In 1947, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Hugh Dalton, resigned after he let slip to a journalist details of a change to the tax system, before he had made his budget speech to the Commons.
These days, an army of taxpayer funded spin doctors regularly leak details of changes ahead of the budget itself. So it was no surprise when the current Chancellor, Boy George Osborne, announced a 1 pence per litre cut in fuel duty yesterday. We all knew it was coming, especially the petrol retailers. Or was it just a coincidence that the Shell stations at Apex Corner and Stirling Corner both put up their prices by 1p on Tuesday, only to reduce them again a day later once the official announcement had been made?
At a business meeting this week, Don’t Call Me Dave was asked if he was a supporter of Julian Assange, founder of the WikiLeaks web site. Given that DCMD has long complained about the obsessive culture of secrecy which permeates through every fibre of Barnet Council’s being, it might seem only natural that he should support the WikiLeaks ethos.
There is no doubt that Governments around the world keep far too much information unnecessarily secret from its citizens. More often than not, the reason for the secrecy is to cover up embarrassing mistakes, incompetence or corruption. WikiLeaks is right to expose such practises.
But do we have an absolute right to know absolutely everything? If DCMD asked Barnet Council for details of its civil contingency plan in the even of a terrorist attack, he would quite rightly expect to be refused the information in the interest of national security. Arguably the council should confirm, if asked, whether a contingency plan actually exists, but to divulge the precise details of it could put lives at risk.
This is where WikiLeaks has crossed the line. It has failed to draw a distinction between information which should properly be in the public domain, and intelligence which could compromise national security and endanger the lives of our security and armed forces.
As for Mr Assange himself, he recently gave a very strange interview to the editor of Private Eye, reportedly blaming “Jews and the Guardian” for his current problems. Assange denies he is anti-Semitic. Some of his best friends are Jewish, apparently.
The Jewish Chroniclereports that last month Assange accused the BBC of trying to influence his extradition hearing on rape charges because the producer of Panorama had a “Zionist wife”.
The newspaper also claims that at a debate at the Cambridge Union last week, Assange allegedly accused Israel of permitting torture. Curiously for a man so keen on freedom of information, Assange refused to allow journalists to attend or record the debate.
So, to the question as to whether DCMD supports Julian Assange, his carefully considered answer is simply “no”. Assange is clearly two sandwiches short of a picnic, and he does the cause of freedom of information no good whatsoever with his incoherent rants and baseless accusations. The security of our nation is slightly more important than the deluded ramblings of an attention seeking publicist with a massive chip on his shoulder.
Don’t Call Me Dave wishes a Happy Purim to all his Jewish readers.
It is a tradition to celebrate Purim by wearing fancy dress. Former South African President Nelson Mandela is pictured right, joining in the festivities by impersonating one of Barnet’s most distinguished councillors.
Don’t Call Me Dave received his council tax demand this morning, together with the usual explanatory booklet.
In previous years, this booklet has always contained a message from the Leader, with a glorious photograph beaming out at us. This year, however, it has been replaced by a bland “Message from the Council”.
It seems that every time there is controversial news to be given to the masses, Lynne Hillan is nowhere to be seen. Coincidence?
Don’t Call Me Dave has been struggling for 20 minutes to think of a good joke to welcome Barnet’s latest blogger, Mr Mustard, who writes a blog Keeping track of spending at Barnet Council.
DCMD feels sure that Eric Pickles would approve of Mr Mustard.
When the story of the Westminster expenses scandal first broke, David Cameron was praised for his swift response. He insisted that money had to be repaid, that the worst offenders would be de-selected and any MP named by the Daily Telegraph would have to hold a public meeting to explain their actions to voters.
So how did that all turn out? Well, Chipping Barnet MP Theresa Villiers was named by the Telegraph, but she never held a public meeting to explain to taxpayers why they should have to pay for her second home, even though she lives just 12 miles from Westminster. Her punishment for defying her party leader was to be made a Government Minister on a salary of £98,740 a year. That taught her a lesson.
It has now been reported that Douglas Hogg, who by name and deed epitomised the very worst of the abuse by claiming £2,000 to have his moat cleaned, was turned down for a peerage by the Lords Appointments Commission on the grounds that he was not a suitable candidate given his outrageous claims. But who decided to nominate this eminently unsuitable person for elevation to the Lords? Why, none other than Prime Minister David Cameron.
What the hell was he thinking? Did he think the public would not find out? Or does he really think that greedy parasites like Hogg actually deserve a place in the Upper House? This is not the first occasion when Cameron’s judgment has been called into question. He failed to sack George Osborne over the incident on the Russian yacht with snake oil salesman Lord Mandelson. He failed to sack the seriously deluded Vince Cable over his Murdoch rant which left taxpayers with a multi million pound bill as his department had to be reorganised.
In the forthcoming referendum, Mr Cameron is campaigning against any change to the voting system. On this point he is correct - there is absolutely no point in changing first-past-the-post when the fault lies elsewhere. It is not the voting system which annoys the public. It is the calibre of people who stand for election that is the real issue.
Until decent, honest, reliable and trustworthy people are elected to the echelons of power, the public will continue to have nothing but contempt for the political classes.
You do have to wonder what was going through his pants mind when Prince Andrew posed for a photograph with a girl young enough to be his daughter. If this wasn’t bad enough, HRH also maintained a close friendship with a convicted paedophile, Jeffrey Epstein, after the latter’s release from jail.
Due to the general decline in moral standards of those who rule over us, the grand old Duke of York has not been removed from his position as a Trade Ambassador. Instead Foreign Secretary William Hague has been wheeled out to defend the man inexplicably nicknamed Randy Andy.
You remember Mr Hague? He’s the married MP who shared a hotel room with his special advisor. Not that there was any rumpy pumpy taking place, you understand.
The Barnet Times carries an extraordinary quote from dictator council leader Lynne Hillan who is trying to blame the Mayor, Tony Finn, for the disgraceful antics of the black-shirted henchmen employed to stop the public from exercising their legal right to attend the council meeting last night.
As has been widely reported elsewhere, Hillan and her sidekick Brian Coleman are fighting a rearguard action to prevent residents from recording meetings, even though senior Conservative Government Ministers insist that this should be permitted.
Hillan told the paper: “I don’t think we were about to pick people up bodily and throw them out of the meeting unless we really had to.”
So force was clearly an option under consideration. Hillan should take a leaf out of Dennis Healey’s book. When you are in a hole, stop digging. The poor woman is utterly deluded, but clearly dangerous with it.
Rog T has posted a video clip of a segment from Barnet Council’s Business Overview and Scrutiny Committee meeting which took place on 28th February 2011. Cllr Hugh Rayner demonstrates his contempt for democratic accountability by trying to prevent the recoding from taking place.
Not wishing to be outdone, Don’t Call Me Dave has now posted an audio recording of the Cabinet Resources Committee meeting of 19th January 2009. Mike Freer was the leader at the time and he is discussing Agenda Item 11 which related to the proposed increase in burial charges.
It is self evident from this clip that there was no disruption to the council’s business whatsoever. Indeed, until now, the council was completely unaware that DCMD had even recorded the meeting. Lynne Hillan’s reason for opposing public recording is her belief that we cannot be trusted to do so responsibly. This is demonstrably not the case.
The issue of public recording is not new. In March 2008, DCMD asked Mike Freer for his opinion on this matter and he replied: “I do not support members of the public recording off their own bat - we would have no control over cutting and splicing. Recording by the council under correct supervision is fine.”
It is typical of the council’s bunker mentality that Freer should have replied in this way. There is no evidence to indicate that the public would want to use recordings improperly.
Freer’s suggestion that only the council could be trusted to make recordings is more in keeping with a Stalinist dictatorship than a forward looking and enlightened English democratic council. But if he was happy for the council to record meetings, why did he not allow it under his watch? Given that you can record about 8 hours worth of video on a DVD costing 10p, the council could easily record all public meetings. If a member of the public did try to improperly “splice” their own recording, they would quickly be found out - assuming that the council itself could be trusted not to selectively edit the disks.
Camden Council not only records its meetings, but makes them available for public download from their web site. So does the Government and the European Parliament, which begs the question as to why Barnet Council considers itself so important that it can operate a blanket ban precisely when other institutions are opening themselves up to greater scrutiny?
The public has an absolute right to observe meetings of the Council and there is nothing in law which says that public meetings cannot be recorded. Given that not everyone has access to the Town Hall, public recordings are entirely justifiable and beneficial for democracy.
At a time when the standing of politicians is at an all time low, especially in Barnet, restricting public scrutiny of proceedings will only add to suspicions that they have something to hide. It seems a poor state of affairs that local councils now have the power to bug our phones as a measure to prevent fly-tipping, but the public cannot make a recording of a public meeting.
A fundamental aspect of democracy is that politicians are our servants and not our masters. The moment they come to think of themselves as our masters, we are on the road to tyranny.
