One Barnet: The Best Little Whorehouse - leaked documents explain why

In the One Barnet house, what the client wants, the client gets


Barnet bloggers have received copies of a leaked document headed 'One Barnet Procurement Principles', a report written for a meeting of the council's directors' group on 1st March, 2011.

Ironically, this was the day of the infamous budget meeting at Hendon Town Hall where the use of heavyhanded security measures by the authority's illegally operating security company MetPro caused so much outrage, and was to prove the catalyst for a wide ranging investigation of the council's financial organisation, especially the grossly incompetent procurement, tendering and contractual processes.

As we know now, therefore, when this report was written, there had been no recognition of the council's complete abject failure properly to organise and maintain the private contracts it already has, no understanding of the enormity of the authority's culture of failure, the widescale breach of regulations, and financial mismanagment.

At this meeting, however, agreement was to be made on the principles by which a future marketing of one billion pounds worth of business opportuntities for the private sector should proceed. And despite, or perhaps because of, the staggering level of incompetence which Lord Palmer's audit report uncovered, the very next day after the meeting to which his report was delivered, the package of £750 million pounds worth of services to be outsourced was rushed out, before anyone could stop to question what was happening.

What does this document tell us?

Now that we are being pimped to the gentlemen callers sitting on the sofa in the salon, there are certain house rules, an etiquette, to be observed, in order to preserve the modesty of the madams on the One Barnet management team, if not the working girls and boys being exploited by the authority.

We start with some prurient words about 'dialogue confidentiality'.

'With the number of staff involved in the process,' we are told, 'managing confidentiality will be very difficult.' Oh dear - yes, that would appear to be true, wouldn't it?

There is some discussion about something called 'variant bids'. Put simply, rather than service the outsourcing company clients according to a strict menu of delights, the Barnet madams will allow interesting suggestions from clients, in line with their own idiosyncratic desires. These wishes may or may not be entertained, according to what the manager madams think they can get away with, but will not be dismissed out of hand, in case it puts clients off.

Job creation: we are told that 'some outsourcing contracts require partner organisations to make some contractual commitment to creating new jobs within the location' ... guess what, though, Barnet is not keen on this ... in case it puts clients off.

As we will see, not only do they not care whether new jobs are created, they don't care about where the old jobs remain. But they realise this idea may not be popular with the Tory councillors - 'this may be a key issue for members' - if they even know this is part of the deal ... do you know, Tory councillors? How many local jobs are you destroying with the One Barnet outsourcing? And what effect on our local economy is this all going to have?

The report describes various staffing implications and 'numerous employment issues' ... pensions are a matter of huge concern to all Barnet staff, of course, and they are right to be worried, as Barnet appears keen to hand over risk to new employers.

Ah: delivery locations ... the report tells us that they are not going to restrict the location of future delivery of services to the Barnet area, oh no, because they claim the closer to home that might be, the more expensive the proposal. Wouldn't it be fascinating to see the hard evidence for this claim? And how interesting it will be - customer service centres in Aberdeen, planning offices in Penzance, the possibilities are endless ... and as they tell us, breathing heavily, 'the council should be receptive to any proposal from potential partners' ...

Oh, here is an interesting part of the deal - accommodation ... referring to the council's assets, we are told, 'Whether these are council assets that the provider is permitted to use, or whether it is the provider's own assets, the council will ultimately pay for for their use ...' Er, what?

The council - ie you and me - will pay the clients - ie the private sector companies - for the pleasure of f*cking us, whether they do it at our house, or theirs. Is this how it is supposed to work, procurement?

But there is an even more outrageous suggestion: not only will we be f*cked by the private sector, and charged for it, if they want to bring in other entertainment to join the party in our house, they can: even if the council does not wish a provider to use the accommodation for fun with other parties, we are told there is little they can do - 'even if this is prohibited in the contract terms it would be very difficult to police' - so that's ok then, let them do whatever they want.

Contract terms: oh, long contracts are what the clients want, for their complete satisfaction, and at first they will be very keen, spending lots of money on the new partnership, but we must be aware that after the intial enthusiasm, there are 'many examples of long term partnerships where the commitment and enthusiasm of the provider has waned over the duration of the contract period' ... what a surprise, eh?

Which brings us to the sensitive subject of contract failure ... what happens when the relationship breaks down? Traditionally, we are told, contracts are arranged with a bond undertaken by the provider to cover the cost, should failure require the council to take the service back in house, or give it to a new provider. Ah, but guess what, our management team does not want our gentlemen on the sofa to be put off by that unromantic thought: they want the council to set aside a bit of money by themselves, with an insurance policy, to see us through, should that happen. I certainly would trust them with the selection of a suitable policy, wouldn't you?

Various recommendations are made at the end of the report: oh hello - they suggest 'a conflict of interest register be established in order to register any potential conflict of interest issues' .. was that proposal implemented, we wonder, and if so, how did this not prevent the apparent inaccuracies in Mrs Angry's FOI on this very subject?

What else?

Variant bids should be allowed ... no requirement to create new jobs ... no requirement to buy back support services ... no requirement for services to be located locally ... private companies should be allowed to use council accommodation for their other clients ... they want ten year contracts, oh: and someone needs to phone up gocompare.com to see if they can get a quote for one billion f*cking pounds worth of outsourced council services being sold off to the profiteering private sector, but being cocked up and left with a catastrophe on an apocalyptic scale as yet unseen in the entire history of corporate life in the United Kingdom.

That's all. Nothing to worry about.

By the way, Tory councillors of Broken Barnet, who may be struggling to understand the implications of all this: it means you have been well and truly shafted, and so have we, and at the next election you can all wave goodbye to those allowances you steal from us on the pretence that you are in office to protect the best interests of our borough.

Please come to your senses and call a halt to this programme now, before it really is too late.

If you are a Barnet employee, and you have read this, you will perhaps see now, if you didn't know already, that the interests of staff have been betrayed by the senior management of this borough, while they continue to protect and expand the number of highly paid senior posts - and consultants fees. If you are not a union member, now is the time to join and fight to save your job.

If you are a Barnet resident, you probably didn't understand the hugely significant implications of outsourcing, and what it will mean for services in this borough that you and your family have always taken for granted. In fact, and this won't make you feel any better, the vast majority of the councillors of this borough don't understand either, and the Tory councillors have supported the plans without any real interest or urge to challenge the adoption of the massive One Barnet programme. Now is the time to contact your elected representatives and give them hell. This is your prerogative, as the tax payer and voter who pays their very generous allowances.

You can contact your councillor by the methods explained here:

http://www.barnet.gov.uk/index/council-democracy/democracy-elections/councillors-general-information.htm

Part of this document is scanned and available here - http://barnetfutureshape.blogspot.com/2011/10/barnet-council-secret-documents-one.html Part Two will be available tomorrow.

One Barnet, up for sale: Welcome to the House of Fun

Well, then: here is good news.

Barnet employees were sent an email, at the end of this week, by the senior management of Broken Barnet, informing them of the latest developments in the pimping of council services to would be private company contractors.

Here is an extract. Mrs Angry's comments are in red:

"We’ve now finished our first round of dialogue meetings and the whole dialogue team is enthused about the energy and commitment that bidders have put into the process so far...

Why, you might wonder, would bidders not be brimming over with energy and commitment to a process that will throw an abundance of profits into the laps of the successful applicant? Ah: unless ... let's see ...

Round two begins next week and will focus on financial and commercial issues. The first round of due diligence meetings also finished this week. At these meetings, bidders asked James Wills-Fleming detailed questions about how the corporate programmes function is structured and run.

Cast your mind back, citizens, to the recent strike, the letters sent to staff by senior management, the giant posters installed, Big Brother style, in council offices: at the end of that week another 'market day' took place attended by companies interested in tendering for Barnet outsourced services. Is this a coincidence?

Interestingly, Mrs Angry has had endless numbers of visits to this blog by certain outsourcing companies keen to learn more about the state of play, here in Broken Barnet - and, ha ha - researching the profiles of certain senior officers involved in the outsourcing process ...

As mentioned previously, seven bidders were invited to participate in the dialogue process. We now have four bidders because three - Avarto UK, CSC Computer Sciences UK and IBM - withdrew prior to their first meeting.

Oh dear: three bidders dropped out ... was it something we said?

Funny about IBM, especially. Is it that One Barnet is really becoming too toxic for some companies to touch? But don't worry: there are still four clients sitting on the sofa, waiting to see what we have to offer their jaded appetites ...

The four we met with this week are BT, (well f*ck me, who would have thought it?) Capita, (never!) HCL Axon consortium (who? Tender fodder? Ah, seems they are awfully keen on SAP systems - you're in luck here in Broken Barnet, friends ...) and Serco (yawn ... no surprise there ... ) While the withdrawal of any bidder is regrettable, it is common in competitive dialogue. (Running away as fast their little legs can carry them ...) Their decisions were strongly influenced by the amount of time, commitment and resource that companies have to commit to the competitive dialogue process, and other competing commercial opportunities. (Aha. Mmm. Didn't want to risk their spotless reputations for a night of passion in Broken Barnet.)

Each of the three companies gave the council positive feedback about the way we have run the process." (Thanks, but - oh, look, is that the time, suddenly remembered a prior engagement - made their excuses and left, NOTW style.

Please: Tory councillors of Broken Barnet, those of you that still retain any integrity - wake up and see what is happening, right in front of you.

When Richard Cornelius was elected leader of Barnet Council, some people were under the naive impression that his mistrust of the One Barnet programme would encourage him to take action to stop it, and save us all from being a hostage to the fortunes of outsourcing, seeing our local services torn away, out of our control, in the name of 'savings' that we know will never materialise. We hear now, however, that Tory backbenchers wanting to discuss this issue with him have not been given the opportunity, and are becoming ... rather resentful. Oh dear, Mr Cornelius ...

Who, in fact, is responsible for the disaster waiting to happen that this massive externalisation of services represents? Just a handful of Cabinet members, whose lack of judgement stems entirely from their lack of experience in business, in politics, in life: ideologues with no common sense- and no political instinct. Oh - and Brian Coleman, whose loss at next year's GLA elections will, we predict, be nicely assisted by his failure to stick a spanner in the works of the One Barnet machine ...

When the next local elections come around, if One Barnet and the massive scale of outsourcing goes through, many of the Tory councillors currently failing to speak out against the programme will face the consequences and lose their seats. Residents will by then be seeing the results of the externalisation of services they have always taken for granted as the reponsibility of the local authority. They will be paying the increased charges, and worrying about the future of their family's well being in a world run to the benefit of profit, at the expense of everything that is in the best interest of our community.

The Tory councillors of Broken Barnet still have the chance to do something about the dreadful fate ahead of us all. Clearly they care little about, or fail to understand, the implications of all this One Barnet shite for the residents of our borough, but if they are worried about their own futures, perhaps even they may see that it is time to stand up and be counted. Are they going to wrest back control of this borough from the senior management team they employ to administer this borough, or are they going to sit back and write their own political death warrants?

Let's see, shall we?

Pimp my past: Broken Barnet Tories sell our museum

Church Farmhouse Museum, now closed, ruthlessly cleared of annoying visitors, exhibitions, and all historical artefacts, and presenting an exciting development opportunity for some lucky purchaser.


Tonight at 7pm our Tory councillors will meet for the latest Cabinet Resources meeting. As this committee consists of no opposition members, it is of course a rubber stamping exercise, and all proposals will be voted through by a posse of hard line One Barnet ideologues, namely: chair Daniel Thomas, supported by Leader Richard Cornelius, Brian Coleman, Sachin Rajput, Andrew Harper and Robert Rams.

Amongst the proposals on the agenda tonight is Item 7 - the agreement to sell Church Farmhouse Museum.

This magnificent listed seventeenth century building and its substantial grounds have been in the ownership of the people of Broken Barnet since 1944, when it was purchased for them by the former Middlesex County Council. As the council's own website describes:

'Church Farmhouse Museum in Hendon is one of the oldest surviving dwelling houses in the borough of Barnet.

It was built in about 1660 and was the centre of a busy dairy and hay making farm until the first half of the previous century.

The museum has a furnished 1820s kitchen with adjoining laundry room, a bake oven, a huge fireplace and a stone flagged floor. The 1850s dining room has panelling from an earlier period and the rest of the house is full of interest, from the distinctive chimney to the unusual layout.'

As the name suggests, the farm is associated with the neighbouring ancient church of St Mary's, a wonderful building with an impressive graveyard, said to have been the inspiration for Bram Stoker when describing the resting place of Lucy Westenra in 'Dracula'. (The jaded, blood sucking bodies of the undead still stalk the streets of Broken Barnet, and tonight several of them will be sitting around the corner in the Town Hall, flogging off the Church Farmhouse.)

For decades the museum has specialised in the most remarkable series of exhibitions, on local and wider themes too. This, as well as the permanent collection, has drawn visitors from a wide background of the community and from beyond the borough, serving as a vital historical resource for school parties, but also serving in other ways, such as providing reminiscence sessions for older residents in care.

When Mrs Angry was small, she was often taken to the Museum, and particularly remembers a schooltrip to see some of the original watercolour illustrations of Beatrix Potter. The infant Mrs Angry was hardly tall enough to see into the display cases, but the wonder she felt at being so close to the original pictures of Tom Kitten and Peter Rabbit was something not easily forgotten. To see a display like this in the intimate rooms of the Farmhouse Museum is the perfect experience for a child, and something that will be now be lost forever. What a terrible shame.

The Church Farmhouse Museum has been shut, despite a campaign of protest from residents.

They were told that it was a matter of funding.

They were told that community groups would be allowed to take over, in the true spirit of the Big Society.

You were told a pack of lies, citizens.

There never was the slightest intention to allow the Museum to continue, because the grasping Tory philistines of One Barnet have absolutely no interest in the cultural or historical life of this borough, and see the building and its grounds not as something unique, to be valued and cared for, but as something from which to make profit.

The Museum, therefore, is no longer a museum, it is, according to the report going to committee this evening, 'a range of development opportunities'. The report clearly indicates a suggestion that a residential development will be allowed on this sensitive site, oh, subject to permission. Of course.

The Museum is not a unique, precious and much loved piece of our heritage, it is 'surplus to the council's requirements'.

They want to flog it off because this will 'support the council's priorities and bring this currently unused area of land back into use'.

The local archaeological association, HADAS, and other interested community groups of residents, genuinely thought they had a chance to save the museum and preserve it, by their voluntary efforts, for the borough. They never had the slightest chance of this, in fact.

Mrs Angry was reliably informed this week that a couple of years ago, an individual known to her was approached by a Tory councillor and informed that his colleagues 'had their eye' on the property, and would put it up for sale. And so they have.

Earlier this week, Mrs Angry hears, Tory councillor John Marshall was highly critical of some of the radical library proposals, which affects his ward of Hampstead Garden Suburb. Mrs Angry would hope that he and many of his colleagues would also therefore also oppose the blatant philistinism which is driving this sale forward. It's not too late for these rebels to find some courage, dig their heels in and kick up a fuss on behalf of the community they claim to represent.

And while we are on the subject, perhaps local Hendon MP Matthew Offord would like to stir himself and show some interest? Been very quiet lately, hasn't he? Does he ever contradict the policies of his former council friends? Or does party unity come before everything? Still waiting to hear his views on MetPro, aren't we?

Underlying this sale is a wider issue: there has been for some time a quiet, but stealthy, asset stripping property survey in hand, marking out any and every sales and development opportunity that might be lurking in the far reaches of the borough.

This has reached ridiculous extremes: a few months ago a local shopkeeper showed Mrs Angry a most intemperate letter from the council demanding to know why a local children's play area, supposedly situated behind his business, was being used for parking. The shopkeeper was mystified by this: there is and never has been a play area, only a small, broken surfaced, concreted,weed infested parking area next to a local scout hut. Mrs Angry looked at the letter and pointed out to the shopkeeper that the letter was not, as you might expect, from the Highways department, but from a council property valuer. A range of development opportunities, there, in a newly found piece of council ground next to a scout hut, no doubt.

So there you have it, citizens - from the smallest weed infested corner of the borough, to one of our oldest buildings, and our only museum: Broken Barnet is up for sale.

Ironic, really, isn't it? Via the scrutiny of the MetPro audit, Barnet has recently humiliated itself by the revelation of a cataclysmic failure with its performance in in procurement, yet in another, rather less savoury sense, procurement is something at which our Tory councillors excell. When it comes to whoring our heritage to the highest bidder, well - you must admit - nobody does it better.

The Oldest Profession

A few days ago, senior Tory Francis Maude suggested in an interview that the new coalition administration is more radical than than the government of Margaret Thatcher, and more daring, in that it is introducing hugely significant policies much earlier than is traditionally considered acceptable.

I don't think that you can disagree with that. In fact, you might almost be forgiven for becoming slightly misty eyed and nostalgic for the good old days of Maggie Maggie Maggie, Out Out Out, and all that stuff. Ok, she brought us mass unemployment, the poll tax, the large scale destruction of the mining industry, the abandonment of our industrial base, the Falklands War and oh, so much more, but look what we are having thrown at us now ...

Like post revolutionary France we are becoming victims of a reign of terror, with a newly installed administration heady with bloodlust, and lining up victims on an almost random basis. The NHS, our schools, the welfare system, pensions, taxation: off with their heads - nothing and no one is safe. Every aspect of our lives is going to be affected, and all under the guise of revolutionary fervour, the empowerment of the people; the 'Big Society'.

And who is going to suffer from the consequences of all this mindless destruction? Not the privileged elite who have taken power: the Philippe Egalites of the coalition: Poshboy, the Chancellor, and their creature Nick Clegg; all of them indisputably more High Society than Big Society. Not one of this triumvirate would know what it is like to have to claim any sort of benefit, or live in a high rise flat in a run down council estate, or send their child to a crap school, or struggle to exist on a basic pension. Sacrifices have to be made in these hard times, as we are told, but not by the people bringing us this grim news, you may have noticed, both nationally and here in Broken Barnet.

The proposed policies which are daily being dangled in front of us, in cheery new announcements from the government, are often horrifyingly extreme in their ambition and yet peculiarly short on detail, and seem more like reckless vandalism than part of a carefully thought out strategy. Perhaps a better analogy than revolutionary leaders, in fact, would be a class of nursery school kids let loose in a sweet shop, grabbing anything and everything within reach and knocking it on the floor in the scrabble to avail themselves of the opportunity.

When you watch David Cameron now he still seems oddly ill at ease in his new role as PM, almost as if he still needs convincing, along with the rest of us, that he is worthy of the responsibility. During the election period, the televised debates did great harm to his image because they showed what a curiously two dimensional character he is: the Flat Stanley of politics. He needed a partner in government to be anchored to, or he might just have floated away, up in to the sky. Nick Clegg is a similar flyweight and the ideal balancing act, therefore.

Nick Clegg. Oh dear.

I used to have respect for the Liberal Democrats.They were liberal in outlook, and believed in democracy - do you remember? But that was in the good old days, when they had the luxury and privilege of holding the higher moral ground, because they were utterly unelectable. Then look what happened. They still weren't elected but the Tories put them in power anyway.

They say absolute power corrupts absolutely: the Libdems didn't wait for absolute power - just a sniff of it and they were gone. Dave seduced Nick, and Nick played hard to get just long enough to make Dave absolutely gagging for it. And then Nick brought his friends to the party too. One third of all Libdems MPs now have ministerial jobs, with all the perks and financial rewards that brings, something they could only ever have dreamed of without their Tory sugar daddies helping them out.

You expect the Tories to be ruthless and despicable: that's their traditional role. One might have hoped, however, not to see the the Libdems act like whores, and support the exploitation of the country by a party whose political and philosophical views are so divergent from their own. Pre election, Nick Clegg laughed at the idea of Cameron's Big Society: who's laughing now? Not me.

I don't believe that this Coalition government is supported by the ordinary, decent members and supporters of the Liberal Democrat party. I don't believe that the well respected Libdem councillors here in this borough, or anywhere in the country, who have spent their political careers fighting for a set of values that have been thrown aside so contemptuously by their leadership, are happy at the humiliating position in which they have been placed. But it's up to them now: only they can rescue their party from a life of shame. They have to have the courage to exert pressure on the leadership to withdraw from a government which may have a hugely destructive impact on our society.

If the coalition government were to fail, and and there was need of another general election, just think of the consequences in this area. Alright, we may be stuck with the bunch of self serving, gutless Tories running our council, but their more loopy ideas will have to be held in check during an election period. Thanks to the fall out from Allowancegate, the three local Tory MPs may well lose their seats, and of course nationally, fears over the radical proposals so hastily unveiled by a keen new government may well frighten the electorate leftwards to a new Labour government, with a nice new boy or girl in charge.

So come on, you Libdems: put a stop to the betrayal and exploitation of your ideals: teach your party leadership some self respect, throw out the parliamentary pimps, and save us all from a fate worse than death.