A debating club funded by taxpayer's money: the democratic process, as seen by Barnet's Tory leaders

Well then: Mrs Angry's attention was drawn today to a very important story from 'This is the West Country.co.uk', a report which offers yet another warning to us all, all the way from Cornwall, on the subject of One Barnet and large scale privatisation of our council services ...

"A move to sell off huge swathes of Cornwall Council's services has hit a major bump in the road, after the plan was rejected by a majority of councillors at the authority.

A meeting yesterday heard a motion calling on Cornwall Council to scrap its decision to enter into a partnership with the private sector to deliver a range of support services.

This was supported by a majority of councillors following a three hour debate at County Hall.

A bid to have the discussions held in secret was also rejected, after calls that the council's much trumpeted dedication to "openness and transparency" should apply on such an important decision.

The council’s cabinet had already voted to issue formal invitations to tender for the new £300m contract at a meeting on July 31.

Today’s motion, which was proposed by Andrew Wallis and seconded by Andrew Long, was aimed at halting this process, as, “in view of its far reaching consequences, including its potential impact on Council governance and elected member accountability, this council believes that it is not in the best interests of the people of Cornwall for the council to enter into the proposed strategic partnership for support services and procurement”.

Members had serious concerns about the potential risk and governance, as well as queries over the savings which would be generated and the number of new jobs created.

Cllr Wallis said: "Before the debate started there was a move to put the whole item, debate and vote into closed session because it was claimed from officers that some of the information, and questions could be commercially sensitive. I really struggled (as did many others) with this, as the information the councillors had been supplied with, was already in the public domain.

" The impact on the Strategic Partnership has such far-reaching consequences to the people of Cornwall, that it should be fully debated in open session and the vote in full view of the public. Not behind closed doors. Thankfully, and it was a close vote, the councillors decided not to go into closed session.

"My points came from too many unknowns, losing democratic accountability on so many services and pie-in-the-sky predictions on job creation. These ‘aspirational’ jobs were a concern for the scrutiny panel looking into this plan, If the scrutiny panel is worried, you have to get worried, too.

"A main selling point of the Strategic Partnership is the ability to ‘buy’ other services from other council’s. I however, pointed out what I believe is a massive flaw in this plan. For example, imagine if there was a motion to handover all these services to another council to run, and therefore create jobs in that authority. There would be uproar, and claims the jobs must stay in Cornwall. So you can hardly expect other councils to allow jobs to go to another council at the expense of their own. It just would not happen. I believe the market is already flooded with many sellers of shared services, but not many buyers."

Mr Wallis added that a good question is what happens now as the ultimate decision lies with the cabinet.

"Will the Cabinet change its course on this? To be honest, I do not think it will drop the proposals completely. However, it could postpone the decision to after the elections in May 2013. Then the new council has the democratic mandate (and possible will) to enter into some sort of strategic partnership."

Steve Double, the Council’s portfolio holder for environment, waste management and shared services, said that the proposal would bring together the best of the private and public sector in an innovative partnership which would enable the Council to protect frontline services from the impact of further Government cuts at the same time as creating up to 500 new jobs in Cornwall.

“All the concerns which have been raised today have already been considered by the Cabinet” he said.

“I cannot believe that a proposal which protects frontline services, creates 500 new jobs and reduced costs by £10m a year is not in the best interests of the people of Cornwall.

“This is a very complex proposal and unfortunately the decision by Members not to move into private session meant that we were unable to share the detailed confidential information they needed to make an informed decision”.

Mebyon Kernow and Lib Dems on the authority have also come out against the plan.

Speaking on behalf of Mebyon Kernow in the debate, Cllr Long told councillors much of the evidence used to support the joint venture was “pure conjecture.” He rubbished the claims about savings and the creation of jobs, describing the promises as “pie in the sky,” adding we are more likely to see “bacon-clad flying mammals.”


He also slammed the lack of democratic accountability in the proposed arrangement and condemned the proposal as “full of risks” and urged the Cabinet to “reverse its decision.”


Also speaking at the meeting, fellow MK Councillor Loveday Jenkin (Wendron) blasted the transfer of staff and huge budgets into a private sector company, which she said would “inevitably result in worse terms and conditions for local workers."

It may well be that the pretty disastrous experience Cornwall has had with its out of hours doctors' service, run by the massive outsourcing company Serco, has had a chastening effect on the enthusiasm of the councillors for an even bigger commitment to privatisation.

Very interesting, anyway. And Mrs Angry thought perhaps our Tory councillors would be very grateful if she were to pass on this interesting story, so she wrote to deputy leader Councillor Dan (John) Thomas, (who at least has the courtesy - and courage - to respond in detail to her emails, unlike leader Richard Cornelius, who is too scared.)

"Dear Cllr Thomas

I would like to draw your attention to the following article which reports on the decision of Cornwall County Council to withdraw from plans to outsource £300 million of its services to the private sector:

http://www.thisisthewestcountry.co.uk/news/cornwall_news/9910859.Wholesale_privatisation_at_Cornwall_Council_hits_a_big_bump_in_the_road/

As you will read, the proposals were rejected after a three hour debate amongst councillors.

What a shame that such an opportunity has been denied to the full council here in Barnet or to the residents and tax payers of this borough, who have never been properly informed or consulted in regard to this issue.

One of the Cornish councillors commented as follows:

"Cllr Long told councillors much of the evidence used to support the joint venture was “pure conjecture.” He rubbished the claims about savings and the creation of jobs, describing the promises as “pie in the sky,” adding we are more likely to see “bacon-clad flying mammals.”

He also slammed the lack of democratic accountability in the proposed arrangement and condemned the proposal as “full of risks” and urged the Cabinet to “reverse its decision."

I think it is clear that there are lessons here for Barnet, to accompany the warnings indicated clearly in all the many other strategic partnerships and joint ventures which have already failed. If there ever was a time when such hugely over ambitious projects were appropriate, that time has certainly gone. Perhaps it is time the councillors in Barnet took back control of this council from the vested interests of the private sector, did the right thing on behalf of the residents of this borough, throw One Barnet out of the window, and think again.

Yours sincerely

Mrs Angry"

Cllr Thomas replied:

"Dear Mrs Angry,

Thank you for your thoughts and for sharing an article regarding a different authority whose journey down the route of outsourcing we are unfamiliar. (sic)

There was a motion at full council recently which was tabled by the Labour Party and called for a halt to One Barnet and the outsourcing. The motion was debated and defeated (after, if I recall, some members of the public made so much noise that a motion was put (and won) not to conduct the debate further as it was difficult to hear the speeches of elected members).

Councillors will be briefed on proposals and a decision will be made by members who were elected to take such decisions in due course.

Kind regards,

Cllr Daniel Thomas

Finchley Church End Ward

Deputy Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Resources and Performance

London Borough of Barnet

Ok. Mrs Angry replied:

" Dear Cllr Thomas

I'm not sure which meeting you mean, but perhaps you should take the level of antagonism which is evident at such events as an indication of the anger and anxiety that residents feel towards the council, and in particular the current Tory administration. You will try to dismiss such a reaction as the behaviour of 'activists' but I can assure you that it is entirely representative of the way in which the majority of residents perceive their elected members.

If there is such behaviour at council meetings it is largely due to the frustration people feel at being alienated from any meaningful discussion over these hugely significant issue. The censoring of any discussion of council 'policy' at Residents' Forums is just one example of the lack of respect for, and indeed interest in, the views of the community you and your colleagues are meant to represent.

It seems clear to me that most Tory councillors are dangerously ill informed about the One Barnet programme, and many I know have grave reservations about the scale and implications of the project. Due to the decision making process being in the hands of a small minority of councillors, the rest of the group is effectively powerless. This is not how local democracy should work, in my view, and I am sure in the view of most sensible people.

If you and your Cabinet colleagues are so convinced of the decision you are making to committ our services and financial security to the One Barnet programme, I wonder if you would care to take some personal responsibility, by offering to undertake some sort of limited liability should the project fail? If councillors were subject to financial surcharges in the event of such a failing, I doubt that you or any of your Tory colleagues would be quite so enthusiastic in your endorsement of this idiotic gamble with £1 billion of residents' money.

Yours sincerely

Mrs Angry"

And back came the answer:

"Dear Mrs Angry,

Once again, thanks for your thoughts and feedback.

I was referring to the council meeting where One Barnet was being debated by elected members and where some members of public tried to disrupt that open debate to the extent it was cut short.

Yes, you pre-empted my response regarding activists (its the always the same faces in the public galley) and your opinion regarding the majority of residents being against the outsourcing is interesting.

As you know the Labour Party have set up a campaign against One Barnet and outsourcing, which has been publicised by local press. So far this has generated a total of three 'copy and paste' emails from residents of my ward and I gather the numbers are quite similar across all Conservative wards which is a good cross section of the borough given their number.

I am therefore not convinced that the public are as against outsourcing as you would like them to be, indeed, discussions I have with residents illustrate their focus on outcomes not the delivery of services.

If residents would like to debate issues that is their right but the council should not be funding a debating club with taxpayer's money, it never has and I doubt it ever will. The public are free to contact, lobby and question councillors to give them their thoughts, that is how a representative democracy works. All councillor groups will have a briefing regarding the bids after which they will no doubt discuss them."

A debating club funded by tax payers' money?

Oh dear, John Thomas: a red rag to a red bull.

Dear Councillor Thomas

Thank you: it is good to be able to discuss these issues, and I appreciate your taking the time to respond. However:

A debating club funded by tax payers' money?

That is, I would suggest, the perfect definition of democracy in local government, as it should be enacted within the council chamber and in a process of engagement with residents. And that free exchange of views, and the reaching of a consensus, is exactly what is missing from the deeply dysfunctional relationship between the current administration and the people it is supposed to represent.

Our council has entrenched itself behind a wall, and fears honest debate.Such a position is encouraged by the senior officers of the council, who have their own reasons for doing so.

The same faces that you see at meetings are in fact the faces of concerned residents who really care about their community, and feel deeply frustrated by the lack of consultation over these issues, which will have such an impact on all our lives. They include elderly, non political residents, residents with disabilities, or with young children. You cannot dismiss people who take an interest in their own lives as worthless activists. If only your own Tory backbenchers showed as much spirit.

Regarding the perceived lack of interest by the wider community in One Barnet, that is largely because they do not understand it. Yes, they are focused on outcome, and when, as is undoubtedly going to be the case, a declining level of service, increased charges, lack of savings, and loss of accountability become clear, that outcome will then become focused on the councillors who voted for the privatisation. If you are still here, you will be held accountable.

I note that you have evaded the challenge of putting your money where your mouth is, and offering to back your faith in One Barnet with your own personal investment.

Easy to be reckless with other people's money, isn't it?

Yours sincerely,

Mrs Angry

Well, clearly Mrs Angry is always right, and always likes to have the last word, so let's hope he shuts up now & doesn't spoil things.

Maybe he's nipped out to place a bet at William Hill. £1 billion of our council tax ... on a three legged horse called One Barnet.

Updated:

Oh dear: more bad news for Barnet on the old outsourcing front: the Southwest One fiasco is getting very ugly, with partner IBM threatening to sue Somerset Council over payments, and the council responding in kind: see this BBC story here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-somerset-19493731

A room with a view: or the privatisation of healthcare in Broken Barnet - Mrs Angry writes to Mike Freer, MP

When the Royal Free Hospital was Free

Amidst the excitement of yesterday's Cabinet reshuffle, and the rather alarming news that Jeremy Hunt has taken over from Andrew Lansley as health secretary, Mrs Angry was thinking about the state of healthcare here in Broken Barnet, already in a state of chaos as a result of government policy and looking ready to become a whole lot worse very quickly. She decided to write to her MP, Mr Mike Freer, who has already blocked her on twitter after daring to challenge his support for the healthcare 'reforms' and the refusal to publish the risk register which might inform us of what we really are letting ourselves in for.

Dear Mr Freer,

I would like to draw your attention to the following report regarding the Royal Free Hospital:

NHS patients 'made to wait' as radiographers are told to set time aside for private treatment

which is published here in the Camden New Journal: as you will see, it seems that radiographers are being told to exclusively reserve one hour a day for private patients, who will receive prioritised access to resources,while NHS patients wait for their turn, as the Royal Free embarks on a programme of opening new private clinics in our NHS hospital.

If you are unaware of the history of the Royal Free Hospital, perhaps you might gather from the clue in the name that it was founded not for the benefit of those who can afford to pay for health care, and enjoy, as they are offered, ' “amazing views of Hampstead Heath or London landmarks”, as well as satellite TV, a remote control, telephone, nurse call facilities and a daily newspaper' ... but in order to provide treatment for those without means. The incorporation of such ideals into a National Health Service has continued, until now, as the right of all of us. No longer, it seems.

former health secretary Lansley receives a less than warm welcome at the Royal Free

In the last year, unfortunately, I have had direct experience of the increasing difficulty of residents of this borough in receiving prompt access to assessment and treatment at our local hospitals at Barnet and the Royal Free.

Earlier in the year I was informed, for example, to my absolute disbelief, that I would have to wait at least a month for an emergency scan, as even high priority scans were being routinely 'rationed'.

I only managed to receive an appointment, at the Royal Free, after weeks of extreme discomfort and anxiety, and a visit to A&E, after my GP here in Finchley went to enormous lengths to bypass the regulations which your government has introduced restricting access to such basic tests.

If this sort of delay is being increased due to private patients being given privileged access to NHS facilities, and receiving care before the long, long queue of NHS patients has been accommodated, I hope that you will agree that this is a totally unacceptable situation.

During the past year a close family member has developed a life changing illness, the diagnosis and treatment of which has been continually delayed, with distressing consequences. Throughout this period we have had to struggle to obtain referrals, and the appropriate tests and treatments, due again to the new bureaucratic regulations which ensure that only patients suspected of terminal illness can be 'fast tracked' to see a local consultant, and seemingly obstruct easy acess to so many tests and assessments as a result of budgetary implications. Only this week, a crucial and complicated procedure at the Royal Free, delayed while the medical team were obliged to apply for special budget funding approval, was cancelled at the last moment, due, we were told, to 'staffing shortage'.

The Catch 22 situation which has been created by such policy makes it impossible to see quite how a GP is supposed to guess how seriously ill a patient is before they have undergone the tests required, and one which places an intolerable burden of responsibility on them.

Recently an elderly family friend died in Barnet General, directly as a result of a prolonged delay in waiting to have the assessment and treatment that would have saved her life: there must be many other cases in which people are dying, or suffering needlessly as a consequence of the rationing of healthcare, and it seems clear this situation is going to worsen as the new 'reforms' are introduced.

Whenever I visit my GPs they are clearly under immense pressure, torn between their professional duty to their patients, and frustrated by the diminishing accessability of proper healthcare in this borough for residents without the means to bypass the NHS system and use private healthcare as an alternative to a failing NHS structure.

They feel betrayed by local Tory politicians who refuse to talk to local practitioners and listen to the huge concerns they have about the impact of government policy on healthcare, and what they see as a direct assault on the NHS.

Yesterday we learnt that responsibility for the NHS 'reforms' has been passed to someone who is reported to have expressed his disdain for our national health system, and considers it to be not as most people would see it, the mark of a society that is dedicated to the support of those with needs, but an anachronism, a white elephant: something to destroy, and rebuild, and break into pieces, to give away to the same sort of private sector companies who are circling this borough, waiting for the commercial opportunities offered by the One Barnet outsourcing madness that is the result of your 'easycouncil' concept'.

I believe that the privatisation of our local council services is an issue which is of immense concern to the residents of this borough, and I know that the destruction and partial privatisation of the health service is a thought which horrifies everyone.

In this area, the effects of change are already having an impact on people's lives, and effectively in this borough now you have a two tier system of healthcare: fast access to care if you are wealthy, or have private cover, and an increasingly more distant chance of speedy treatment if you are without the means to pay.

You are on record as supporting the government's position on the NHS 'reforms', and agreeing that the risk register should not be published. I would suggest to you, Mr Freer, that such a position is completely out of touch with the feelings of almost every resident in your constituency.

Those of us who depend on the NHS, and value the huge contribution to social progress that it has given us see it as something precious, something to be protected, as part of our heritage, and part of what makes us proud of being British.

I wish I could be sure that you agree that the vulnerability of our health service to exploitation by the private sector is something to abhor, something to resist at all costs but I rather think you will hold a different view. I would suggest to you, however, that your own electoral vulnerability might indicate that a misplaced loyalty to government policy on this particular issue would be a grave mistake, and it might be time to see you putting the well being of residents and patients in this area before the interests of your own political agenda.

Yours sincerely,

Mrs Angry

Update:

To his credit, Mr Freer replied straight away, as follows:

Dear Mrs Angry

Thank you for your email which I have read with interest.

I do not share your analysis and will reiterate that I use the NHS as do my family. As for putting my residents first I would also point out to you that I intervened with the Treasury to lobby that the funds for the new Finchley Memorial Hospital did not fall foul of the spending review.

This government is increasing spending on the NHS, unlike the Labour Party who were committed to cutting the NHS budget.

I do not receive the Camden New Journal and so I can not comment on the accuracy of the report. I would ask you to look at some of those hospitals that have high levels of private income, they use it to enhance and expand NHS services. This of course has now been enshrined in the new Health and Social Care Act. The last Labour Government allowed hospitals to earn private income (indeed they positively embraced private provision farming out many procedures to private hospitals) without any legal provision to ensure the monies earned were used for NHS provision.

Mike Freer
Conservative Member of Parliament for Finchley and Golders Green

Mrs Angry has replied:

Dear Mr Freer

Thank you for your prompt reply.

The level of funding is not the issue here: it is the impact of the introduction of private enterprise into the NHS, and the destabilising effect on the fair provision of healthcare to NHS patients. The question is will government policy improve access to care, or increase delays? The example of the Royal Free using already pressured NHS resources for private patients is in my view a scandalous development and one which as MP for this constituency I hope you will investigate.

As to the Labour policy of relieving the burden on waiting lists by using private hospitals - I personally have no objection to this, as it seems a pragmatic response to a problem. Unfortunately, as I discovered myself, such an option is no longer available to NHS patients, whose interests under a Conservative government clearly come second to the need to open up another market for private enterprise.

Yours sincerely

Mrs Angry

Mr Reasonable and Mr Hughes, and yes, everything in the garden is lovely. Still.

For some weeks now Mrs Angry has been having a protracted discussion with Mr Paul Hughes, of Grant Thornton, the external auditors of Barnet Council, attempting, with absolutely no success sos far, to persuade him to investigate certain issues of public interest relating to the financial management of this borough by our Tory administration.

Fellow blogger Mr Reasonable has also been trying very hard to raise serious issues of concern with him, and reports today in a post that really should be read by anyone with any interest in the sheer madness of the One Barnet programme, and the incredible, ever rising costs accruing from its implementation.

http://reasonablenewbarnet.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/arrogance-overspend-complacency-and.html

Mr Reasonable is particularly interested in the contract Barnet has with One Barnet implementation partners Agilisys, working with iMPOWER, the company that now employs the ubiquitous Mr Max Wide, who has previously worked for Barnet and BT.

As Mr R explains:

Back in July 2010, Councillor Dan Thomas signed a Delegated Powers Report awarding the Implementation Partner Contract for a three year period to Agilisys working with iMPOWER. The value of this contract was in excess of £500,000 in the first year of delivery with circa £2,000,000 identified as potential contract delivery cost over a three year period.

In the last two years Agilisys have billed over £3.5 million and, at the current run rate of £275,000 a month, is likely to hit £6 million by the end of the contract next year. So Councillors were told it would cost "circa" £2 million it is already almost double that figure and by the end of the contract period will possibly be treble the figure agreed.

We don't know exactly how these costs are broken down, or the details of the contract, because when we went to the council offices to inspect the accounts, as is the right of residents, according to the Audit Act of 1998, all the material had been ruthlessly redacted, and this contract was perhaps the most heavily redacted document of all.

We don't know which consultants from Agilisys/iMPOWER sit on the One Barnet DRS project board and wield such unelected, unaccountable power of decision over all our lives, in their 'advisory' role on such matters as the recently reported last minute abandonment of the strategic partnership model to a joint venture. This was of course a decision taken by senior officers, and these anonymous consultants, and accidentally announced by an 'interim' director before they had gone through the tedious motions of having their plans rubber-stamped by our dopey, uxorious Tory councillors.

Mr Mustard has determinedly asked for details about the Agilisys involvement in the project board through a series of various FOIs: the response to the crucial question is months overdue in yet another blatant refusal to obey the laws which are meant to protect the rights of citizens to demand openness and transparency from their elected representatives. (If you're still Secretary of State when you read this, Eric, come on: pull your finger out and do something about this slippery bunch of eejits, will you, if you really do believe in all this localism crap you keep banging on about?)

When Mr Reasonable and I had our interview with Mr Hughes, he raised two issues in regard to the whopping Agilisys bill:

1. That councillors had been led to believe this contract was going to cost around £2 million and that it looked like on present spending it was going to cost £6 million. As such, were officers legally allowed to exceed this budget by so much without getting further approval for the spending by Councillors and did this make that spending ultra vires; and
2. Part of the money paid to Agilisys was to develop the Council’s new website which was outside the scope of the original contract and therefore potentially in breach of EU procurement rules.

Hmm. Tricky, but Mr Hughes had a ready answer for both queries. The trebling of the fee to these consultants was ok because, ermm, the original agreement had only stated circa £2 million, and was therefore seemingly a licence to print money, and the website development didn't breach EU rules because, oh what was it ... oh yeah, bla bla, it was all part of the customer services transformation, and .... and anyway, it was only 'a small proportion of the overall projection budget' ... as Mr R points out, £300,000 is over the EU procurement threshold, but you know, who's counting, really? Not our councillors, anyway, it seems.

Our auditor did make one concession.

“I have discussed your second point around the governance of the level of spend on the contract and the Council agrees that it would be good practice to take an update report to the Cabinet Resources Committee. The Council is drafting this report which will update members on the level of spend to date, revised projections for level of spend over the three year period of the contract, value for money considerations (including an update on improved terms negotiated by the Council this year) and plans for the procurement of further support when the current contract ends next year. The report is planned to go to Cabinet Resources Committee at the end of September.”

What worries Mrs Angry is that line ... 'plans for the procurement of further support when the current contract ends next year'. Wonder who the lucky winners of that procurement will be?

But this comment by Mr Reasonable really poses the most important question of all:

So how comes it takes an ordinary member of the public to get the auditor to talk to officers to draft a report updating councillors that a contract is millions of pounds overspent? Is it something the 63 councillors paid just under £1.1 million a year should be doing? Is it something the Chief Executive paid £200,000 a year should be on top of? Either way it shouldn’t be down to me.

Who will answer Mr Reasonable's reasonable question: why has it been him who has had to instigate this scrutiny of a consultants' bill that has trebled in size?

Why does Tory leader Richard Cornelius and his Cabinet sit back and lecture us about the need for austerity, and cuts, and complain about the wicked Labour government that spent money like water, when they are so happy to throw so much cash at this company, on a programme that is entirely a work of fiction, an aspiration, an act of faith in something that will never deliver what it promises, because it cannot, and no one involved in designing it really believes, or cares, that it really will.

We will never get to One Barnet. It doesn't exist. And like any good road movie, what matters is not the destination, after all, it's what happens on the way there.

Look out of the window. You're still in Broken Barnet.

Mrs Angry v the Friend of Mike Freer: gloves off

Mrs T, Friend of Mike Freer

We all have our guilty pleasures, don't we? Mrs Angry has many, in fact. As a sinful Catholic, guilt and pleasure are inextricable, of course, and mutually sustaining.

Some guilty pleasures, however, really are too shaming, in truth, and Mrs A is sometimes very ashamed, for example, of the amount of fun she has out of teasing Tory bloggers. Roger Evans, AM, is one. Barnet Bugle, another. They take it in good part. But the biggest fun of all to be had is in provoking the naughty Mrs T - no not the spouse of Barnet Eye blogger Roger Tichborne: that would be unkind, wouldn't it? And we bloggers are never unkind to one another, are we, Rog? Even 'neurotic bitches' like Mrs A ...

Mrs T is the 'Friend of Mike Freer': his number one fan, a 'Finchley housewife' who writes a blog all about how lovely our MP is, even though he told her off for implying it was offically endorsed by him. Dear, dear, Mrs T.

Take a look: I promise you it's a good laugh ...

http://friendsoffreer.blogspot.co.uk/

Mike's admirer has, after some months of silence, started blogging again. Really we should not encourage the old girl by paying any attention, but this week she has been singing the praises of new Barnet blogger Brian Coleman, and telling us all about the tragic non appearance of the Mike Freer camper van surgery, after Sooty demanded it back to go on a camping trip with Sweep last weekend, and now Mike's right hand woman has decided to respond to the letter posted yesterday here and elsewhere from Barnet Alliance, to all councillors, on the subject of One Barnet. Says Mrs T:


"Dear Barnet Alliance for Public Services,

In response to your letter to all Barnet Councillors. It may have escaped your notice, but Barnet Council has major funding issues at present. The government has cut grants and we are committed to keeping council tax as low as possible. We believe this to be the best way to help hard pressed household budgets.

Whilst public service trades unions cleary have a vested interest in achieving the best possible deal from the Barnet taxpayer, it is the responsibility of the council to get the best possible deal for everybody. By making efficiencies, more services can be provided. When services are provided by the private sector, quality of service guarantees can be built in. These guarantee improvements to the quality of services provided and ensure that services improve.

Trades unions in Barnet have singularly failed to acknowledge the level of planning and due diligence which has been spent making sure One Barnet delivers the best possible deal for the Barnet taxpayer. Much has been made, by trades union sympathisers, of the risks associated with outsourcing. They have said nothing of the risks of not making efficiencies and the resulting service cuts. In short, if the council simply adopted the no cuts ever mantra that Barnet trades unions have publicly promoted, then the council would run out of money and be able to provide no services at all.

Whilst some staff may lose their jobs or work for different employers, it is vital that the people who need services from the council continue to receive them. They don't care whether the person who delivers that service is a council employee or works for the private sector. We call on the Barnet Alliance for Public Services to acknowledge the reality of the economic situation and to stop burying their heads in the sand.

The Barnet Alliance for Public Services has failed to produce a single shred of evidence that it has any solutions to the funding crisis facing Barnet Council. Until such time as they can propose a credible alternative, they should stop bothering the hard working councillors of Barnet council with silly emails.

Yours Sincerely

Mrs T

posted by Mrs T at 10:23 on 03-Sep-2012"

Earlier today the Barnet Eye asked deputy leader Cllr John Thomas if Mrs T's comments reflect the views of the Tory administration, but Thomas replied:

"No such website speaks for the administration of LBB.

The administration does not agree with the Barnet Alliance for Public Services. The outsourcing dialogues are being wound up and elected members will make a decision in due course after seeing all the facts and the proposals in full."

Never mind, Mrs Angry has responded in turn to Mrs T, whether she speaks for the Tory councillors, or Mike Freer, or just herself.

"Dear 'Mrs T',

Here is an open letter from Mrs A in response to your open letter to Barnet Alliance's open letter to our beloved councillors. Are you keeping up? As you have confessed, you find sustained intellectual debate rather challenging, as indeed is the tradition with Barnet Tories, but in this case do try to concentrate.

Let us take your argument at face value, that One Barnet is all about saving money in a time of financial crisis. If you look at the conclusions of all studies on large scale outsourcing projects in fact it has been clearly shown that they do not produce significant levels of savings, and often cause more burden to the tax payer in higher charges, or worse, when many of the schemes fail.
But One Barnet is not about saving residents/ money, it has been promoted by those who are trying to deliver profiteering public sector opportunities to private companies.

You talk about trade unions as if they were some sort of alien species: in fact most members are hard working women with families, and in this case, ordinary people living in Barnet who stand to lose their livelihoods. This will also have a huge impact on the local economy.

It is not true to say that the unions have given no alternative strategy: they have tried very hard to get the Tory leadership to listen to an in house alternative plan which would deliver efficiencies but protect local jobs: unfortunately the leader has refused to engage with any such suggestion for fear of upsetting the senior management team who are in fact supposed to be directed by the elected representatives, and not, as the recent Joint Venture fiasco has clearly demonstrated, make all the important decisions and tell the councillors what to do.

It seems the Barnet Tory councillors have forgotten how the democratic process is supposed to work: at the next election they are going to receive a very effective reminder. Oh, and your mate Mike who started the easycouncil nonsense in the first place might like to speculate on the precariousness of his own position too.

Mrs Angry x"

By the way: who are all these hard working councillors she was banging on about?

We put our trust in you: a letter from Barnet Alliance to our councillors

Mrs Angry has just been sent a copy of an open letter, a remarkably restrained and polite letter, in the circumstances, sent to all Barnet councillors by Barnet Alliance, a cross party organisation of residents campaigning to defend out local council services from the dire consequences of the One Barnet programme of privatisation:

Open Letter to all 63 Councillors in the London Borough of Barnet

Dear Councillors,

It must be a challenging task to make decisions on behalf of all the residents in the London Borough of Barnet. These decisions involve so many areas of our lives – education, social care, health, housing, the environment. It must be even more difficult at a time of austerity when you are forced to make such difficult decisions about how to spend our money wisely and to the benefit of all of us.

On 29 November 2010 those of you who were members of the Cabinet approved the programme sponsored by the Chief Executive, the One Barnet programme of privatisation, which will award two contracts worth more than one billion pounds to private companies for a period of 10 years. In November 2012 all of you will be asked to approve this programme of privatisation. What a heavy burden of responsibility it must be to make such a huge financial commitment on our behalf.

It is inevitable that residents will assume all of you are equally responsible for decisions made regarding the One Barnet programme of privatisation, and will hold you all accountable for its impact on their lives, its cost and its success or failure. Experts in local government and on the impact of privatising services, as well as residents and council employees, have voiced concerns, but there seems to be a great reluctance on the part of representatives of Barnet Council to discuss or reveal details about the One Barnet programme of privatisation, despite residents, Unison and the Association of Public Services Excellence inviting them to attend discussions on the implementation of this programme.

Have all of you been given the information needed to understand the impact of the privatization plan? Have all of you had enough time to debate the issues and difficulties in effective
implementation of this plan?

When a new policy is implemented, there is always the risk of something going wrong and, with the amount of money being committed to the One Barnet programme of privatisation, any failure could have a huge impact both on Council finances and on services. Is there a Plan B if the One Barnet programme of privatisation is found to be unfit for purpose? If, as part of the privatisation programme, 70% of council employees become employees of a commercial company, how many staff will the Council retain to help put things right if or when something goes wrong?

When we elected you, we put our trust in you to make wise decisions on our behalf, using our money, but we did not give you the right to introduce new policies without consulting us. As you weigh up the pros and cons of committing us to the One Barnet programme of privatisation, with all its financial and legal implications we implore you to act in the best interests of all of us, residents and council employees alike.

We, as a group of residents, voters and taxpayers, are not satisfied with the proposed privatisation of services, as we believe the quality of our services will diminish.

Ask yourselves this question: you will no doubt put the interests of the residents you represent first, but will a private company be concerned about our best interests as much as the interests of their shareholders and making a healthy profit?

Yours sincerely,

Barnet Alliance for Public Services



Our Tory councillors will no doubt largely be inclined to dismiss this letter as coming from a bunch of lefty activists, and disregard it. That would be foolish. Barnet Alliance is composed of residents of all political persuasions, and none. They are mostly the sort of people who would not normally take part in any sort of activism: just ordinary residents simply horrified by what is happening in their borough, and appalled by the way in which the council is being run. Any councillor with any common sense, or any stirrings of unease over the diminishing prospect of being re-elected to the council will be well advised to take this letter seriously, and consider the message it carries.