Saturday, 28 February 2009

Is Barnet’s money filling Leo’s tummy?


On 5th March, Mayor of Barnet John Marshall will be hosting a dinner for former Chief Executive, Leo Boland at The Haven restaurant in Whetstone.


The big question is, who will be paying for this? Is Cllr Marshall, out of the goodness of his heart, paying from his own pocket or will he be using the Mayoral allowance provided by us, the taxpayer?

This allowance enables the Mayor to host civic functions throughout the year promoting the Borough. It is hard to see how the needs of Barnet are best served by providing a slap up meal for the former Chief Executive, who dumped us at the drop of a hat for a £200,000 pay cheque from Boris.

Let us not forget that during Boland’s time at Barnet:
  • Underhill was sold unlawfully
  • Partingdale Lane was re-opened unlawfully
  • Council tax increased by 24% in 2003
  • The Aerodrome Road bridge project went £4 million over budget
  • £1.4 million was spent on near obsolete computers, many of which are now sitting in a store room gathering dust
  • £14,000 was spent on televisions for chief officers
  • £28 million of taxpayers money went missing, last seen somewhere near Iceland.
No doubt our Leo will claim that none of this was his fault. Perhaps he feels he should receive a “Goodwin” at the taxpayers' expense, let alone a dinner at an expensive restaurant.

We are in the midst of a deep and painful recession and the public requires their elected representatives to lead by example.

If John Marshall is paying for this dinner personally, good luck to him. I hope they all have a nice evening. But if taxpayers’ money has been used for a private dinner, then it will not just be a case of snouts in the trough. It will be a case of the political classes, out of touch with reality, sticking two fingers up at the public at a time when residents are tightening their belts and cutting back on luxuries.

Thursday, 26 February 2009

Brian Coleman says political service should be a calling not a career


I have been accused by certain characters of using this blog to be horrible to Brian Coleman by pointing out that his current allowances total nearly £103,000. But regular readers will know that I have often written articles praising the Great One where praise is due.

I am therefore indebted to a reader who has drawn my attention to an article Our Brian wrote for the New Statesman in December 2007 under the title “Serving should be a vocation”. In the article, Brian 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.

Then along came the 2000 Local Government Act and the end of the century-old committee tradition of doing business. The replacement was executive government in councils.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Political service should be a calling not a career!

Brian, I agree with you 100%. Can we have our money back please?

Wednesday, 25 February 2009

High Court to rule on warden support


A High Court judge will decide next month whether a housing association was justified in its decision to end the services of a resident warden. The case has been brought by Joan Garbet, a sheltered housing resident in Eastbourne, against her landlord Circle 33.


The central issue to be decided is whether Circle 33 is a public body performing a public function.

Yvonne Hossack, the Solicitor acting for Mrs Garbet, said there were several arguments that could be used in a judicial review, including that the move could breach tenants’ ‘legitimate expectation’ when they moved in that the service would continue to be provided.

Barnet Council recently approved a proposal for a massive reduction of £950,000 in its projected expenditure of £1.3 million on support services for tenants of sheltered housing.

If the Court finds in favour of Mrs Garbet, this could have serious ramifications for all local authorities which are considering cutting back their own warden services.

Tuesday, 24 February 2009

Snouts In The Trough - Part 2


The respected kings of the blogosphere, Statler & Waldorf, have posted a new blog which exposes some stonking pay rises planned for a few lucky councillors. Whilst Mike Freer would see a relatively low 5% increase in his council allowances to just £53,782 if these proposals are passed, Cllr Andreas Tambourides could see his allowances rise by a massive 20%.

Council tax is set to rise by 2.8% in April even though the RPI rate of inflation is currently just 0.1%. We are in the midst of the worst recession in modern times with Barnet residents losing their jobs at an alarming rate. Surely now is the time for our political leaders to show some restraint?

Statler suggests that instead of a rise in allowances, councillors should accept a modest cut of £500 a year. Let us hope that common sense prevails and that the proposed increases are soundly rejected by the faithful and true Conservative councillors at their Group meeting later this week.

Monday, 23 February 2009

No guarantee over Barnet’s Icelandic cash


I have just returned from a pleasant few days at the sea-side. The local newspaper was the highly informative Kent Messenger.


Worryingly, the newspaper carried a warning story that councils which had deposited money in Iceland might not get their money back. Kent County Council tops the list of local authorities with £50 million on deposit. Barnet has £27.4 million invested, excluding unpaid interest.

The new Icelandic Business Minister, Mr Gylfi Magnusson (pictured left), told interviewers: “They [the councils], as all other creditors of the collapsed Icelandic banks, will unfortunately have to wait until we have sold the assets of the collapsed banks. Unfortunately this takes time and a lot of creditors will not be paid back in full.”

He went on to warn: “There simply aren’t the assets left in the collapsed banks that would be sufficient to pay all creditors.”

Kent and Barnet Councils sent officers to Iceland last year representing all local authorities with funds at risk. They urgently need to ascertain from the Administrator the value of the banks’ assets and the level of liabilities so that we can begin to estimate the likely shortfall. We have a right to know how much of the £27.4 million we will ever see again.

It is simply unacceptable for the council to bury its head in the ice hoping that everything will turn out OK. When a senior government Minister says that there are insufficient funds to pay creditors, it is time for councillors to sit up and take notice and to stop trying to pass the buck. Or Krona.

Saturday, 21 February 2009

The Tory Revolution Has Started!


This week, David Cameron launched a major policy green paper outlining Conservative plans to give power back to local communities. For those of us committed to the concept of localism, this was one of the most exciting policy announcements for years.


Mr Cameron explained that “decentralisation, devolution and empowerment” were part of the Conservative approach to government, and stressed the importance of an “empowering state” rather than an “overpowering state”.

The policy document ‘Control Shift’ outlines a series of policies that will see powers transferred from the central state to local people and local institutions and can be downloaded from the Conservative party web site.

Amongst the proposals, the next Conservative Government will:
  • Give local authorities a new discretionary power to levy business rate discounts, allowing them to help local shops and services, such as rural pubs or post offices.
It is iniquitous that councils should be forced to hand over locally raised business rates to central government which then redistributes that money according to its own social agenda. Taxpayers in Conservative councils are being forced to subsidise those in profligate Labour areas.

The Conservative plans effectively mean that local councils will be able to use the business rate system not only to help struggling business, but to create competition between different councils, with lower rate areas attracting more businesses and thereby creating employment. Lower business rates will be particularly welcome in Barnet where reports show that unemployment has risen dramatically since the start of the recession.
  • Provide citizens in all large cities with the opportunity to choose whether to have an elected mayor, through mayoral referendums.
Although we are over-governed in this country, an elected Mayor is essential to help restore democratic accountability to local government.

In due course, this proposal should be extended to make it easier to allow all councils to hold referendums. As things stand, the leader of the council is not elected by the popular vote of the electorate but by a handful of councillors in the ruling party. That is not democracy.
  • Increase the use of direct democracy, including allowing residents to veto high council tax rises, and instigating local referendums on local issues.
This is obviously a welcome measure although safeguards will need to be built in to prevent councils from keeping council tax increases low but raising stealth taxes in the form of fees and charges.

Local referendums on local issues will prevent councils trying to introduce unpopular or controversial policies that were not included in the ruling party’s manifesto.
  • Require councils to publish detailed information online on expenditure by local councils – including the pay and perks of senior staff, and issuing new guidance to stop ‘rewards for failure’ to sacked town hall staff.
Only those with their snouts in the trough could possibly object to this proposal. It is worth remembering that whilst some of the proposals in the green paper will require legislative changes, there is nothing to prevent any council from voluntarily publishing this information immediately.

In my opinion, some of the proposals in this report do not go far enough – but they are a very good start. If you only need one reason to vote Conservative at the next election to get rid of this incompetent sleaze ridden Labour government, this is it!

Thursday, 19 February 2009

Brian Coleman's Tomb Tax


Last month, I reported that the Cabinet Resources Committee proposed to raise burial charges by 10% for children under 3 years of age. Mike Freer, Leader of the Council, had the grace to acknowledge that this proposal was a mistake. He said that the report had not been signed off by Brian Coleman, the relevant Cabinet Member, and the item was duly withdrawn from the meeting for further consideration.


Perhaps Cllr Coleman hoped that this matter would simply be forgotten because papers for next month’s meeting of the Committee show that only one charge has been slightly reduced and another has actually been increased.

The cost of Class A graves for children under 3 was set to rise by 10%. The council now proposes to raise charges by 6.25% - still considerably in excess of inflation.

The cost of digging a double depth grave was set to rise by 9.17%. This now increases to 10.09%.

You could give Brian Coleman the benefit of the doubt last month and blame officers for not seeking his approval of the proposed increases, but this time there can be no such excuse. The Leader made it quite clear that he wanted these charges looked at again, but all Brian Coleman has done is slightly re-arrange the deckchairs.

It is hard to imagine anything more distressing for a parent than to bury a child, and whilst there is obviously a cost to the Borough in arranging burials, it is very sad that Cllr Coleman (2008/09 allowances - £102,965) cannot show compassion to what must be a relatively small number of families and waive these charges completely or, at the very least, keep them at the current level.

It is generally accepted across the political spectrum that some public services cannot run at a profit or in accordance with the normal ‘rules’ of supply and demand. The burial of children is a service which unquestionably merits public subsidy, just as Brian Coleman will expect the public to subsidise his office if he becomes Mayor of Barnet in May.

Tuesday, 17 February 2009

Barnet Inflation Shock!


Official figures released today show that the Retail Price Index rate of inflation has fallen from 0.9% to just 0.1% - the lowest level since the 1960s. Regular readers of this blog will know that Barnet Council uses the RPI as its preferred measure of inflation.


In April, our council tax is set to rise by 2.8%. As things stand, this equates to 28 times the rate of inflation!

Last week the Evening Standard published a chart of council tax rises across London. Of the councils to respond, 8 announced a council tax freeze and one council is reducing the charge.


Of the 8 councils freezing the tax, 4 are Labour controlled, which suggests that they received better settlement grants from the Government, two are Conservative controlled, one is Conservative controlled with minority party support and one LibDem controlled with Conservative support. The council reducing tax is, of course, Conservative controlled!


It is not too late for Barnet to reconsider its budget and join the nine London councils offering below inflation increases this year. With Mr Walkley soon to take over as the new Chief Executive, this must be possible. He is the officer who claimed no expenses in 2007/08, so if anyone knows about budget control, it’s him!

BLOG UPDATE

Since posting this story, I have read an excellent article written by John Redwood MP, entitled Council Taxes Are Too High - Time For Change.

In discussing how to keep down Council Tax, Mr Redwood says:

So what should Councillors do? They should do what they do with their own family and business budgets. In tight years all items of spending are under review. The aim is to cut out the least desirable items, not the most sensitive, and to deliver the same or more for less by spending more wisely. To do this the first round of budget papers should not present existing spending as a given, but should question why the Council is doing its more marginal things, and question how it can do everything needed more effectively. Councillors should ask amongst other things

1. How much is the budget for Consultants? Why can’t this work be done in house by existing officers? Why are we often paying twice for the same thing?

2. How much is the Council spending on energy? Would spending on insulation, heating controls and better management of buildings use slash this budget in year? Can the energy contracts be renegotiated on more favourable terms?

3. How much is the Council spending on transport? Can the contracts be better managed? Can more transport be grouped to minimise journeys and maximise use?

4. What is the budget for “fact finding travel” and conferences? Is all this necessary?

5. What is the budget for PR? Why can’t Councillors do more of their own communication, without relying on officers who have to be careful not to be political in their messages with Council money?

6. How many surplus assets does the Council have? Can some of these be sold to cut debt?

7. How good is the Council’s cash management? Can they earn a better return on balances without putting it in an Icelandic bank?

8. How many layers of management does the Council have? Why can’t this be slimmed down through natural wastage?

9. Wouldn’t a staff freeze generally be a good idea to make manning more efficient? Couldn’t the Council cut the number of committees which need servicing, and concentrate on the big issues that matter.

10. Why is the Chief Executive’s office so large and expensive. Doesn’t economy begin at the top?

There are certainly some lessons for Barnet here!

Sunday, 15 February 2009

Who's the Daddy?


This story has been updated. See below.



In just a few hours time, Barnet Council will be announcing the name of our new Chief Executive. Who is going to receive the batteries to the remote keys to Executive Suite?

These are the favourites:

Brian Reynolds

Currently Acting Chief Executive. Already has a 40” wide screen TV in his office, so should be able to adjust to a 46” screen with little difficulty. Had the largest expense account of any senior officer in 2007/08 so will not require extra training in racking up bills at the taxpayers expense.





Rog T
Has successfully run a business in the Borough for 30 years without investing any money in Iceland (apart from buying a Bj√∂rk album). Is prepared to work for only £100,000 a year, thereby increasing the budget available for councillor allowances children’s burial services. Has been known to say “sorry” when he makes a mistake, which may count against him.

Statler & Waldorf

They know everything there is to know about running a small municipal council, and were early favourites for the job, but now a bit of an outside bet after Waldorf turned up for the interview somewhat tired and emotional, clutching a bottle of cheap supermarket sherry, shouting
“that ████ █████ is a ███████ ██████████ who █████ it up ██ ██se.” Never mind chaps, I hear there is a vacancy on the Pic ‘N’ Mix counter at Woolies.

Mr Blobby
A figure of fun who wants to be taken seriously but has a tendency to insult anyone and everyone. Thinks he knows everything but has little experience of anything other than photo opportunities and free lunches.






A special prize to the first person to guess correctly (competition closes one minute before the council makes an official announcement).

Update Monday 10.00 am. The Council have announced that Assistant Chief Executive Nick Walkley has been appointed as the new Chief Executive. This is very good news. I think Mr Walkley will do a good job, although no doubt he will be getting paid too much! Commiserations to Mr Reynolds.

Happy 100th Birthday Miep Gies


Today Miep Gies celebrates her 100th birthday. Her name may be unfamiliar to many people, but she is one of the great heroines of the Second World War, who risked her life daily by hiding Anne Frank and her family from Nazi persecution.

Miep denies that she is a hero. On her official website she says: “I stand at the end of the long, long line of good Dutch people who did what I did or more – much more - during those dark and terrible times years ago, but always like yesterday in the hearts of those of us who bear witness. Never a day goes by that I do not think of what happened then.”

The Diary of Anne Frank is now one of the most widely read books in the world and without Miep Gies, this tragic and fascinating insight into life under Nazi occupation would never have come to light.

A mere “Happy Birthday” seems somehow insufficient to someone whose selfless actions have ensured that future generations will never forget the horror of the Holocaust so, as we say in Yiddish, “Biz hundert un tsvantsik” - you should live until 120.

Wednesday, 11 February 2009

Can the Cannes!


Last month I reported that Acting Chief Executive Brian Reynolds was once again attending the MIPIM property ‘conference’ in Cannes. The good news is that he’s not going anymore. The bad news is that two other officers are taking his place.


For anyone who may not have heard of MIPIM, allow me to explain: it’s a junket in the South of France.

People who attend will tell you how important it is for networking and meeting all the movers and shakers in the property industry, but I have never yet met anyone who came back from Cannes with anything other than a sun tan!

Barnet is not the only authority which sends delegates to MIPIM. But if it was acceptable for Barnet & Kent councils to send just one officer each to Iceland, representing over 100 local authorities whose investments were frozen, could someone please explain why, when it comes to a jolly in the South of France, they all have to be there?

If developers want to sell their schemes to British local authorities, let them put on their own exhibition in the UK. The NEC in Birmingham would be an ideal venue and it wouldn’t cost councils more than a couple of hundred quid each to attend.

Last year, Barnet’s attendance cost just over £3,000. This year it will cost taxpayers £4,932. This is an excessive amount which cannot be justified at a time when many families are struggling in the recession and, in any event, new building development has all but come to a standstill.

The council is cutting its budget for sheltered housing. I am sure that if a poll was conducted, the majority of residents would rather the council cut expenditure on junkets, business class trips to America and wide screen televisions for council officers, before cutting front line services.

Boris slams public sector pensions


Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, writing in the Daily Telegraph has highlighted the resentment felt by taxpayers who have to pay the exorbitant salaries of public officials and their consequent gold plated pensions. BoJo wrote:


"As the recession deepens, so does the divide between those who are paid by private companies, and those who are paid by the state, and nowhere is the division starker than in the matter of pensions.

In local government…you can expect to be awarded one sixtieth of your final salary for every year of service. So if you are a chief executive or other senior official, on a salary of more than £200,000, and you have worked for 30 years – well, you do the maths.

It is a very generous deal, and speaking as a former MP and current Mayor, I hesitate to knock it, and I only do so because it is unsustainable. With firms now laying off staff in their thousands, with unemployment apparently set to hit three million for the first time since the 1980s, it is simply too much to expect council-tax payers to scrimp and save to pay for the pensions of local government's colossal clerisy, when those pensions are so much more comfortable than anything they could afford themselves.

And the…reason for believing the position to be unsustainable is that these public sector pensions are now, frankly, unaffordable."

I agree with Boris entirely. But whilst he can’t save the entire country, as Mayor of London he is in a position to deal with the gravy train of the GLA - which makes his decision to appoint Leo Boland as Chief Executive on a salary of £205,000 all the more surprising and, frankly, disappointing given Boland’s record during his time at Barnet.

Saturday, 7 February 2009

Direct Democracy


Douglas Carswell is the outstanding Conservative MP for Harwich & Clacton who forced Gordon Brown into a humiliating climb-down over recent attempts to exempt MPs from the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act.


Mr Carswell is co-author of a book called Direct Democracy and he runs an excellent blog which I recommend to anyone who is fed up with our lives being governed by interfering and unelected bureaucrats.

In this video clip, he talks about ways to improve local democracy and accountability. I can think of at least three people who will squirm at his ideas to give power back to the people!



Mind you, his proposals for House of Lords reform might need a bit more thought!

Friday, 6 February 2009

Council salaries - who calls the shots?


At the Hendon Residents Forum on Thursday, I asked the following question:


Will the Council be following the example set by President Obama and freezing the salaries for senior officers during the recession?

The council replied:

The annual salary rise for Council employees is covered by national negotiating machinery. The Council cannot therefore unilaterally impose pay freezes and implements the pay rises agreed by the employer’s side and staff side.

For those who believe in localism, the concept of national pay bargaining is a relic from 1970s. Council pay should be set by councils themselves. That is what democratic accountability is all about.

But according to an article in this week’s Barnet Times, the council can set its own pay levels. Apparently, the council has had difficulty recruiting a Director of Children’s Services and has agreed to increase the salary available.

So if the council can put pay up, to reflect recruitment difficulties, why can it not impose a freeze where no such difficulties occur?

Defending the decision, council leader Mike Freer said “We either lose good people to councils paying the market rate or we increase the amount we’re willing to pay.” On one level it is easy to sympathise with Freer’s dilemma. But on another level, doesn’t this just suggest that councils across the whole country are paying senior staff far too much, causing unnecessary wage inflation?

The Conservative Party Chairman, Eric Pickles, recently criticised six figure salaries for chief officers. The Conservatives are now the largest party in local government and therefore have the ability to stop this gravy train in its tracks.

Nobody disputes the need for Barnet to hire the best person possible for the position, but anyone who thinks that £100,000 (plus gold plated pension) is not a good salary does not live in the real world. Most residents will find the idea of the new Chief Executive being paid over £200,000 obscene at the best of times, but even more so in a recession.

There are many thousands of experienced executives now without work who are more than capable of taking on senior posts within local authorities. Mike Freer is very keen to promote his “Future Shape” project to outsource/privatise services to reduce costs, so why not let Barnet be an example to the rest of the country and start outsourcing chief officers posts as well?

Brian Gordon for Leader of the Council


I went to the Hendon Residents Forum yesterday which was chaired by Hale Councillor Brian Gordon. It was a good humoured and good natured event and Cllr Gordon was very fair in letting everyone have their say, including those who wanted to criticise the council.


Compare this to the actions of some councillors who go out of their way to stifle opposition and dissent. The way to win an argument is to allow that argument to take place.

One local resident talked about a very serious personal issue which was causing her some distress. It was clear that Cllr Gordon’s concern for her welfare was absolutely genuine and heartfelt, when he could have simply made excuses and passed the buck onto a junior officer.

Last year Brian Gordon got into hot water when he dressed up as Nelson Mandela for a Purim party. The fuss it caused at the time was utterly ridiculous and I wrote to the papers supporting him, pointing out that Harry Enfield performed a Nelson Mandela routine and nobody complained about that. Rory Bremner does a very good Trevor McDonald!

There will soon be a vacancy for leader of the council. Do we want a failed businesswoman taking over or someone who cares for residents, who understands that there are two sides to a story and shows signs of actually being a real human being?

I know who I would vote for, not that we are allowed to choose our leaders in Barnet.

Thursday, 5 February 2009

Mike Freer - The Desperate Despot?


Regular readers will recall that I started this blog in support of Mill Hill resident Rog T, whose blog on the Barnet Times was cancelled after he wrote an article calling the leader of the council Stalinist Mr Bean.


Rog and I are at opposite ends of the political spectrum. I’m a right wing Conservative. He’s a swivel eyed Trot! But for all our differences, there is one matter we agree about - the need for open, honest, democratic and accountable government.

On Monday, as the heaviest snow for 18 years fell across London, Mike Freer wrote an article on his Leader Listens blog saying it was business as usual in Barnet. In Rog’s opinion it wasn’t, and he posted a comment to that effect. Freer refused to publish Rog’s contribution, but he did publish a comment from another reader thanking the council for being so wonderful! You can read the full story on Rog’s blog.

Is Mike Freer so insecure that he cannot even engage with the public in a simple discussion about the effect of the weather? His blog is called “Leader Listens” not “Leader only listens to people who agree with him.”

If Freer was running a free ‘personal’ blog on a site like blogger.com, he could moderate messages to his heart’s content. If he only wanted to allow messages from people saying how wonderful he was, then that would be his right. But “Leader Listens” is a publicly funded blog and whilst the amount it costs to run is a drop in the ocean compared to the amount of money “missing” in Iceland, it is still public money.

He should either have published Rog’s comments and just ignored them or published them and added a simple reply “I disagree”. But to refuse to publish politely written comments which merely offer an alternative point of view is censorship of the very worst kind.

Monday, 2 February 2009

Barnet Council and the spirit of Goebbels


Joseph Goebbels once said: “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”


Whilst, of course, Barnet Council is not run by Nazi sympathising fascists, someone has clearly made a conscious decision to keep peddling the lie that the council tax increase for 2009/10 is less than the rate of inflation - as measured according to the Retail Price Index - when this is simply untrue.

Our council tax is set to rise by 2.81%. The current RPI is 0.9% meaning that the proposed tax rise is more than three times the rate of inflation.

Cllr Matthew Offord went as far as to suggest that because the increase was lower than inflation it was actually a cut!

The council can keep spinning this tale that the rise is less than inflation for as long as it likes, but the public are not stupid and won’t be fooled. They don’t need a government index to tell them how much prices are rising or falling. They know by the amount of money it costs to put food on the table, heat their homes or fill the car up with petrol. Pensioners know how often they have to dip into their savings - and for them, any increase at all in council tax will be especially painful given the collapse in their savings rates.

The tax rise will take effect from April. It is always possible that the RPI could increase by 2% in the next 3 months, but most respected economists think that inflation will continue to fall, with deflation a very real possibility.

Rather than continue with this lie, why doesn’t Barnet Council take a leaf out of Hammersmith and Fulham’s book and actually reduce council tax by 3%?