Haringey is to Egypt as Barnet is to Iran

In the last few weeks we have, if we've any humanity, been transfixed by events in Egypt. We were even able to watch the protests and the heroic struggles by democracy campaigners to hold Tahrir Square on television. No doubt, Egypt was (still is?) a police state, but it is a relatively open society.

The state-owned Egyptian Lying Broadcasting Corporation covered the events - dishonestly, yes, but you could read what was happening by what they omitted, eg, close-up scenes of the crowds in Tahrir Square after Mubarak told them on 10 February that he wasn't going to go.

And these broadcasts were supplemented with almost continuous coverage by independent broadcasters such as Al Jazeera (independent of the Egyptian state if not of the Qatari!).

Contrast this to the uprisings in Iran in 2009 - and, possibly, today. The little that we could see of comparable sized demonstrations of at least a million on the streets of Iran (from a population of comparable size to Egypt's) squeaked out through tweets on Twitter and mobile phone footage smuggled onto YouTube.

Yes, Egypt was (still is?) a police state, but the repression in Iran is that much more complete and suffocating.

What has this to do with Haringey and Barnet? Of course, both are paradises for anyone who wants to do anything remotely political compared to Egypt and Iran. But, relative to each other, Haringey is to Egypt as Barnet is to Iran.

In Haringey, council meetings, all of them, as far as I can tell, are filmed and painstakingly indexed, so Haringey residents can see who has spoken, how long they spoke for, etc! I haven't watched the broadcasts for long - they're council meetings, for heaven's sake! - but I would bet that the general standard of behaviour of councillors in Haringey is much higher than that of councillors in Barnet.

You can see the range of what is available to Haringey residents here.

Contrast that to Barnet, where a hapless member of the public spectating the Cabinet meeting on Monday 14 February, mistakenly believing that he was living in the 21st century, attempted to make a film of the meeting on his phone. He was threatened with expulsion from the meeting.

Residents who wanted to share with interested parties outside what they were seeing with their own eyes, were reduced to discreetly Twittering. As we are often reminded in relation to the recent Iranian uprising, Twitter is a great new tool for getting around the barriers put in the way of democracy by repressive regimes.

No less true in Barnet than in Tehran.

A while back David Miller, on his "Not the Barnet Times" blog, reviewed the most-up-to-date knowledge on why Barnet won't allow broadcasting of meetings - or, even, private broadcasting in the form of residents making their own videos.

I suspect the main reason is that Barnet's Conservative regime would not long outlast any more scrutiny.

Hey, hey, ho, ho, Lynne Hillan has to go!

Barnet councillors' expenses and the People's Charter of 1838

I think there have been worse crimes perpetrated by our MPs than over-claiming on their expenses - to wit, their crap policies. I also think there is danger in a populist press campaign that undermines people's faith in the parliamentary system - to promote what in its place, exactly?

But, of course, many of the claims have been shocking. One that gained my attention, late in the day, was Ann Cryer, Labour MP for Keighley, claiming £1,350 for a table and £795 for a rug. How many of her constituents would think of paying that much for a table or a rug? (Answer: a lot more if they thought someone else was paying.)

Now, I do support the old Chartist demand of payment for MPs - it has allowed the working class to have representatives. In this regard, it is interesting to see Mike Freer and Matthew Offord, Tory PPCs for this area, giving up their day jobs for a few months in order to concentrate on their parliamentary ambitions. How many other people would be in a financial position to do this?

I don't, however, support the idea of politician as a profession - and a lucrative one at that. MPs should earn what, on average, a working class person earns. That would keep their feet on the ground. I also support annual parliaments: people will say that it would be bureaucratic, but I think a more responsive political system would pay massive dividends in the long run - and more people could have a turn.

Here are the six main demands of the People's Charter of 1838. Ignore the obvious sexism and see what you think of it as a set of reforms:

A vote for every man 21 years of age, of sound mind, and not undergoing punishment for crime.

The [secret] ballot. - To protect the elector in the exercise of his vote.

No property qualification for members of Parliament - thus enabling the constituencies to return the man of their choice, be he rich or poor.

Payment of members, thus enabling an honest tradesman, working man, or other person, to serve a constituency, when taken from his business to attend to the interests of the Country.

Equal Constituencies, securing the same amount of representation for the same number of electors, instead of allowing small constituencies to swamp the votes of large ones.

Annual parliaments, thus presenting the most effectual check to bribery and intimidation, since though a constituency might be bought once in seven years (even with the ballot), no purse could buy a constituency (under a system of universal suffrage) in each ensuing twelve-month; and since members, when elected for a year only, would not be able to defy and betray their constituents as now.

While on a political probity tip, it is good to see David Miller of Not the Barnet Times getting a reply at last to his request to see Barnet councillors' expenses. They are little league compared to MPs' expenses, but there are still some questions to answer.

Welcome to Barnet, the bloggingest borough of them all

Congratulations to David Miller (Not the Barnet Times) and Roger Tichborne (The Barnet Eye) whose blogs have been chosen by the Guardian's Dave Hill (Dave Hill's London Blog) as two of the best in London.

Envious? Me? Not a bit of it! I revel in the success of my fellow Barnet bloggers (natch!) and the fact that Barnet has so far produced a third of London's best blogs: two from the six chosen so far.

Is this mere coincidence? Or is it that we have particularly skilled blogsmiths in Barnet? Or is it, just possibly, that Barnet provides a surprisingly rich seam of scandal and gossip for us to mine? It's probably a bit of all three, but the latter must be very important.

Former Barnet council leader Mike Freer set out to win a reputation for Barnet as a trendsetting, flagship Tory borough. His problem was that once his actual record was placed under the tiniest bit of scrutiny, it was seen to be badly scratched.

Freer and his fellow councillors crave publicity but abhor scrutiny, it's an irritant to them, and they've done what they can to disparage the people who examine what they do. But the lights that Barnet's bloggers are shining on their doings will not dim soon.