Regular readers will know that Citizen Smith and the former New Labour autocracy which led this Council up the crooked Crinkley Bottom path have never really seen eye to eye.

But it's nice to see Ian Barker finally admitting that, with regard to this costly farce, Citizen Smith has been right all along.

Like Citizen Smith he now agrees that the public deserves to know from an outside, professional and unbiased source how Lancaster City Council got into such a disastrous project.

This conversion on the road to auditor's office is to be welcomed seeing as in-house council investigations into this debacle at the time concluded that nobody did anything wrong.

In fact, in the early days, Dr Barker and his buddies were keen to take matters into their own hands rather than let the Blobby fiasco be examined by prying, professional eyes.

We can only wonder why.

He is now willing to accept that there were (in his words) 'bad decisions, faulty judgement, honest mistakes, unwitting errors,' but as it appears the deputy leader said nothing.

Those responsible for many of these 'bad decisions' and 'unwitting errors' at the time were either given enhanced pensions or promoted with handsome salaries and once again, he and others, said nothing.

Council leader at the time, Professor Stan Henig, after overseeing the loss of £2 million of tax payers money, was given a 365 per cent increase in his allowances but Dr Barker said absolutely nothing.

Perhaps we should pity this shy wallflower who was unable to stand up and say little of substance throughout the whole debacle.

Then again he's not shy in coming forward to blame a member of the public for costing us the huge expense of the auditor's inquiry.

This is a disgraceful attempt to deflect the fall out of this mess and reveals his true colours.

He and his pals did not respond to calls for an independent inquiry at the time (which could have saved us all the £530,000 cost of the auditor's enquiry)

He stood silent as those who made bad and extremely costly decisions were either promoted or offered enhanced pensions.

He showed no concern for the public purse as his glorious leader cashed in on the biggest leader's allowance increase in the county (Stan is now very keen it seems to stress he wasn't council leader at the time, he was merely leader of the largest group on the council - so why did you collect the full leader's allowance Stanley?) The decisions had cross-party support claims the bleating Barker.

Of course they did, because councillors were not told the whole truth... that's the whole point.

He and his cronies have squirmed, threatened and obfuscated at every turn in this costly drama and now he has stooped to a new low by attempting to blame the public for wanting a thorough enquiry.

You may not agree, Dr Barker, but to many members of the public the loss of £2 million of tax payers' cash is a serious matter and it is only right a professional, independent body looks into it.

It's up to the auditor to decide if there is a case for wilful misconduct, not you - we'll all have to wait and see.

But, it's hypocrisy of the highest order for The Doctor of all people to now call for individuals to accept responsibility for the cost of this enquiry.

Mike Ford and others were complaining because of the cost of Blobby.

It is perverse of Dr Barker to now try to suggest that it is the public who have been profligate with the public purse and not the council.

The history of his performance as deputy leader at the time reveals he said too little too late, did even less and typically took responsibility for nothing.

If there was no wilful misconduct are we to assume that Dr Barker and others are happy with the standard of professional decision making at the time.

Was there not a case for disciplinary action based on that alone? After all it's not as if financial disasters and the city mandarins were exactly strangers is it?

The simplest solution to the whole Blobby fiasco is very straightforward and would have saved us all a lot of time and money.

Maybe the authority can ill-afford the cost of this inquiry but it can't afford not to have the truth.

A good deputy leader with any sense or wit would have realised this.

Those responsible should have done the honourable thing and resigned.

End of story - no outcry, no objection, no cost.