Only Connect - BT and the cult of Vital Vision

As we know, one of the many curious links between the Tory run local authorities of Broken Barnet and beleaguered Suffolk County Council is the fact that several key players from both authorities have been part of a program run by BT known as 'Vital Vision'. One key player, a BT employee on long term secondment, has, in fact moved from Barnet to Suffolk.

The Vital Vision program identifies certain leading public sector figures, invites them to the US to attend a couple of courses and encourages them to think about new ways of doing business. At the end of this, they are given a certificate -( look Mum, I've got an MBA!) - and sent home, with a head full of bewildering new thoughts, and promises of follow up events in the UK.

There are two ways of looking at this sort of hospitality. Perhaps it is just a harmless sort of entertainment, like sending your kids to football camp in the school holidays, to keep them out of mischief, and collect a few plastic trophies. Alternatively, it might be thought that it is much more than that, and rather less innocuous: more like some sort of cult movement, a training camp, hidden away in the corporate foothills, created to indoctrinate impressionable or easily flattered individuals and replace them as sleeper agents in the public sector, primed and ready to unload a campaign of business friendly strategies wherever they work. Maybe. No doubt, as usual, the truth lies somewhere in between.

And they work in all sorts of areas now, these Vital Vision graduates, or, tellingly, as they are referred to in BT speak, these 'visionaries'. Stop sniggering. Find them now, these prophets of profit, in central government departments, in local government, the NHS, the police, all over the UK. A trawl on the internet readily reveals a number of people, well known and less high profile, who have attended the programme - having asked taxpayers, via their local authorities or employers, to pay thousands of pounds from training budgets in order to cover costs.

And look what else you can find on the internet, relating to Vital Vision. Some rather perplexing documents, in fact.

A BT 'programme sponsor' is quoted in one online editorial (www2.bt.com/application/vitalvision ) as follows:

"Vital Vision brings together a unique mix of senior Government decision-makers, BT research partners, and leading academic institutions including Harvard, Berkeley, Stanford and MIT.

The goal is to explore current business thinking and how it can best be applied to Government. The process is enhanced by the quality of the participants, and the stimulating, interactive environment they create. It is designed to be 'of the participants, by the participants and is most definitely not a sales event." (my emphasis in bold print)

Not a sales event. Note that.

Now then. Mrs Angry has discovered another BT document, a pdf file entitled Vital Vision Final, dating from 2005, a rather revelatory publication. (*Update October 2012: this document disappeared from the web shortly after this post was published, for some reason ... ) Mrs Angry can't help thinking that it was never intended for public access, in view of much of the material. Here are some interesting extracts:

"A typical “Vital Visionary” is a forward thinking chief executive officer (CEO) or someone who is seen as on the “fast track” to CEO. They must be the kind of person who will shape the views of others and contribute their intellect unstintingly. This is key because this ensures that the impact of Vital Vision reaches far beyond those that actually attend. The participants design vital Vision so their contribution is a necessity – this is not a passive experience. The relationship impact is clearly documented here, with various examples from clients involved in the program and from BT senior managers responsible for those relationships. The revenue link is also clearly measured and demonstrated along with some unforeseen bonuses delivered by Vital Vision.The revenue link is also clearly measured and demonstrated along with some unforeseen bonuses delivered by Vital Vision." (again, my emphasis in bold) "

The document goes on to explain how the program works:

"The participant is inducted as a “Vital Visionary” by a personal in-depth interview where we determine the key issues with which they are grappling. This information is amalgamated to ensure that the content of the program is designed to be as relevant as possible for the group. We also explore the individual’s personality profile, learning profile and emotional intelligence to help us to determine the best method for delivery."

(I'm guessing that some of the more intellectually challenged 'Visionaries' we know about here in Broken Barnet may have had to have been sat down in front of a blackboard, with chalk diagrams, and milk and biscuits at playtime, in that case ...)

What is the content of the program itself?

"The programme encompasses visits to BT’s partner business schools in the US, as well as workshops and briefings in the UK to create a strong relationship between BT senior managers and senior clients. The “hot-house” environment successfully recreates a collegiate atmosphere of “work hard - play hard”, encouraging delegates to bond more quickly and to a deeper level than is experienced in usual business, or even hospitality situations."

Frankly, there is nothing on the proposed schedule for that year which could not be read in a 'Public Sector Management for Dummies' manual. One day's heavy MIT/Harvard timetable is - Morning: 'Engaging the Citizen'. Lunch. 'Leadership in the Public Sector'. Dinner in the Aquarium. (wet suits provided, presumably). Another day: 'Morning: 'Change is a Risky Dance' (American Smooth?). Lunch. 'The Digital Divide'. Theatre visit.' And for this you get an MBA? ... But what is clear is what is important is not the message, but the medium: attendees are made to feel important, hand picked, respected for their perceived intellect and leadership qualities. No, no, you cynic, don't laugh behind your hand: and remember, this is not a sales opportunity.

As with any well run cult, the Vital Vision program will pursue its acolytes even unto death, or rather what passes for corporate life in the UK:

"After this initial induction year we run an alumni program of one-day events throughout the year. This ensures that we remain engaged and continue to leverage these relationships on an ongoing basis."

Underneath a graph detailing business won by BT as a result of the program, there is a listing of the all round benefits of the scheme:

"The benefits to BT include: -

• Increasing the perception of BT as the kind of
company that will work with the public sector to use
ICT to address business issues - Ok, if you say so.

• To open debates about business issues from the
CEO perspective - Fair enough.

• Improving the credibility of BT as an innovative
ICT supplier - Yes, alright, and -

• Improvement in win rate on over £1bn of business
(contract value) annuall - Ah ...

• Influencing the thinking of the chief executives to
shape their agenda - Er, why? What business is it of yours, BT?

• The generation of £7m worth of PR including
Channel 4 news and the national press along with
radio and internet coverage." - Really? Channel 4 News? No shit. Class.

Appendix 1 in this document is a listing of nominated attendees to the 2005/6 program, individuals from all parts of the public sector: did they want to be listed in such detail, one wonders? There is also a reference to ... a total opportunity value of £1.7 billion pounds.

Next to the names of the lucky people nominated, are further details of BT's 'opportunities', under columns marked 'Sales Stage' - either 'Create Awareness' or 'Develop Solution', and then the individual issues of each attendee, such as videoconferencing, or data storage, or broadband supply. We then find columns with 'Expected close date', and ah: 'Contract Value' - and even 'Probability'.

Now Mrs Angry is happy to emphasise that in the course of providing this Vital Vision program, BT is acting perfectly legally and above board, and the nominated attendees naturally join the program with perfectly open and honest expectations. I am sure that they leave in the same happy state, with their innocence intact. There is nothing to suggest in this document that any pressure was brought to bear on attendees to give business to BT, or that any business was given as a result of any inducement or hospitality. All contracts in the public sector are, as we know, subject to stringent procurement, tendering and contract regulation. (Except, sshh, in Broken Barnet. MetPro, anyone?)

The details in this document are clearly five or six years old. It may well be that since then sales targeting has been completely abandoned in favour of a totally altruistic, educational program by BT, as some sort of charitable enterprise, working philanthropically with the more academically disadvantaged members of our corporate community. Well, it's always possible, isn't it?

But in Mrs Angry's considered view, it is not possible to feel comfortable with the idea of the largest provider of ICT to the public sector forging such intimate relations with so many well placed executives and leaders and seeking to exert such lasting and profound influence through them in their areas of work. Both in terms of access to the potential clients, and the ability to shape policy decisions, this is surely not in the best interests of transparency and accountability in public office. Why should any one private company, of any size, be in such a powerful and favourable position when so much public investment is at stake?

If there is any evidence supporting doubt about the benefit to tax payers of any outsourced service, whether in terms of value, or safety, or performance, the suspicion might reasonably arise that the contract may not have been awarded entirely on the basis of merit. And can the other bidders in any tender process resort to such priviliged access to potential clients?

Apart from the lack of clarity over the award of contracts, what influence has the Vital Vision program had on the shaping of policy in councils now favourable to massive outsourcing and all the opportunities it brings to the private sector, in the widest sense, not just in terms of BT/ ICT and telecom services? These are all valid questions which someone should be asking. Has anyone actually done this?

Of course the private sector wants to see the advance of outsourcing, and the huge market expansion that will come with it, bringing endless opportunities for profit from the tax payer. All the more reason why, wherever possible, we must be vigilant, and closely scrutinise the processes that deliver huge contracts into the hands of companies, not just the global masters like BT, but of all sizes. And here in Broken Barnet, we have more reason than others to be concerned about how much scrutiny will be necessary, don't we?

Lost blog

Oh dear: thanks to blogger crashing yesterday, Mrs Angry has lost the last published blogpost, ie Only connect: BT and the cult of Vital Vision.
Mrs Angry is not in a very good mood.
She will endeavour to rewrite the post when she is feeling less irritable.

Update Saturday: Mrs Angry's sanity has been saved by the foresight of a reader, who kept a copy, now reinstated. Many thanks David.

Outsourcing: an open letter to the councillors of Broken Barnet

Tuesday 10 May 2011

Time to pull back from the One Barnet Programme

Dear councillor,

Next Tuesday 17 May is the council’s AGM. As residents we see this as an opportunity for the Council to do some stocktaking and signal a change of direction.

The One Barnet Programme (OBP) was initially presented as the new and innovative approach to the future of Council services. However, as soon as the first reports were published it became clear that there was little evidence behind many of the exaggerated claims being made by the consultants paid to advise on the programme.

We are aware that many councillors doubt whether OBP can deliver the savings and improved services Barnet residents expect. We share those anxieties.

Last week saw the publication of a number of articles in the mainstream press supporting the view that mass outsourcing does not save money, is high risk, and has a negative impact on staff morale. We hope you will take the time to read the extracts from some of those articles which follow.

The fate of Suffolk County Council

Suffolk County Council last September declared its intention to become the first “virtual council”. The Chief Executive pushing this programme, under the name New Strategic Direction (NSD), was being supported by Max Wide, on secondment from BT. As you know, Wide was one of the architects of Future Shape/One Barnet.

Since announcing their intention to outsource most services, Suffolk has been dogged by controversy. In December they were accused of ignoring a £100 million overspend on a deal with BT. (See article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/dec/16/suffolk-council-bt-overspend.)

In the last few days there have been big changes in the Conservative Party in Suffolk as a result of concerns about NSD, and the scheme has been halted. The Guardian newspaper reports:

The previous council leader, Jeremy Pembroke, who helped oversee the plans... stepped down in April amid concern about the deeply unpopular changes. An inquiry was begun into morale at the council's legal department after an anonymous whistleblowing letter, sent to councillors, and believed to be from an employee, alleged staff there had been put under "unbearable pressure". The letter refers to "the poisonous atmosphere that exists at present" in the council.

(Full article here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/may/04/suffolk-virtual-council-plan.)

The BBC has reported on its website:

MPs were concerned that Suffolk County Council chief executive's policies threatened to "rip the heart out" of local communities. Negotiations are reported to be going on between the council and its chief executive Andrea Hill who has not returned to work after a holiday and is now reported to be on "extended leave". Suffolk Central Conservative MP Dr Dan Poulter said he and fellow MPs had been worried about the direction the council was taking under Ms Hill.

(To see the BBC interview with Poulter visit http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-suffolk-13312597.)

Outsourcing should not be the automatic response to austerity.

The public sector IT managers’ association SOCITM has published a research briefing called Costs of outsourcing: uncovering the real risks.

The report’s author, Martin Greenwood, warns:

Outsourcing should not be considered an inevitable response to austerity. Even smaller organisations that need to gain economies of scale, and struggle to keep up with technological development, should consider collaboration and sharing with other local public services as a genuine alternative. If they do take the plunge into outsourcing, they should make sure they are aware of the pitfalls and know how to avoid them. ...It is a myth that outsourcing is cheaper, across most areas it is more expensive and people outsource for a range of reasons other than cost.

The report reveals that “when comparing the costs for any service, most elements will be more expensive if outsourced. The risks associated with benchmarking begin at the tender stage when suppliers will benefit from being experts at the process of negotiating contract terms, in contrast with the local authority that will go to market only rarely for a major outsourcing.”

(More details: http://www.socitm.net/news/article/76/new_briefing_highlighs_outsourcing_risks.)

The government is rowing back on mass outsourcing of public services.

The BBC reported a recent meeting between the CBI and the minister for the Cabinet Office, Francis Maude, where the minister explained:

...the government is committed to transforming services, but this would not be a return to the 1990s with wholesale outsourcing to the private sector – this would be unpalatable to the present administration. The government was not prepared to run the political risk of fully transferring services to the private sector with the result that they could be accused of being naive or allowing excess profitmaking by private sector firms. [Note of meeting by CBI]

(Read more here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13273932.)

The articles above point to the folly of schemes such as the One Barnet Programme.

In the last two months the Council’s poor procurement and contract monitoring capacity has been demonstrated by the MetPro, Catalyst (legionella bacterium) and SAP cases. These have all harmed the Council’s reputation. Yet these are small contracts when compared to what OBP is proposing. With OBP the risks will be much higher.

We are asking the Conservative administration to bring OBP to a close before it is too late.

Millions of pounds of public money has already been spent on consultants, with no discernible savings achieved, and the losses could well be multiplied many fold going forward. Residents and Barnet council staff are increasingly anxious about the future of Barnet council services. Councillors should be too.

Last September the Leader said “I would always listen to the community” when she reversed the decision to increase councillors’ allowances. We are asking you to listen now.

There is still time to put the brakes on the One Barnet Programme. We urge you to do so.

Yours sincerely,

Derek Dishman
John Dix
Vicki Morris
Theresa Musgrove
Roger Tichborne

Mrs Angry: enemy of the state

After the last blogpost, on the subject of Suffolk, Barnet and the BT Vital Vision links, Mrs Angry has noted some rather unusual visitors calling by. Goodness me, so many visits from a corporate BT intranet blogwatch: why is that, do you think? Hmm: and then, she noticed a very odd thing - visits from a site with a curious marker. Mrs Angry did some poking about to see what she could find out about this IP, and do you know, readers, if she were of a paranoid disposition, she might be feeling slightly concerned. Again.

This caller's IP is associated by some with a certain type of official snooping activity. Now, Mrs Angry is in a position to know that in fact blogs are subject to scrutiny by such enterprises (don't ask me how I know, as I will have to kill you all, and I can't really spare the time - too much ironing & stuff). This sort of thing is often kicked off by key word triggers. Oh dear. Things like 'surveillance' in combination with other words. Yes: one search by this site brought someone here via a certain politician's name and that word in a blog post - which actually was about the illicit filming of residents by our council's former security company, MetPro, rather than, say, stalking certain Tory MPs, shall we say - rather amusing, don't you think?

Some of the imaginative people who subscribe to the conspiracy theory view of life speculate about this sort of internet scrutiny and this particular IP, and link it, for example, to the use of undercover cops to infiltrate activist movements targeting corporate and government bodies, & who are alleged to get up to all sorts of mischief. Agent Provocateur is the word. Oh dear again. Of course, Mrs Angry has mentioned this term recently. Hands up. And sorry to disappoint, because actually, (& don't tell Dave Hill) it was in relation to a discussion of ladies' lingerie, rather than inciting anarchist violence (see the comments stream, 'Mrs Angry, never knowingly underplayed' ...)

So just to make it perfectly clear to visiting snoopers: Mrs Angry is not a rabid anarchist, plotting the downfall of capitalism. She is too lazy, too bourgeois, and too easily distracted. Oh, and the last time she got into trouble for misbehaviour in Trafalgar Square was when she was about four years old, tried to push her annoying cousin Christopher into the fountain, and laughed when a pigeon shat all over her grandmother - see above, the infant Mrs Angry, being firmly kettled by granny.

And er, haven't you got more important things to worry about at the moment?

Now, all joking aside, although Mrs Angry is amused by the attention she is receiving, she is also resolute in her belief that we citizen journalists have a perfect right, and indeed a duty, to raise issues of public interest, including ones that are critical of politicians and major corporations, and she will continue to do so, thank you very much. Since stumbling into this business, she is frankly staggered by the extent of dubious acitivity within the secret world of local government - and not just here in the badlands of Broken Barnet. As the push for private outsourcing rolls relentlessly on, all the more reason for constant vigilance of the workings of our politicians, senior officers, and would be contractors.

In the last couple of blogs we have mentioned the interesting developments at Suffolk County Council, where another Tory council has, like our lunatic administration here in Broken Barnet, dedicated itself to a programme of massive outsourcing and privatisation of council services. On the brink of electoral disaster, the Tory backbenchers on Suffolk council revolted, and the leader resigned, followed shortly by the announcement that there would be an interval of 'reflection' and that the controversial Chief Executive, Andrea Hill, will now be enjoying an extended period of 'gardening leave'.

According to a BBC story today, Ms Hill's leave coincides with an investigation into allegations related to 'whistle-blowing' complaints. She is sorely missed, apparently.

A friend has brought to my attention some amusing verses about Ms Hill written by the performance poet Luke Wright, which include lines such as:

"The last time we saw you your eyes were like ice
your mouth like a festering stab wound, not nice
insisting you keep your extortionate fees
while parts of your county are brought to its knees ...

"Ms Andrea Hill, the people of Suffolk
have seen your PR and they want you to stuff it
they’re still licking wounds from this right-wing insanity
they take little comfort from your doe-eyed vanity."

Mrs Angry has picked up her One Barnet biro, and is chewing the end thoughtfully, thinking naughtily about our CE, Mr Nick Walkley, and waiting for inspiration.

In fact, rumour has it that Ms Andrea Hill was interested in the Barnet CE job, so perhaps we should all be grateful for a lucky escape. He appears not to have been asked on the Vital Vision junkets, (by invitation only, don't you know) which I would take as a compliment, if I were he.

Anyway. The Guardian's Patrick Butler reports in his recent Cuts Blog (apologies, link problems still) that the electoral results from Thursday show the LibDems deflecting much of the Tory's flak for the Coalition's more unpopular traits, and suggesting that many Tory authorities are avoiding the worst effects of drastic cuts in budget by benefiting from generous grants from that nice Mr Pickles.

What is significant, however, is that it seems in areas where Tory ideological 'reforms' are being stuffed down electors' throats, there has been a disastrous reaction in the polls. Hello: Suffolk County Council got a kicking after all, thanks to the now discredited 'virtual council'/'New Strategic Direction' overseen by Ms Hill. And down in Brighton and Hove, the Tories' 'intelligent commissioning' plans were given two fingers by unappreciative voters, leading to a loss of eight seats.

Bearing in mind that such reaction is happening long before the cuts have really started to bite, or the massive scale of outsourcing begun, one might think that any Tory council that dares to continue along this line is writing its own death warrant. This difficult thought will of course take a long time to filter through the One Barnet bilge floating about in the otherwise empty heads of the dimwit Tory councillors in this borough. One or two of the more politically astute might just begin to worry about the personal consequences to their brilliant careers, though, and maybe, just maybe, we will start to see some argument amongst our Tory friends about the extent of their commitment to the outsourcing agenda?

Update: Suffolk, Barnet, BT & last year's model

Much to Mrs Angry's surprise, several unexpected themes of this week's blogposts are tangling themselves into some sort of horrible hairball, now regurgitated on the Broken Barnet Town Hall carpet for our closer inspection.

Yesterday I reported the story of Suffolk County Council's panicky election eve u turn on the massive outsourcing agenda claimed by many to be a Tory model for local government, along the lines of the easycouncil, futureshaped, One Barnet twaddle promoted by our own erstwhile leader, now local ToryMP, Mike Freer.

It seems that Barnet and Suffolk, the self styled Tory flagships and pioneers of Contract City, have more in common than I first realised (although Don't Call me Dave, in Not the Barnet Times referred to some of this in a post last year, I see). Mike Freer's connection with the BT 'Vital Visions' programme, for example, as described in earlier blog, 'Love Me Tender', is an experience shared with Suffolk's generously rewarded Chief Executive Andrea Hill.

According to a story in the Daily Mail, on the 8th March, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1363992/Council-boss-Andrea-Hill-David-Cameron-accepts-2-US-trips-paid-BT.html * Ms Hill has attended two BT conferences, in San Francisco and Boston, paid for by BT, and has also accepted hospitality from the company on 14 other occasions. Concern has been raised about such associations as Suffolk has a joint multi million pound venture with BT, a project whose contracted costs are alleged to have gone up by 42%, a state of affairs which apparently led to the resignation of senior council officers.

There is another interesting link between Barnet and Suffolk. Suffolk's 'Director of Organisational Change' is a man called Max Wide. He has been in post since April 2010, and is on long term secondment from BT. Oh: Mr Wide used to have a similar post here in Barnet, also on secondment from BT.

And then of course Leo Boland, our former Chief Executive, now at the GLA, also attended the BT Vital Vision courses, while at Barnet.

None of these links are in any way improper, of course, or in breach of statutory regulation regarding hospitality, all of which has been properly declared by the individuals concerned. But it is surely a reasonable question to ask: what is the purpose of BT's Vital Vision programme? How much influence, for good or bad, does it have on the long term business and administrative lives of our local authorities? Should a major business, which is dependent on large contracts, be able to become so involved in shaping the thinking of political leaders and senior executives?

Here is another reason, then, for us to be so concerned about the lack of scrutiny in Barnet over the placement and monitoring of outsourced contracts. As we have seen from the MetPro scandal, without a robust and transparent system of scrupulous contract tendering and appraisal, there is an unacceptably high risk of failure and too much potential for exploitation by private companies.

The Guardian's Patrick Butler has this evening published an interesting update to the Suffolk story: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/may/05/suffolk-county-council-andrea-hill * reporting that Ms Hill is now on 'gardening leave' from Suffolk County Council, for 'personal reasons'.

If the Tory group running Barnet Council does not read about what has happened in Suffolk and realise what is heading for us here in Barnet, they really must be terminally, irredeemably stupid, and hopelessly incompetent.

We know from Grant Thornton that One Barnet's non existent business plan is completely inadequate, an economic nonsense and totally unworkable. It's time for the Tories to dump the whole ludicrous plan, and get out while there is still time, and a shred of dignity left to cover themselves with. If not, their political careers are over, but more importantly, Barnet really will be broken, and there will be no way of sticking the pieces back together again.

* apologies for link problems, work in progress ...

Outsourcing: Tory flagship council Suffolk bottles it

I've just heard some news that should be rattling the nerves of even the most the dimwitted of our grasping, dopey Tory councillors here in Broken Barnet: on the eve of local elections, the Conservative run Suffolk County Council has taken fright, and decided to announce a dramatic u turn in its plans to implement a hugely controversial agenda of massive service outsourcing.

According to an online story in the Guardian by Patrick Butler, http://m.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/may/04/suffolk-virtual-council-plan?cat=society&type=article - a political revolt by Tory backbench councillors was triggered by public opposition to cuts and a collapse in staff morale.

Last month, in fact, the former Tory leader, Jeremy Pembroke, stepped down during a period of increasing concern and new leader Mark Bee has taken over. He has promised ' a period of reflection' and to put the issue of staff morale as a priority in a new approach by his administration, following a whistle blowing letter sent to all councillors by someone believed to be an employee, in which references were made to the 'poisonous atmosphere that exists at present' within the council.

Suffolk County Council is run by the much written about Andrea Hill, one of the country's highest paid Chief Executives, paid £218, 000 a year in a county where the average salary is £23,000, and according to some reports, where half of the county's council workers earn less than £17,000 a year. She has presided over the rush to implement what is officially labelled 'the new strategic direction', and slashed budgets, even to the point of dumping all £35 a week lollipop ladies, whilst being accused of sanctioning ludicrious training courses for senior staff, including a £6,ooo splurge on a team building exercise for senior officers which included, oh dear: chocolate making, drumming and singing exercises ...

Now you may be forgiven, citizens of Broken Barnet, for thinking this is all too familiar. A Chief Executive paid more than the Prime Minister, public money wasted on self indulgent 'training' for senior staff, and all in the name of a council ideologically obsessed with outsourcing on a massive scale, endangering the safe delivery of frontline services to local residents. Hmm. I note the reference to a poisonous atmosphere: this almost exactly echoes the remark made to me by a senior officer from Barnet, who spoke of the appalling pressures, intense anxiety about redundancies and 'toxic' working environment in his department. Speak to any Barnet union representative about the state of morale throughout the whole authority, and you will understand just how bad things are here now.

Call it 'the new strategic direction', or One Barnet: it's the same stinking mess, and now, under pressure from central government fretting about an election, in the former Tory flagship council in Suffolk, it's being swept right out of the door.

In the Guardian article, shadow communities and local government secretary Caroline Flint is quoted as saying:

"I'm all in favour of innovation and efficiency in local government, but the Conservatives running Suffolk county council have decided to put party political ideology ahead of running effective local services – and it's backfired.
"There is also a lesson for David Cameron and [the communities secretary] Eric Pickles here. Pushing through half-baked Tory experiments and ignoring the wishes of local people is more likely to put frontline services at risk than improve them."

Quite.

A note to the backbench Tory councillors of Barnet: is any of this striking a chord? No? Thought not.

Andrea Hill wrote an article in a council magazine in which she defended the now abandoned strategy. Referring to the reaction to the plans she wrote:

"It's not an easy or comfortable place to be because we are challenging the old ways of doing things. We are developing a new model that will unsettle the status quo and, as we all know, any change makes ordinary people uncertain. Changing the system challenges vested interests and will therefore be attacked ..."

Ah: and therein lies the difference between Suffolk and Barnet. The vested interests in One Barnet are all on the side of those pushing for outsourcing: politicians and private contractors. You don't have to look very far to see who benefits from the extension of private contracting in this borough,and anyone who has followed the development of recent stories in our local blogs knows what I'm talking about.

It really does stink, doesn't it?

Brian Coleman: Fightback starts here ... where? No, here ...

Rumours abound that Brian Coleman is strangely reluctant to follow Tory spin doctor Lynton Crosby's GLA election campaign strategy, see above.

Brian's own political instincts are so finely tuned, he believes, that he really needs no guidance and will rely on his record in office to speak for itself. Good idea, Brian, says Mrs Angry.

We know this because over the weekend, which was rather quiet, after all, some breaking news appeared on a major source of political gossip, known only to a select few here in Broken Barnet.

Our local Tory MP, Mike Freer, has a dedicated website - 'The Friend of Mike Freer' -

http://friendsoffreer.blogspot.com/

run by a mysterious, blushing admirer known only as 'Mrs T'. She is not, as sometimes alleged, one of the wives of Barnet Eye blogger Rog T, but a self styled Finchley housewife. Ha. (After a long period of covert surveillance, Mrs Angry recently tracked her down to the fish counter in Waitrose, and, in reprisal for her gross stupidity and one or two offensive remarks(such as dyslexic children being 'thickheads'), was about to launch a task and finish assault on her, with an extra large baguette and some over ripe organic tomatoes - but, somehow, the moment passed, and the target escaped back into the tribal foothills of Finchley. Shame.)

Mrs T's latest blog post, however, is a must read for all fans of our Brian.

"Sunday, 1 May 2011 Brian Coleman congratulates Andrew Dismore on his selection as Labour GLA Candidate The friends of Mike Freer caught up with an old friend of ours recently. Brian Coleman is our larger than life GLA representive for Barnet and Camden. Brian is well known as one of the most hard working politicians in London. He is also well known for his other work, recently co-hosting a show on LBC with his old adversary, ex Mayor Ken Livingstone. We asked him what he thought of Labour selecting Andrew Dismore to face him in the GLA elections in 2012. Brian told us he was thrilled. Brian said "The selection of Dismore has conclusively shown everybody that it's the same old Labour party". Brian will be keen to highlight the fact that before Matthew Offord beat him in Hendon, Dismore was the MP with one of the highest expense bills in the country. Despite living in London, Dismore claimed allowances for a second home. Unlike Brian, Dismore doesn't even live in Barnet, his main home being in the champagne socialist belt in Notting Hill. Recently Andrew Dismore has been leading opposition to the Etz Chaim Jewish free school in Mill Hill, despite a desperate need for school places for Jewish children in Mill Hill. It should be an interesting battle and we look forward to Brian being re-elected with a much increased majority. Posted by Mrs T at 08:59"

Er. Um. Is this hard working, larger than life Brian Coleman, who is so shocked by the exploitation of expenses, the same taxi loving Brian Coleman who likes to sleep at his desk at the GLA and attends the odd buffet on our behalf? Can't be. He is getting larger, I'll grant you. Couldn't help but notice he was struggling to get in - and out -of his speedos on our otherwise blissful honeymoon in the Sandbanks Hotel, Poole, last week. But I am sure that Brian would not approve of sly references to a controversial planning proposal being dragged into use against an opponent, aren't you? He would never exploit such a sensitive issue for political purposes, would he?

If you visit this marvellous blog, you will see that Mrs T has helpfully added links to no less than four stories featuring her hero and - guess what - his recent phone counting activities! (see previous post).

I have to warn you, friends, (* updated, sadly, see below ... )however, that you should avoid scrolling down to the bottom of the blog page. Mrs T, for reasons best known to herself, has also linked in a feed from youtube which, she tells us breathlessly, features 'all the latest youtube videos from Finchley and Golders Green'. I am rather appalled to have to tell you that these videos include one of our local gang, so familiar to our local police (eh boys?), the Graveyard Family - perhaps they have been co opted by the council to join their league of hip hop mentors? - and worse, far worse - please look away now if you are, like Mrs Angry, easily shocked: some sort of advert for a gentleman's magazine called, ahem: 'Stylish Masturbator', the front cover of which, I note, portrays an oddly familiar face. I must say that I am very disappointed in you, Mrs T. Such smutty innuendo is not what we Finchley housewives want to see on our local blogs.

*It is with great regret that I must announce the youtube link has now mysteriously disappeared, leaving Mr Roger Tichborne and many other keen readers of that sort of literature with a deep sense of disappointment. I am glad to see that Mrs T has come to her senses and cleaned up her act, anyway. Naughty,naughty Mrs T: who would have thought it?