Massive CPZ zone for Mill Hill announced for Saracens match day traffic - Update

Earlier this week, the Barnet Eye announced plans for a massive controlled parking zone, which will cover almost all of Mill Hill on match days and run for five  hours (1pm to 6pm) whilst rugby matches last under two hours - http://barneteye.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/saracens-cpz-zone-set-to-turn-mill-hill.html - a fairly big issue you may think. Sadly, the local press don't seem interested. Not a peep about the scheme from either paper. The Barnet Eye is a tadsurprised about the total lack of interest from our local papers. I believe the scheme will cause massive disruption for both businesses and resident.

I also emailed several local politicians including my MP, Matthew Offord, My GLA rep Andrew Dismore, my local councillors John Hart, Brian Schama and Sury Khatri, the leader of the council Richard Cornelius and the cabinet member for parking, Dean Cohen. I stated my objections to the scheme, made some positive suggestions, and asked to be consulted on the scheme. The only response I had was from Andrew Dismore, who agreed with my sentiments. From the rest of them? Not a peep. Not even a "thanks for the email".

What is even more interesting is when we actually look at where our councillors live. I f you look at the map of the area, lots of roads are marked in green as "past this point"  parking. I assume that these will have special restrictions for the match days. What is interesting is that two of the councillors live in the exclusion zone. It seems that neither of their roads have been shaded in in green. This is especially odd as the councillors road (Sherwood Drive) is less than 5 minutes walk from the entrance to Copthall from the Great North way.

When you consider that the councillors house is three times closer to the stadium than Parkside and perhaps four times closeer than Holders Hill Close, which is in the green area, one can only wonder ?

The whole bais for this scheme seems flawed to me. I fully accept that measures have to be taken to control parking, and I fully accept that the area will have to be a fairly large space, given that the stadium only has parking for 700 vehicles. Assuming that Saracens fill the 10,000 seat stadium, that will mean a lot of cars trying to park somewhere. I have no idea if this is true, but I've been told that 10,000 seats is more than all of the council car parking spaces in the London Borough of Barnet.

One avid reader made an excellent point. There is a derelict tube line running from Mill Hill East, directly to the Stadium. This line has long been highlighted as one that could easily and cheapely be reopened. Sponsors of the Brent Cross Light Rail scheme included the link in their plans. It would certainly ease travel problems if the spur was reopened for match days. As the track is already there, I can't believe that the costs would be too prohibitive. It would also be highly useful for people visiting Copthall Swimming pool and for pupils and staff of the local schools. It would also make it much easier for Mill Hill residents to access Finchley Memorial and Barnet General hospitals if the shuttle service was made a regular pattern. Sadly Saracens have expressed no interest in this scheme.

I am dismayed that there seems to be no interest in the matter at all from our MP. Mr Offord replied to me saying that he only looked at correspondence with my address on it. A lame excuse indeed, given that he knows me quite well.

I wish Saracens well for their plans at Copthall. The stadium did need developing and their plans will hopefully add much needed sports facilities for the Borough. The downside is that no thought at all has been givento traffic management. Given that Saracens have no association with Mill Hill, having been based in Watford, it is clear that most fans will drive to the stadium. One suspects that this will cause havoc and that Mill Hill residents will not forgive their Tory councillo9rs in 2014, when the fulle xtent of the mayhem has dawned on the residents. maybe that is why our councillors can't be bothered. they know they are doomed, so why bother?

Saracens CPZ zone set to turn Mill Hill into a wasteland !

Barnet Council have just released a map showing the extents of parking chaos and disruption which will be caused to Mill Hill by the arrival of Saracens at Barnet Copthall Stadium. The extent of the "match day CPZ" is humungous, extending on the western side from Mill Hill Broadway Station in Station Road, to the large viaduct on Dollis Road in the East. The most northerly point is Hartley Avenue (just off Mill Hill Broadway) and the the most southerly point is Church Road Finchley.

The zone operates from the 1pm to 6pm on match days and other times if match times vary. What this means is that most of Mill Hill's residents will not be able to have visitors on the days that Saracens are playing. For many working people, Saturdays are the prime time for visiting relatives. What about the effect on the shops in Mill Hill Broadway? The new CPZ will remove much of the parking for the Broadway on the Woodlands Way/Sylvan Avenue roads. After the abolition of Pay as You Go, this is yet another blow for traders.

I have to state a vested interest here. My business is in Bunns Lane Works, which is also included. Whilst on the face of it, this shouldn't affect us, as we have off street parking, given the size and extent of the zone, we may well suffer as inconsiderate car owners try and park on our properties.

The plan exposes the lies that were peddled that there is ample parking provision at the stadium. If this were true, then we wouldn't need this massive exclusion area. All along, Mill Hill residents have had suspicions that they have been taken for a ride. This is now proven by this map.

It is quite clear what will happen. As ever Barnet Council have not thought this through at all. Roads on the edge of the zone, with access to the 221 bus, which serves the stadium will be stuffed full of cars. The roads slightly nearer will be dead, with residents unable to have visitors. Businesses in Mill Hill Broadway, Mill Hill East, Salcolme Gardens etc will see a massive downturn in business.

The timings for the CPZ are truly idiotic and show just how out of touch Barnet Council are. The solution is so simple and obvious. If the time of the match is 3pm-5pm, make the exclusion zone from 3.30pm to 4.30pm. That way, Rugby traffic will not be able to park, as they will miss the match, but the rest of us will not be largely inconvenienced. How hard is that to figure out?

If you are a Mill Hill resident or a Mill Hill based business, please contact your local councillors ASAP and let them know what you think.

As I am sure you guessed, I will be.

Their email accounts are :
cllr.j.hart@barnet.gov.uk
cllr.s.Khatri@Barnet.gov.uk
Cllr.B.Schama@Barnet.gov.uk

The DPR giving details is here

http://barnet.moderngov.co.uk/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?ID=4285

Here is the map

Saracens CPZ Map

Barnet Council sneak through plans for a new Highway through the heart of Mill Hill

As ever, if Barnet Council want to sneak through a highly contentious and divisive issue, they do it on the sly. Typically they will do this as a Delegated Powers Report, which doesn't require discussion by the Council, which is done by officers with no democratic discussion. Secondly, they will do it in the middle of August, when no one is looking. Thirdly they will give the DPR a very neutral name, which disguises the real meaning of what is being done.

So it is again this year. I happened to notice this DPR -  http://barnet.moderngov.co.uk/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?ID=4259 - entitled "Highway Improvements to Bittacy Hill". Who could possibly think that such a DPR, signed off by Pam Wharfe, Interim director of Environment, Regeneration and Planning could possibly be in any way contentious? Nothing in there to worry about?

Think again. Behind the bland title, there is a huge scheme being implimented, by stealth and with no democratic debate or accountability. This scheme will effectively divide Mill Hill in two halfs and threaten a nature reserve. It will blight many homes and will have a huge effect on traffic levels through the Borough.

The real intention of what is being done is only mentioned briefly in section 8.3. It says

The proposed highway works will entail the reconstruction of the existing Bray Road access to the proposed development as part of the proposed East-West link road at its junction with Bittacy Hill

If you look carefully at the map associated with the plan, their is a big arrow at the edge of the development, directing traffic down Sanders Lane. If you look at Google, this road is shown as one long road. The road actually becomes a footpath, through a nature reserve shortly after Brownsea Walk. Barnet Council Highways department have long dreamed of making a highway from the Mill Hill East development, down Sanders Lane, into Tavistock Avenue, across Pursley Road, Down Ashley Walk, across Copthall Open Space and down to the A1, making a major intersection. This road would effectively divide Mill Hill and Mill East in two. Traffic would proliferate and huge numbers of homes, which are currently quiet roads in cul-de-sacs would become blighted by constant traffic.

The fact this is being snuck through is typical of the way Barnet Council operate. I will be writing to our local Councillors to insist they call this in and get the Highways department to explain their true intentions. I will also be notifying the Mill Hill Preservation Society and other local pressure groups.

If the council persist with this plan, I would suggest that this would spell the end of the Conservatives in Mill Hill and the end of Mill Hill as a nice place to live. I will publish the response from Councillors Hart, Schama and Khatri in due course. I will also be emailing Councillor Brian Coleman and Dean Cohen. I wish to know the true intentions of the Council in this respect and I suspect only Brian Coleman really knows. Finally, I will be emailing Pam Wharfe for the full details of the plan. As ever, nothing surprises me with Barnet Council. The Email to Ms Wharfe will be under the auspices of a Freedom of Information request.

1742 - Highway Improvements at Bittacy Hill


Map Bray Road

Brian Coleman induced parking mayhem spreads across Barnet

Earlier in the week, we learned that Councillor Brian Colemans decision to abolish free parking bays last year had caused mayem on Bittacy Hill. Buses were held up, the Police had got involved, local residents were inconvenienced and traffic flow was impaired. As parking restrictions are designed to "improve traffic flow", it is clear that Coleman has produced a policy which doesn't work. Not only that, it may be illegal, as it is clearly a revenue raising move (yet another Colemanite Stealth tax).

It appears that Bittacy Hill is not the only place in Barnet to be under the "Coleman Cosh". The Barnet Eye today learned that Bunns Lane in Mill Hill is also suffering. As with the Bittacy Hill cock up, Barnet Council have tried to bury the bad news, by releasing the information as an officer released DPR. Clearly Brian Coleman wants no association with the failure of his policy to be associated with him, in the run up to the GLA elections.

Here is a link to the report
http://committeepapers.barnet.gov.uk/democracy/reports/reportdetail.asp?ReportID=11121

And here is what its says Colemans policies have done to traffic in Bunns Lane Mill Hill.

8. BACKGROUND INFORMATION

8.1 

Bunns Lane/Grahame Park Way NW7

In June 2011 the Council completed a scheme whereby all ‘Free’ parking bays

were converted to permit holder or paid for parking bays in the borough’s Controlled
Parking Zones (CPZs). Subsequent to the changes being made to the Mill Hill CPZ,
Councillor Rayner and TFL have reported that an increased level of parking is
occurring on both sides of Bunns Lane between the junction of Woodcroft Avenue
and the mini roundabout at the junction with Grahame Park Way which is just
outside of the CPZ boundary.

8.2 Bunns Lane has seen an increase in parking activity since the removal of the free

bays in the adjoining CPZ by motorists, suspected to be commuters using the local
transport links parking their vehicles throughout the day. Motorists are parking as
close as possible to the current restrictions which is causing obstruction for larger
vehicles including buses and commercial vehicles resulting in an increase in

congestion along this section of Bunns Lane. A site visit by Officers and Councillor

Rayner confirmed that obstructive parking is detrimental to traffic flow.

8.3 As a result of these observations, it is intended to propose and implement ‘At Any

Time’ waiting restrictions in lengths of Bunns Lane and Grahame Park Way, in
order to improve traffic flow along these stretches of road:

8.4 In addition, it is also proposed to extend the existing Monday to Saturday 8am to

6.30pm waiting restrictions in Bunns Lane for a short length. The proposal is
shown on the drawing 21729/744 appended to this report.

8.5 Councillor Rayner has since reaffirmed his views and support for the proposals. In

particular, Councillor Rayner advised of his concerns regarding safety being an
issue at this location.

8.6 All Hale Ward and Mill Hill Ward Members have been consulted on the proposals

Councillor Sury Khatri has confirmed his support for the measures.
As one may have come to expect from our useless and cowardly Mill Hill and Hale Ward Tory Councillors, there has been no attempt to stand up for the hard pressed commuters of Mill Hill, who resnet being stung by extortionate car packing charges at Mill Hill Broadway Station car park. These were hiked to £5 a day last year. Who can blame ordinary working people for wishing to try and avoid such daylight robbery. There is no mention from them that prior to Brian Colemans cash grabbing abolition of Free bays, this wasn't a problem. There is no mention of the fact that there is widespread opposition to the CPZ parking hikes.

Section 8.6 gives  the game away. Of six councillors informed of the changes affecting their ward, only one Sury Khatri appears to have bothered to respond. What does this tell us about the Conservative Councillors who now represent Mill Hill and Hale Ward. It strikes me as likely that the council planned to roll out these sort of sneaky parking restrictions across the Borough, under the radar as officer approved DPR's. I urge the opposition Labour and Lib Dem councillors to call all of these in for review to expose Colemans policies for the abject failure and cash grab, which everyone knows they are.

I stood for election in May 2010 for Mill Hill Ward. I lost out to the Conservatives. They get [paid thousands of pounds a year to represent the people of Mill Hill. This DPR lays bare just how useless and lazy they are. How hard is it to read your paperwork and let the Council know when the people you represent are being fleeced. Brian Coleman has materially damaged the infrastructure of Mill Hill, with his cash grabbing policies and our councillors are to scared of him to say a dickie bird about it. Shame on all of them. As to the Hale Councillors, they are even more useless. Tome Davey is on the Cabinet and has waved all of these Tax the motorist policies through, stopping only to abuse people on benefits at every opportunity. Councillor Hugh Rayner is the chairman of the Local Conservative Party and so is clearly hand in glove with Coleman and his grab your cash policies. As to the other Hale Councillor, he's so useless, I can't even remember his name. Maybe he's the invisible man. Maybe he's a figment of Councillor Robert Rams imagination. If he's ever lifted a finger to stop the good people of Hale Ward being ripped off by Brian Coleman please feel free to add a comment, because he must have done it in secret.

The Barnet Eye will continue to fight to save the hard pressed families and commuters of Mill Hill from the cash grabbing excesses of Brian Coleman and his policies of Stealth taxation. It seems that in Mill Hill, you only see Tory Councillors when they want your vote. You will find the Barnet Eye here 365 days a year fighting for you. Enjoy your Easter

Here is the full document for your perusal
1604 - Introduction of Waiting Restrictions

Official document prove Brian Colemans parking policies are a disaster

Have you noticed how people in Barnet seem to be parking their cars in the strangest places, how congestion has got worse recently, how roads which previously were quiet are now awash with cars during the daY?

Last July Councillor Brian Coleman sneaked through a whole raft of changes to Parking restrictions in Barnet. He is well known for his stealth tax his parking policies. The five main ones, which have affected just about everyone are as follows :-

1) Hiking up parking charges on High Streets and car parks, driving away customers and shutting shops
2) Aboloshing pay and display parking on High Streets
3) Hiking up the price of Resident CPZ permits
4) Abolition of "free bays" in Resident CPZ parking zones
5) Outsourcing the parking warden contract to a company with a reputation for overzealous enforcement

All of these measures are designed to do one thing. Squeeze more money out of motorists and residents. Sadly for Brian Coleman (and the rest of us), not only have these policies failed miserably in their target of raising extra cash ( rumour has it that the parking account is down by £500,000 as people shun council car parks). As people have sought free spaces outside of the restrictions, roads have become clogged, congestion has risen and residents have been inconvenienced.

Given that the sole purpose of parking restrictions is to "ease the flow of traffic", this means that the policy has not only been an abject failure, but it is probably illegal. Coleman cannot claim that the policy is to ease traffic flow, because papers published on the Council website prove this is not the case. The Barnet Eye suggests that a judicial review should be performed of Colemans policies and in the meantime they should be reversed. The complete failure of Colemans policies are laid bare in this document on the Barnet Council website -
http://committeepapers.barnet.gov.uk/democracy/reports/reportdetail.asp?ReportID=11110

Let me quote the document :-

8. BACKGROUND INFORMATION

8.1 In June 2011 the Council completed a scheme whereby all ‘Free’ parking bays were converted to permit holder or paid for parking bays in the borough’s Controlled Parking Zones (CPZs). As a result of the changes made to the Mill Hill East CPZ, a proportionate level of displaced parking is occurring on both sides of Bittacy Hill on the outskirts of the CPZ boundary.

8.2 The council has been contacted by roads users and local residents, complaining of the congestion being caused as through vehicles are being obstructed by the displaced parking.

8.3 London Buses have reported to the council that the displaced parking is obscuring sightlines and obstructing through traffic, preventing their buses from gaining suitable access through the road, resulting in the delay of their services. They also stated that this situation has caused major congestion in both directions on Bittacy Hill and therefore, have had to temporarily put some of their buses on diversion.

8.4 In addition, the Police have also expressed concerns regarding this location, and have requested for waiting restrictions to be introduced.

8.5 Following investigations including site observations, Officers concluded that major congestion occurs on the hill at this location, and in order to keep traffic movingthrough the borough considered that the provision of waiting restrictions would be appropriate given the obstructive parking which is taking place.

8.6 Therefore, proposals to introduce lengths of ‘at any time’ waiting restrictions on certain lengths of Bittacy Hill including around its junctions with Bittacy Close and Engle Park, were designed in order to deter obstructive parking and improve traffic flow, sightlines and safety.

8.7 In anticipation of the statutory consultation, Mill Hill Ward Members were consulted on the proposals with all advising of their agreement and support of the measures for the area. In particular, Councillors Khatri and Hart stated that they had also received complaints on this matter or have experienced problems themselves. Councillor Hart did raise the issue that more restrictions may cause more problems to the wider area as did Councillor Schama.

8.8 However, Officers consider that any displaced parking that may occur as a result of the introduction of the restrictions can be absorbed into the local network with
minimal impact.

8.9 In mid August it was necessary to introduce emergency temporary waiting restrictions on the eastern side of Bittacy Hill, as nearby Devonshire Road was closed to allow for essential maintenance works to take place, which resulted in an increased traffic flow on Bittacy Hill that exasperated the problems occurring at the location.

8.9 Traffic cones were placed on street to indicate the temporary waiting restrictions, and the location was monitored by Officers. Observations showed that displaced parking was minimal and what did occur had little impact on the area. It was concluded that the removal of the parked vehicles at this location was very effective in relieving the congestion normally experienced.

8.10 Additional supporting evidence underlining the concern via photographs showing buses being obstructed and the congestion experienced were sent to the council and a petition signed by all residents of Bittacy Close was also submitted, asking for waiting restrictions to be implemented at the junction of Bittacy Close and Bittacy Hill.

8.14 Councillor Khatri and Councillor Hart have since also reaffirmed their views and support for the proposals. In particular, they advised of their concerns regarding safety being an issue at this location. Councillor Hart also re-iterated his concerns for residents of Bittacy Close, who suffer from obstruction at the junction of Bittacy Close and Bittacy Hill.

Here is the full document for your perusal.

Bittacy Hill Parking restrictions

This document lays bare the failure of the parking policies of Brian Coleman. It exposes the fact that rather than easing traffic flow, they are creating mayhem, tying up Police resources, ruining the lives of residents, making buses late and worst of all threatening public safety. In short Brian Coleman and his polices have been thoroughly discredited. Even worse is the fact that rather than admit that Colemans policies are to blame, the lame Mill Hill Conservative Councillors have buried their heads in the sand and refused to address the real cause of the problem.

The Barnet Eye will today be contacting local press, local councillors and the Leadership of Barnet Council to demand a full review of the disaster which Brian Coleman has inflicted on the London Borough of Barnet. Is there anyone in Barnet who seriously thinks that Brian Coleman deserves re-election for a £52,000 a year part time job at the GLA in MAy? His level of competence is laid bare here.

Barnet Council Audit Committee - 8th December 2011

So off I trundled to the Barnet Council Audit Committee earlier this evening. Due to other commitments, I could only stay for 1 hour. To be honest, I only bothered going to give my fellow bloggers Mr Reasonable and Mrs Angry moral support, as they had asked a few questions. Lord Mustard also attended. I expect this to be the best blogged meeting in the history of Barnet Council and it's audit committee. As I sloped off early, this account will doubtless be the worst and least comprehensive. I also video'd the public questions for posterity and also managed to capture a rather comedic moment (which I will post over the weekend to cheer you all up). So these are my notes from the part of the meeting, where I wasn't videoing and wasn't skiving off (approx 7.30pm - 8pm).

The committee were reviewing the external auditors report from Grant Thornton. It kicked off with one of my favourite Tory Councillors, Brian Schama asking a very good question. I like Schama. he's straightforward, plain talking and sensible. If I had to have a Tory Councillor in Mill Hill, Brian is the one I'd pick. He actually does the job, which is what we all want (isn't it?) and does it in a reasonable and decent manner. I suspect that if his colleagues were all like him, there wouldn't be a famous five bloggers. His question "Now we have a system for vetting contracts, can we be assurred that all new contracts, apart from emergency ones, where there is no time for proper vetting and which there should be an exception procedure for, will be 100% compliant with Barnets rules?" And the answer was? Well it was extremely long, three people answered it and at the end, no one was any the wiser. It was "Yes of course, that is the target, but..."

Hugh Rayner, who is also a reasonably useful committee member drew attention to the fact that the auditors used terms like "Reasonably good, quite satisfactory" a lot. They never said "outstanding or marvellous"  Why was this Hugh asked (he could have asked a few bloggers who were sitting in the audience and we'd have told him for far less than the rate Grant Thornton charge). The auditors replied rather diplomatically "We said this, because this is how auditors describe things". Barnet Council officer Maria Christophou (excuse any misspelling) chipped in "of 19 categories in the report, 16 have been flagged as green and only 3 amber, that speaks volumes" with pride. She seems to think that it is OK that three of the audit criteria being at risk is something to be proud of. If my car had an MOT and they said 16 categories were fine, but the brakes were at risk of failing, the tyres were nearly bald and the subframe was in danger of collapse through corrosion , would you buy the care from me? Sorry Maria, boast about it when 19 categories are green. If three are at risk, then over 15% of the criteria is not working properly and that is a major failure.

Then there was a question about budget performance. Why was this amber? The man from audit stated that this was because they had underspent £49.5 million on the schools infrastructure budget. This is a scandal. Barnet is struggling to find places to accomodate our children and educate them, yet they have £49.5 million sitting in the bank, because they are to incompetent to organise the work. This money hasn't been cut or saved, it just hasn't been spent on allocated projects, because the council is too useless to get its act together. If you are a parent with a child about to apply for a school place, bear this in mind.

A question was asked about One Barnet. The man from Grant Thornton made a stunning revelation, which nobody (apart from me apparently) seemed to pick up on. "There is no such thing as "The One Barnet project" there are just lots of different outsourcing projects lumped together under the name. The One Barnet project is really many projects, each with a different objective and outcome". Various bloggers have commented that One Barnet may have a name change. It seems that Grant Thornton have a better idea, abolish it all together and replace it with lots of Mini Multi Barnets. Lord Palmer said he opposed One Barnet, but it wasn't his job to make the decision. He then said he could run the Council far better than the current administration. Everyone in the room laughed, some ironically, some mockingly and some (like me) because for all his faults, he's probably right. Then again Kermit the frog could probably run it better than the current administration.

Geof Cook  asked a question was asked as to why only contracts greater than £25K were on SAP, and why the contract register was on an excel spreadsheet, wouldn't it be better if all contracts were on SAP, so there wasn't duplicate entries. The man from Grant Thornton said  "I'm always in favour of efficiency". Cook asked if having two systems, meant twice the errors. Head of Audit, MaryEllen Salter replied, that you'd get the same rate of errors if you only had one system. I flet like saying that you'd have twice as long to check it though, so more chance of getting it right, but we the public merely watch like goldfish.

The last question I heard was from Geoff Cook. He asked about the parking fiasco and the 7% drop in revenues. Lord Palmer pointed out that the audit report only went up until September, before the fiasco was implemented. Geof Cook suggested it would be good if the audit committee could get involved before things went completely tits up. Lord Palmer suggested this was actually quite a good idea and that maybe they could have more meetings. A certain council officer rolled her eyes and had the look of someone who'd rather be eaten by crocodiles.

And that my friends, is the point at which I bade everyone a fond goodbye.

When I got home, I received an email from a friend who stayed. It was entitled "Whitewash" and simply had the text "What can you say".

Indeed. We have video'd the meeting. Strangely, its only when I watch this again that I realise the full terrible truth of what Barnet Council really is like. watch this space

Metpro Scandal - Barnet Council, a model of openness, decency and transparency

The blog I am about to write will probably shock regular readers - Please sit down before reading - This is not a full report, it just gives you a flavour of the atmosphere.

Tonight, the Barnet Council Audit committee, under the chairmanship of the ubiquitous Lord Palmer, met to discuss the report into the Metpro Scandal. Had a friend from Mars, who had never experienced the workings of Barnet Council before attended, he would have been mightily impressed at the way we do business in Barnet.

Let me set the scene. Of all the various committees in Barnet Council, the Audit committee is probably the dryest, most technical and dullest. It is the only chair which is occupied by an opposition councillor (to ensure a degree of fair play). The meetings are long and rather unexciting. Generally members are sent there because the leader doesn't like them (or because they are accountants who enjoy such jobs). On a good day, one or two members of the public may turn up (one of which is ex Councillor Daniel Hope). Tonight was different.

Tonight the public gallery had maybe 35 people in it, including most of the Barnet bloggers. It started with Lord Palmer praising the efforts of Citizens and bloggers. Without them the scandal would not have been uncovered. Now whilst Lord Palmer isn't the worlds most charismatic chairman, he tried to give lengthy and detailed explanations. He promised to provide written copy of answers, he answered a couple of extra questions. My Martian friend was impressed at such a diligent and decent chair. Then the head of audit presented her report. No punches pulled. The whole system of managing contractors in Barnet is a mess. It doesn't work (or at least there is no evidence that it does work). My Martian friend commented that on his planet such things were hushed up. Then Brian Schama, a Tory Councillor asked his questions. They could have not been more peircing. A whole bevvy of lefty bloggers burst into spontaneous applause when he finished. My Martian friend commented that on Mars, the politics are partisan. He was most impressed. Councillor Hugh Rayner, another Tory asked if the details of questions would be made public. More applause. Hugh Rayner said that he wasn't an expert, but seemed most upset that such a damning report could be written about his council - Such concern for the taxpayer and the openness of the process. My Martian friend commented that in his council on Mars, councillors treated taxpayers with contempt.
John Dix, AKA Mr Reasonable addressed the committee for five minutes. He ran out of time mid sentence. Lord Palmer graciously allowed him to finish what he was saying. Councillors from both the Tory and Labour groups asked him sensible questions. The independent member of the committee spoke, again making complete sense. My friend from Mars was even more impressed. This Barnet Council is a model of openness, decency and transparancy he commented.

After approx an hour and a half of unending scathing comments about the Council, I had to leave. The meeting went on for at least 2 more hours. I must applaud Councillors Palmer, Schama, Cook  and Rayner for doing their very best to conduct the meeting with decorum.  Unlike many Barnet Council meetings (which my Martian friend hasn't attended), the public were treated with respect. There was no attempt to prevent the public from filming the meeting and the public were acknowledged for their positive contribution to Barnet.

The audit committee announced that it was not their role to instigate disciplinary proceedings. That is batted back to the Council officials, who have to discipline themselves and their peers. At long last the Councillors of Barnet get it. The system doesn't work. No one seemed more unimpressed than Brian Schama. The questions he asked could have been written in this blog by yours truly. The Audit report shows failure and negligence. It revealed that many of the important issues couldn't be answered. It wasn't clear whether this was due to negligence or conspiracy. I do wonder whether the answers may be more forthcoming under Police caution.

So what has Lord Palmers audit established. Perhaps the most important thing for me is that it has shown that Barnet Council can conduct it's business without insulting, patronising or haranging the public. It shows that the public are interested. Then there are a couple of minor, subsidiary issues.

It shows that the Council processes are not up to the job of managing the existing contracts, let alone a whole new swathe in the One Barnet Process.

And the least important thing that was said all night was a throwaway comment by Lord Palmer. He said that Barnet Councillors have 3 auditors as permanent staff plus another 1.5 people available from outside firms. This for a business with a £1 billion turnover and 220,000 people who deal with it. Lord Palmer saidthis was hopelessly inadequate. Of the 100's of suppliers, they were only auditing 10 !!! They had to pull staff away from other vital work to do the Metpro audit. In short, they do not have the manpower to prevent fraud, abuse and incompetence. As I said, a nice meeting where nothing much happened.

The big Brian Coleman conspiracy

VickiM57 got a great scoop today - the letter Brian Coleman sent to Brian Schama in response to his private letter to Coleman. As you can see, Coleman copied the world in on his response (well the Barnet Tory world), including Schama's private comments. Here's what Coleman said, for those who haven't seen  Vicki's blog
--------------
From: Coleman, Cllr Brian Conservative
Sent: 10 September 2010 19:07
To: BSchama@aol.com
Cc: Prentice, Cllr Wendy Conservative; Hillan, Cllr Lynne Conservative; Harper, Cllr Andrew Conservative; Scannell, Cllr Joan Conservative; Rayner, Cllr Hugh Conservative; Cohen, Cllr Melvin Conservative
Subject: RE: Council Meeting September 14th. Agenda Item: 3.6

In view of the contents of this e mail , which I assume is notification that you cannot support a vote of Confidence in our Administration despite the result of the ballot at the Group I assume this means that you have resigned the Conservative Whip

As I am sure you will appreciate this is a serious matter and I ask you to reflect as of course if you intend to sit as an Independent appropriate arrangements will have to be made

Kind regards

-----
So who benefits from this being leaked? Well it sends a strong message to all of those lilley livered Tory Barnet wets who were thinking of voting against Hillan. Who could have leaked it? Why to Vicki's blog?  A conspiracy theorist might say "Well who wants to send a message via a leaked email to a blog, but hates Don't Call Me Dave, Dan Hope and Rog T and wouldn't want to give them a scoop? I can't think of such a person in Barnet.

You know us bloggers in Barnet are really quite competetive and it makes me wonder who I could have upset recently enough to send such a scoop to a "well known Trades Unionist". I clearly have been buttering up the wrong people with my offers of free pot noodles.

Reports reach me that Brian Coleman has been looking rather happy all day. Maybe he's won £10 on the lottery.

On a serious note - the main thing is we can now see exactly how Coleman operates. Schama sends a private email to him and Coleman tries to destroy him. If Coleman was really intererested in doing his job, he'd have nipped round to see Schama and explained the need for group unity at this time and told him to develop a headache on the night (a La Brian Salinger) if he really couldn't support Hillan. As it is he's guaranteed that Brian Schama has to vote against Hillan and suffer the consequences. Really quite nasty, but just about par for the course. Coleman knew this when he copied the rest of the group, he knew that it would all make it's way into the public domain.

One other thing I noticed. Whoever sent Vicki the email didn't mask Schama's private email, whereas whoever sent me Brians original email did. Any clue there?

Brian Schama's email to Brian Coleman

Leaked to me by an anonymous source -  I was wrong in my guess. Brian Schama was the Councillor who upset Brian Coleman. I am hoping to receive the reply. So I think we now know two of the three Councillors who are going to lose the whip. Any guesses on the third?

As soon as I get hold of Colemans reply I will post it
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Brian Schama
To: cllr.b.coleman@barnet.gov.uk
Sent: Fri, 10 September, 2010 18:24:00
Subject: Council Meeting September 14th. Agenda Item: 3.6

Dear Brian 

I am a loyal supporter of David Cameron, who I believe epitomises the wish of all genuine Conservatives to find the right solution to our current financial problems at both national and local level, and I fully support him and the Coalition in this very difficult task.

Lynne's stance on Allowances has embarrassed him and the Party I support.  Grant Shapps made this very clear publicly and still she did not listen.  I would like to be free to look after the best interests of the residents of our Borough and my Mill Hill Ward.

I have no problem with how the Leadership election was conducted which, so far as we know, was in a professional and fair manner. Nonetheless, nearly half the Conservative Group voted for Mark Shooter as Leader and this has further weakened Lynne Hillan's credibility.

As you are aware, the Council now needs to make a number of extremely tough decisions when reviewing funding and public resources.  For Lynne to have chosen this very time to attempt to push through an obscene pay increase for herself and her closest cabinet and committee chairman  colleagues demonstrated once and for all that she lacks the sense, sensitivity and judgement required of a leader.

As you also well know, a number of her Conservative colleagues - both old and new - advised her that this course was wrong.  She refused to listen to reason and instead cynically persisted in attempting to justify the increases and only backtracked when she found herself caught in the relentless glare of adverse publicity, destroying the last of her personal credibility in the process.

Even now she still simply does not understand that the public want - and are entitled - to know exactly who is receiving an increased allowance and how much the increase is in each individual case, including the Chairman of her various Committees.  Yet in attempting to explain her new "fallback" proposal she has signally failed to itemise both her own and her Cabinet & Committee colleagues' actual existing allowances and their proposed new allowances in a way that is transparent to our residents.

Every difficult Council and Group decision which has to be taken in the months ahead will now be tainted by her personal history of cynical allowance manipulation.

I would like to be free to vote in the best interests of the residents who I have the honour to represent and to do so with a clear conscience, without my loyalties divided between our national leader (whom I respect) and our local leader (who I do not).

I would be happy to support Andrew Harper, as Leader as I believe he stands the best chance of uniting our troubled group, supported by Mark Shooter as Deputy Leader with special responsibility for fiscal matters. 

This is the only way that our Conservative group  can unite again and go forward

 Of course, you will need to seriously change your personal style if they are to succeed.

I want you to know that I bear you no personal animosity and I take this opportunity to wish you and your family "Shanah Tovah".

Regards,

Brian

Hugh Rayner - The voice of sanity in the Barnet Conservatives

Earlier this evening (saturday), I happened to bump into a rather upset and rather "tired and emotional" Barnet Conservative party activist. "Pray what could be troubling you my friend" I enquired. "Brian Coleman has been at it again".

To cut a long story short. A Mill Hill Conservative Councillor - unnamed - sent an email to Brian Coleman with a list of grumbles about the way that the Barnet Conservatives are being run by Lynne Hillan. It appears that this was a private email with some constructive suggestions as to the way forward (allegedly).

Anyway, from what I've been told, Brian Coleman reacted with his usual charm and pleasantry. He emailed the whole group and basically told the said councillor that he'd been sacked as a Tory.

It appears that Hugh Rayner immediately sent the unnamed Mill Hill Councillor an email saying "Don't respond to Brian, come and have a chat with me first". From what I can glean, Hugh Rayner has realised that with a vote of confidence in Lynne Hillan coming up on Tuesday, Brian Coleman has rather jumped the gun in sacking said councillor. My source had spoken to said councillor about what to do, as they were rather upset by the whole issue.

Sadly I don't know the identity of the said Councillor as my friend suddenly realised he'd made rather a boo boo in telling me all of this. I guess this can be ascertained when I serve an FOI request on Brian Colemans council correspondence. I am taking a wild guess here, but the odds are as follows

John Hart  - 4/11
Brian Schama - 2/1
Sury Khatri - 14/1

There is a free pot noodle for any Conservative Councillor who sends me a copy of Brian Colemans email before the vote on Tuesday (so long as they declare it, he he he). I will of course immediately post it here.  Oh and if I've got the odds wrong, I apologise profusely to all concerned.

Anyway, I must confess I'd given up on the leadership issue as a dead duck, assuming that all of the Barnet Tories would toe the line. It appears that I couldn't have been more wrong.

A few words for Councillor Brian Schama

In amongst the news that Lynne Hillan beat Mark Shooter for the Leadership was the news that Wendy Prentice beat Brian Schama by 19-18 for the Tory group chair position. Brian Schama is a councillor for Mill Hill. He beat me when I stood for the Lib Dems in May.  As we stood on the podium receiving the news (which we'd already been told) that we'd lost, I shook Brians hand. I wished him well and asked him to do the right thing for the people of Mill Hill.

As Brian has been a stalwart supporter of Mark Shooters bid, emailing all Tory Councillors to explain his feelings, a thought occurs to me. As the result was announced, Brian Coleman (then Mayor and returning officer) shrieked with glee "I've beaten Tichborne, I've shown him" ignoring the fact that he hadn't, John Hart, Suri Khatri and Brian Schama had won in Mill Hill. It took Brian Schama less than two months in close proximity to Brian Coleman to reach the same conclusion that I had. In a rather strange twist of fate, Brian Schama has done more damage to Colemans credibility than I ever could have hoped as a member of the opposition.

Things have a funny way of working out. I suspect I'm a better blogger than I would have been a councillor. Brian Schama is a BIGGER THREAT TO COLEMAN AS A COUNCILLOR THAN I COULD EVER HAVE BEEN. Call it the Lord working in mysterious ways, call it Karma, call it the Universe at work, this is justice at work.  I like Brian Schama, he's a decent bloke with a good sense of humour. Don't agree with his politics, but can't fault his motivation. I believe that he's done Mill Hill proud. I believe he still has a role to play as this unwinds. Brian Schama has accumilated a solid support in a short time. I have a few words for Brian - Rome wasn't built in a day.

Tory Leadership contest - you couldn't make it up - Councillors Letter to Lynne Hillan

Tory Councillor for Mill Hill, Brian Schama sent an email to the Leader of Barnet Council, Lynne Hillan, telling her what he thinks of her. Someone who was disgusted with him for doing this, sent it to someone else who was disgusted with him doing this. They sent it to someone else who they thought would be disgusted with him. They sent it to me - Enjoy

Dear Lynne

I have thought long and hard before writing this letter to you. I have been a loyal and enthusiastic member of the Conservative Party for very many years and of the Barnet community (where I have had the pleasure to live for over 50 years).

The events and the judgements you have made over the past few months have lead me to become ashamed to be your colleague.

I made my opinion clear to you and the Conservative Group at the first special meeting that you called, on June 27th, to discuss your preposterous proposal to increase the Leader and Cabinet allowances at this time.

Your Whip made it clear in a subsequent email to me that I could not vote as a matter of conscience, as I had requested, and that I would have to vote in favour of the majority view.

I felt manipulated but as a newly elected councillor was not sure what more I could do.

The public humiliation meted out to Cllr Kate Salinger was obscene bullying. I was ashamed to have you as my leader as you lashed out at someone who has served the Barnet Community with honour and dedication over many years.

You appear to be cynically determined to suckle as much as you can from the Barnet Civic teat and I consider your action to be a dereliction of your duty towards the residents of our Borough.

I did not become a Councillor for the allowances; I stood for election as I wanted to give something back the residents of Mill Hill. I believe in public service. I was very proud to be elected to represent the Mill Hill Ward and am proud to continue to serve them.

In this respect, I am no different to Barnet Councillors of all political affiliations, most of who feel as I do that it is a joy and an honour to serve our great Borough in the best way that we can.

I have just returned from abroad to find out you have released a press release with new proposals on allowances. How do you expect people to have any confidence in you putting out some half baked spin after allowing your Chief Whip, to trail through TV and radio stations peddling lines that have seen our support plummet in the country and Barnet? Why did you not bring your new proposals to Group for agreement? Will the public really believe that you wouldn’t u-turn again when the media loses interest . The passion with which you argued for a  pay rise for you and your Cabinet makes it an incredible proposition that you wouldn’t seek to try this again next year. 

The perception will now be that you have been caught in the glare of the headlights of public opinion and are now simply attempting to protect your own position.

You and your Cabinet members simply cannot impose a freeze on public sector wages and a dramatic decrease in expenditure on goods and services in our Borough - having just awarded themselves a huge increase, however you dress it up.

I have been a loyal and enthusiastic member of the Conservative Party for very many years but I consider your actions to be morally reprehensible and politically inept.

I am a true Conservative and I want to follow the party line, unlike Barnet who under your leadership stand alone and are now mocked and derided.

Grant Shapps made it publically clear that local authorities should be setting an example to their residents and not awarding themselves extra money in these austere times. The Coalition Cabinet and some other LA’s have taken a 5% reduction in allowances perhaps we should be supporting THAT example.

I believe your authority, judgment and political credibility is shot to pieces in the public's mind. We cannot go on with poor decision after poor decision. The majority of the Conservative Group shares this view. The correct course of action would have been for you to immediately admit your mistake and resign the Leadership with dignity.

This is why I have to tell you now that I will be voting for Mark Shooter and urging all my colleagues to do so. I cannot see how the Council, the Conservative Group and Party in the borough can recover under your leadership.

Cllr Brian Schama 

Calling Barnet voters - Is this why you elected Tory Councillors?

Let's have a little discussion as to why any allowance or salary is set at a certain level. The whole idea is to attract the most suitable people for the job. If lots of people can do it and it's fairly mundane, salaries tend to be low. If it requires a high level of unique talent or it is a job not many people could do or would want to do, then it tends to have a high salary. Generally salaries are reassessed when organisations are looking for fresh talent. If they have had trouble attracting the right quality of people, then you up the salary. If there are a surplus of people who want to do the job, maybe you are paying too much.

Now the argument that the Tories in Barnet are using to justify the salary is, well "because they are worth it". Now if 18 months ago they'd said "We've had to put up with a completely useless idiot of a leader who lost £27.4 million in Icelandic banks (Mike Freer), another idiot of a deputy Leader who overspent £11 millon on a budget of £12 million at Aerodrome Road (Matthew Offord) and we've got a cabinet member for Social Services who has lead us on a disasterous policy of abolishing Sheltered Housing wardens which has lead us into a court case which we've lost (Lynne Hillan), they might have got some agreement from me. If they'd have said that the Barnet Tory Party was full of useless placemen and they were throwing the selection process for new councillors completely open to all with the promise of 100% pay rises if they won (as part of their manifesto) justified by the need to replace the likes of the failed team, I wouldn't have disagreed when they implemented the policy.  There would have been a justification and a popular mandate for change.

But the truth is that is the opposite of what they did. They hid the fact from the electorate that their first major action would be to award themselves huge pay rises. They didn't sack the failed old guard and try and recruit fresh blood. The only Tory councillors who were replaced were those who lost their seats, those who had legged it abroad, those who had fallen foul of the regime and been shafted and those who left to become MP's.  The replacements were specially selected lackies such as Barry Evangeli, who had dedicated his time to writing letters to the press saying that Brian Coleman is marvellous.

It is quite clear that there is a large surpless of Tory Councillors who would love to become cabinet members at the old rate of allowance. The Council Leader, Lynne Hillan fought like a polecat on heat to get the leadership, at the old rate. If she stepped down tomorrow, I know of at least three Councillors who would immediately snap up the job regardless of whether it was at the old rate or new. The whole grubby saga sums up the way allowances are paid in Barnet. They are not used to attract new talent, they are used to stifle competition and bludgeon Councillors into supporting the morally bankrupt policy of the leaders.

They used a three line whip on Councillors to ensure that they voted for the payrise and the one Councillor with the guts to say no, Kate Salinger was ritually humiliated in a public council meeting.

So if you voted Conservative in the elections in May tell me this. Did you vote Tory because you wanted an administration that behaves in this way? Do you think that it is acceptable for politicians to hush up a huge payrise until immediately after an election and then bludgeon it through, at the same meeting where they said everyone else would suffer from cuts.

In Mill Hill, where I live, we elected two new Tories to join John Hart. There names are Sury Khatri and Brian Schama. They've been councillors for nearly three months now and I only know of one thing they've done. They voted for this big payrise for their political bosses.  Do you know who your Tory Councillors are? Do you know of anything useful theyv'e done since being elected? Unless there name is Salinger, they voted for the rise. Is that why you voted for them (if you voted Tory)?

I received an email yesterday from the Hendon Times. They have reported that they've had an overwhelming response to their petition against the rise. If the Barnet Tories think this is going away any time soon, they can add deluded to their list of faults.

Barnet Tory Councillors fail the people who elected them

Lets talk Mill Hill first.

J'accuse Councillors John Hart, Brian Schama and Sury Khatri. The people of Mill Hill elected you to represent them. They expected you to cut waste in Barnet Council. Thats what your manifesto promised. Last night you voted for huge increases in allowances for your chums in the cabinet, some up to 100%. This at a time when public spending is being hammered. You have lost any moral authority you may have had. You have undermined any argument that may be made to the trades unions that cuts are needed.

In short you are a complete disgrace and should resign. Of course you wont. You get your bunce as well. I stood against you, for the Lib Dems, specifically to oopose this sort of disgusting troughing. I lost the election, but I believe you have committed fraud against the people of Mill Hill. Where in your manifesto did you say "We will give ourselves massive payrises". This is virtually the first act of the new administration. I was prepared to give you a chance to prove yourself. You are a disgrace.

As to Council Leader Lynne Hillan. She has shown herself completely unfit for the job. Doesn't she read the papers. The school rebuilding program in Barnet has been savagely cut by the new government, but she's all right jack. As to Brian Coleman - his allowances for a string of part time non jobs has risen to over £130,000 a year.

You may think you've won the battle for a pay rise, all you've won is round one. I will do everything I can to ensure you lose the war.

Tory old guard plan big rises in their allowances in Barnet

One of my Barnet Tory moles let slip that there has been some discussion amongst our local Tory councillors about whether allowances should be raised in the current climate. Word reaches the Barnet Eye that some of the new Tory Councillors objected as "a matter of principle in the current climate".

This blog is nothing if not fair so we cordially invite Councillor Brian Coleman, Councillor Lynne Hillan and all of the rest of  Tory old guard to explain to us all exactly what their views on the subject are. A whole blog, with all of my tens of thousands of readers (yup, true) with no comment from me whatsoever. Surely one of you guys knows how to write a coherent guest blog?

Old Guard Tories will be pleased to know that this offer is the very begining of a campaign, which we have some rather interesting stunts lined up for, which will receive lots of publicity from other sources. Of course if there is a good reason to give councillors more dosh, we'll be only too pleased to hear.

I am currently planning to have a whole lot of signs made up saying "Cancelled by Barnet Council to pay for bigger allowances for your Tory Councillors".  My friends at the Trades Unions have promised lots of help putting them up in key places. Any community groups, etc facing budget cuts are encouraged to get in touch once the new allowances are formally announced. I hope that our Mill Hill Tories hold their nerve in the face of this greedy onslaught and show their colleagues what public service is really about

Bork Update - Voted Conservative in Barnet - Is this what you expected from them?

It's less than a month since the Tories won Barnet Council. Was this in their manifesto?

http://www.times-series.co.uk/news/8199423.New_jobs_worth___300k_created_by_council/

It seems that Barnet Council thinks that the best way to spend £300,000 of your money in these times of hardship is on more managers. The jobs :-

Assistant director of strategic finance job, which boasts a salary of £110,000
Assistant director of financial services  for £90,000-a-year
Audit and risk management assistant directorship for £90,000

Why does a London Borough need an assistant director of Strategic finance? What does it entail? “management of the corporate business planning process” and managing the council's “transformation programme”. Given that if that's an assistant post, there's two people getting huge salaries doing this (at least). The spec contains the following rather alarming statement - "A sophisticated finance function is critical. We need to be creative, enabling, with balanced risk taking, whilst maintaining robust stewardship of increasingly tight resources. We need people who can create new models, for types of organisation and partnership forms that don’t yet exist anywhere else." In other words, us, the Barnet Council Taxpayer are the guinea pigs. What usually happens when the public sector tries to set things up from scratch?

Assistant Director of financial Services? “creating a high performing culture that drives improvement and efficiency savings”. Again there's at least two of them, as this is for an assistant. The spec goes on "An understanding of local government finance and current best practice is essential, ideally with experience of dealing with a financial services provider." So ideally an assisatant director of financial services should have experience of dealing with a financial services provider (that's a bank in English).


The Audits and risk manangement assistant Director? They will be “essential to meet the challenges to come”. The Spec goes on "With the ability to analyse complex information and issues, and the inter-personal skills to convince your colleagues, you will offer extensive audit and risk management knowledge and experience, preferably gained within a local authority context." Let's get this right. They think the person, on £90,000 per annum should have the "inter-presonal skills to convince your colleagues". This person is managing risks. This is crap, all they need to have is the skills to say "do that and you'll get the sack".



I've got a better idea. Why doesn't the council stop inventing highly paid jobs, which they've never required before. The descriptions are written in gobbledygook and are packed with phrases from the Borking manual. By the time of the next election, this mob will have cost over a million pounds. Would the people of Barnet be any wiser or wealthier if they weren't appointed.

I just hope some of our local Mill Hill Tories, John Hart, Brian Schama and Sury Khatri have a bit of sense and rebel against this profligacy. Now is not the time to start inventing jobs. I wonder how long it will be before these assistant managers need assistants to deal with all the Bork they create

Mill Hill Election special - The aftermath - Tonge is Wrong !

Seriously, what is wrong with these people? What has happened to good manners and good grace? Win or lose, act with dignity. I must congratulate John Hart, Sury Khatri and Brian Schama on their victory in Mill Hill. I must also commend their good manners in how they dealt with it. Don't get me wrong, I'm bitterly disappointed. There were many issues with the way the election was staged in Barnet which were awful and need to be sorted out. I will be writing to Nick Walkley - CEO of Barnet  to demand a meeting to discuss these. Not because they affected my result in any way at all, I accept that with good grace, but because they were wrong and they need to be sorted out. This isn't a throw my toys out of the pram rant. I will leave that to others.I just want to make sure that next time, the good people of Mill Hill, who want to vote can do so in a timely and efficient manner. Even more importantly, the way the count was conducted was a disgrace. This was done in a marquee with no effective heating. The staff, many of whom had only light clothing, as they expected to work in an office environment, were absolutely frozen. They would have been well within their rights to have walked off the job. I congratulate them for sticking with it and I would suggest that Barnet pay them a bonus for the harsh conditions. When people work in extreme conditions, they make mistakes. As I say, I don't believe this affected my vote, but it doesn't make for a good election. Nick Walkley, the CEO seems like a reasonable chap, so I am sure he'll be keen to ensure that next time things are better. We are likely to face another general election soon, so it cannot wait.

On to the vote in Mill Hill. I personally take full responsibility for my defeat in Mill Hill. I was a new boy to the process and as such I took a back seat in the campaign planning and acted as a foot soldier. I believe that we had a good team in Jeremy, Kim and myself, with Wayne as our agent. I believe we had the best proposition for the people of Mill Hill and if they didn't buy it, that was because I didn't sell it properly. I finished bottom out of the three Lib Dems in Mill Hill, by a hundred or so votes.  Someone said to me that I actually had a personal vote of 4-500. Thanks guys for that. I do appreciate it (please note that this is a personal view. My running mate Kim has asked me to state that she believes that it was not an issue with the campaign. She is of the opinion that the huge turnout for the election, with people voting on national issues was the reason for the result. I in no way imply any criticism of the team or the campaign in my comments).

One issue which can't and shouldn't be skirted around was the issue that many people in Mill Hill told me completely put them off voting for the Lib Dems. I was told time and time on the doorstep that people would definately have voted for me, but they couldn't possibly vote for a party which had Baroness Tonge as a member. I believe that she is the reason the Lib Dems lost this election in Mill Hill. I'd never even heard of her when I joined the Lib Dems last year. I know all about her now. I knew we needed to clearly and plainly state our position (ie the Mill Hill Lib Dems) on her rantings and blatherings. I believe we should have put out at least three leaflets during the course of the election to voters likely to be put off by her, completely disassociating ourselves from her comments. Until such time as we do, we will suffer. I don't believe that anyone in a position of seniority should be allowed to remain a member of the party if they make such inflammatory and ill judged statements. We would throw out someone who said such things about any other ethnic minority, so why do we tolerate it? What would I have said "I completely disassociate myself from this woman and If I am elected I will have a platform within the party from which to get firm action taken to remove the party whip". I will still seek to persue this outcome, but as I was rejected at the elections, I have no platform at all within the organisation. I am merely a failed candidate.

I went out for  a beer then a curry in Mill Hill last night. People were devastated that Jeremy Davies lost. He has been an excellent local councillor. One woman said "Tell Jeremy I am so sad he lost" I said "Thanks, I'll tell him, did you vote for us?" She replied, rather shamefacedly "Oh no, I usually do but this time I voted for the Conservatives, because I wanted to get rid of Gordon Brown".  I asked "Did you vote for us at the local elections?" She replied "No I voted Conservative there as well". I asked "Oh have we done something?". She replied "No, I just did, I thought you'd all get in anyway, I'm really sorry". You can't really draw too many conclusions from a single conversation, but I felt deeply sad at this.

One final word. When the result was announced (for those of you who've never been to the count, the candidates are told before they are publicly announced) the Mayor of Barnet, Brian Coleman made his way to the front. As the result was announced he cheered and gesticulated wildly and announced "I've beaten Tichborne again".  As ever this statement was complete B*ll*cks. Coleman didn't stand in Mill Hill. He didn't campaign there. I never mentioned him once in the campaign leaflets or on this blog. The guys who beat me are the opposite of Coleman. They have a bit of class. John Hart gave me his opinion of Coleman a few weeks ago and asked me not to put it in the blog. I won't but it made me smile. Oh and dearest Mayorykins, just remember not only did you not beat me in Mill Hill (you had nothing to do with the result), you lost at the Standards board as well. You will get your chance one day and you will lose again, but as to when and where? That's a secret for now