Wednesday, 17 April 2013

The last goodbye: Barnet Tories' farewell to Margaret Thatcher


Margaret Thatcher: a nation mourns: but not Mr Shepherd

Mrs Angry had intended to wear her red dress to the full council meeting last night, as a gesture of eccentric socialism and general disrespect to Barnet's Tory councillors in the wake of Margaret Thatcher's demise. In one way it was appropriate, this dress, having been spotted by Miss Angry worn by Samantha Brick in a feature in the Daily Mail: suitably Tory, then - but will it make me as beautiful as Samantha Brick, worried Mrs Angry? Her daughter made a face indicating a certain degree of reservation on this point. Hmm, no, maybe the pink one then. And off to the Town Hall.

The meeting commenced as usual with the trumpery of tricorns, footmen prancing about with the mace, the ceremonial entrance of the Mayor, squeezing the last drop of grandiosity out of his nearly completed year in office. After the usual invocation by his Chaplain, Rabbi Shochet, asking the Almighty to, by some miraculous means, imbue our councillors with a respect for God and all mankind, to work in peace and harmony, and to pursue the ideals of democracy, liberty, and freedom for all, like Baroness Thatcher, well: we all sat down,arms folded, having been told that the meeting would be extended to allow councillors to pay their tributes to the memory of Finchley's former MP. Mrs Angry sighed, and waited for the onslaught.

The Mayor had a special memory of Margaret. Once he was at someone's house, and was standing by the fireplace, and someone came up behind him, and tapped him on the shoulder. 'Excuse me dear', said Mrs Thatcher, and then, then she bent down to straighten the rug, as it had been 'rucked up'. Marvellous. Kind of like we had to straighten out the country, after she resigned, because it had been fucked up. 

Excuse me dear.

Still, in its way, almost as good an ancedote as the one about the old girl told by Brian Coleman in his latest blogpost, recalling, in between the usual name dropping references to obscure dead Tory freemasons and titled nobodies:

"... she never attended any event without ensuring she had spoken to everybody in the room and nipped into the kitchen to lend a hand with the washing up as well  . "You can never have enough tea towels " I once heard her remark at a Finchley Conservative Bazaar , somehow I cannot image David Cameron making that remark with total naturalness." 

Quite.

For the Finchley housewife in need of teatowels

Personality cults flourish in only the most repressive regimes, of course: a necessary opiate of the people. Forget North Korea: here in Broken Barnet the cult of Margaret Thatcher thrives amongst the faithful Tories, bowing before her memory in ritual obeisance, and now entering a period of obligatory public mourning. All North Korean households are required to display portraits of the Kim family on one wall: in Broken Barnet, we were told by Cllr Brian Salinger, every household at one time had a portrait of Margaret Thatcher. He recalled one house which boasted a picture as big, he said, as the one of Her Majesty here now, above the Mayor - we all looked up, above the very seat where Thatcher sat on election nights to make her acceptance speeches. Was her ghost hovering in the chamber now? Mrs Angry thought it unlikely.

The tributes continued, all trivial recollections by the older Tories of Finchley and Golders Green, of meaningless conversations with the dear leader, magnified into ancecdotes of massive totemic significance: all perpetrating the same myth of a woman of great charisma, and, as the steely, starchy Helena Hart insisted, rather unconvincingly, of warmth and compassion ... she, Helena, a long serving Tory councillor,  had been described as an unreconstructed Thatcherite. I was then, she said, am now, and always will be. This, thought Mrs Angry, is undoubtedly true.

The loyal Tories all referred to Mrs Thatcher's apparent prodigious memory for people she had only met once or twice, investing in her a quality which was probably better explained by a clever agent slipping her the nod, in the manner of a fake clairvoyant's sidekick, planted in the audience. But the effect still lingers: a breathless admiration for someone who would appear to have done very little for Finchley, other than pop in for the odd cup of tea with Herbert and Doris, as Cllr Salinger recalled, and inspire one local party worker to name her new born baby after her, poor child, after having to apologise for turning up to meet her, in labour, in a - oh dear - a Labour red dress, and then rush off to hospital. 

Tory leader Richard Cornelius said, in his usual disingenuous way, that Margaret Thatcher had had 'a truly frightening grasp of detail'. Yes, indeed. He dismissed the Heath government as 'an unfortunate interlude'. He also thought that she and Ronald Reagan had really had something quite special together, although some people sniggered about it. Mrs Angry sniggered about it.

Old timer John Marshall, former MP for Hendon, old enough to have been a pallbearer at the funeral of the Duke of Wellington, told a story about Mrs Thatcher remembering who his wife was - often a difficulty for Tory politicians - moaned about various Labour prime ministers and Red Robbo and all that sort of stuff, and thought her privatising everything was awfully good, and gave as evidence that she was a good Christian the fact that she had paid for a new communion rail in the Wesley Chapel. To get into the Tory section of Methodist heaven requires a certain amount of financial commitment, it seems, and you will then be guaranteed an eternity spent in the presence of people like Thatcher, and Brian Coleman. May God have mercy on your souls.

Mrs Angry thought about another anecdote about the late PM, told to her recently. Here is the censored version. 

Apparently, some time in the mid eighties, Mrs Thatcher's watch was sent to be serviced by a jeweller in Hatton Garden (no, I know what you are thinking, not Richard Cornelius) ... the watch was returned, but not before an unexpected embellishment to the inside of the case by the naughty jeweller: the inscription of a hammer and sickle - and some rather irreverent misuse of the watch, which Mrs Angry had better not divulge. Amusing to speculate whether this is true, and if her delicate wrist was moving in perfect synchronicity with the symbols of communism, is it not ...?

All throughout the testimony from councillors, residents in the public gallery sat sighing, tutting, and yes, more sniggering. 

Mr Shepherd arrived and proceeded to sit in the front row, eschewing his usual reading matter, the Morning Post, for the Socialist Worker, and its own front page tribute to Thatcher. Libdem Jack Cohen referred to Mr Shepherd's appearance in the footage shown here of the 1987 election announcement, in this very chamber, with Lord Buckethead (apparently a cousin of the Barnet Bugle) narrowly missing out to the Prime Minister, by a few thousand votes.

Lord Buckethead

Labour leader Alison Moore did her best to be polite and respectful without entirely overlooking the alternative history of Thatcherism, but really it fell to Mrs Angry's local councillor, Irishman Jim Tierney, to tell it like it really was, and unpick the threads of the mythology of her statesmanship.

He poured scorn on the infamous Francis of Assisi moment, words that were nothing more than a mockery: where there is discord? She was a strident, dominant figure, who wiped out the mining communities (John Marshall was heckling, by now) - her attitude to the IRA and Sinn Fein prolonged Ireland's suffering, stalling needed discussions, she did nothing to resolve the problem. In the end, there was so much discord, and despair.

And, he pointed out, she was despatched by those honourable men in grey suits - Mr Clarke, Mr Lilley, Mr Major. It was, he said, a shabby end.

Geoff Cooke also spoke about the real legacy of Margaret Thatcher: he referred to her achievements in the face of a continuing prejudice against women in the Conservative party, Rubbish, muttered one or two of the token Tory women councillors, after checking with the men that it would be okay to say so.

He pointed out that cuts in military funding sanctioned by Mrs Thatcher had actually led to a reduction in the patrolling that might have prevented the Falklands Invasion and subsequent war. 

She had been, he said, remarkably lucky in the timing of events beyond her control, but playing out in a sequence favourable to her - the conflict between the Trade Unions and the labour movement, the coal strike: how fortunate she had been to benefit from oil revenue, but it had been squandered by her. 

As for selling council houses, on the cheap: look at the consequences, the deliberate social engineering, and worst of all, the consequences of Thatcherism here in her own consituency, in Broken Barnet: look how hard it is for those in need to get a council house.

It was time then, to be upstanding, for a minute's silence in respect of Finchley's former MP, and our former PM. Mrs Angry remained seated, and thought about the real inheritance she left us, the communities damaged by the very qualities her admirers praise her for: her iron will, her ruthlessness, her complete indifference to those in need, whose vulnerability she despised, and exploited. 

Back in her own Town Hall, last night, her bereaved colleagues, revived by an immersion in the spilt blood of her own reign of terror, proceeded to carry on her work here, with renewed vigour, and a sense of triumphalism. It was an ugly, ugly sight.

An ugly, ugly sight: Thatcher's heirs, the Barnet Tories, supporting welfare 'reform'

After a speedy but characteristically incendiary question and answer time, the meeting moved on to leader Cornelius' motion on welfare reform, something which he welcomes. To Barnet Tories, whose views are informed by that distorted view of reality filtered through the headlines of the Daily Mail, all those in need of such support are scroungers, lacking in aspiration, who choose not to work, or exaggerate their disabilities.

Alison Moore ripped through these prejudices with her own ruthless efficiency, pointing out that most of those in receipt of benefit are either in work, or elderly. It does not matter how many times you present the truth to Barnet Tories, however: they will simply look on blankly, unable to adjust their minds from a default setting of bigotry. They like to think about benefit claimants being workshy, lacking yes, aspiration, wanting something for nothing - like themselves in their performance as councillors, in fact. Cllr Rowan Turner declared that claimants should attempt to lead 'fulfilling lives': Mrs Angry took the opportunity to remind the councillors of their own self awarded benefit, ie the big fat pay rise they voted through as soon as they came to power in 2010. 

Labour's Gill Serjeant wanted to tell a story for the simple minded Tory councillors. It was about someone called Mrs A, she said - hello: that got everyone's attention, especially Mrs Angry. Mrs A was separated, with two children, and ... hold on, thought Mrs Angry ... but no, this Mrs A was a worthy woman, who left the house every morning to work as a carer, long hours, long journeys, struggling to support her family on low wages, but still in need of support in the form of benefit. It was a typical tale of our times, in fact, but fell absolutely on deaf ears: again, the Tories looked unmoved, bored: Gill sat down.

Next up - Bedroom Tax. Oh hell. Alison Moore tried again, valiantly. But the deeply unforgiving Tom Davey, who is Cabinet member for housing, would probably be the last person on God's earth to show any sympathy for those affected by this terrible policy. In written answer to an earlier question on housing allowance he had said:

 'A large number of people believe the taxpayer should subsidise them to live in areas they cannot afford to live in, which is resulting in increases in claimants, This is grossly unfair to hard working taxpayers who live within their means.' 

Davey is hard working: he is employed by British American Tobacco, and he lives within his means, with his mum and dad.

Have you got a room at the Ritz? enquired Mr Shepherd, safely returned to his usual pose, behind the Morning Star ...

Labour's councillor Sodha explained what it is like, from her experience as the parent of a disabled child, to need the extra space provided by a seemingly spare room. Davey appeared to be amused. Mrs Angry made an observation that was rather rude, at this point.

The matter of Barnet's disastrous LATC, 'Your Choice Barnet', a company set up to make profit out of providing care to residents with disabilities: yes, only in Barnet would they set up such a scheme, in the face of all warnings of the risk of failure, and then have to bail it out to the tune of £2 million in the first year. Cllr Rajput, to the accompaniment of shouting from the public gallery,  thought we should be 'pleased' with Your Choice. The disastrous failure had been planned, as part of their cunning scheme. It would make a profit in its third year. 

Mrs Angry was so incensed that she collared Cllr Rajput after the meeting and politely gave him the benefit (after careful assessment) of her opinion about this scandalous state of affairs. He was somewhat of a loss as how to respond. Perhaps that is because there is no honourable response to make.

The evening ended on a combative note, and too much yelling by Mrs Angry, provoked by a councillor who has been much overlooked, of late: yes, Brian Coleman. His questions are largely ignored, now, and motions not seconded by his former Tory colleagues. This is clearly galling. For some reason, at the end of last night's meeting, he wanted to raise, very crossly, the issue of a proposed fee for independent members of the new standards panel, which of course deals with complaints about members - a process with which he is not unfamiliar.

Why, he demanded, outraged, why should such a person receive a fee for their efforts? A magistrate ... a magistrate, he declared, with a gobsmacking example of Freudian slippage, or just perhaps a recently found interest in the duties of such a position, received no such payment.

Oh, how we laughed. Councillor Coleman is of course due to appear at Uxbridge Magistrates Court, on May 3rd, in order to answer charges relating to an alleged assault, which he denies.

Coleman distinguished himself yet again last night: enraged by heckling from the public gallery he spat out an accusation that Residents Forums had been censored because of the behaviour of, yes guess what, 'the sad, mad and bad' ... what about the old hags, yelled Mrs Angry? The Mayor, this time, took no time in censuring Coleman for his repeated insult. It seems our Brian has learnt nothing from his recent experiences, however, and will continue to behave in this way.

The meeting ended then. It had been a very long meeting.

It was of course Margaret Thatcher who first opened up council meetings to the public, and gave residents the right to attend such events. Here, in her own Town Hall, we do our best to take full advantage of this right, and hold our elected representatives to account. 

Our Tory councillors, her successors, resent this bitterly, and do everything they can to resist the scrutiny of residents. It's no good, though: Coleman's reign is over, Margaret Thatcher is dead, and soon Thatcherism, and this Conservative administration, will also be a thing of the past. 

It's only a matter of time, Margaret.

Tuesday, 16 April 2013

You love Barnet: did you know? Barnet's Tory Town Hall Pravda - paid for by taxpayers


A lovely surprise fell through Mrs Angry's letter box this morning: oh look, she cried: a copy of Barnet First! 

This is a rare treat: the council's propaganda machine churns this crap out, at vast expense to local residents, but sightings of the damn thing are uncommon, especially in Mrs Angry's experience: this is only perhaps the third time in the twelve years or so that she has lived in her present house that one of these rags has actually been delivered. It is something of a mystery as to what happens to the rest. A shame, because as Mrs Angry has noted before, when opened up, Barnet First makes the perfect fit to line your cat's litter tray.

Odd that Barnet continues to publish this load of tosh, when Eric Pickles has made it absolutely clear that he does not approve of wasting taxpayers' money on such stuff. But then Barnet Tories appear not to give a shit what Eric Pickles, or any member of their own government, thinks about anything, do they? 

Issue 53 is a cracker, though. U Heart Barnet. Aww.

First of all the Leader's column. The dear leader himself, Richard Cornelius, informs us that we are thrilled to live in the London Borough of Broken Barnet. Oh yes we are. If he says so, we are, see. In fact this interesting conclusion is based on a residents' perception survey which has, of course, in the noble tradition of consultation in this borough, been artfully rearranged to say exactly what the council wants it to say.

Richard also congratulates himeself and his administration for keeping council taxes frozen, failing to mention that the cost of this will be recouped by stealth taxes like parking charges or cuts in services. Ah: no, no, Mrs Angry, 'we are able to do this because of the savings generated by ....' Oh, what's this? '... by the council's change programme ...' 

Erm ... a change programme? What's that, then?

Oh ... you mean THE ONE BILLION POUNDS ONE BARNET PRIVATISATION PROGRAMME, in which our Tory councillors are HANDING OVER OUR COUNCIL SERVICES TO CRAPITA TO MAKE PROFIT FROM BECAUSE OUR COUNCILLORS CAN'T BE BOTHERED TO RUN THE COUNCIL PROPERLY THEMSELVES?

Sorry to shout. Oh, but that is interesting: another example of the love that dare not speak its name, the Barnet Tory vice: the joy of outsourcing. 

Richard trails what he thinks is the irrestible lure of a second year of frozen council tax, an obsession which has taken absolute possession of Tories but has blinded them to the fact that people would rather accept sensible rises if this protects vital services. Like captives of the Snow Queen, Barnet Tories, who most surely have a sliver of ice in their cold, cold hearts, want an eternal winter wasteland of council tax, where the world stands still, and dying, under an ice sheet of Tory promises.

A second winter, we are told, 'is dependent on our winning a court case brought by opponents of the proposal'. Ah: the opponents of change, those wicked people, eccentric socialists, bloggers and American exiles.

Hmm. Thing is, Richard, the reason you and your chums have been up in the High Court was because you kept refusing to inform and consult residents about what is not just a 'change' programme, but a massive, fundamental and irrevocable disposal of our vital council services into the grasping hands of the private sector. But it seems like you have learnt nothing from your day in court.

Next page: aha! Some good news. No, Mrs Angry, some Good News. 

You might be forgiven for thinking, at times, that the devil is at large in Salem: that the Almighty has forsaken the sinful people of Broken Barnet, but behold - our Tory councillors will save us all. 

Yes, they may be cutting everything back, and selling our souls to Crapita, but look, salvation is at hand. 

With economic hardship comes a range of new opportunities for faith groups. We have seen this council give a grant to Jesus House, an evangelical church, and more recently Barnet's ALMO, the Barnet Group, has invited Christians Against Poverty to come and bear the load of 'counselling' the thousands of residents affected by the reprehensible Bedroom Tax. 

And now, in Barnet First, we are told of a new scheme run by another church, St Barnabas in Finchley, which, like Jesus House,  according to its website agrees with the statement of faith of the Evangelical Alliance, an association that holds 'homoerotic sexual practices', amongst other things, to be inherently sinful. (Phwah, bit of a turn on, isn't it, that phrase? Naughty evangelists, do try and stop thinking about other people's sex lives for five minutes. Enjoyable though it is.)

According to the article in Barnet First, this church is offering a drop in clinic for those in need of finding a job. That'll come in useful, perhaps, for the 397 council employees that will lose theirs, courtesy of One Barnet - sorry, courtesy of a programme of change. 

On the website, this scheme comes under the heading of 'missional communities', which gives you an indication of the underlying agenda of the activity, just as CAPS boasts of the Christians it has made through the debt counselling programme which was dropped by the government backed Adviceuk agency.

Let's move on. 

Page 8: oh, another cheering tale. 'My Barnet' is the heading, and here we read a profile of a Barnet resident, Dr Jonathan Collie. Dr Collie loves Barnet.

'I love the tranquillity of the suburbs while being able to get to central London in no time. You have all the advantages of staying local and having parks, cinemas, places to go rollerskating ... '

Hmm. Yes. Rollerskating. Reason alone to move here, of course. And tranquillity. Very tranquil, Broken Barnet.

Dr Collie has set up a new scheme too: 'Trading Times' ... a free job matching service: admirable stuff. This has, like Jesus House, received a generous 'Barnet Council Big Society Grant', incidentally.

Interesting man, too: he is too modest to tell us this here, but a quick check on Linkedin etc reveals that Dr Collie is a 'healthcare innovator'. He is Vice President of CREO Strategic Solutions, Ltd. (EU), where we learn his most recent experience was as Director, Healthcare, Perot Systems Europe (London, UK), (yes, as in Ross Perot) leading 'a team of senior healthcare transformation consultants in delivering complex change programmes in hospitals and healthcare systems Uk and Europe'.

Oh. No wonder he looks so cheerful, in a whole page of photos of him at various Barnet locations. Lots of healthcare transformation and complex changes ahead, one imagines, for him and many of his colleagues, not just here in Broken Barnet, but in the new NHS lite, coming very soon to a hospital near you, courtesy of the Condem government.

(Nothing to do with Dr Collie, but a dreadful warning of what is to come in this brave new world of 'transformation: this morning Mrs Angry read with astonishment that it is costing £199 a day for security to guard the newly refurbished Brunswick Park Health Centre, which is lying empty, and cannot return to providing services to local residents because NHS Property Services Ltd, a new company to run NHS property along commercial lines, has told GPs that their service charges will quadruple* from £5,000 a year to £25,000 a year).
Leafing through now .... on to page 12, where look: a little piece titled 'A Changing Council'.

*Mrs Angry, who cannot do hard sums, has been advised that 4x5=20, therefore this should be quintupled, but that doesn't sound right, does it? (Blame a Labour party press release, and an experiment in churnalism by Mrs Angry).

Leafing through now .... on to page 12, where look: a little piece titled 'A Changing Council'.

Apparently this is all about a new 'streamlined' management team - now the big cheeses in Barnet have given themselves grandiose titles like 'Director of Place' and 'Director of People', and tough luck on the rest. How many long term interim tax dodging consultants do we have now, Mrs Angry, I hear you ask? God knows. Or the other fellow, maybe.

How is the council changing? Is there any reference to ... you know, that thing we are not allowed to mention ... shhh ... One Barnet, (there, and you can't stop me) ... no, not a word.  We are next told, and Mrs Angry's rude remarks in red, as usual:

'The council will bring reycling services 'in-house' (the services are currently provided by a private contractor) to work more closely with the household waste service'. 

Ha! Note that we are straight off with the one service that was recently returned to Barnet, when they bricked it after the anti One Barnet campaign got going, but nothing about the stupendous scale of services being taken out of council control.

Plans to move back office services such as Human Resources and payroll to an outside contractor have been put on hold following a legal challenge. 

'Plans to move back office services ... ': this really is taking the piss: dismissing the larger of two tenders comprising the biggest act of local authority outsourcing ever, worth up to £750 million, a huge contract with one private company, as moving a few back office services ...  Take procurement, for example, which will supply the main promised savings, and something we decided to cock up, then hand over to Capita, rather than run it properly ourselves and retain all the 'efficiencies' ... but just back office stuff, of course, nothing important ...
 
'The plans will save £120 million over the next 10 years if given the go-ahead'.

Mrs Angry's horse in the Derby is due to win her a very substantial amount of money, as long as no one stops her on the way up to William Hill, and tells her she is a reckless fool for gambling her children's inheritance on the race.

'Other proposals to also be put on hold include proposals for development and regulatory services (the back office function of planning and environmental health) to be run by a joint venture between the council and a commercial partner, as they are covered by the same court case'. 

Ah: DRS - only 'back office' stuff, no need to worry. Just, you know, boring small scale stuff like, erm ... yes, planning, and building control, regeneration and trading standards and and oh, the crematorium where your dead grandmother, and my dead grandmother are supposed to be resting in peace. Nothing of importance. Whoah: hold on ...

'to be run by a joint venture'? When was that agreed? Before or after the Senior Management Team told the councillors?

'These proposals should save the council at least £26 million over the next 10 years'.

Mrs Angry's horse at Ascot should also come up trumps, although if it falls over at the last moment (like that annoying beast, Across the Bay, at the Grand National), her children's children's inheritance will also go down the drain.
 
Oh dear.

Barnet First is published four times a year, and despite the fact that it is clearly full of party political material intended to support the Conservative administration, the sizeable costs are borne by local residents and taxpayers. 

In March 2011, fellow blogger Mr Mustard asked for a breakdown of the cost - Barnet Council had claimed it 'only' cost 10p per copy. 

143,000 copies are published: that is supposed to be the number of households in Barnet. One can only wonder what happens to most of them, because most people do not receive a copy, or sporadically at best. You will find it, of course in libraries (while they are still open) and council offices.

In the first quarter of 2011, printing costs and distribution came to £17,975. In the next quarter, this rose to £18, 825 (making it 13.16 per copy). We don't have any more up to date costs, which must have risen, but it is clear to see that the total would pay for say, several 'Your Choice' care assistants, or a couple of days of One Barnet consultants' fees ...

Earlier this month, Eric Pickles launched another attempt to pull councils back in line with his ban on publishing political propaganda, and a consultation is now taking place as plans are drawn up for new legislation. As he said:

"Some councils are undermining the free press and wasting taxpayers' money which should be spent carefully on the front line services that make a real difference to quality of life.

It should not, under any circumstances, be used to fund political propaganda and Town Hall Pravdas and yet a hardcore minority of councils continue to ignore the rules despite public concern. 

The line in the sand is clear, publicity material straying into propaganda clearly crosses that line, and this legislation will stop this disgraceful misuse of public money, which damages local democracy and threatens an independent, free and vibrant local press."

An independent, free and vibrant local press? In Broken Barnet? Not bloody likely if Cllr Cornelius and your Tory colleagues can help it, Eric. Never mind: you can always rely on Mrs Angry, and the Barnet blogosphere to fulfill that function, can't you?

Saturday, 13 April 2013

A Tale of Two Question Times: Part Two - Our Choice, not Your Choice


Tirza Waisel, Helen Davies, and Tory Cllr and Cabinet Member Sachin Rajput (empty chair)

As the BBC held its Question Time at a local school, an edition dedicated to the legacy of Margaret Thatcher, and moved, in a panic, by the BBC,  from the dangers of a northern venue to the safety of her former constituency, and a handpicked audience, just down the road another debate was taking place, a real debate with local residents.

A meeting had been called in Finchley to discuss something which is the ugly consequence of Thatcherite policies - the privatisation of local care, in the form of a trading company, created in partnership with our Tory council, intended to make profit from the provision of support to vulnerable residents dependent on support. 

This ill fated coupling is known as 'Your Choice Barnet', a name which inevitably reflects the Tory council's attempt to continue the old lie, a relic of Thatcherism itself, that introducing market values into public service provision somehow endows those obliged to depend upon them with a new freedom to choose and to take control of their own lives. Of course the reverse is true, as the only choice offered by a service run for profit is which service you can no longer afford, and must do without.

As Mrs Angry reported here ...

http://wwwbrokenbarnet.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/your-choice-bad-choice-barnet-council.html

and here:

   
... only a year after this company was launched, the ill conceived venture has had to be bailed out by Barnet Council, or rather by local residents and tax payers, to the tune of £2 million, (double the sum originally understood to be needed) in order to prevent a total collapse of the organisation.

A report commissioned by Unison had predicted that this was likely to happen, as the business case for the company was so clearly flawed.

'Your Choice Barnet' is part of the Barnet Group, an ALMO - at arm's length organisation - which Barnet Council uses to undertake some of its service obligations, in a way which allows it to divest itself of some of the more annoying responsibilities, such as to staff and management. And in order to evade, as much as possible, accountability to residents, of course.



The business case for 'Your Choice' depended on a disastrously misguided principle: that the service would be profitable and that this in turn would subsidise Barnet Homes, another part of the ALMO, which deals with social housing in this borough. In other words, the amount of money charged for your elderly mother's continence support at night, or similarly sensitive needs, is expected to offset any losses incurred by the council's provision of social housing. Incredibly, this scheme was expected to provide up to 90% of the Barnet Group's profits.

A child of nine could see the inevitable failure of such a scheme, that it is not possible, should not be possible, to derive profit from the needs of vulnerable residents - but this was not something which occurred to the idiots masquerading as Tory councillors who approved the creation of such a body. And the senior officers who promoted and designed 'Your Choice'? The members of the unelected, covertly appointed board which runs the venture? Have they been held to account for the financial catastrophe, and the impact on staff, and worst of all, on the residents who use these services? What do you think?

One officer has left the Your Choice board: we do not know why. The Chair has resigned, quietly, seemingly before the news emerged. The rest are still in place. 


Tracey Lees, Chief Executive of the Barnet Group

 Troy Henshall, Director of Business Services for the Barnet Group

Meanwhile, the cost of failure, not just in financial terms, but in terms of impact is immense. Staffing is being cut, and wages and working conditions worsened for employees, who will now have to work a seven day week. The effect will be that needs such as night time continence care will not be adequately supported, and the consequences for residents are clearly intolerable.

A meeting was called on Thursday in order to discuss the creation of a campaign to demand Barnet Council brings 'Your Choice' back in house, which clearly is the only sensible thing to do. Invited to this meeting was the Cabinet member, Sachin Rajput, who declined the opportunity to defend his catastrophic policy, claiming he had to attend a Tory group meeting. In Broken Barnet, political loyalty is more important for our Tory councillors than duty to residents, of course. His place was marked by an empty chair, with his name on it. 

The panel consisted of Tirza Waisel from Barnet Alliance against the Cuts, Helen Davies from Unison, John Sullivan - a parent and carer of a disabled resident, and Roger Lewis, from DPAC, a disability rights campaigner. Labour deputy leader Barry Rawlings was present: he is presenting a motion to council next week to ask that Cabinet consider bringing Your Choice back under direct control of the authority.

Tirza began by making a point that we forget, sometimes: sooner or later we or our relatives are certain to need support from care providers. And she also pointed out that the families of those currently dependent on this support are concerned about not just their own relatives, but the effects of the funding disaster on the staff who help their loved ones with their personal needs and other services.

Helen from Unison explained that the motivation for setting up the LATC had been exactly so as to enable the council to dispose of its obligations to honouring the terms and conditions of these already very poorly paid workers. The new company is free to exploit staff with a much freer hand, as we are now seeing. And this treatment of care staff will inevitably have an impact on the standard of support given to clients: even lower pay, poor treatment, increased workloads - how can this not have an effect? Mistakes will inevitably occur, which will be tragic for residents and staff alike.

The reason the financial shortfall had occurred was due to the way in which funding is now allocated. Whereas before block payments were made by the council to providers, personal budgeting means that there are less predictable and more variable amounts of money coming from service users, hence a  lack of continuity and dependable income. You might think the directors and designers of this scheme might have foreseen such a problem, but then, no: not in Broken Barnet.

John Sullivan

John Sullivan spoke next. His middle aged daughter Susan has Downs Syndrome, and he has a long experience of care provision in this borough. He described Your Choice as Plan A: a car crash, and the reaction of the council and the Barnet Group as Plan B: a race to the bottom. He thought that rather than 'Your Choice', the scheme should have been called 'Fingers Crossed'. He described the care workers who help his daughter as his 'peace of mind' and that he feels he must support them. 'Hear, hear', said Phillip, left, who has learning and physical disabilities, and a wonderful carer who has been with him for many years.

One of the many positive things about the Barnet Spring, and Barnet Alliance, in fact,  is that it is a genuinely and naturally inclusive phenomenon, and residents with disabilities and difficulties  take a prominent part in all decisions and activities, as a matter of course.

John described what he felt was 'the absolute contempt' that more senior officers, 'these arrogant people' have for 'those in the front line'.

He warned about the future in which Capita, if the deal is not struck out in the High Court, will take charge of procurement. He raised the prospect of Winterbourne View, a terrible warning of what can happen when parents and carers of residents cannot make direct contact with the people who run the company caring for their relatives.

Roger Lewis

The next speaker was Roger Lewis, a resident of Lambeth, who also works for Lambeth council, with residents with disabilities and impairments. He is also disabled himself, and active in DPAC, Disabled People Against Cuts, as well as SWAN, Social Work Action Network. He felt that the government had deliberately targeted people with disabilities, thinking 'they can do nothing - let's go for them first'. He described the monstering of the disabled in the tabloid press, the depiction of them as benefit cheats, that surveys showed the public's perception is that 50-70% of claimants were fraudulent, whereas the reality is around 3%.

Roger reminded us of the total hypocrisy of government promotion of the Paralympics, whilst engineering a climate in which disability hate crime has flourished. He warned people in Barnet that if they lose their local services to outsourcing, 'when they're gone, they're gone'. He thought we were seeing 'an end to local government in this country, and 'an end to local democracy' as we lose the ability to scrutinise the services on which we depend.

He said that for thirty years, disabled people had fought to get out of institutions. 'We fought for our liberty and our rights' ... they did not do so in order to become a commodity for businesses like Serco and Capita to make profit from ... 

And now for question time, Barnet Spring style, where anyone can speak, and everyone listens, with patience, and respect.

A resident who described himself as homeless spoke first: it was a memorable contribution, spoken from the heart, and from a life right at the edge of experience.

How, he asked, can you make a profit out of care?

He spoke of his younger days, living through the punk era, listening to the Clash. It was about getting your voice heard. 

He was dependent on benefits now: they kept him alive, and kept him from a life of crime. His elderly mother was dependent on support too: she struggled, but she didn't complain.

A well spoken woman took the microphone, talking about class war.

Phillip's turn: he said, people think that because I have a learning disability, I can't stand up for myself. Well I can, he said, to applause from the audience.

Mr Shepherd, veteran chorus of disapproval at all Barnet Council meetings, where he sits busying himself with his bags of clippings from the Morning Star, and launching occasional but direct hits on the Tory councillors, without even looking up from his Sisyphean task, took the floor, and brought the discussion round to his usual subject, corruption in the City of London, a difficult journey to make. It is a mark of the tolerance of the people of Broken Barnet that this is expected, and accepted, as part of the diverse range of opinions in the community.

Janet, an elderly resident who with her husband has direct experience of Your Choice, spoke of the financial horrors of the new scheme, and pointed out that even though they are obliged to pay for their own care, their notional allowance is taken, with countless others, as part of the budget for Your Choice, hence, one suspects, the almighty cock up that has ensued.


Fellow blogger Mr Reasonable said it was bad enough when Barnet made a block payment to a contractor like our IT provider 2e2, which has gone bust, but when it is on behalf of vulnerable residents ... he thought that up to now the directors have not been put under much external pressure, but now is the time to exert pressure through scrutiny. 

Hmm, thought Mrs Angry, but of course with an LATC, things are that much more difficult, aren't they? No public questions at Board Meetings, as we found, when we attended one, the first time any resident had done so.

But he is right. Scrutiny is the key. Scrutiny is feared by the London Borough of Broken Barnet, and obstructed at every point, simply because they will not, cannot allow us, the residents and taxpayers, or even the elected members, to see what they are really up to.

Speaking of which ... 

Last August, Mrs Angry submitted an FOI request for the minutes of the Directors Group of Barnet Council. This is the body which really runs the authority, rather than the executive of the Leader and his Cabinet, as revealed by the Joint Venture fiasco, in which the now 'Director of Place' Pam Wharfe, let slip she and her colleagues had taken a decision that they are not entitled to take, ie to change the business model of one of the two £1 billion privatisation contracts, without the knowledge of the leader, or any of the Cabinet.

Since last August, the council has been doing everything possible to refuse to give this material to Mrs Angry. The Information Commissioner is now very, very displeased over the council's actions in this regard, but part of the information which has now been released discloses a very interesting aspect of the Your Choice story.

The minutes for 10th July 2012, half way through this cock up, which have (possibly accidentally) been released tell us:

'It was agreed that the success of the LATC project should be showcased, with iMPOWER being used in this respect' ...

Oh yes, iMPOWER, our One Barnet implementation partners, with Agilisys, & Trowers & Hamlin, who have cleaned up with £5.8 million worth of fees from us so far, prepared the original business case for 'Your Choice'. 

That went well, didn't it chaps? 

Worth every fucking penny. 

The residents of Broken Barnet, who are dependent on this failing body for their care needs, are no doubt falling over themselves in their rush to thank you.

Can we have our money back, now, please?

Oh, and talking of iMPOWER ... one of the names eventually redacted, on the orders of the ICO, in the minutes so far released, is a Mr James Mass, who, as if we were not blessed with enough highly paid attention from iMPOWER as consultants, is at Barnet on secondment from the same company, and rather amusingly, is also the author of the following blogpost: 

http://www.impower.co.uk/en/profiting-from-care-will-greater-externalisation-lead-to-more-incidents-of-abuse-294.html
  
Supporting, thereby, the accusations laid by the critics of his own company's design for 'Your Choice'. As he says:

"Perhaps the one good thing that may come about from recent scandals and the media coverage and heightened public attention that has followed will be greater thought about the quality implications of social care efficiency programmes. Anyone can produce a business case to slash care costs but doing so without any serious impact on quality is a much more challenging task. As the pressure mounts to cut the cost of commissioned services, increase the utilisation of in-house services and implement internal restructures that strip out commissioning staff and contract compliance officers, how will authorities effectively ensure safety and dignity?"

One Barnet is eating itself, in other words. Yes, citizens: it is a world gone mad. And this is Broken Barnet, where the road to perdition is paved not with good intentions, but with invoices from consultants.