face of Conservatism. As I see it, David Cameron has a choice. He can sack Freer, Coleman and the rest of them and show the PEOPLE of GreatBritain he means business. The other alternative? Well he just plays the stooge & takes the cash for being the frontman. I'm afraid to say that while I have no problem with David Cameron, the rest of the Tory Party are simply beyond the pale. Once he's served his purpose, he's expendeble. Rather like Brian Salinger was when Mike Freer ousted him after Salinger lead the Tories to victory at the last Council elections in Barnet.