Warmest fraternal comradely greetings. Since your excellent putsch to depose
I hear that you have had some trouble with that awkward intellectual
I have read with great interest your latest achievements in
Anyway, must go -
Yours Sincerely
Chairman
Sunday, 7 December 2008
Letter to Brezhnev Mike Freer
Dear Comrade Brezhnev Freer,
Warmest fraternal comradely greetings. Since your excellent putsch to deposeGeneral Secretary KruschevCouncil Leader Salinger, I hear work is progressing well on the Five Year Plan Future shape scheme. The excellent scheme to stifle debate by ordinary party members councillors on decisions taken by the PolitburoCabinet has proven most effective. We note that the schemes to replace outdated, inefficient green spaces with efficient concrete rabbit hutches for the proletariat is progressing nicely. I am pleased to see that General secretary Gromyko CEO Leo Boland has been suitably rewarded with anorder of Lenin Job for Boris for all his hard work supporting our plans.
I hear that you have had some trouble with that awkward intellectual Solzhenitsyn Dexter Whitfield. These types never appreciate the generosity of the regime and must be crushed !!!!!
I have read with great interest your latest achievements inPravdaLeaderListens.com. It seems that you are achieving great things. It is a shame about the minor diificulty in Cuba with KennedyIceland with the cash. These offshore adventures can often have unpredictable consequences.
Anyway, must go -got to invade Vietnam shut the studio's up
Yours Sincerely
ChairmanMaoRog
Warmest fraternal comradely greetings. Since your excellent putsch to depose
I hear that you have had some trouble with that awkward intellectual
I have read with great interest your latest achievements in
Anyway, must go -
Yours Sincerely
Chairman
Saturday, 6 December 2008
Are the Daily Mail Still Nazi sympathisers?
Sometimes I read something so crass and repulsive that words fail me. I spotted this item in the Daily Mail
It was well known in the 1930's that the Rothemere family, who owned the Mail were Nazi sympathisers, but I honestly thought they had seen the error of their ways. It doesn't surprise me that a naive young girl could be taken in by this monster who was responsible for the deaths of tens of millions. What does surprise me is that The Daily Mail prints an article trying to humanise such a monster. The world needs to be reminded about the consequences of this man and his policies. We need to be shown what happens when people follow the path of hate. An attempt, such as this, to portray him as a "very nice man" is totally repulsive to me. As to his interpersonal skills with young women. All of the women with whom he was romantically linked committed suicide. The man was an evil monster. End of Story.
Shame on the Mail for printing this. I hope people see their true colours, especially their Jewish readers.
Hitler was the perfect boss: Former maid breaks her silence on the 'charming' dictator
It was well known in the 1930's that the Rothemere family, who owned the Mail were Nazi sympathisers, but I honestly thought they had seen the error of their ways. It doesn't surprise me that a naive young girl could be taken in by this monster who was responsible for the deaths of tens of millions. What does surprise me is that The Daily Mail prints an article trying to humanise such a monster. The world needs to be reminded about the consequences of this man and his policies. We need to be shown what happens when people follow the path of hate. An attempt, such as this, to portray him as a "very nice man" is totally repulsive to me. As to his interpersonal skills with young women. All of the women with whom he was romantically linked committed suicide. The man was an evil monster. End of Story.
Shame on the Mail for printing this. I hope people see their true colours, especially their Jewish readers.
Ignorant and mean spirited
It seems that the Hendon Times can't be bothered to put the letters they receive on their website any more (standards have dropped since my blog disappeared!). There is a letter in the paper this week which really got my goat up. As I can't post a link, here's what James S. Fluss has to say :-
This is probably the most ignorant and mean spirited letter I've seen in the Times. The British Army fights to support British interests. The reason that the British army is in Afghanistan is because this was the operational hub of Al-Quaida. Sympathisers of this organisation carried out the 7/7 bombings in London. Saddam Hussein was a very dangerous man in a key region of the world. He posed a threat to our oil supplies and our economic prosperity. The rights and wrongs of that conflict are not issues to be debated here, but the army's mission was not humanitarian, it was in support of British interests. The British Army didn't fight a war in Hong Kong, they provided security to a key British economic interest. In Cyprus they supported colonial rule and then provided security to a key military base which allows Great Britain to support it's economic interests in the region and beyond. In Malaysia the army was involved in supporting colonial rule, again maintaining British interests. That leaves Kosovo and Korea. Anyone with a knowledge of history would know that the first world war started in the Balkans. The British army helped to keep a lid on a situation which could have easily escalated. A war in europe would not be good for Great Britain. As for Korea, we were supporting the United Nations in a conflict against a regime and an ideology which was seen as a threat to Britain and British interests.
The British Army's operational strength and the security of Great Britain is enhanced immeasurably by the Gurkhas. I've yet to meet a single military man who has had anything but admiration for the Gurkhas and their contribution. The sheer number of VC's awarded to members of Gurkha regiments speaks volumes for their contribution and our debt. I would be interested to know what James G. Fluss has done with his life to warrant the right to criticise the Gurkhas? Maybe he'd care to show us his campaign medals.
I can think of few groups we have more of a debt to than this fine group of soldiers from a faraway land.
Gurkha debt is on foreign soil
I disagree with your claim "Fighting talk to support Gurkhas" that the British people owe a 'special debt of gratitude' to Gurka soldiers.
Firstly, almost none of the conflicts in which the British Army has fought since the Second World War have been to defend British people. Instead the British Army has defended the people of Korea,Cyprus, Malaysia, Hong Kong, Kosovo, Iraq, and Afghanistan.
I am sure the Gurkhas fought bravely in all those conflicts, but the beneficiaries if their bravery have been foreigners, not British people. It is those foreigners who owe a debt of gratitude to the British army and Gurkhas.
Secondly, the main reason why Gurkhas have enlisted in the British Army is that alternative well paid work is hard to find in Nepal.
According to the International Monetary Fund, the income per capita for 2007 in Nepal was only $377, making it the 12th poorest Country in the world.
The British Army offers a career which is far more financially rewarding than other possibilities in Nepal.
This is probably the most ignorant and mean spirited letter I've seen in the Times. The British Army fights to support British interests. The reason that the British army is in Afghanistan is because this was the operational hub of Al-Quaida. Sympathisers of this organisation carried out the 7/7 bombings in London. Saddam Hussein was a very dangerous man in a key region of the world. He posed a threat to our oil supplies and our economic prosperity. The rights and wrongs of that conflict are not issues to be debated here, but the army's mission was not humanitarian, it was in support of British interests. The British Army didn't fight a war in Hong Kong, they provided security to a key British economic interest. In Cyprus they supported colonial rule and then provided security to a key military base which allows Great Britain to support it's economic interests in the region and beyond. In Malaysia the army was involved in supporting colonial rule, again maintaining British interests. That leaves Kosovo and Korea. Anyone with a knowledge of history would know that the first world war started in the Balkans. The British army helped to keep a lid on a situation which could have easily escalated. A war in europe would not be good for Great Britain. As for Korea, we were supporting the United Nations in a conflict against a regime and an ideology which was seen as a threat to Britain and British interests.
The British Army's operational strength and the security of Great Britain is enhanced immeasurably by the Gurkhas. I've yet to meet a single military man who has had anything but admiration for the Gurkhas and their contribution. The sheer number of VC's awarded to members of Gurkha regiments speaks volumes for their contribution and our debt. I would be interested to know what James G. Fluss has done with his life to warrant the right to criticise the Gurkhas? Maybe he'd care to show us his campaign medals.
I can think of few groups we have more of a debt to than this fine group of soldiers from a faraway land.
Friday, 5 December 2008
A song for Councillor Brian Coleman
It's Friday evening so it's Colemanbashing time !!!!
I thought I'd put together his top ten tunes - they are all far to good to waste on him, but there you go !
1. Your an embarrassment - Madness
2. Fast Cars - The Buzzcocks
3. I just can't get enough - Depeche Mode
4. You drive me ape - The Dickies
5. Life (is knowing when it's time to go) - Michelle Shocked
6. Take the Money and Run - The Steve Miller Band
7. Feed me - Wire
8. Hollow Man - The Cult
9. Me and my Desire - 999
10. I wanted everything - The Ramones
I don't know about you, but I think he makes a far better compilation album than he makes a human being or a councillor.
fAST CARS - The Buzzcocks
They're nice and precise, each one begins and ends
They may win you admirers, but they'll never earn you friends
Fast cars, fast cars
Fast cars, I hate fast cars
They're so depressing going around and around
Ooh, they make me dizzy, oh fast cars they run me down
Fast cars, fast cars,
Fast cars, I hate fast cars
Sooner or later, you're gonna listen to Ralph Nader
I don't wanna cause a fuss, but fast cars are so dangerous
Fast cars, fast cars
Fast cars, I hate fast cars, fast cars
Fast cars, fast cars
I hate fast cars
I thought I'd put together his top ten tunes - they are all far to good to waste on him, but there you go !
1. Your an embarrassment - Madness
2. Fast Cars - The Buzzcocks
3. I just can't get enough - Depeche Mode
4. You drive me ape - The Dickies
5. Life (is knowing when it's time to go) - Michelle Shocked
6. Take the Money and Run - The Steve Miller Band
7. Feed me - Wire
8. Hollow Man - The Cult
9. Me and my Desire - 999
10. I wanted everything - The Ramones
I don't know about you, but I think he makes a far better compilation album than he makes a human being or a councillor.
fAST CARS - The Buzzcocks
They're nice and precise, each one begins and ends
They may win you admirers, but they'll never earn you friends
Fast cars, fast cars
Fast cars, I hate fast cars
They're so depressing going around and around
Ooh, they make me dizzy, oh fast cars they run me down
Fast cars, fast cars,
Fast cars, I hate fast cars
Sooner or later, you're gonna listen to Ralph Nader
I don't wanna cause a fuss, but fast cars are so dangerous
Fast cars, fast cars
Fast cars, I hate fast cars, fast cars
Fast cars, fast cars
I hate fast cars
Mike Freer could learn a lesson from Boris !!!!!
Anyone who knows me or has followed my blogs and comments in the local press will know that I'm not a fan of Boris Johnson. I was asked by a friend why I've said nothing about Boris Johnson's atrocious decision to abolish the western zone of the congestion charge. The reason is quite simple. Boris won the mayoral election. Part of his manifesto was to hold a public consultation into the Western Congestion charge zone. He did this and the result was to abolish the scheme. Democracy means that if your opponents have a democratic mandate and do things properly, you have to accept it.
I don't agree with Boris, but I believe in democracy. I believe in open government. If sometimes it gives me an answer I disagree with then that's life. I'll criticise Boris when he does silly things, but carrying out a manifesto pledge in the manner he did is democratic and honest. Mike Freer wasn't leader when the Tories were elected in Barnet. He staged a palace coup against Brian Salinger shortly after the election, where Salinger increased the Tory majority. Future shape is the biggest change in the history of Barnet Council. It was not in the manifesto. There is no democratic mandate. A small fortune is being spent on consultants. The team of contributors listed on the council report contains only council officials, members of Government quangos and suppliers of outsourcing companies. Amongst those not contributing - Local business, local charities, locally democratically elected representatives, local residents associations. The report was issued a day before the deadline for questions to the cabinet. I had several questions, but by the time I'd read the report, the deadline had passed. Even Councillor Andrew Harper stated that he was worried about the democratic scrutiny aspect. I agree wholeheartedly with Councillor Harper on this.
I don't agree with Boris, but I believe in democracy. I believe in open government. If sometimes it gives me an answer I disagree with then that's life. I'll criticise Boris when he does silly things, but carrying out a manifesto pledge in the manner he did is democratic and honest. Mike Freer wasn't leader when the Tories were elected in Barnet. He staged a palace coup against Brian Salinger shortly after the election, where Salinger increased the Tory majority. Future shape is the biggest change in the history of Barnet Council. It was not in the manifesto. There is no democratic mandate. A small fortune is being spent on consultants. The team of contributors listed on the council report contains only council officials, members of Government quangos and suppliers of outsourcing companies. Amongst those not contributing - Local business, local charities, locally democratically elected representatives, local residents associations. The report was issued a day before the deadline for questions to the cabinet. I had several questions, but by the time I'd read the report, the deadline had passed. Even Councillor Andrew Harper stated that he was worried about the democratic scrutiny aspect. I agree wholeheartedly with Councillor Harper on this.
Thursday, 4 December 2008
Barnet Eye - News round up
I suppose the big news this week is the Barnet Council Cabinet meeting. I attended the TUC rally outside before, along with various local characters and the esteemed film director Ken Loach. There were a couple of hundred people outside at the rally, all of whom were locals and all of whom cared about the future of the Council enough to stand around in the cold. The item made the BBC local news.
Inside there was the Barnet Council cabinet. They announced they'd made arrangements to accomodate a couple of hundred people wanting to attend the meeting. As I made my way to the chamber, I was just about to go in when I was told it was full (very conveniently). I was directed to the overspill room. This was a large room full of chairs and a rather small PA system. Now strangely enough for a Council which has spent nearly £100,000 on large plasma screens for conferences, there was no video link. So there I was with the commoners in the big room. I was happier there, but sadly I can't tell you who the person who got ejected for heckling Mike Freer was.
Anyway what can I tell you? Mike Freer is cross with the Unions, because the council paid for them to hire a consultant and the union's consultant didn't agree with him. Whilst the unions gave a response to the council's document, Mike felt that they should have come up for a better plan of their own. Maybe Mike should look up the term RESPONSE in the dictionary (Mike can click HERE if he wants to see what it means).
I found the whole proceedings rather surreal. Mike seemed to be saying that we had to privatise Barnet because the Labour Government think it's a good idea. He said that as his administration had failed to achieve a decent settlement from Central Government, we had to save money. He said that Future Shape was the way to do this. He rather bizarrely stated that Barnet's excellent (his words) in-house refuse service would be given the opportunity to bid for the service? Those of us who remember the previous rather lousy outsourced service had a look of puzzlement. Anyway he then had the chance to be grilled by the rest of the cabinet members. Not being able to see how he coped, I'll have to use artistic license (please forgive me). Each member in turn stood up and paid homage to dear leader and his 5 year plan (sorry Future Shape plan). They bowed as they spoke and dear leader anointed them. Then from left field Deputy leader Matthew Offord stood up "I'm outraged" he announced. Everyone in the room's ear's pricked up. "The response from the Union is disgusting." Mike agreed. He went further "The Unions are stuck in the 1970's". I looked at the assembled masses of union members. No glam rockers in sight. Not a Mohican or a pair of bondage trousers. I suggested that maybe the Tories are stuck in the 1980's. I don't know what it is about Mike Freer, but I could well imagine him with a Mullet. Anyway, once all of the Cabinet had paid homage and received their blessing, they put their hands up and it was agreed to progress to the next stage. I must mention Councillor Harper. He actually suggested that maybe a bit more Democratic Control might be a good idea. Not being versed in Barnetology, I'm not really sure whether this was criticism or not. Mike sounded slightly less effusive in his blessing of Councillor Harper, but it is hard to tell when you are in another room with a dodgy PA. Maybe next time they should pipe the meeting to the pub. At least then we can all have a pint.
At the end of the Future shape discussions, most of the public left. I took the opportunity to move to the main meeting room. A long debate on the merits of the Middlesex University scheme ensued. It seems that this has the potential to cause much damage to the local community, many councillors had reservations about aspects, but agreed to pass it anyway. They also agreed to sell the lease on the town hall and rent it back. Brian Coleman said he didn't understand why. I have to say I agreed with him. Mike Freer explained that it was because the council was rubbish and hadn't looked after the building, so they should give Middlesex Uni the chance to do a better job. I find it rather surreal the way that when the council are rubbish Mike says "The Council" and when they are marvellous he says "We". I'm sure there is a term for having two personalities?
We then got on to the subject of equality. Mike told us what a marvellous job he'd done. Councillor Harper said he didn't understand what "level 4" meant in this context. A kindly Council officer explained (although I suspect that neither Councillor Harper or myself were really any the wiser).
There was then a general motions (quite apt) section. Mike asked if any councillors wanted to ask any questions. Councillor Offord said he'd like to ask a question. His question went along the lines of "I'm marvellous because since Burnt Oak library reopened it has 500 new members". It was rather hard to tell because Councillor Offord, despite his years at the BBC, seems unable to operate the button on the Microphone in front of him. Mike had the look in his eye of someone who wanted to be somewhere else as Offord droned on. Later Offord commented (on a different subject) that he'd have to defer to Mike Freer's greater skill with Council funds. At this I had a fit of the giggles. Just how bad is Offord with money. Does his mum let him have pocket money? It took a Herculean effort to suppress my laughter as I could see Mike itching to chuck me out for my rudeness.
The best thing about the Council meeting is that you get to see the Councillors in action. You get to notice their mannerisms. Brian Coleman picks his nose and bites his fingernails when he thinks someone is getting a bit too much of the limelight. He has a slight lisp, as he spoke I thought of "welease wodderwick" from the "Life of Brian" - yep, he most certainly isn't the messiah, he's a very naughty boy.
As to Mike, he was playing a friendly at home. Wheras at the previous full council meeting we had a championship display of gurning, this time we got some mild eye rolling for Councillor Offord as he droned on. The saddest moment (well it was actually quite happy for me, as I don't like him) was Brian Salinger presenting his report on childcare on behalf of the Committee. Salinger is like one of Mao's cohorts who was demoted to a menial job, but is occasionally summoned back for a ritual humiliation. He diligently presented his report whilst the cabinet patronisingly smiled. They agreed the motion and off he went. Oh how the mighty fall.
We then all got slung out so the cabinet could have their secret session. No doubt that is where the real fun is had. Visions of Brian Coleman and Mike Freer doing the conga around the office? One of the assembled crowd works in MacDonalds and he told me that there is nothing Brian Coleman likes more after a council meeting than a Big Mac as we made our way out. Apparently he has to pay for it as well. I suppose that after all those free banquets it makes a nice healthy change.
Anyway, back home to watch the protest on the BBC London news. As I write (10.30 Tuesday), Mike Freer is on telly explaining that all sorts of options are being considered for future shape. I suspect that deep down, Mike is rather pleased that the Unions organised such an effective protest. It got him on Telly, which can only be good. It's just a shame he didn't have his '80's mullet wig and gold medallion on for the cameras.
"All sorts of options" ? - I was there and that's not how it sounded to me !!!!!
Inside there was the Barnet Council cabinet. They announced they'd made arrangements to accomodate a couple of hundred people wanting to attend the meeting. As I made my way to the chamber, I was just about to go in when I was told it was full (very conveniently). I was directed to the overspill room. This was a large room full of chairs and a rather small PA system. Now strangely enough for a Council which has spent nearly £100,000 on large plasma screens for conferences, there was no video link. So there I was with the commoners in the big room. I was happier there, but sadly I can't tell you who the person who got ejected for heckling Mike Freer was.
Anyway what can I tell you? Mike Freer is cross with the Unions, because the council paid for them to hire a consultant and the union's consultant didn't agree with him. Whilst the unions gave a response to the council's document, Mike felt that they should have come up for a better plan of their own. Maybe Mike should look up the term RESPONSE in the dictionary (Mike can click HERE if he wants to see what it means).
I found the whole proceedings rather surreal. Mike seemed to be saying that we had to privatise Barnet because the Labour Government think it's a good idea. He said that as his administration had failed to achieve a decent settlement from Central Government, we had to save money. He said that Future Shape was the way to do this. He rather bizarrely stated that Barnet's excellent (his words) in-house refuse service would be given the opportunity to bid for the service? Those of us who remember the previous rather lousy outsourced service had a look of puzzlement. Anyway he then had the chance to be grilled by the rest of the cabinet members. Not being able to see how he coped, I'll have to use artistic license (please forgive me). Each member in turn stood up and paid homage to dear leader and his 5 year plan (sorry Future Shape plan). They bowed as they spoke and dear leader anointed them. Then from left field Deputy leader Matthew Offord stood up "I'm outraged" he announced. Everyone in the room's ear's pricked up. "The response from the Union is disgusting." Mike agreed. He went further "The Unions are stuck in the 1970's". I looked at the assembled masses of union members. No glam rockers in sight. Not a Mohican or a pair of bondage trousers. I suggested that maybe the Tories are stuck in the 1980's. I don't know what it is about Mike Freer, but I could well imagine him with a Mullet. Anyway, once all of the Cabinet had paid homage and received their blessing, they put their hands up and it was agreed to progress to the next stage. I must mention Councillor Harper. He actually suggested that maybe a bit more Democratic Control might be a good idea. Not being versed in Barnetology, I'm not really sure whether this was criticism or not. Mike sounded slightly less effusive in his blessing of Councillor Harper, but it is hard to tell when you are in another room with a dodgy PA. Maybe next time they should pipe the meeting to the pub. At least then we can all have a pint.
At the end of the Future shape discussions, most of the public left. I took the opportunity to move to the main meeting room. A long debate on the merits of the Middlesex University scheme ensued. It seems that this has the potential to cause much damage to the local community, many councillors had reservations about aspects, but agreed to pass it anyway. They also agreed to sell the lease on the town hall and rent it back. Brian Coleman said he didn't understand why. I have to say I agreed with him. Mike Freer explained that it was because the council was rubbish and hadn't looked after the building, so they should give Middlesex Uni the chance to do a better job. I find it rather surreal the way that when the council are rubbish Mike says "The Council" and when they are marvellous he says "We". I'm sure there is a term for having two personalities?
We then got on to the subject of equality. Mike told us what a marvellous job he'd done. Councillor Harper said he didn't understand what "level 4" meant in this context. A kindly Council officer explained (although I suspect that neither Councillor Harper or myself were really any the wiser).
There was then a general motions (quite apt) section. Mike asked if any councillors wanted to ask any questions. Councillor Offord said he'd like to ask a question. His question went along the lines of "I'm marvellous because since Burnt Oak library reopened it has 500 new members". It was rather hard to tell because Councillor Offord, despite his years at the BBC, seems unable to operate the button on the Microphone in front of him. Mike had the look in his eye of someone who wanted to be somewhere else as Offord droned on. Later Offord commented (on a different subject) that he'd have to defer to Mike Freer's greater skill with Council funds. At this I had a fit of the giggles. Just how bad is Offord with money. Does his mum let him have pocket money? It took a Herculean effort to suppress my laughter as I could see Mike itching to chuck me out for my rudeness.
The best thing about the Council meeting is that you get to see the Councillors in action. You get to notice their mannerisms. Brian Coleman picks his nose and bites his fingernails when he thinks someone is getting a bit too much of the limelight. He has a slight lisp, as he spoke I thought of "welease wodderwick" from the "Life of Brian" - yep, he most certainly isn't the messiah, he's a very naughty boy.
As to Mike, he was playing a friendly at home. Wheras at the previous full council meeting we had a championship display of gurning, this time we got some mild eye rolling for Councillor Offord as he droned on. The saddest moment (well it was actually quite happy for me, as I don't like him) was Brian Salinger presenting his report on childcare on behalf of the Committee. Salinger is like one of Mao's cohorts who was demoted to a menial job, but is occasionally summoned back for a ritual humiliation. He diligently presented his report whilst the cabinet patronisingly smiled. They agreed the motion and off he went. Oh how the mighty fall.
We then all got slung out so the cabinet could have their secret session. No doubt that is where the real fun is had. Visions of Brian Coleman and Mike Freer doing the conga around the office? One of the assembled crowd works in MacDonalds and he told me that there is nothing Brian Coleman likes more after a council meeting than a Big Mac as we made our way out. Apparently he has to pay for it as well. I suppose that after all those free banquets it makes a nice healthy change.
Anyway, back home to watch the protest on the BBC London news. As I write (10.30 Tuesday), Mike Freer is on telly explaining that all sorts of options are being considered for future shape. I suspect that deep down, Mike is rather pleased that the Unions organised such an effective protest. It got him on Telly, which can only be good. It's just a shame he didn't have his '80's mullet wig and gold medallion on for the cameras.
"All sorts of options" ? - I was there and that's not how it sounded to me !!!!!
Wednesday, 3 December 2008
Congratulations to Barnet, London's top Borough !!!!!
I'd like to congratulate the Borough of Barnet. They were crowned London's top borough at the ASA London Interborough championships at the weekend (click HERE to see the full story). This is a testament to the hard work of the coaches and the swimmers. The many hours of training certainly paid off. They retained the trophy, which they won last year with a total of 262 points. The Borough of Ealing came second with 232 points. They won a total of 17 events. They also achieved 11 seconds and 5 third places.
Tuesday, 2 December 2008
Barnet Council Future Shape - A conflict of interest?
BT invited Barnet Council Leader Mike Freer and CEO Leo Boland to participate in the Vital Vision program. This program involves seminars and conferences to "nurture" interest in concepts such as outsourcing within the public sector. Participants are invited to conferences in places such as Boston and attend swanky restaurants such as Lucca restaurant in Boston (click HERE for a preview). I've detailed the full program elsewhere on the blog, but on the eve of the Future Shape discussion, I feel obliged to ask a few questions regarding the proposal and the way the report has been put together.
I am directing these questions primarily at the Cabinet of Barnet Council and am asking them to give these points due consideration in advance of the debate tomorrow (3rd December).
1. Do you think that Council Leader Mike Freer's enrollment in the BT Vital Vision program may be interpreted as a conflict of interest given that BT are a primary supplier of Outsourcing services. Could this be construed as giving BT unfair access to a senior decision maker within Barnet Council?
2. Do you think that the inclusion of Max Wide, BT Director, Strategic Development Local Government, as a contributor to the future shape report, may be construed as giving an unfair advantage to BT in the procurement process?
3. Do you think that restricting access in the process of framing the report to an elite circle, including a supplier standing to make a lot of money from the recommendations, whilst excluding established stakeholders, is likely to be seen as an open and honest way of conducting business?
4. Do you think that suppliers of particular products are more or less likely to recommend solutions provided by their employers than those of rival organisations?
5. If you were seeking advice pertaining to your own personal financial situation, would you use an independent adviser or an adviser working for a company supplying the products you wanted to buy.
Whilst only participants of the vital vision scheme will actually know the detail of the subject matter covered and whilst it is made quite clear that the scheme is not a sales related scheme, the Council has to be seen to be open and honest in its procurement policies. Whilst it is quite clear that BT do not pay travel and subsistance for participants, being a public body, the Council must be seen to be completely honest and impartial in all its dealings. The participation of Mike Freer in BT Vital Vision and the role of Max Wide in the framing of the Future Shape report raises many questions regarding the way the scheme is being implemented.
I strongly urge all Barnet Council Cabinet members to consider these points and ensure that all decisions taken with reference to "Future Shape" are done in such a manner that it is 100% clear that there is no conflict of interest in the process.
I am directing these questions primarily at the Cabinet of Barnet Council and am asking them to give these points due consideration in advance of the debate tomorrow (3rd December).
1. Do you think that Council Leader Mike Freer's enrollment in the BT Vital Vision program may be interpreted as a conflict of interest given that BT are a primary supplier of Outsourcing services. Could this be construed as giving BT unfair access to a senior decision maker within Barnet Council?
2. Do you think that the inclusion of Max Wide, BT Director, Strategic Development Local Government, as a contributor to the future shape report, may be construed as giving an unfair advantage to BT in the procurement process?
3. Do you think that restricting access in the process of framing the report to an elite circle, including a supplier standing to make a lot of money from the recommendations, whilst excluding established stakeholders, is likely to be seen as an open and honest way of conducting business?
4. Do you think that suppliers of particular products are more or less likely to recommend solutions provided by their employers than those of rival organisations?
5. If you were seeking advice pertaining to your own personal financial situation, would you use an independent adviser or an adviser working for a company supplying the products you wanted to buy.
Whilst only participants of the vital vision scheme will actually know the detail of the subject matter covered and whilst it is made quite clear that the scheme is not a sales related scheme, the Council has to be seen to be open and honest in its procurement policies. Whilst it is quite clear that BT do not pay travel and subsistance for participants, being a public body, the Council must be seen to be completely honest and impartial in all its dealings. The participation of Mike Freer in BT Vital Vision and the role of Max Wide in the framing of the Future Shape report raises many questions regarding the way the scheme is being implemented.
I strongly urge all Barnet Council Cabinet members to consider these points and ensure that all decisions taken with reference to "Future Shape" are done in such a manner that it is 100% clear that there is no conflict of interest in the process.
Stop Press - Future Shape - Latest briefing
The European Services Strategy Unit report on future shape is out now. They recommend that the following principles are adopted as the bedrock of any proposal.
Fundamental public service principles
• Democratic accountability (acceptance that accountability and scrutiny are core functions of the Council as a political institution serving collective and community needs).
• Participation and involvement (a commitment to user, civil society and employee/trade union involvement in the design, planning and policy making processes).
• Openness and disclosure (transparency in the policy making process and information disclosure whilst maintaining personal confidentiality and reasonable commercial confidentiality).
• Social justice (to eliminate victimisation and discrimination and to identify and mitigate adverse impacts of policies).
• Public interest (in the management of assets, physical and intellectual, and minimising risk).
• Quality service (maintain good standard and responsive services with effective use of resources).
• Integrated and well-coordinated services (to provide a holistic response to community needs and minimise duplication)
These principles are just, honest and fair. I would say that they are an excellent starting point for any "Future Shape" scheme. These principles will assure widespread support and increased likelyhood of success.
Fundamental public service principles
• Democratic accountability (acceptance that accountability and scrutiny are core functions of the Council as a political institution serving collective and community needs).
• Participation and involvement (a commitment to user, civil society and employee/trade union involvement in the design, planning and policy making processes).
• Openness and disclosure (transparency in the policy making process and information disclosure whilst maintaining personal confidentiality and reasonable commercial confidentiality).
• Social justice (to eliminate victimisation and discrimination and to identify and mitigate adverse impacts of policies).
• Public interest (in the management of assets, physical and intellectual, and minimising risk).
• Quality service (maintain good standard and responsive services with effective use of resources).
• Integrated and well-coordinated services (to provide a holistic response to community needs and minimise duplication)
These principles are just, honest and fair. I would say that they are an excellent starting point for any "Future Shape" scheme. These principles will assure widespread support and increased likelyhood of success.
Monday, 1 December 2008
Mike Freer, Leo Boland, Outsourcing and BT
Mike Freer and Leo Boland attended a conference in America organised by the BT VitalVision program. BT paid the course fees and the Barnet taxpayer paid their fares. What was the purpose of the BT vital vision course?
Here's what their website says :-
Click HERE for the full detail. A brochure detailing the program is available HERE.
The course was held in Boston. I am assuming the program is the one described in the brochure (or one very similar). It sounds like a fascinating course. It started with a cruise and a buffet dinner aboard the Miz T (good name, wonder if she's a relative) on Sunday afternoon from 15.00 till 20.00. Here's the rest of the program
-------------------
Monday.
Engaging the citizen
Glen Urban
Break
Supply Chain Advantage
James Rice
Lunch
Financing E Government
Jerry Melching
Advancing the Service to the Citizen
John DeFigueiredo
Dinner at Hampshire House
Tuesday
Robust & adaptive Government organisations at what risk?
Danny Ertel
Lunch
Engaging the Citizen
Dimitris Bertsimas
Supply Chain Advantage
James Rice
Break
Free Time in Boston
Dinner at Lucca Restaurant
Wednesday
Change is a Risky Dance
George Roth
Break
The Dicital Divide
ITC
Lunch
Centre for E Business
Panel discussion
Vital Vision June
Planning London Workshops
Break
Overview of MIT media labs
Theatre Visit
The Blue Man Group
Thursday
Visit to MIT Media Labs
Break
Visit to MIT media Labs
Lunch
Sharing perspective on E-Governemy
Jerry Mechling
Closure 3pm
-------------------
According to the brochure "the purpose of the (Vital Vision) programme is to foster relationships between leading Government decision-makers, our research partners and ourselves, to DEVELOP AND TEST our visions of the future. We aim to enable the shaping of policy, inform new thinking and suggest practical solutions relevant to the unique complexities of the public sector"
"Participation is by invitation only, and restricted to very senior individuals who help to shape the agenda for change. Typically this is at the CEO or equivalent level. We ask participants to commit to the programme for a minimum of one year. Participants are responsible for their own travel and subsistence - as a result the programme does not contravene government hospitality rules."
So what exactly is being developed and tested? Well since the conference, Barnet Council have started working on the Future Shape scheme. If you have followed my blog you'll know that this is all about outsourcing as much work as possible to the private sector. The philosophy of the scheme is "The council should only do it if nobody else can". I know a little bit about BT and outsourcing. I worked for the company between 1985 and 1987 within the department that ran their "facilities management arm" (now called Outsourcing). I was technical support manager on what was their flagship project. It was extremely successful at the time for BT.
I still have contacts within the organisation and the outsourcing arm of the business has grown beyond our wildest dreams in 1987. I was talking to an ex colleague not so long ago and he told me about an exciting new concept they were developing. It seems that the hardest part of selling a project to a government or local authority body is getting through the decision making chain. Typically you convince the people in middle management, then you wait 10 years for a decision to be made. My friend at BT was working on a concept whereby you sell the "idea" to the decision makers, before you propose the product and then they champion the concept. In a throwaway comment my friend said "It's pretty easy selling them (politicians) the concept, because most of them aren't very bright". All you have to do is persuade them that there is massive kudos to be had from "transforming organisations". You can also sell them lots of consultancy. The clever thing about the programme is that it isn't a sales pitch. It just makes the participants "receptive" to the ideas you are promoting. Once they have taken the worm, who do they come to? The experts - You've got it - BT. They would target CEO's etc and give them a weeks intensive brainwashing. The message would be hammered home that people proposing objections (no matter how reasonable) were obstacles to be sidelined. It seems that you define your vision and get a team of like minded individuals to push it through. The idea was to create an "evangelical cult of agents of business change" (or words to that effect, I'd had a few beers as this was explained). Reading through the links above and knowing how future shape is being implemented, does any of this sound at all familiar?
I hadn't really joined the dots on this one until a comment on another blog pointed out that one of the authors of "Future Shape" is on secondment from BT. Now is the "transformation" of the provision of Council services by outsourcing a bad thing? As I said above, I worked on a pretty successful outsourced project for BT. They were selected as the organisation that commissioned them didn't have the ability to provide the service. After 3 years when the concept was proven they "insourced" it and is still insourced today. I've no fundamental objection to outsourcing. There are many things where outsourcing is better. For example it is far cheaper to Outsource Brian Coleman's taxi service. A nice Jag and a Chauffer would cost much more than the his last £8,000 taxi bill to the GLA for no real benefit. The council insourced the provision of Video conferencing equipment at a capital cost of £91,000 (I believe from the invoices)to save £4,500 they'd spent in the previous year on hiring equipment. It may well be that there are many services that a compelling business case can be made for outsourcing. It may be that service will improve. The thing is that future shape has no case studies, no cost justifications. It is just woolly thinking conceived (I suspect) over dinner in Boston.
I can tell Mike Freer and Leo Boland exactly how they should approach outsourcing or any other management change free of charge.
a) identify a problem within your business process.
b) define the problem in easily understandable terms.
c) define the solution in easily undertandable terms
d) show the benefits of the solution in easily understandable terms.
I've read the Future Shape report through several times and none of the above have been done. If they did this they might actually arrive at something which works and which saves money. Now for all I know, BT's Vital Vision course may have played no role at all in Freer and Bolands thinking on the subject. They've not asked me over to tea to discuss it, but as I join all the dots up, it really does look to me like a term we used at BT when a manager went of on a course, then came back enthusiastically implementing madcap schemes they'd been taught. We called it "Courseitus". It usually passed after a couple of weeks of reality. It seems that there is a more serious strain now. Rather than a department, it affects a whole council and seems to last at least a couple of years - I'll call it "Conferenceitus" - I believe it can only be cured by a palace coup, a new job or an election.
Here's what their website says :-
Vital Vision brings together a unique mix of senior Government decision-makers, BT research partners, and leading academic institutions including Harvard, Berkeley, Stanford and MIT.
The goal is to explore current business thinking and how it can best be applied to Government. The process is enhanced by the quality of the participants, and the stimulating, interactive environment they create. It is designed to be 'of the participants, by the participants' and is most definitely not a sales event.
Throughout the programme, we examine the technological, social and business changes that will affect us all, and debate how best to meet the profound challenges they raise. In sharing our respective visions of the future, we identify practical ways to address present issues as well as anticipate key developments.
Click HERE for the full detail. A brochure detailing the program is available HERE.
The course was held in Boston. I am assuming the program is the one described in the brochure (or one very similar). It sounds like a fascinating course. It started with a cruise and a buffet dinner aboard the Miz T (good name, wonder if she's a relative) on Sunday afternoon from 15.00 till 20.00. Here's the rest of the program
-------------------
Monday.
Engaging the citizen
Glen Urban
Break
Supply Chain Advantage
James Rice
Lunch
Financing E Government
Jerry Melching
Advancing the Service to the Citizen
John DeFigueiredo
Dinner at Hampshire House
Tuesday
Robust & adaptive Government organisations at what risk?
Danny Ertel
Lunch
Engaging the Citizen
Dimitris Bertsimas
Supply Chain Advantage
James Rice
Break
Free Time in Boston
Dinner at Lucca Restaurant
Wednesday
Change is a Risky Dance
George Roth
Break
The Dicital Divide
ITC
Lunch
Centre for E Business
Panel discussion
Vital Vision June
Planning London Workshops
Break
Overview of MIT media labs
Theatre Visit
The Blue Man Group
Thursday
Visit to MIT Media Labs
Break
Visit to MIT media Labs
Lunch
Sharing perspective on E-Governemy
Jerry Mechling
Closure 3pm
-------------------
According to the brochure "the purpose of the (Vital Vision) programme is to foster relationships between leading Government decision-makers, our research partners and ourselves, to DEVELOP AND TEST our visions of the future. We aim to enable the shaping of policy, inform new thinking and suggest practical solutions relevant to the unique complexities of the public sector"
"Participation is by invitation only, and restricted to very senior individuals who help to shape the agenda for change. Typically this is at the CEO or equivalent level. We ask participants to commit to the programme for a minimum of one year. Participants are responsible for their own travel and subsistence - as a result the programme does not contravene government hospitality rules."
So what exactly is being developed and tested? Well since the conference, Barnet Council have started working on the Future Shape scheme. If you have followed my blog you'll know that this is all about outsourcing as much work as possible to the private sector. The philosophy of the scheme is "The council should only do it if nobody else can". I know a little bit about BT and outsourcing. I worked for the company between 1985 and 1987 within the department that ran their "facilities management arm" (now called Outsourcing). I was technical support manager on what was their flagship project. It was extremely successful at the time for BT.
I still have contacts within the organisation and the outsourcing arm of the business has grown beyond our wildest dreams in 1987. I was talking to an ex colleague not so long ago and he told me about an exciting new concept they were developing. It seems that the hardest part of selling a project to a government or local authority body is getting through the decision making chain. Typically you convince the people in middle management, then you wait 10 years for a decision to be made. My friend at BT was working on a concept whereby you sell the "idea" to the decision makers, before you propose the product and then they champion the concept. In a throwaway comment my friend said "It's pretty easy selling them (politicians) the concept, because most of them aren't very bright". All you have to do is persuade them that there is massive kudos to be had from "transforming organisations". You can also sell them lots of consultancy. The clever thing about the programme is that it isn't a sales pitch. It just makes the participants "receptive" to the ideas you are promoting. Once they have taken the worm, who do they come to? The experts - You've got it - BT. They would target CEO's etc and give them a weeks intensive brainwashing. The message would be hammered home that people proposing objections (no matter how reasonable) were obstacles to be sidelined. It seems that you define your vision and get a team of like minded individuals to push it through. The idea was to create an "evangelical cult of agents of business change" (or words to that effect, I'd had a few beers as this was explained). Reading through the links above and knowing how future shape is being implemented, does any of this sound at all familiar?
I hadn't really joined the dots on this one until a comment on another blog pointed out that one of the authors of "Future Shape" is on secondment from BT. Now is the "transformation" of the provision of Council services by outsourcing a bad thing? As I said above, I worked on a pretty successful outsourced project for BT. They were selected as the organisation that commissioned them didn't have the ability to provide the service. After 3 years when the concept was proven they "insourced" it and is still insourced today. I've no fundamental objection to outsourcing. There are many things where outsourcing is better. For example it is far cheaper to Outsource Brian Coleman's taxi service. A nice Jag and a Chauffer would cost much more than the his last £8,000 taxi bill to the GLA for no real benefit. The council insourced the provision of Video conferencing equipment at a capital cost of £91,000 (I believe from the invoices)to save £4,500 they'd spent in the previous year on hiring equipment. It may well be that there are many services that a compelling business case can be made for outsourcing. It may be that service will improve. The thing is that future shape has no case studies, no cost justifications. It is just woolly thinking conceived (I suspect) over dinner in Boston.
I can tell Mike Freer and Leo Boland exactly how they should approach outsourcing or any other management change free of charge.
a) identify a problem within your business process.
b) define the problem in easily understandable terms.
c) define the solution in easily undertandable terms
d) show the benefits of the solution in easily understandable terms.
I've read the Future Shape report through several times and none of the above have been done. If they did this they might actually arrive at something which works and which saves money. Now for all I know, BT's Vital Vision course may have played no role at all in Freer and Bolands thinking on the subject. They've not asked me over to tea to discuss it, but as I join all the dots up, it really does look to me like a term we used at BT when a manager went of on a course, then came back enthusiastically implementing madcap schemes they'd been taught. We called it "Courseitus". It usually passed after a couple of weeks of reality. It seems that there is a more serious strain now. Rather than a department, it affects a whole council and seems to last at least a couple of years - I'll call it "Conferenceitus" - I believe it can only be cured by a palace coup, a new job or an election.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)