Gone, but not forgotten: democracy in Barnet - a borough mourns

To be fair, democracy in this borough has been rather a long time dying. 

It's hard to pinpoint the moment when it began to falter, and weaken, and lay down on the ground, whimpering, and fatally wounded - but in the last years of Tory administration the prognosis was clear for everyone to see. 

Our Tory councillors were then easily persuaded that the kindest thing to do was to arrange for the people from Capita to step in, put their hands around the neck of our public services,  and facilitate a swift and painless end.

With great sorrow, therefore, Mrs Angry must report that, early this morning, on the 1st of September, 2013, the life of the democratic process here in the London Borough of Broken Barnet moved peacefully to its close.  

There was an unexpected display of resistance from the deceased in the last moments of life, mercifully ended by a pillow over the face, discreetly applied by Conservative Leader Richard Cornelius, attended by the massed ranks of our Conservative councillors, and directed by a team of executives from Crapita Plc.

Friends of the deceased gathered in unified sorrow yesterday to express their sense of loss at this long anticipated demise. A funeral was held, and mourners moved through the streets of Broken Barnet to mark the passing of democracy, and the fatal loss of our local public services.

Sadly missed

 

A message of sympathy from North Finchley

Our deceased democracy passes by council offices at Barnet House

A eulogy for our public services

And a message for our  new friends

As part of the funeral service, and at every stop along the way, a eulogy was read out to the assembled mourners: 

We are gathered here today to bid farewell to Barnet Public Services. 

It is sad, of course, to lose a single service, but to lose the majority of this family is truly tragic. 

Perhaps you did not know all of them, but all of us were acquainted with some of them.   

They were there to serve us, and they provided jobs for some of us.   

The purpose of these services – like the motivation of those who provided them – was purely to do the job well.   

They were not perfect, any more than any of us are, but these services were answerable to US, the public. 

We could reach them directly and press our case when necessary.   

There were personal connections and there was continuity.   

They were part of our community.

They were ours, we valued them and we fought hard to save them.   

They would have lived but for the key to their survival – the date of the decision of their execution – being hidden from view and the executioners’ misleading statements about it when asked in the High Court.

Now those services as we knew them are gone.

What was public – is now private.

The motivation and purpose are profit – and not service; and our community rightly grieves.

 

As we mourn our loss, we extend our sympathies to those who have the added hardship of being forced to move, or who have lost their job.   

As we watch our public services being buried far from their home, we worry how call-centre workers with no connection to, knowledge of, or interest in us and our community will respond to our needs.

We worry especially about what will happen to us, and to our loved ones as the first priority of even more vital services – becomes profit, for we have seen how this has harmed some and endangers more people in the privatised care regimes under Fremantle and Your Choice Barnet.

Fighting for the right to be consulted about the care of those we hold dear, we are told by such organisations that they don’t have to listen to us; because they are private companies.

So how will we ensure that our environment, our buildings, the goods sold in our shops, our highways, our estates and our personal data are safe in the hands of Capita; an enormous organisation with a far-from-perfect record of delivering on its promises in the public service sector?

By their actions, the executioners – and you know who they are ­– have dealt a body blow to local democracy.   

And although we have lost the initial battle, there is much to fight for.

As we bid farewell to public services, let us rededicate ourselves to that fight and to restoring that democracy:  To holding the Council and Capita to account for every drop in standards, every failure to deliver services, and every penny not accounted for.

Do NOT rest in peace Capita and Barnet Council:

WE ARE WATCHING YOU!

 

Indeed we are. 

Welcome to Capitaville. 

To our elected representatives: Mrs Angry suggests you crawl back to your constituencies, and prepare for defeat.

To our new corporate overseers: mind your step.

This was Broken Barnet: you'll be lucky to get out of here in one piece. 

Don't say we didn't warn you. 

The purpose of scrutiny, or: a risk worth taking - the creation of Capitaville

Councillor Finn, philosopher and man of purpose

Councillor Anthony Finn, Chair of the Budget, Performance, Overview and Scrutiny committee asked himself a question half way through last night's meeting, thinking aloud, as if it was something he had always meant to consider, but had never quite had the time to get round to it.

What, he asked, is the purpose of scrutiny? 

There was a silence in the committee room.

Don't you know? asked Mrs Angry, pen poised, anxiously, worried that perhaps Councillor Finn was having some sort of existential crisis. Indeed, she mused: what is the purpose of scrutiny? Or committee meetings, or the democratic process, or life itself, here in what was once Broken Barnet, but is now to become Capitaville, where there is no purpose other than to make profit for our new masters, and to be obedient to their will?

But Councillor Finn was only teasing. He had the answer all ready, and directed this, in his usual manner of condescension, to his colleagues sat around the table, and to the listening public.

The purpose of scrutiny, he told us, was not to criticise. It was to make a positive contribution. 

Yes: last night our Tory councillors dropped all pretence of exercising their duty to challenge the takeover of our local services by Crapita, and simply stood by, greeting the invading enemies with open arms. It was Barnet, Open City: no defence, no resistence, no scrutiny - just a warm welcome - and a positive contribution.

This meeting was held, in theory, in order for our councillors to consider the merits of the bid for the DRS contract from Capita Symonds, enthusiastically recommended to our elected representatives by the senior management team. 

This contract is the second part of the £1 billion One Barnet programme of privatisation, in which we will be giving over almost every council function to Crapita to run for their profit, on the understanding that this will make enormous savings for the taxpayers of Broken Barnet. 

As usual it was left to members of the public and Labour councillors to at least attempt to perform the role of scrutiny of the One Barnet madness. Labour councillors pointed out they had only seen the contract on Thursday, and yet faced difficulties having their questions addressed after being told they had submitted them too close to the Monday morning deadline.

There were seventy seven questions allowed from members of the public, all of them focused, detailed, probing enquiries which should have been put by elected members, but were not. The Conservative members are not interested in details, or reality: they were there to approve whatever was in the contract, the significance of which they simply do not understand, and do not want to understand. 

Before question time began, a member of Barnet Alliance approached the councillors, bearing gifts. She had a handful of magnifying glasses, in order to assist them in their stringent scrutiny of the Capita bid. The members of Barnet Alliance are hopeless optimists, of course.

The residents came now to the table, posing their supplementary questions, and receiving nothing but meaningless responses and studied evasion in return.

The man from legal consultants Trowers & Hamlin took a seat with the officers from Barnet. Mrs Angry watched with interest as his demeanour changed from one of a slightly bored and complacent executive waiting to wrap everything up and go home as soon as possible, to someone clearly stunned by the amount of hostility, and informed challenge, from residents. 

He was particularly rattled, it seemed, by the typically incisive points made by blogger Mr Reasonable, John Dix, who had submitted thirty questions, ranging from the most obvious -why a an expectation of nearly £20 million in savings is now going to amount to only around £5 million, through a range of detailed trashings of the business case, and then to another very important question: 

Why was this report cleared by Trowers & Hamlin, not the council's own legal service (outsourced to Harrow Council) and does this not represent a massive conflict of interest given that Trowers & Hamlin have provided legal advice on the outsourcing project?

Ah.

But no, no: the reponse was this is standard procedure. 

Are you reassured?

Mrs Angry's question was about the Joint Venture:

In the light of revelations that the decision to change the model of the DRS contract to a JV co was made in secret, by the Corporate Directors Group, a body with no executive powers, and without consultation with the Leader or any elected member, does the Chair not agree that scrutiny and elected member governance of the One Barnet programme, and specifically the DRS tender process, has been completely undermined?

Her supplementary question, much to the annoyance of the Chair, she felt had to be preceded by a fisking of the complete load of shite which was given in the written response, stating that JV was 'set out' as 'a vehicle to explore' at an earlier stage - in fact it was discounted as being too high risk - that JV was seen as 'a progressively more attractive option' in discussions with bidders - yes, , no doubt it was, but elected members knew nothing about this until too late - and finally that the Member Panel was briefed on the options - this took place months after the secret discussions and only once the decision had been made, quite improperly, by the officers.

And your question Mrs Angry? You have never had an independent risk assessment of the OB programme, yet you have chosen an even higher risk option to use for the DRS tender: so much risk for such little return, only £5 million when you have already spent over £6 million on a few 'implementation' consultants from Agilisys/iMPOWER ...

Cllr Robert Rams was called to the table. Ooh, Mrs Angry was scared. He was pleased to answer the question, he said, not daring to look Medusa in the face, He believes it is a risk worth taking. Really? For - potentially - 40% return ...  Eh? Potentially, said Mrs Angry ... potentially. 

Risk, potential, growth, aspiration, projections, expectations: fantasy. 

So much of the promised financial benefits for Barnet come from 'growth', selling services to other outside bodies, or service changes which councillors may well have to veto, if they can. Any problems with service delivery, and there will be, or failure to supply the profits promised, and there are countless examples elsewhere we have already written about, will have to be fought over, perhaps legally challenged, while residents put up with declining services and increased charges, and councillors face the reality of the loss of direct democratic control. But they neither understand, nor care.

Pam Wharfe, Director of Place. (All of them, not just some places, here and there. Very important post).

After the public questions were asked and duly ignored, Ms Pam Wharfe, Director of Place (don't laugh, it's unkind - they love all these new titles they have awarded themselves) leapt up to show us a presentation. This was a thrilling slideshow, with a few pictures of Ms Wharfe's mini break in Bruges last week. Alright, that is a lie, but Mrs Angry wishes it was true, just as she wishes we had not had sit through the turgid presentation of nine pages intended to spell out to the dopey Tory councillors, in carefully worded and easily digested bullet points, the marvellous benefits of the bid from Capita Symonds.

Both Wharfe and Captain Cooper, the erstwhile director of commercial services, spoke to the members through what was clearly a strategically directed and possibly rehearsed approach intended to calm, and reassure, and defuse any likely possibilities of tension and lines of awkward questioning. 

Captain Cooper reassures the councillors

Mrs Angry even wondered if they had been coached by someone (and yes, our senior executives have paid for such glorified elocution lessions before, as a trawl through council spending revealed). Their tone was smooth as silk, and discreetly flattering to the empty headed Tories who hardly know their arses from their elbow but were now being addressed in such unusually deferential terms: you will be doing this, and you will be doing that, all very inclusive, and meant to convince the members that they will still have some status and control, now that we have been annexed by the Capita empire. 

One of the grossly amusing revelations of this presentation was in the idiots' guide to 'Service Improvement Proposals', and the example given of marvellous opportunities for growth in the provision of services to one previously under exploited section of our community: the dead.

Yes: it is only remarkable that this opportunity has been overlooked for so long, when you think about it. Why should the dead residents of Broken Barnet be allowed to rest in peace, a burden on the taxpayer, and making no positive contribution to the community? Make'em earn their keep. It's the Tory way of death: as much money as possible has been extracted from the hapless motorists, penalised for trying to park almost anywhere in the borough: next step was to charge the disabled for their care, through the good offices of Your Choice Barnet - and now the ultimate act of capita-list enterprise, see what you can screw out of the deceased, and their grieving relatives.

The proposals from Crapita in regard to one particular income generating option reminded Mrs Angry of the grotesqueries of Evelyn Waugh's novel 'The Loved One', and even more so of Jessica Mitford's 'The American Way of Death', in which the commercialistion of funerals predates on the bereaved with breathless efficiency.

Hendon Crematorium was added to the DRS package as an afterthought, when Barnet senior officers realised it would act as a 'sweetener' to potential bidders. Crematoria are attractive because, of course, people will keep dying, and thereby providing an easy target for would be profiteers. In Capitaville, plans for Hendon Crematorium include the 'potential for growth' from flogging higher prices to non residents to be buried there, and an intention to achieve 'Gold Standard' of the 'Charter for the Bereaved' by providing such things as - oh dear: a new catering facility.

Yes: bury your loved ones in Hendon Cemetery, and then why not nip into the cafe for a skinny latte, or a burger? Bound to cheer everyone up. All this mourning is all very well, but where is the profit? Life goes on, and there is income to be generated, in order to back up the claims made for fabulous rewards to us all from Capita Symonds.

Barnet is, we are told, in the officers' report, is to be used as a base for Capita to 'grow business' in the wider region. As the committee was told last night, they see the south east area as ripe with opportunities. What is worrying, however, is that Capitaville-Barnet will provide the base, but not take a fair share of any profit, as John Dix pointed out, wearily, to the blank faces of officers, and the incomprehension of councillors. One councillor, Andrew Strongolou, turned up forty minutes late for this meeting, incidentally - perhaps he was having trouble finding a parking space? He then made no noticeable contribution - just not good enough.

A couple of residents spoke to the committee. Veteran campaigner Julian Silverman tried to give some historic context to the economic situation which our Tory councillors use as justification for every decision they make: this was wasted breath, of course, and the Chair sneered at his speech, sniggering to his colleagues at the table. 'Do you mind not speaking? 'asked Julian. 

He suggested money could be saved by the council in various efficiencies, such as cutting the pay of senior officers, disbanding the LATC - the frantically subsidised 'Your Choice Barnet', taking back Barnet Homes, restoring direct labour, creating some sort of competent control of procurement. 

Finn told him to stop. Play by the rules, he was told. You don't, heckled an enraged member of the public. In fact there was an awful lot of heckling last night, quite a bit of it by Mrs Angry, who thought it entirely necessary, in the absence of any other form of meaningful engagement.

Former Tory MP John Marshall raised his shrill patrician voice to inform Mr Silverman that he had spent the first third of his speech on issues that were nothing to do with Barnet Council. He had admitted, said the old hardliner gleefully, that he know nothing about economics and he had demonstrated this beautifully. A typical example of the contemptuous way in which the Tory councillors view their residents,and their opinions, in fact.

John Marshall

John Dix's speech was as usual the most sensible, insightful contribution of the meeting, which it is why it was viewed with suspicion, and silence, and completely ignored. 

He asked why, in view of the £6 million thrown at 'implementation' consultants Agilisys/iMPOWER, Barnet had not seen fit to spend maybe £30-£40, 000 on an independent professional assessment of the outsourcing programme from a company like Deloitte? The officers at the table looked down. CEO Travers had his arms crossed. The man from Trowers & Hamlin looked sideways at John Dix.

Which other authorities have they spoken to: what about Somerset, who might have something to say about the disastrous Soutwest One?

As for the independence of Trowers & Hamlin in signing off the contract - how did that square with what looked like a conflict of interest, or as Labour councillor Arjun Mittra put it, rather like an author reviewing his own book?

He suggested to the committee that as the Judicial Review appeal would be heard until July 15th, there was time for the contract to be looked at in more detail - include the public. Otherwise the suspicion remains that they were there simply to rubberstamp the decision. Please, he said: prove me wrong.

Former Tory councillor Dan Hope (aka the Barnet Bugle) addressed the committee, and expressed his concerns about planning, and accountability. Tory member Brian Gordon chipped in, and made some bizarre claim about consultation. Mrs Angry pointed out, without invitation that there had been no consultation, which is why the council was returning to the High Court. 

 Nelson Mandela impersonator, Brian Gordon

We are not rubber stamping: we have to stick to the decision. Whose decision? asked Mrs Angry.  (Leaving the Town Hall later, she noted, standing in front of the entrance, as soon as Cllr Gordon spotted her blocking the way, he made a sudden and apparently unplanned diversion to the gents loo).  

Officers advise, members decide, proclaimed Councillor Marshall, with all the certainty of a man who clearly had forgotten the decision to embrace the Joint Venture was taken, without the knowledge of even the Leader, by the officers across the table, looking on with fond indulgence at the old duffer now.

Time for the councillors to ask questions. This was also a pointless exercise.

Labour leader Alison Moore objected to the lack of response to questions, and was told only that written answers would be provided at a later date. She was not happy about this and pointed out the scrutiny process was hardly as Finn had suggested 'democracy in action'.

Labour's Arjun Mittra asked about how the DRS bid would address the issue of protected characteristics. Leader Cornelius made one of his usual disparaging remarks about equalities legislation, speaking of being 'compelled' to follow the obligations of an EIA.

Alan Schneiderman and Tory Hugh Rayner asked the same question - Rayner does ask the right questions, sometimes, it's just that he chooses to ignore the answers, which amounts to the same as not asking them, Hugh, really doesn't it? they wanted to know what would happen to revenue if councillors exercised their veto on some of the more 'surprising' ideas that Capita wanted to try out on the guinea pig residents of Broken Barnet? Well, the real answer is that this 'guaranteed' money will have to be extracted elsewhere, of course.

Councillor Rayner

At this point Dr Khatiri, one of the residents sitting by Mrs Angry, a very bright woman who had been heckling her well directed disapproval throughout the meeting, was told off by the Chair, who decided to refer to her as 'young lady'. She objected to being addressed in this way. Labour leader Alison Moore, who often receives the same treatment from Councillor Finn, defended her, saying that indeed he did sometimes patronise members of the public. Councillor Finn patted her on the head, metaphorically speaking, and carried on.

Would proposals to increase income lead to any increases in fees? No, we were told: this was not about hiking up existing fees. Make a note of that, readers, for future use.

Labour's Ross Houston pointed out that there was a danger that Barnet staff would be used to create profit for Capita, and the best staff used to create business, at the expense of this borough's best interests.

Oh, no, said Richard Cornelius, with all the authority of a man who sat in the room next door last year and said three times in another scrutiny meeting weeks after Pam Wharfe had announced the decision, that he knew nothing about the Joint Venture, and was 'every bit as curious as you are' ... Richard told us that we have protective measures in place, and I for one believed him. Well, no, not really.

Up piped John Marshall, who thought we should remember that 'reputational risk' was of huge importance to Capita, and therefore they would not do anything bad here in our lovely borough, and he added that otherwise they would be unlikely to win other contracts. When the laughter had stopped, we moved on to the interesting issue of the 56 KPIs, key performance indicators. It emerged that 27 of these had not been agreed by Capita. Oh. A crucial point, suggested Alan Schneiderman. Some extra smooth reassurances dropped like honey from the mellifluous tongues of Captain Cooper and Pam Wharfe: this was not a problem, apparently.

Some argument then, from Ross Houston, with Pam Wharfe over the probity of a private company running quasi-judicial functions. No, I don't know what it means, either, but what was amusing was the statement made in response by Ms Wharfe in regard to legislation, which Ross reminded us was the will of parliament. The Director of Place said:

 'Yes, the will of parliament, quite a long time ago ...'

Mrs Angry was unable to contain her amusement, and she fears Ms Wharfe may have been disconcerted by her unseemly laughter at this point. Clearly, in Capitaville, all ancient rights and expectations in law are now suspended, if they were enacted prior to the beginning of Year Zero, the new beginning that is One Barnet.

 Some interesting debate now about the new status of employees, who will, and will not, be employed by both and neither of the two partners of the Joint Venture - remember that in Alice in Wonderland, the White Queen believed six impossible things before breakfast, and similarly in Broken Barnet it has always been possible to be two different things at the same time. 

Councillor Rayner tried to very loudly inform the public (especially Mrs Angry) that the perception that One Barnet  is an officer-led process was wrong (like the Joint Venture? yelled someone) ... it is the members, who must 'educate' the residents and members of the public. That was a popular suggestion, as you can imagine. 

Alan Schneiderman tried to propose that the meeting be extended to 10.30. He was wasting his time, of course. It was 'against the rules', 'over scrutinising' ...

Alison Moore proposed that there should be some sort of consultation with residents.

To the lasting shame of the Conservative members of Barnet Council, let it be recorded that, despite everything that has happened, despite the ruling in the High Court by Judge Underhill that the authority had completely failed to consult residents and tax payers over One Barnet, last night they voted AGAIN against the very idea of even the slightest commitment to debate with their electors on an issue of such huge significance, in defiance once more of the fundamental principles of democracy, of the very concept of localism, and, as we expect to see, in breach of the council's statutory obligations.

As the public left the room so the councillors could carry on with the closed part of the meeting, the Chair smiled kindly at us and said: And may we thank you for your co-operation, this evening? Mrs Angry stopped in her tracks: We didn't, she replied. Oh, Mrs Angry, tutted Councillor Finn, as she pointlessly made an insolent face in his direction.

But we didn't: and we won't. And we'll see you, and Crapita, and Trowers & Hamlin, and the rest of you, in court, next month.

*The Judicial Review Appeal will now take place on July 15th and 16th, the Royal Courts of Justice, in front of the Rt Hon Lord Dyson, Master of the Rolls, and two other senior judges.

In which Mrs Angry goes to Westminster. Again. And then writes to the Rt Hon Mike Freer, MP.

Last night around seventy or so Barnet residents attended a screening at the House of Commons of the second Barnet film, 'Barnet: the £1 Billion Gamble'. The room was packed, and many of the people attending were new to Mrs Angry - ordinary residents newly politicised by the growing awareness of the looming privatisation of nearly all our council services.

On our way to the meeting, Citizen Barnet and Mrs Angry wandered through the lobbies and passages of Westminster, gawping at the historical detail: trying hard not to be too impressed by the scale and significance of the Great Hall, for example, where the trials of Guy Fawkes and Thomas More were held, and the coronation banquet of Henry VIII ... up into the main building, past a scurrying Malcolm Rifkind, dressed in a rather furtive looking raincoat, and along through the committee room corridors, pursued not so much by the scent of power as a lingering smell of overheated school dinners. The atmosphere is distinctly public school, in fact, or perhaps more exactly, rather Hogwarts Academy. 

Citizen Barnet storms the palace of Westminster. Sort of.

And then, as if by magic, along came Ed Miliband, sixth former, prefect, and Captain of Gryffindor. 

Oh, Mrs Angry, it really is a sign of middle age, when the leader of the Labour party looks to you to be too young to be out that late, you know ... but standing in the corridor lined with ghostly white marble busts of worthy Victorian parliamentarians, it was hard to feel he has quite reached the level of gravitas they bore. 

Equally, Mrs Angry considered, David Cameron, really, has more the quality of a waxwork in Mme Tussaud's than the sculpted authority of Gladstone, or Palmerston. 

Perhaps we simply live in a different age, and no longer have the same respect for our politicians; or perhaps their careers take them to the highest level of achievement before they really have the chance to become the statesmen we really need.

Inside the committee room, many residents, councillors and activists had already arrived. Cllr Alan Schneiderman introduced Mrs Angry to Hilary Benn, the shadow secretary for Communities and Local Government: or rather he introduced Hilary to Mrs Angry, which rather perplexed him, as well it might. Mrs Angry had invited his government counterpart Eric Pickles to the screening, but as usual, these days, she was stood up. 

See, Eric: you missed your chance with Mrs Angry, but Hilary Benn  made the effort ... 

Councillors Schneiderman and Arjun Mittra:

Also present were MPs Dave Anderson, and Bill Esterson. Dave addressed the meeting - what he said, Mrs Angry is unable to report, as even with her ear well attuned to the North East accent, he was hard to understand. Dave is from Sunderland, and a former miner who once worked in the same pit in Hetton le Hole as some of Mrs Angry's family, funnily enough. He is therefore an example of what is an increasingly rare thing: an MP who has experience of doing a hard day's work.

Bill Esterson spoke next, and referred to some of the well known outsourcing failures, such as that in his own constituency of Sefton, where the local authority was obliged to take back services from Capita, after, oh dear, a failure to produce the savings promised in exchange for a contract for £65 million worth of technical services.

Finchley traders' spokeswoman Helen Michael

The brilliant Barnet Casino film was show, with its guide to outsourcing, narrated by the mellifluous West country tones of fellow blogger Mr Reasonable, (who is now contemplating a new career in voiceovers for butter, chocolate and pet insurance adverts). 

Mr Mustard, and Mr Reasonable

Then for the main feature, the testimonies from residents, the ramblings of local bloggers, the clips of our Tory councillors, the closing shots of a rally in Finchley. As the credits rolled, and the camera lingered on some of the people taking part, a young girl sings .... we can succeed, if we just try ... 

Mrs Angry was struck by the magnificent, slow burning fury of the residents featured, their naivete not a sign of weakness, but a sign of righteousness, of moral strength, contrasted so sharply with the moral corruption and cynicism of the councillors and senior council officers who are so intent on betraying the trust placed in them by their own electorate.

At one end of the committee room in which the meeting took place, there was a large portrait of the great Victorian social reformer, Lord Shaftesbury, who did so much to defend the most vulnerable members of society from the exploitation and and greed of profiteering industrialists. What exactly, Mrs Angry wondered, would be make of the debate going on before him now?

Here we were, in parliament, the cradle of democracy, the representatives of a community where, as the Barnet Alliance's Barbara Jacobson put it so eloquently, we are being forced to watch the erosion of democracy itself. 

In Barnet, we are seeing the lie of Pickles' localism agenda exposed: the dysfunctional relationship between the elected members of our authority and its voters demonstrates perfectly the powerlessness of residents to influence the actions of their representatives, once the election is won. 

Residents John Sullivan and his daughter Susan were present last night. Susan has a disability, and solicitors acting on her behalf are now seeking to pursue a judicial review of One Barnet. 

As John put it,  'bullshit tick box exercises called consultation' have been used to jusify the adoption of this reckless policy, whilst leaving the residents of our community entirely uninformed as to the real nature of what this massive leap into the dark world of outsourcing will really mean.

Even our elected representatives are not privy to the detail of the £1 billion One Barnet contracts, as admitted by 'leader' Richard Cornelius at the Barnet Alliance meeting a few days ago. They have no understanding of the massive undertaking they are endorsing, yet they see nothing wrong in extending  their approval to a policy they are too lazy and too stupid to scrutinise, but which will, for the next ten years, affect the lives of everyone who lives in this borough. 

This morning, after some reflection, Mrs Angry thought that she would write to her MP, Mr Mike Freer, the daddy of easycouncil/Futureshape/One Barnet, and see what he has to say about the monstrous creature that his baby has now become:

Dear Mr Freer

Last night, along with seventy or so other residents of Barnet, I attended a screening at the House of Commons of the film 'Barnet: the £1Billion Gamble'.

I understand that you were invited, but chose not to come, which is a great shame, as many of the residents who were there - including me - are your constituents, and one might have hoped that you would want to engage in debate on an issue which is of such huge significance to us - and to you.

It would appear, from the absence of public comment made by you in relation to One Barnet, that you are now reluctant to be associated with what clearly has now become a disastrous policy, and one which promises to end the career of many local Tory politicians, its toxicity not confined to the councillors who have endorsed the programme, but, as you must realise, to the local MPs who choose to avoid the huge concerns of local voters.

One Barnet is now a political liability, and will become even more so as the reality of the reckless gamble it represents begins to have an impact on the lives of residents.

One Barnet of course began life as the 'Easycouncil' model, metamorphosing into 'Futureshape' and now rebranded once more.

In its early stages, you claimed the intellectual copyright for the 'easycouncil' concept': you were then limbering up for your campaign as a parliamentary candidate, and it brought you a certain amount of media attention.

In fact, as we know now, this sort of model for local government is one that has been carefully encouraged all over the country by private companies such as BT and Capita, evangelising amongst the non believers in the public sector in an effort to increase their own market potential. All very clever, until the last year or so has revealed the reality of so many large scale examples of outsourcing which have failed spectacularly, and at such cost to local taxpayers.

Whilst researching material for a blogpost on this subject today, I have been reading and watching interviews that you gave in the run up to the last election, in which you discuss your 'easycouncil' idea.

Looking at these discussions once more, it becomes clear that the so called model you propose was then barely more than an aspiration, a sketch: totally lacking in detail, or any evidence as to how such a loose and unfocused idea would work in practice.

In your interviews you constantly refer to your desire to give residents 'more choice' over the way in which council services are used. You claim that 'easycouncil' is about 'transparency', and, oh dear - a 'relentless drive for efficiency'.

Fast forward to November, 2012.

Here we are facing the outsourcing of 70% of our council services, and the staggering amount of £1 billion worth of business opportunities for Capita, or BT.

It's a bit of a leap, isn't it, from wanting to give residents more choice, more transparency, to handing over control of our services to an unaccountable transnational company for ten years?

In one of your interviews you compare the wonders of the 'easyjet' model to the 'monolithic' old style airlines. One Barnet, of course, will be passing council services out of the hands of the democratic process into the hands of just the thing you so despise: a monolithic  private enterprise, whose decision making process is exempt from scrutiny due to 'commercial sensitivity', part of a virtual monopoly of a handful of companies who have their hands on the public sector outsourcing market.

Is this really in the best interests of your constituents?

Many of the Barnet Tory councillors, we know now, having woken up rather late to the realities of the policy they have been told to endorse, have real concerns over the size and nature of the giant contracts about to be signed.

Your own erstwhile colleague Brian Coleman has admitted that One Barnet is an 'officer driven juggernaut' and doomed to disaster. Mill Hill councillor Sury Khatri has noted that the council does not have a mandate for the programme: at the last election, absolutely no reference was made to the wholescale privatisation of our services: any mention of easycouncil was as vague as the soundbite comments made by you in your various media interviews.

A lot has happened since your election. These days the media interest is focused on the campaign to oppose One Barnet.

This attention will only increase as we move towards the next local elections and then the next general election. If your Tory colleagues choose to ignore the demands of the residents of this borough to tear up the One Barnet proposals, there will hardly be a safe Conservative seat left in this borough, and the three local Tory MPs, none of whom enjoy a comfortable majority, or, frankly, much popularity, will be defeated, as residents blame them a long list of local Conservative policy mistakes, from the introduction of the catastrophic parking changes, to the closure of libraries and museums, and then, post One Barnet, for the inevitable loss of standards in council services and accountability.

To be fair to you, I think that you know that One Barnet bears almost no resemblance to the rather amorphous concept you had in mind a few years ago. The model that you imagined would offer more 'choice' to citizens has been replaced by a monstrous, wildly over ambitious privatisation scheme set to benefit the profits of the private sector - and the career paths of a few senior officers. There has never been an independent risk assessment of this programme for one very good reason: the risk factor is far beyond any tolerable margin: the savings that are promised will never materialise, and the whole programme is costing more in fees to consultants than will ever be recouped.

In the best interests of your constituents, then, your duty is clear - speak to the leader and cabinet members of Barnet council and persuade them to halt the One Barnet programme now, before it is too late. If you genuinely care about the future of this borough, or at least care about your own chances of being re elected, you really have no choice.

I look forward to your response, and I would really appreciate a personal reply rather than another copy of the version sent to other constituents.

Yours sincerely, 

Mrs Angry

He replied straight away:

Dear Mrs Angry,

I have no recollection of any invite to a screening at the Commons. In any event I had other engagements in the diary. Whilst I disagree with your assessment of the One Barnet programme, of my election chances et al. I will represent your views to the Leader of the Council. I suspect he may already know them but I shall forward them none the less by copying him in on this reply.

Mrs Angry replied:

Dear Mr Freer 

Thank you for your prompt reply. 

I cannot speak for the organisers of the screening, but if you did not receive an invitation this is a shame. I will ask them to send you a copy of the film.

 I suspect Councillor Cornelius is indeed aware of my views, and indeed the views of the vast majority of residents, but he appears to be set on a course of political suicide. 

This prospect does not entirely fill me with a sense of overwhelming regret. 

Yours sincerely, 

Mrs Angry