Wednesday, 28 November 2012

Return to sender, or: One Barnet, the Road to Perdition

Panderers/Dante's Inferno pic Joe Angry

Mrs Angry has been vastly amused by the number of Tory councillor emails that are being forwarded to her by many of enraged residents who are taking their elected representative to task over the Capita bid, due to be rubber stamped by the Cabinet of curiousities on 6th December.

The Tory councillors, for some reason, are reluctant to argue with Mrs Angry, as clearly they know they will lose the argument in spectacular fashion, but they seem to think they can get away with telling residents a load of rubbish about One Barnet, without getting found out. Oh dear. No, no, you can't naughty Tory councillors, not anymore.

Most of these residents, by the way, are people formerly unknown to Mrs Angry, who have contacted her out of the blue, and their activities ought to serve as a warning to our Tory tyrants that their foolish behaviour over this and other issues has politicised a large number of normally quiescant voters ...

Here are a selection of responses to one woman with an admirable sense of smell when it comes to One Barnet bullshittery. She is a resident living in Mill Hill, and genuinely incensed by the One Barnet madness, and determined to hold her councillors to account.

Mrs B was extremely annoyed by the lack of response to heremail to them:

Dear Councillors 

I am increasingly concerned at the prospect of One Barnet. Not only is this a massive gamble with taxpayers money – remember the Iceland fiasco? – but my main concern is that services will be run out of Borough by companies who have little interest in the running of Barnet and interest only in making a profit for shareholders. Councillors will have little say in how Barnet is run. 

How can a call centre in Mumbai (Cllr Coleman’s analogy, not mine) deal with matters of Barnet’s Green Belt – they will have no idea with regard to matters in Barnet. THIS IS POLICITICAL SUICIDE! 

Barnet residents will not forget this reckless expenditure of our money and in May 2014 there will be a massive backlash from residents and the Council will no longer be Conservative run. Think of what happened to Cllr Coleman on the London Assembly – people did not like what he had done in Barnet (parking) and he lost his huge 20,000 majority – overturned to a 20,000 majority in favour of the Labour candidate. The same will happen with you – you will all ceremoniously be booted out of office. I urge you to follow your instincts, your gut feelings and vote AGAINST One Barnet on 6th December. 

Do what the voters of Barnet elected you to do – represent them and ensure that life in Barnet is run by people in Barnet not outsourced to some huge private company with little interest in Barnet but interest simply in making a profit for share-holders. I would like a response please to this email.

After a very poor response, Mrs B sent a reminder 

Dear Councillors, 

I am surprised and disappointed that it is now two days since I sent you the email below. I am aware you have read the email since I had a “read receipt” but as yet I have not had the courtesy of a reply. 

Since you were elected to serve the residents of Barnet, I am frankly astonished that you can ignore a matter as important as One Barnet. Time is running out on the One Barnet vote – as it is on your political careers . May I now please have the courtesy of a reply from you?

This at least generated some replies from the usual pro One Barnet suspects:

Deputy leader Councillor Daniel Thomas:

Thank you for your message, the contents of which have been noted albeit some of you assumptions are incorrect (there will be no call centre in Mumbai). 

Councillors will still oversee, scrutinise and set strategy which is what we do now. Other councils have outsourced their back offices with great success and that is what we intend to repeat. 

Mrs B wasn't having any of that:

Er, no, not Mumbai (Cllr Coleman’s analogy not mine) but not Barnet either where all the local knowledge is. 

As for “councillors will still oversee, scrutinise and set strategy which is what we do now”.... There is no WE (royal or otherwise) about it, because you will have been booted out by the electorate of Barnet in May 2014 because of what we all see as your sell-off of our Borough. GOne Barnet and GOne Conservative Councillors.................... Mrs B 

John Thomas was beginning to wilt by now

Thank you for your views and preditions.

Mrs B was still up for it, however:

What is a predition please? Or do you mean “perdition” which my dictionary tells me is “A state of eternal punishment and damnation into which a sinful and unpenitent person passes after death”. 

By now Mrs Angry was almost beginning to feel sorry for him. Almost, and then the unpenitant John Thomas got a grip of himself:

Obviously I meant to type 'prediction' given your 2014 prediction but your response clearly implies an overzealous willingness to misinterpret. 

There was one letter missing from the word I typed yet you choose to rearrange two letters to come up with a ludicrous reference to punishment after death! 

I look forward to the new NSCSO contract starting and the benefits and savings it shall bring. 

Who next? Ah: a missive from Thomas' Cabinet colleague, small but perfectly formed library killer and museum murderer Robert Rams: Mrs Angry's comments in red, and please don't blame her for his illiteracy.

I am not sure if you are a resident of mine because you have not put an address on this email but thank you for your email about One Barnet. 

I fully support the one barnet program. PROGRAMME, Robert, is the correct spelling.

This program has seen the council look at all the services we provide to see if we are running them to the best of our ability, as cost effective as possible and if there are better ways of running them. 

No, it has not: this programme has not looked at all the services to see if they are run to the best of your ability. This is completely untrue, as you well know. The programme has looked at which services are the most appealing to the giant outsourcing companies looking for the easiest profits, and has refused point blank to look at ways of making efficiencies in house, which would have produced the most cost effective way of running services, but would have disappointed the senior management team, the private companies wanting to make profits from us, and the consultants wanting to make profits from us and the private companies.

I am sure you can agree that this is a good thing in the current finical crisis we face.

Finical crisis, FFS ...

For example we are now sharing our legal services with another council, a very recent move and yet to prove worth the upheaval ...

we have wonderful community and charity led community coaches who are making some great differences in our communities, what are you going on about? One tiny scheme?

we have brought our waste services back in house at the last minute 

yes, lol, 'at the last minute', you muppet, due to panic by councillors over the reaction to One Barnet, and if this is a wise move, why did you refuse an in  house comparator for all the One Barnet outsourcing proposals?

and yes we will outsource some services. 

SOME services? 70% of ALL services are being given away for profit making to the private sector ...

These outsources will provide huge investment to our services, money we don't have, 

there is actually very limited investment coming from the outsourcing companies, and you would have more money if you stopped wasting so many millions of our taxes on for example scandalously mismanaged procurement, and hugely overpaid consultants ...


whilst improving the services and keeping council tax down.

 No, it will not improve services, as you would realise if you had bothered to study all similar privatisations, and keeping council tax down is an ideological obsession which is further punishing the tax payer because it will be paid by stealth through higher charges ...


I stood on a manifesto promise to freeze council tax as I believe that residents should spend their money how the like. 

You stood on a manifesto which made no mention of One Barnet, and a few weeks ago you and your cabinet chums were planning to raise council tax: and don't pretend you weren't, because I was at the meeting where this was discusssed.

You raise a number of concerns about these services being outsourced. I can assure you that that there will be no change in accountability and my ability to hold the services to account. 

This is completely and utterly untrue.

The loss of accountability will be MASSIVE. For ten years a private company will have us by the goolies, and if we try to escape, they will charge us, the tax payers HUGE penalties. Robert Rams couldn't hold a defenceless kitten to account, let alone a company the size of Capita.

I have never had any problems with the services we have already outsourced. 

That would be because your head was firmly wedged up your rear end, and failed to read about, for example, the trouble with legionella contamination in our Fremantle run care homes. You also fail to comment about the wealth of information which raises serious concerns over outsourced services in authorities the length and breadth of the UK.

We are looking at a number of ways of outsourcing - you mention a JV or strategic partner - there are pro and cons to each of these and they will be assessed on a case by case basis. 

You mean your senior officers have decided on a Joint Venture, without bothering to consult elected members over the major policy change this would represent, and you only found out about it thanks to the democratic overview provided free of charge by the Barnet blogosphere ...

There could sadly be some job losses - and this is never a good thing. But if we did not go down this route and would therefore need to make larger cuts in our services, the job losses would be much larger. I hope that this addresses your concerns but this will be a good thing for Barnet and I fully support these changes. 

Cllr Rams 

Another good thing, Robert, will be when there will be a large number of 'job' losses amongst the Tory councillors of Broken Barnet, in May 2014, on which happy day you will realise what a cock up of everything you have made, and when you will be cordially invited to kiss my *rse.

with sincere regards, 

Mrs Angry x

Silly Mrs Angry, nearly forgot, if you would like to have your own correspondence with councillors, why not email them too? It's all the rage. Go on: you know you want to ... Here are the Cabinet members who are planning to rubberstamp the Capita giveaway:


cllr.d.thomas@barnet.gov.uk
cllr.a.harper@barnet.gov.uk
cllr.d.longstaff@barnet.gov.uk
cllr.s.rajput@barnet.gov.uk
cllr.j.tambourides@barnet.gov.uk
cllr.d.cohen@barnet.gov.uk
cllr.t.davey@barnet.gov.uk
cllr.h.hart@barnet.gov.uk
cllr.r.rams@barnet.gov.uk

and here are the rest of the Tory numpties who are sitting back and letting them go ahead:
 
cllr.m.braun@barnet.gov.uk

cllr.b.evangeli@barnet.gov.uk
cllr.d.yawitch@barnet.gov.uk

Update:

Oh look: Mrs B's tongue lashing has provoked a startling response from Councillor Andrew Harper: sorry, Councillor Andrew Harper, Cabinet Member for Education, Children and Families (he is of course always keen to impress the ladies of Broken Barnet with the size of his portfolio).

Dear Mrs B
It may or may not be political suicide, nevertheless I believe the awarding of a contract to Capita for a New Support and Customer Services Organisation - which is what we will deciding at the Cabinet meeting on 6th December - to be in the best long-term interests of our borough and I expect to support it.  I note your comments, meanwhile.
Regards
Cllr Andrew Harper
Garden Suburb Ward
Cabinet Member for Education, Children and Families


Please note that the startling feature here is the phrase 'I expect to support it' ... rather equivocal for a man of such rigid loyalty as Cllr Harper, don't you think? 

Touching that a man is prepared to lay down his political life for the good of others, though. Well, for the benefit of Capita and political dogmatism, anyway. 

Not that the millionaire Tory voters of the Suburb are likely to ask him to feck off anytime soon, but then ... in the past there have been some surprising voting patterns in this area ...

Tuesday, 27 November 2012

A Cabinet of Animosities: their Barnet - whose Barnet?



Ok, I pinched the title of this post from elsewhere: a serendipitous find on google, a BBC radio feature which led Mrs Angry to an unexpected but suitable destination, for the purposes of this blog, at least: the Museum of Broken Relationships ... yes, there is one, in Croatia. 

Here you may donate mementos, tokens of your failed marriages, romances, and broken hearts, to join a collection of artefacts ranging from a pair of handcuffs, nearly new, to someone's discarded underpants, a winsome teddy bear and an axe, used to destroy a lover's belongings at the end of their affair. Aww.

The purpose of One Barnet, we are often told, was to forge a new relationship with the residents of this borough. Sadly this relationship was always doomed: dysfunctional, inequal: abusive. And like all abusive relationships, in the end, the only thing to do is use the axe, break it up, and move on to something better. Or that is how it is supposed to work, if you have the courage.

Mrs Angry has been reading, on and off today and yesterday, copies of emails sent in response to some residents contacting our Tory councillors about the Capita contract, and their fears over One Barnet. 

After an initial silence it seems the Cabinet members who have been arguing with their own colleagues over the proposals now realise that rather after trying to bully us all into accepting the outsourcing plan, they have to play nice, in order to try and win the hearts and minds of their electors. Rather late in the day. 

The Cabinet of Animosities: launching a charm offensive - no charm, and completely offensive

There is a distinct scent of panic in the air, as our tormentors realise they have lost control, and their victims are finding their own independence.

Some councillors are better at acting out the old hearts and minds thing than others. Take a look at some of the responses received by Cafe Buzz owner Helen Michael. 

Full marks to Cllr Daniel Seal for a polite, courteous and perhaps surprisingly reasonable reply. But uh oh, the rest.

Cheeky Councillor Andrew Harper hasn't quite got the hang of being nice, the concept of debate, or of being accountable to the residents. In fact, maddened as he is by the incessant demands of his portfolio, and more accustomed to the fawning admiration of the millionaire residents of Hampstead Garden Suburb: he was driven to accuse Helen of making 'threats', simply by stating the fact that although traditionally a Tory voter, she would not be inclined to favour the party with her support at the next elections. 

Councillor Joanna Tambourides sent a rather typically hard nosed response:

"Your alternative solutions to the situation we find outselves in are eagerly awaited."  

Helen then provided her with a suitably detailed response, which clearly came as a surprise - another councillor unused to residents answering back ... this is new territory for our Tory councillors, having to explain themselves to residents and justify a decision. Democracy, in other words. 

Dear sleepy headed little Robert Rams appears to be running out of steam: he and Tom Davey repeated the same old mantra about we have no alternative, we need to make savings, this is the only way, dee dum dee dum dee dum, bla bla bla.  

The sheepish Cllr Old gave One Barnet the full thumbs up, saying that Cabinet has his full support. No kidding.

And David Longstaff went to the trouble, as he has with other constituents, to write, at some length, a lot of nonsense about, oh dear, the totally discredited 'Graph of Doom', and asserting that if we didn't sign up with Capita, it would signify the mark of the beast, the end of days, the coming of the apocalyse, and we would have to put council tax up by 38%. Mmm. 

Amusing to recall, isn't it, that when our Tory councillors first returned to power in 2010, the first thing they did was to vote themselves a nice big fact rise in their allowances? No mention of the need to make savings, then, was there? Well, yes Mrs Angry there was, in fact, at the same meeting, but our Tory councillors think they are exempt from such stringent measures, of course.

There are two interesting conclusions to make from the responses sent, and the fact that other Cabinet members have started popping up at local residents' associations meeting, trying to evangelise on the joys of One Barnet - and getting a flea in their ears for their troubles. 

Not only is it clear that the Cabinet members and hard core Tories supporting One Barnet are running scared, it is also apparent that they are either genuinely ignorant of the realities of the One Barnet programme, or cynically pushing this wheelbarrow load of what they know to be a stinking heap of shite.

 Have they read the 8,000 page contract? I doubt it, don't you? Have they read and understood the reports going to Cabinet and scrutiny committee this week? Unlikely. 

Have they noticed that say, in the event we have to withdraw from the contract and give a six months notice of termination, we must continue from there on to pay the 'returns' that Capita would have collected? 

Why are they telling residents dismissively that the contract is only for 'back office' support, implying that no essential services are being outsourced? 

And here is a curious thing: Barnet Council have told the press that the NSCSO deal is for 'only' £320 million. 

In the OJEU issued for the tender, the figure was for around £750 million. Have they mislaid a few million? What has changed? Or have they spun the total figure, for some reason, to make it seem less significant? 

And here is another strange omission. Why are our Tory councillors failing to mention that nearly half the 'savings' they claim will emerge as a result of this deal are due to come from: 'getting a better deal from those areas where the Council currently contracts services from third parties' - in other words, efficiencies in procurement, as well as in council tax collection. 

It is hardly a surprise to learn that Barnet could make savings in procurement, as the Barnet bloggers have exposed the gross incompetence shown in the management of this very activity - but if senior officers were obliged to do their jobs properly, or shown the door when found to have presided over such a large scale cock up, we could make these savings directly ourselves, and without sharing the profits with Capita.

Look at what is happening in Cornwall: just weeks ago they threw out their version of One Barnet, due to public outcry, and the concerns of independently minded councillors. They are now planning to make the savings they need through in house services and other common sense options. 

And this is the heart of the problem. Because the leadership and senior management team in Barnet refused point black even to consider an in house alternative to One Barnet, and the most sensible way of making the savings we need was never an option here. You may care to think about that, and wonder why that is. 

Let's not mess around: the reason is because One Barnet has never been about what is best for residents - Coleman was right, it is an officer driven juggernaut, driven on behalf of the outsourcing industry. 

Just as the directors group were caught out making the decision they have no right to make on switching the other tender to a Joint Venture model, the push for the £1 billion pound gamble has come from senior management, nodded through by a few ideologically obsessed and gullible councillors, and encouraged by wildly overpaid consultants. 

It's not One Barnet, it's not our Barnet: it's their Barnet. 

But it's not too late: keep emailing the Tory councillors, and tell them what you think of the Capita proposal. 

Don't take their platitudes as the final word: challenge their statements, and make them accountable to you. Tell them you are in the driving seat now, and you aren't going to take any more crap from them. 

It's tough love, and the way things have to be now, in this new relationship, in the way we want it to be, rather than as dictated by them. 

We know that the Tory group is tearing itself apart over One Barnet: ironically, some members of the Cabinet of Animosities who are promoting the deal are councillors in marginal wards, and stand a very good chance of losing their seats, in the nest elections. In some cases, the horrible prospect that awaits them is only just beginning to sink in. 

You might like to reinforce the likeliness of this awful fate, with a few words of encouragement for your elected members. And if they won't listen: let's wrap them up in tissue paper, and donate them all, in May 2014, to the Museum of Broken Relationships.

Here are the Cabinet members, who are so keen to hand over control of our borough, and the rich pickings from our council services to Capita, their email addresses below:

Richard Cornelius 
Daniel Thomas 
Andrew Harper 
David Longstaff 
Sachin Rajput 
Joanna Tambourides 
Dean Cohen 
Tom Davey 
Helena Hart 
Robert Rams  


cllr.d.thomas@barnet.gov.uk
cllr.a.harper@barnet.gov.uk
cllr.d.longstaff@barnet.gov.uk
cllr.s.rajput@barnet.gov.uk
cllr.j.tambourides@barnet.gov.uk
cllr.d.cohen@barnet.gov.uk
cllr.t.davey@barnet.gov.uk
cllr.h.hart@barnet.gov.uk
cllr.r.rams@barnet.gov.uk

and here are the email addresses of the rest of the culprits:


cllr.m.braun@barnet.gov.uk
cllr.b.evangeli@barnet.gov.uk

Updated:  

Thought for the day, for leader Richard Cornelius, courtesy of a local resident:
 

"Dear Councillor Cornelius


RE: ONE BARNET, I have three quotes from the bible each with a question to you.


Proverbs 27:12  A prudent person foresees danger and takes precautions. The simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences.


Question: Are you really the simpleton you are appearing to be?


Matthew 6:24  No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other.


Question: So which is it Capita or the people of Barnet?


Mark 8:36   What good is it for a man to gain the whole world, yet forfeit his soul?


Question: What good is it for you to betray the trust of the people of Barnet AND forfeit your soul?


You and your acolytes have made a mess of running the borough already - a legion of failures and embarrassments weighed up against a couple of pounds off the Council Tax.  Thanks to you, this great and historic borough has been humiliated and is becoming an international laughing stock.


I do not regret the personal tone of this email, because your actions as Council Leader have impacted on the lives of individuals; you deserve the opprobrium.  Maybe the Bible is the wrong book for you; perhaps with your lack of heart, brain and courage you should visit the Wizard of Oz."

Update #2, Tuesday 9pm:

Tory Councillor Hugh Rayner has contacted Mrs Angry with the following plea:

   
"I am being inundated with emails - all very similar - asking me as a member of the scrutiny committee to recommend that NSCSO be referred to full Council. I try to reply personally to all emails I receive but if I spend my time replying to all these emails then I will have no time to prepare for pre-decision scrutiny on Thursday. Please, through your blog, can you thank everyone for their concerned interest and apologise to them for my not replying personally. I am sure you will understand. Many thanks. And I am content that you pass this on to fellow bloggers if you so wish. Hugh"

Mrs Angry has - sniff - published this out of a sense of deep concern for Hugh, as she would not wish to see him overburdened with emails at such a delicate time.

(Actually this is a fecking lie: Mrs Angry urges all residents to ignore his plea and keep inundating him and his colleagues with emails, and serves them right ...)  

(But don't tell him I said so.)

Monday, 26 November 2012

No sex please, we're from Broken Barnet: and One Barnet Casino Royale, the Tory vice




Barnet Council: taking a firm stance on sex and gambling. Except in the Town Hall.

Updated 23rd December 2013:

A merry xmas to some of Mrs Angry's friends in Istanbul, who also take a firm stance on sex and gambling. 

Unfortunately. 

Mrs Angry xxx

Apologies. Mrs Angry must lower the tone of what is, of course, usually a wholesome blog dealing only with matters of political debate, moral quandries, philosophical debate, and all that kind of stuff.

Tonight at our Town Hall there will be a meeting of the rarely seen Licensing Committee, whose Chair, Councillor Andreas Tambourides, receives a well deserved allowance of around £16,000 a year, despite the fact that it will be convened for only the second time in a year (more frequently than normal, it must be noted).

The committee will be meeting  to discuss two matters that weighs heavily on the minds of many of our Tory councillors: sex and gambling. 

Not necessarily at the same time, of course -but in some cases, yes. 

Mrs Angry will not be attending, as she cannot trust herself to sit in the same room as Cllr Andreas Tambourides and friends debating this subject without feeling unwell, or disgracing the high moral standing of the Barnet blogosphere.

The issue of licensing sex entertainment venues in the London borough of Broken Barnet is discussed with admirable probity, and in some rather eyewatering depth, in the accompanying reports, as it happens. 

Mrs Angry has wasted a good deal of her time this morning on your behalf, studying these in detail.

In order to meet the requirements of the One Barnet vision - no, not squeezing every last penny out of those residents least able to afford it, to develop 'a successful London suburb', we are told we must have a plan to regulate sexual activity in the borough.

The meaning of sexual activity in this context is 'entertainment’, that is to say, 

any live performance or live display of nudity which is of such a nature that, ignoring financial gain, it must reasonably be assumed to be provided solely or principally for the purpose of sexually stimulating any member of an audience (whether by verbal or other means)’ ..... 

Oh. What if it is only an audience of one? Or two? Mind your own business, councillors, Mrs Angry would say.

Mrs Angry is also trying to imagine what sort of show that would be, with only verbal sexual stimulation ...  limited audience, one would think, no? Niche market. About as much of a turn on as sitting through a council meeting in Hendon Town Hall. Probably less, in fact, if Councillor John Hart is speaking.

The definition of relevant entertainment would apply to the following forms of entertainment as they are commonly understood : Lap dancing,  Pole dancing, Table dancing,  Strip shows, Peep shows, Live sex shows. Peep shows? How quaint. 

The report also explains to our innocent councillors the definition of a sex shop.

Any premises, vehicle, vessel or stall used for a business which consists to a significant degree of selling, hiring, exchanging, lending, displaying or demonstrating:

(a) sex articles; or
(b) other things intended for use in connection with, or for the purpose of stimulating or encouraging:
i) sexual activity
ii) acts of force or restraint which are associated with sexual activity.


Dear me. And we are also given a definition of a 'sex cinema': look away now, if you are easily offended, or very innocent. (If you are, what the f*ck are you doing reading this blog? Go away.)

 Any premises, vehicle, vessel or stall used to a significant degree for the exhibition of moving pictures, by whatever means produced, which : 

(a) are concerned primarily with the portrayal of, or primarily deal with or relate to, or are intended to stimulate or encourage: i) sexual activity; or ii) acts of force or restraint which are associated with sexual activity. 
(b) are concerned primarily with the portrayal of, or primarily deal with or relate to, genital organs or urinary or excretory functions, but does not include a dwelling-house to which the public is not admitted

Portrayal of ... dear me again. A vessel, or stall?

Currently we have no such licenced establishments in Broken Barnet, and it is not likely that any will be allowed by the council: or so we must presume. Admirably moral position for our Tory masters to take, in their roles as upholders of virtue and family values. Sex, in Tory Broken Barnet is like culture, according to the philosophy of Councillor Robert Rams, who recommends we go into central London if we want to visit a museum, or an arts venue. 

All very well: shame that our councillors do not seem to concern themselves with the rather more apparent and disgraceful sexual exploitation of women, some of them trafficked, in what is one of the highest densities of suburban brothels, here in this borough - or with the blight of dogging activities in parks and open spaces like Scratchwoods.

(To be fair, as noted in this post, http://wwwbrokenbarnet.blogspot.co.uk/2011/11/park-life.html according to a local Times story in 2006, Councillors Brian Coleman and Brian Gordon did, at one time, show some (entirely professional) interest in the activities in Scratchwoods ...)

Also on the agenda tonight is another proposal, of rather more significance than perhaps some might appreciate: to consider a 'Gambling statement of Principles'.

CORPORATE PRIORITIES AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS 

3.1 Under the Licensing Act 2003 there are three statutory objectives to be met through licensing:

 (1) Preventing gambling from being a source of crime, being associated with crime or being used to support crime 

(2) Ensuring that gambling is conducted in a fair and open way 

(3) Protecting children and other vulnerable persons from being harmed or exploited by gambling

Gambling, we are told, in the absence of any principles, raises the significant risk that would leave our council open to challenge by judicial review.

Quite.

And they are particularly keen to protect the residents of Broken Barnet from the dangers of casinos: there is a proposal therefore, that recommends: 

"That the resolution not to license casinos be reaffirmed and recommended to full Council for adoption as policy."

Mrs Angry heartily concurs with the recommendations of this report. Gambling and the absence of principles is not something we want to see here, in this successful London suburb, is it, citizens? We don't want our children and vulnerable residents exposed to harm or exploitation, or encourage criminal activities in our borough.

Why then, Tory councillors of Broken Barnet, are you taking the biggest gamble of all time, and exposing us all to the £1 billion risk of One Barnet?

No casinos in Barnet? 

Not what it says here:


Sunday, 25 November 2012

Probably unappealing: a move, the cabinet of curiosities, and a revelation from Brian Coleman

* Stop press: see below for an astonishing attack on his Tory colleagues by Brian Coleman ...

On Friday evening, just after five o'clock, when most members of staff were finishing work, Andrew Travers, the acting CEO of Barnet Council, emailed his weekly message, copied below. 

In view of the contents, and in courtesy to the hundreds of employees struggling to come to terms with the dreadful news they have just been given, you might think he should have made the effort rather earlier in the day. But frankly, such thoughtlessness is par for the course, here in Broken Barnet, where employees are mere figures on a sheet, expendable, and not worthy of consideration.

As ever, Mrs Angry's comments in red.


Sent: 23 November 2012 17:11 

To: All Staff 

Subject: Weekly message from the Deputy Chief Executive 

This week has obviously been dominated by the news of Capita being named as the officer recommendation for the NSCSO contract. 

The announcement of the details and of the business case has surprised people in two ways. Externally observers seem taken aback by the scale of the savings the council will receive - £125 million over the lifetime of the contract with an extra £8 million investment in the service as the contract starts. 

Externally observers ... glossing over the appalling standard of literacy here ... yes, observers are taken aback by the scale of savings announced (although not we cynical bloggers as we were tipped off that a sutiably and extravagantly exaggerated sum would be announced) ... you will note that Mr Travers assures us that we will receive £125 million. 

Make a note of that, for when the court cases start. As far as Mrs Angry is concerned, the word of Andrew 'Black Hole' Travers is assurance enough, of course.

Internally staff affected have undoubtedly been surprised by the rapid scale and pace of transformation. 

The two are obviously connected.  

No shit, Sherlock. The mind blowing grandiosity of a £ billion privatisation and the desperate, unseemly haste to get this contract signed off: yep, that has taken everyone by surprise. And by the way, please note that now Barnet is trying to present the NCSCO package as only worth £320 million, rather than the £750 million clearly detailed in the OJEU notice ...

197 posts could leave the borough for other towns in England and Northern Ireland by December 2013.  

Will. These jobs will leave the borough. Staff will lose their jobs. Except we have reason to believe the real number may be closer to 350: watch this space.

For people with a partner working in London and children in London schools, the thought of upping sticks and moving to the north of England is probably unappealing.

Unappealing. Yeah. Suppose so. Moving two hundred miles away, to somewhere totally strange, leaving behind all your family and friends, your home, your standard of living, your conditions of service, your salary, your pension: unappealing.Not all of us are as fortunate as Black Hole, sadly, long term interim consultants paid £1,000 a day, even when nominally in charge of the cock up that passes for procurement in the London Borough of Broken Barnet.

But it is important for those of you affected that you shouldn't immediately think the only alternative is redundancy. 

No. You could resign now, and save them a lot of trouble & money. Or why not become an interim consultant, and charge Barnet Council £1,000 a day for your efforts?

Capita, if they are confirmed as our partners, are a large organisation with 50,000 staff and they will be committed to finding alternative roles within the company for NSCSO staff wherever possible. 

Hmm. How possible is possible, I wonder, Andrew? Why have you not insisted that they should be given guarantees of employment, rather than offer a vague 'committment'?

In the meantime, screensavers and posters advertise the range of support available for anyone who would like to take it up, both in relation to NSCSO and budget savings. 

Andrew

Marvellous. Thanks. All those council employees, a month before Christmas, facing the loss of their livelihoods, worrying how they are going to pay their rent, their mortgages, and support their families are no doubt overwhelmed with gratitude, and touched by the depth of your compassion. 

Screen savers and posters, eh?

In the meanwhile .... please keep up your efforts in emailing our Tory councillors about the Capita contract decision: Mrs Angry is hearing some entertaining tales of the reactions of our beloved representatives, including one senior Tory who seems to think that any expression of intent to cease voting for his party is ' a threat' ... yes, really. 

In this borough, you will vote Conservative, whatever the consequences, without question.

This is the way we do things.

This is Broken Barnet, where the 'new relationship' that One Barnet is forging with electors, in a post Localism world, is not an adult, mutually respectful and loving partnership, but one based on dominance, bullying, and mute submission.

Alright. Let's have a closer look at our Cabinet members, shall we, as they are the ones who will be voting, on December 6th, on the 'recommendations' of our enthusiastic senior officers, who want to see us sold into slavery to their counterparts at Crapita for the next ten years. 

On the council's website, it helpfully explains the function of the Cabinet:
  • Members of Barnet Council's cabinet provide positive leadership and strategic direction for the council, both within individual portfolio responsibilities and as part of the corporate responsibilities of the executive. They bring a cross-service perspective to the council, encouraging integrated working across service areas focused on the council's political and administrative priorities.
The cabinet takes an active approach to ensuring that decisions made by the council are informed both politically and administratively, and the council's cabinet decisions are collective and made by the cabinet.
The cabinet members are democratically accountable to the public and are the public face of the council, such they act as ambassadors for the council's work in improving Barnet.
Hmm. Positive leadership. Strategic direction. Hang on: isn't that the role played by the senior officers ... ? Certainly in the competitive dialogue process. Look at the Joint Venture scandal - a decision made not by democratically elected members, but in secret, in meetings whose minutes are being withheld, on spurious grounds, from Mrs Angry's FOI request, and the request of councillors ...
The cabinet, we are told makes sure that 'decisions made by the council are informed both politically and administratively' ... clearly in the case of One Barnet, demonstrably, this has NOT been the case. There has been no proper consultation or information made available to their own Tory colleagues, let alone the other members, or, of course, the electorate.
Still, 'the cabinet members are democratically accountable to the public'  ... you reading this, Andrew Harper? Democratically accountable. Look: there is a threat, and a promise. time to recall the ambassadors, Mrs Angry would say.
*Stop press: 
Brian Coleman has just posted a timely attack in his blog here on his former colleagues' behaviour over One Barnet: according to him, for 'diplomatic reasons' mseveral members failed to attend the recent group meeting, which lasted until late at night as Tories argued over the Capita proposals. Of those present, he claims, a total of 12 voiced concerns: he continues ...
"By this time the Leader's blood pressure was rising until he finally jumped up "red in the face" and said unless the Conservative Group supported this " all the Libraries would have to be closed and social services would be reduced to a crisis only mode "

Several members objected to this blackmail but were swept aside as Group Chairman ( still ambitious at 72 !) Councillor John Marshall called a vote asking "that if the Cabinet endorsed the Officers recommendations then the Group would support them " . There were only 7 abstentions. I would suggest that decision rather fetters Conservative Members ability when it comes to the Scrutiny process in the next fortnight and no doubt Councillors will declare what "whip " they are under at the start of the Scrutiny meetings as Standing orders dictate.

Obviously the whole Cabinet, or" the boys" as they are increasingly known due to their youth and inexperience, voted in favour . Apologies to those Cabinet Members not part of the boys gang whose silence is no doubt due to awaiting developments during the next Conservative Group Leadership campaign next April .

One long serving Conservative Councillor put the phone down on a very young Cabinet Member who phoned him up because he felt his colleague did not understand " One Barnet" and needed it explaining. As the Councillor told me he felt like punching the patronising little git !

Having attended the meeting at the Greek Brotherhood the other week I am well aware of the strength of feeling of many residents and although there was a great deal of left wing hot air spouted which was not relevant to much at all , it is clear that the war is frankly lost ."
Wow. There's more: 
"There is a  Conservative , clear blue water alternative to the current New Labour nonsense and that is to asses individual services and decide where and how they are best delivered . Some belong in the private sector , some in the voluntary sector , some in joint operation with other Boroughs or public bodies  and some we should cease performing at all . Occasionally some should just be left alone in house to get on with the job !
To outsource as Barnet are proposing, just preserves  certain services in aspic for ten years and is as wrong as the left wingers who argue that not one Council  job should be cut or changed .

Roy Hattersley reportedly said that the 1983 Labour manifesto was the longest suicide note in history , I suspect he had not seen the Capita contract."
Coleman concludes:
"True Conservatives in Barnet know "In their guts , this One Barnet scheme is nuts " .Many even get the feeling that the usually sensible, mild mannered  and traditional Conservative Leader of the Council feels the same but has backed himself into a corner .

It is still not to late to change tack and salvage the 2014 election and allow true Conservative philosophy to win through."
.
Mrs Angry has left a comment for Brian, to the effect that it really is an extraordinary turn of events that have brought us to the same position on One Barnet. Well, isn't it?
Of course if Coleman had not lost his membership of the Tory party, one imagines he would have acted in line with all his shabby, impotent colleagues and publicly endorsed a policy most of them know is a disaster waiting to happen.
What a bunch of dolts and cowards the Tory councillors have shown themselves to be.
It seems they are set on a course of catastrophe, and totally lack the courage and integrity needed to act as they really know they should.
Please use the email addresses listed below, and write to all of them telling them exactly what you think of their treacherous behaviour.
cllr.b.evangeli@barnet.gov.uk