Theresa in trouble - the Tory political establishment continues to falter, in Broken Barnet

Theresa Villiers: pic Mirror

Yes: Theresa in trouble - not me this time, though. Theresa Villiers, the MP for Chipping Barnet, may well be in a spot of hot water, however, according to a story this week by Guido Fawkes:

http://order-order.com/2013/09/16/tory-mp-demands-investigation-into-teresa-villiers-lobbyist-lunchasks-heywood-if-she-broke-ministerial-code-as-transport-minister/

It seems that fellow Tory MP Anne Main, who represents St Albans, and has been campaigning against a proposed freight depot in her constituency, has felt compelled to write to Cabinet Secretary Sir Jeremy Heywood to ask him to investigate whether Theresa Villiers may have broken the ministerial code regarding conflicts of interest in dealings over this proposal, when in her former post of minister of state for Transport. 

Ms Main alleges that Mrs Villiers had a 'private' and apparently 'undisclosed' lunch with lobbyist Simon Hoare, a friend from university, at which Helioslough's depot proposals were discussed. In an email sent by Mr Hoare to Theresa Villiers in November 2011, Anne has discovered, he suggested: 

' ... anything your department can do to press the case for a speedy and supportive decision would be a real shot in the arm to the rail freight sector.'

The decision by DCLG over this highly controversial proposal, which will have huge impact on residents, bringing a heavy volume of commercial traffic hurtling through this quiet area, surrounded by green belt - and which of course will upset large numbers of Anne Main's Tory voters - has changed, as she explains, from one of refusal to one of being 'minded to grant' the application.

the proposed freight depot, on the site of the former Radlett aerodrome

An interesting story. Mrs Villiers, of course, has reassured her parliamentary colleague that 'nothing was discussed as a result of her lunch', but Anne Main understandably prefers for the matter to be fully investigated, and for the application process to be scrutinised. As she says in her letter to Heywood: 

'The public are rightly sceptical about this sort of lobbying behind the scenes, and it certainly gives a very bad impression, indeed it is something that parliament is attempting to tackle through the lobbying bill.'

Hmm. Shame that the Coalition government has been more interested in stifling the freedom of expression by campaigning groups and trade unions, then, rather than concentrate on the real challenge of lobbying, is it not?

Mrs Villiers is of course now the Northern Ireland Secretary, having propelled her political career up the slippery slope of promotion by doing everything that her two local Tory colleagues, Matthew Offord and Mike Freer, have failed to do, that is to say follow a strategy of application, discretion - and diplomacy. 

Freer has tried very hard to bolster his chance by eagerly supporting the government's most unpopular policies, such as the privatised rape and pillaging of our National Health Service, 

whilst Villiers, although just as loyal, manages to demonstrate her worthiness without the toe curling enthusiasm of the MP for Finchley and Golders Green.

Oh: Matthew Offord. No need, I think, to retell the stories which have brought so much criticism of his three years in parliament. But hell, let's do that anyway, shall we? 

 Matthew Offord: vulnerable

The bonkers opposition to equal marriage, worrying about polygamy and procreation; the threat to use the Human Rights act to force parliament to allow him to bring his faithful canine advisor and agent Max to work; the use of parliamentary privilege to accuse a former Tory constituency activist of 'anti-semitism'; the heckling during speeches at a dinner attended by the senior army chiefs and politicians; the disappearance on a trip to Belize, 'fighting narco-terrorism' during a parliamentary recall in the aftermath of the London riots; the bizarre accidents involving flying mugs and bathrooms ... let's stop there. 

Matthew Offord, of the three MPs in this borough, is the most vulnerable, with a majority of only 100 or so votes, and is predicted to be a Labour win in 2015, returning the hardworking Andrew Dismore to parliament, and well deserved. And Freer is in real trouble now that the brilliant Sarah Sackman has been nominated as Labour's parliamentary candidate in Finchley and Golders Green.

By comparison with the two other local members, Theresa Villiers is a dutiful, quiet, and frankly rather boring constituency MP, bright enough, and awfully good at not saying anything controversial, or getting into the press for the wrong reasons. She was accordingly rewarded for her plodding loyalty and reliability by being made a member of the Shadow Cabinet, within only seven months of being elected to parliament, and after the last election became Transport minister, before her present position. 

Interesting, from an historical perspective, to see a member of the family which produced Lord Clarendon, the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland during the disastrous British government mismanagement of the Famine, sent to preside over the fragile peace of Northern Ireland, and a position of great responsibility, with a heavy toll in terms of commitment from the incumbent. 

Such dedication is not always compatible with sustaining the unswerving support of the local electors, of course, and Mrs Villiers' silence and absence in her constituency during the turmoil of the last three years has done nothing much to improve her standing with the voters of Chipping Barnet, who are largely fed up to the back teeth with the antics of their local Tory councillors and the failure of the Chipping Barnet Conservative Association to discipline the woman beating loudmouth Brian Coleman - until Conservative Central Office stepped in and forced them to act. 

Villiers did not condemn Coleman's assault of a female resident, and equally, and predictably, has said nothing about One Barnet, careful to remain distanced from the entire controversy, despite the impact that the mass privatisation of council services by Capita will have on constituents. This hands off approach will prove harder to sustain as the reality of life in Capitaville begins to dawn on voters in the run up to elections, of course.

The parking policy fiasco, also the legacy of Coleman, has exacerbated the increasingly mutinuous feelings amongst previously natural Tory voters, as indeed has the council's lack of action over the loss of Underhill for Barnet FC politicised the views of many previously apathetic residents. 

All in all, local issues, combined with the rising revolt against Coalition government policies on such issues as the NHS, bedroom tax and, well, just about everything, and it is not difficult to see that at the next General Election, as well as Offord and Freer, Theresa Villiers is going to have to work very hard at being returned to office. 

The Tory vote in all three constituencies at the last election was not spectacularly high, and factoring in the movement of Libdem support to Labour leaves the strong possibility that all three MPs are now vulnerable to defeat. 

This might have seemed, may still seem, unthinkable to some, but then ... once upon a time in Broken Barnet, who would have believed this could happen?

Former AM Brian Coleman kisses his political career goodbye at the election count in Ally Pally, while MP Mike Freer looks on, stunned ...

Update:

According to the local Times paper, which has now followed this story, a spokesman for Theresa Villiers stated this afternoon:

“Any rail minister will have matters relating to rail freight raised with them from time to time.

The conversation with Simon Hoare was published to Parliament in an answer to a parliamentary question.

Nothing from that conversation was passed on to ministerial colleagues. The meeting therefore had no impact on consideration of the Radlett planning application.

These matters were all thoroughly ventilated in a series of correspondence with Mrs Main well over a year ago.” 

Mrs Angry likes a thorough ventilation, don't you, readers? Can't sleep in a stuffy bedroom. Can't sleep at all, most nights, in fact, but that's another story.

But, erm: is disclosing attendance at a lunch with a lobbyist according to the rules on ministerial declarations the same thing as providing this information, latterly, in an answer to a parliamentary question?

The new One Barnet Joint Venture: a joint statement and an open letter by the Barnet bloggers.

Dear Councillor Cornelius,

At the end of last week, an email was sent by Pam Wharfe, Interim Director of Environment, Planning and Regeneration to employees of Barnet Council in which it was casually revealed that one of the two One Barnet outsourcing projects, the outsourcing of £275 million worth of council services, is now to be redesigned as a ‘joint venture’ in a new company comprising the bidder and the local authority.

This remarkable development raises several hugely important questions.

In the email, Ms Wharfe makes the rather disingenuous statement that the new organisation provides " ... an effective basis on which the Council can benefit from these opportunities and the same time it gives the Council greater rights of transparency and control ..."

The loss of democratic accountability to the community in the provision of services that would result from the outsourcing of the One Barnet programme is an issue we and other critics have raised repeatedly, yet is an accusation the council has continually rejected.

Whilst we are pleased to see that the authority has now accepted that our concerns are valid, we fail to understand how the creation of a new commercial venture will improve the ability of the council to retain proper controls and transparency in regard to the services outsourced in this way.

The new arrangement also raises the real risk of conflicts of interest regarding the management of the new venture and those who will be involved in the decision making processes of the organisation. Bearing in mind the failure of the council to mitigate the potential risks posed by any senior officers with links to private companies involved in the bidding process, what safeguards will be in place in relation to the membership of the new board?

Most significantly, perhaps, the new venture would appear to move the burden of significant risk from the private sector partner to the taxpayers who will be expected to fund the new company, whilst any profits that may ensue will not return to residents, but will be shared with the commercial partner. If the venture fails, residents will bear the cost of failure, and the need to re establish all in house services – if possible.

In short, the joint venture might fairly be described as nothing less than the outsourcing of profit, and a desperate, last minute agreement to carry the full risk of catastrophic failure in order to sustain, in the face of mounting disquiet from all quarters, the One Barnet outsourcing programme.

We ask why the Conservative administration has decided on this sudden course of action, at such a late stage in the dialogue process, and remind you, Mr Cornelius, that when the original case for outsourcing was made, your own consultants’ report stated:

“The costs and risks associated with a JV model are judged at this stage to be higher than for a Strategic Partnership.”

As we have so often pointed out, the undoubtedly high risks of entering into a Strategic Partnership have never been subjected to any independent assessment, or indeed any form of real scrutiny, yet here you are now, committing the financial security of our borough to what has been clearly identified as an even riskier and more costly strategy.

We might also speculate to what extent this radical departure, at this advanced stage in the dialogue, has exposed the council to risk from legal challenge by companies who have been excluded from the dialogue at an earlier point in the proceedings.

In respect of the need for democratic accountability, we would also question on what basis, and on whose authority the council has taken this decision: was the change in policy debated within the Tory group, or the Cabinet, or is this another development driven by the senior management team?

The mass privatisation of One Barnet will have a devastating impact on the daily lives of Barnet residents, as the need to make profit inevitably comes into conflict with the provision of public services, that is to say the support on which depend so many of the least advantaged and most vulnerable members of our community. All studies have demonstrated that the savings you imagine will transpire as a result of privatisation simply will not materialise, and indeed the whole enterprise is more likely to cause more cost to the local taxpayer, as well as a sharp decline in the standard of service.

By the time the full extent of the damage to the well being of this borough becomes evident, it will be too late to wrest back control of services without enormous difficulty and an intolerable burden of further cost. The senior officers who have driven the outsourcing agenda will no doubt be far away from Barnet and it is equally likely that you and your Tory colleagues will be voted out of office at the very first opportunity.

As residents of this borough we ask you to come to your senses and call an immediate halt to the One Barnet programme. Stop listening to the self serving advice of the private sector companies and the senior officers who are promoting this agenda, and take a look at the answer right in front of you – the in-house solution. With the support of the staff you employ you can work together to achieve the efficiencies you need and avoid the dangerous gamble of One Barnet: now is the time to act, before it is too late.

Yours sincerely,

Derek Dishman
John Dix
Vicki Morris
Theresa Musgrove
Roger Tichborne