I have been deluged with emails concerning the issue of Your Choice Barnet in the past week - for those of you who are unfamiliar with Your Choice Barnet, it is a private company created by the Council to run social care. Some of these were from relatives of mine concerned about proposed changes to the care package of a cousin of mine, who is dependent on Barnet Council.
I started trying to write a blog summarising the issues, but failed miserably to write anything coherent at all. The reason was that I can find nothing which in any way, shape or form tells me why Barnet Council set the organisation up in the manner it has. There are all sorts of platitudes dating back from when the organisation was created. There are all sorts of bold statements about how it will be better. There is a business case that has been shown to have been dreamed up by the fairies at the bottom of the garden.
What there is not, anywhere is a properly argued logical case for what the council has done. The council seems to say "we had no choice but to do this". Anyone knows that there is always a choice. What they actually mean is that they chose not to put the choices in the public domain, consult us and let the democratic will of the people of Barnet decide. For an organisation called "Your Choice" it is rather ironic, don't you thing.
It seems to me that the justification is that it "can be run at arms length" and not be "tied up with bureaucracy". When we translate this into English, running at arms length means without control or interference from the democratically elected members of the Council who may want to ensure the people they represent get a good service. When they say "tied up with bureaucracy they mean that corners can be cut and things bodged. As the organisation needed a million pound bale out by the council, there certainly are holes in the bucket when it comes to making a financial case.
Now I know lots of people at Your Choice Barnet read this blog. You must be aware of some benefits (aport from to the pay packets of the newly created directors) of the setup. Please be kind and share this.
Saturday, 6 April 2013
Friday, 5 April 2013
The Friday Joke 5/4/2013 - Yes, this time for real
A policeman was rushed to the hospital with an inflamed appendix.
The doctors operated and advised him that all was well; however, the policeman kept feeling something pulling at his pubic hairs. Worried that it might have been a second surgery and the doctors hadn't told him about it, he finally got enough energy to pull his hospital gown up enough so he could look at what was making him so uncomfortable.
Taped firmly across his pubic hair and private parts were three wide strips of adhesive tape, the kind that doesn't come off easily, if at all.
Written on the tape in black letters was the sentence,
"Get well soon - from the nurse you booked for speeding last week."
---------------------
Have a nice evening (unless you are that Policeman who booked me for speeding last week !) ;^)
The doctors operated and advised him that all was well; however, the policeman kept feeling something pulling at his pubic hairs. Worried that it might have been a second surgery and the doctors hadn't told him about it, he finally got enough energy to pull his hospital gown up enough so he could look at what was making him so uncomfortable.
Taped firmly across his pubic hair and private parts were three wide strips of adhesive tape, the kind that doesn't come off easily, if at all.
Written on the tape in black letters was the sentence,
"Get well soon - from the nurse you booked for speeding last week."
---------------------
Have a nice evening (unless you are that Policeman who booked me for speeding last week !) ;^)
The Friday Joke 05/04/2013
 |
| Philpott |
 |
| T*ssp*t |
Want to hear a complete joke?
The politics of division. It is pretty clear George Osborne knew exactly what he was doing and who he was targetting his "Philpott benefits" comments at. As far as I am concerned, these comments are despicable.
The politics of division. It is pretty clear George Osborne knew exactly what he was doing and who he was targetting his "Philpott benefits" comments at. As far as I am concerned, these comments are despicable.
The reason that so many UK citizens are living on benefits is because of the failure of Conservative economic policies in the UK. Since 1979, we've had 17 years of hard right Thatcherite government, followed by 12 years of Blairite social Conservatism, followed by three years of lord only knows what with ConDem coalition.
Philpott is a very extreme case. Most people on benefits do not have a harem of women under their control, going out to work and breeding like rabbits as they sit at home smoking weed and planning their next appearance on the Jeremy Kyle show. They are receiving benefits because they have been failed by the educational system of years of Conservatism, followed by the failure of the UK to manage its economy under both Tory and Labour governments.
We are not in the economic quagmire because of benefit recipients, we are there because Tory and Labour governments allowed such a lax system of banking control to emerge that some of our banks allowed their financial position to disintegrate. A report in the Guardian today detailed how HBOS would have gone bust WITHOUT the banking crisis - http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/05/bank-delusion-greed-hbos-fail .
We may find Philpott revolting, but the area of the country where he lives has seen its economy decimated by the wanton destruction of the UK manufacturing base. If you embark on a program of wholesale destruction of communities and local economies as the Tories did in the 1980's and 1990's, this is where you inevitably end up. When Margaret Thatcher took power in 1979, Derbyshire was a thriving industrial hotbed of innovation. Rolls Royce are based there, British Rail had a massive centre building and designing some of the most innovative transport technology in the world. The area was also a centre for mining.
Thatcher destroyed the mining industry, the Rail industry was hacked into hundreds of tiny pieces and the Derby works hangs on by a thread. Rolls Royce cars are now in foreign hands. Who's fault was all of this? The one group who do not want to accept any blame are the architects of the policy - The Conservatives.
If you destroy communities, decimate economies and remove any prospect of decent jobs, as far as I am concerned, you should shoulder the blame when a sub section of society decides to give up.
I have never claimed a penny in benefits and have always worked. I have paid a fortune in tax over the years and so I need no lectures off Tory politicians such as Osborne on any of this. He's been Chancellor for three years and the economy has gone into reverse. His only answer is to demonise the most vulnerable people in society and blame them for the ills of a society that himself and his peers created.
If under George Osbornes regime, the economy had picked up and their was a shortage of jobs for people looking, then he may have a point. His captaincy of the UK economy has been a disaster. That should be the end of the matter. By making inflammatory statements about Philpott, Osborne has (temporarily) silenced people who were talking about the possibilities of a "triple dip recession". He's also managed to associate millions of decent people, who find themselves in a difficult situation because of the policies of him and his predecessors, with the stain of the Philpott murders.
Would anyone suggest that because Lord Lucan, who murdered his nanny (mistaking her for his wife) went Eton, George Osborne and the thousands of other old Etonians may harbour similar personality traits? - of course not.
It strikes me that there is a very pronounced Left/Right divide in response to Osbornes comments. Those on the right seem to think he was spot on and what he said was marvellous. Those on the left are outraged. I predict that within a couple of weeks Osbornes comments will have been forgotten. What won't have been forgotten will be the mess that Osborne has made of the economy. I believe that Osborne made the comments because he harbours ambitions to lead the Conservative Party and become Prime Minister. His comments were a blatent appeal to the hard right of his party. I personally think they show his complete unsuitability for the role. Then again, he wasn't trying to appeal to me, was he?
Phillpott case - The most evil man in the UK?
Mick Phillpott today began a life sentence for the "manslaughter" of six of hos own children. As a father, I cannot begin to understand the warped mind that could even for one second consider anything which would put children at risk to get at an ex partner. There are many aspects of Phillpott's domestic arrangement which I find quite bizarre and it is clear that he only really cares about one person - himself.
I've not bothered to read the press coverage of the case. I have no wish to ever consider this vile and repugnant man again. His mere existence makes me ashamed of my own humanity and for being part of a race and a nation that could spawn such a monster. But having said all of that, Mick Philpott holds a mirror up to each of us. When we look in that mirror what stares back? We rightly despise Mick Philpott for his actions. We recognise his scant regard for his childrens safety and wellbeing and it is easy to condemn his actions.
As I would hope that everyone agrees that killing children is as low and as despicable an act as you can get, we have to say, as we look in that mirror, how many children die in the UK for preventable reasons? Whilst Philpotts actions are clearly vile and evil, there were no warning signs that he was capable of such evil. There was nothing flagged up that said "Take action now to safeguard those children". We may have seen him on the Kyle show on TV and thought "there is something seriously dodgy going on", but no one would have anticipated the actions. It has been revealed that he had previously committed acts of violence against women, but this did not indicate a a threat to his children.
There are however all manner of things which we, as a society, accept that pose a clear and identifiable threat to children. Do you know what is the largest killer of children aged 5-15 in the UK? It is not Mick Philpott. It is not a nasty disease. It is speeding cars. The level of carnage inflicted on the youth of the nation is truly shocking, but somehow we are totally oblivious to this. If we read of a child run over and killed by a car doing 36 mph on a 30mph road near a school, do we condemn the driver or simply think "there but for the grace of God go I"? Because the truth is that every time we break a speed limit on a suburban road at a time of day when children are present, we run the risk of killing someone. No one ever gets into a motor car and plans to have an accident. No one ever plans to run a child over.
Before I wrote the Barnet Eye blog, before I knew of the shenanigans of Barnet Council, I regularly wrote to the local press about the policy of Barnet Council to rip out speed bumps. The previous Labour administration installed a whole host of traffic calming measures. When the Conservatives took power in 2002, they set about ripping them all out. The net result is that traffic accidents in Barnet have risen, relative to other similar London Boroughs. We are curiously myopic about the carnage of car accidents caused by speeding and careless driving. You may well say "how can the Barnet Eye possibly compare car crashes with the evil of Philpott?". I would respond by saying that given the massive number of children killed by selfish drivers trying to get from A to B a minute or two quicker, how can we possibly not take responsibility for our actions. If you have a car accident and hit someone because you were driving too fast, you were putting your own selfish desire to get somewhere slightly quicker than the law allows. If you kill or maim someone, you have done so because you are selfish. As a society we need to grow up and take responsibility. If everyone in the UK drove on suburban roads at or below the speed limit, then thousands of people would not get run over.
Now you may wonder what prompted such a rant. Let me tell you. This afternoon I was driving in Mill Hill listening to the coverage of the Philpott verdict. I, like everyone else was outraged at the details of the case. As I was driving I witnessed a speeding car nearly run a small child over. The car was probably doing 45 mph on a 30mph stretch near a (shut for holidays) school. A child of about 5 or 6 years old ran out in front of the car. As there was no oncoming traffic on the other side of the road, the car swerved and beeped and missed the child. I did not stop so I have no idea what the effect of the scare was on mother or child. What shocked me was that the car accelerated away from the scene, picking up speed to nearly 60mph before turning off. As I watched this awful scene, that all happened in the space of maybe 10 seconds, I thought "he nearly killed that kid and he didn't give a sh*t" given the way he sped off.
Now I don't know if the driver of the black mercedes who did that is a reader of this blog. I don't know if he gives a sh*t about anything or anyone else. What I do know is that someone who endangers a child for such selfish reasons clearly has a little bit of the "Philpott" about them. Whilst Philpott may well be one of the most evil men in the UK, each one of us individually has to take responsibility for our actions. I hope that the driver I witnessed today is a reader of this blog and feels thoroughly ashamed of themselves.
************************************
BTW I wrote this blog and then watched the News before proof reading it. On the news was a story where George Osborne seemingly attributed some blame for the Philpott case on the payment of benefits. Had I seen this before I wrote this blog, I may well have written a completely different blog. Osborne has shown what a completely clueless idiot he is with his comment. Being on benefits doesn't make people burn their own house down with their children inside, being a psychopath does. Did it occur to Osborne that maybe the reason Philpott was on benefits was because he was so evil and repulsive that he couldn't get or hold down a job. I run a firm and I employ several people. Each one undergoes an interview. In that interview process I try and ascertain whether that person is a team player, hard working, honest, reliable and likely to treat my customers with respect. If you didn't know about his arson, but had seen a few of the TV documentaries in which he featured, how many of those boxes do you think Philpott would have ticked?
Much as some of us may desire it to be different, we cannot deny anyone benefits because they are a repulsive individual with an unconventional lifestyle. If someone is so truly awful that they are unemployable, then they will have to live on benefits or starve to death. Removing benefits from the likes of Philpott would not make them any more employable. With millions on the dole, employers have the pick of who they want and the likes of Philpott will always be left on the bench. The only way that someone like Philpott would ever get a job is if the government compelled employers to employ the unemployable. No wonder the economy is in the state it's in if the Chancellor of the Exchequor can't figure that little puzzle out.
I've not bothered to read the press coverage of the case. I have no wish to ever consider this vile and repugnant man again. His mere existence makes me ashamed of my own humanity and for being part of a race and a nation that could spawn such a monster. But having said all of that, Mick Philpott holds a mirror up to each of us. When we look in that mirror what stares back? We rightly despise Mick Philpott for his actions. We recognise his scant regard for his childrens safety and wellbeing and it is easy to condemn his actions.
As I would hope that everyone agrees that killing children is as low and as despicable an act as you can get, we have to say, as we look in that mirror, how many children die in the UK for preventable reasons? Whilst Philpotts actions are clearly vile and evil, there were no warning signs that he was capable of such evil. There was nothing flagged up that said "Take action now to safeguard those children". We may have seen him on the Kyle show on TV and thought "there is something seriously dodgy going on", but no one would have anticipated the actions. It has been revealed that he had previously committed acts of violence against women, but this did not indicate a a threat to his children.
There are however all manner of things which we, as a society, accept that pose a clear and identifiable threat to children. Do you know what is the largest killer of children aged 5-15 in the UK? It is not Mick Philpott. It is not a nasty disease. It is speeding cars. The level of carnage inflicted on the youth of the nation is truly shocking, but somehow we are totally oblivious to this. If we read of a child run over and killed by a car doing 36 mph on a 30mph road near a school, do we condemn the driver or simply think "there but for the grace of God go I"? Because the truth is that every time we break a speed limit on a suburban road at a time of day when children are present, we run the risk of killing someone. No one ever gets into a motor car and plans to have an accident. No one ever plans to run a child over.
Before I wrote the Barnet Eye blog, before I knew of the shenanigans of Barnet Council, I regularly wrote to the local press about the policy of Barnet Council to rip out speed bumps. The previous Labour administration installed a whole host of traffic calming measures. When the Conservatives took power in 2002, they set about ripping them all out. The net result is that traffic accidents in Barnet have risen, relative to other similar London Boroughs. We are curiously myopic about the carnage of car accidents caused by speeding and careless driving. You may well say "how can the Barnet Eye possibly compare car crashes with the evil of Philpott?". I would respond by saying that given the massive number of children killed by selfish drivers trying to get from A to B a minute or two quicker, how can we possibly not take responsibility for our actions. If you have a car accident and hit someone because you were driving too fast, you were putting your own selfish desire to get somewhere slightly quicker than the law allows. If you kill or maim someone, you have done so because you are selfish. As a society we need to grow up and take responsibility. If everyone in the UK drove on suburban roads at or below the speed limit, then thousands of people would not get run over.
Now you may wonder what prompted such a rant. Let me tell you. This afternoon I was driving in Mill Hill listening to the coverage of the Philpott verdict. I, like everyone else was outraged at the details of the case. As I was driving I witnessed a speeding car nearly run a small child over. The car was probably doing 45 mph on a 30mph stretch near a (shut for holidays) school. A child of about 5 or 6 years old ran out in front of the car. As there was no oncoming traffic on the other side of the road, the car swerved and beeped and missed the child. I did not stop so I have no idea what the effect of the scare was on mother or child. What shocked me was that the car accelerated away from the scene, picking up speed to nearly 60mph before turning off. As I watched this awful scene, that all happened in the space of maybe 10 seconds, I thought "he nearly killed that kid and he didn't give a sh*t" given the way he sped off.
Now I don't know if the driver of the black mercedes who did that is a reader of this blog. I don't know if he gives a sh*t about anything or anyone else. What I do know is that someone who endangers a child for such selfish reasons clearly has a little bit of the "Philpott" about them. Whilst Philpott may well be one of the most evil men in the UK, each one of us individually has to take responsibility for our actions. I hope that the driver I witnessed today is a reader of this blog and feels thoroughly ashamed of themselves.
************************************
BTW I wrote this blog and then watched the News before proof reading it. On the news was a story where George Osborne seemingly attributed some blame for the Philpott case on the payment of benefits. Had I seen this before I wrote this blog, I may well have written a completely different blog. Osborne has shown what a completely clueless idiot he is with his comment. Being on benefits doesn't make people burn their own house down with their children inside, being a psychopath does. Did it occur to Osborne that maybe the reason Philpott was on benefits was because he was so evil and repulsive that he couldn't get or hold down a job. I run a firm and I employ several people. Each one undergoes an interview. In that interview process I try and ascertain whether that person is a team player, hard working, honest, reliable and likely to treat my customers with respect. If you didn't know about his arson, but had seen a few of the TV documentaries in which he featured, how many of those boxes do you think Philpott would have ticked?
Much as some of us may desire it to be different, we cannot deny anyone benefits because they are a repulsive individual with an unconventional lifestyle. If someone is so truly awful that they are unemployable, then they will have to live on benefits or starve to death. Removing benefits from the likes of Philpott would not make them any more employable. With millions on the dole, employers have the pick of who they want and the likes of Philpott will always be left on the bench. The only way that someone like Philpott would ever get a job is if the government compelled employers to employ the unemployable. No wonder the economy is in the state it's in if the Chancellor of the Exchequor can't figure that little puzzle out.
Thursday, 4 April 2013
Did you vote to destroy the local economy in Barnet?
Yesterday the Barnet Eye revealed that the One Barnet scheme could cost the local economy in Barnet up to £14 million pounds a year. Over the ten year life of the project, that is £140 million which is potentially being lost to local business. These changes were not mentioned in the Conservative manifesto at the last election and have been sneaked in with no consultation. This has landed Barnet Council in court and the issue is currently undergoing judicial review.
Some people on the left have a mantra of "no cuts, ever". The Barnet Eye does not subscribe to this view. We believe that there are plenty of cuts which urgently need making in Barnet. These could have saved the council millions and completely negated the need to export jobs from the Borough. Here are a few changes that the Barnet Eye would like to see.
1. Councillor Allowance. The first thing the Tories did on reelection in 2010 was vote themselves a huge rise in allowances. Councillors receive over £1 million from the taxpayer and many do little or no work. The Barnet Eye would like to see allowances be linked to the actual amount of work done by councillors. One councillor receives thousands of pounds to chair a committee that has only met once in the last year. Such excess is scandalous.
2. Consultants. Barnet Council is spending millions of pounds a year on consultants on "tax efficient" contracts. This has been going on for years. Barnet Council has dozens
3. Badly managed suppliers. Barnet bloggers have uncovered several examples of massive negligence within Barnet Council and their managing of suppliers, notably RM Countrysides and Metpro security. In one case an internal email instructed a Barnet employee to pay RM Countrysides "whatever it took" to get parking meters removed. With Metpro Security, Barnet was paying up to 30% more than the market rate for services, many of which were later deemed unnecessary. The Barnet Eye estimates that uncovering Metpro problems may have saved the Barnet Council tax payer up to £1 million. Cutting back on these contracts would save the taxpayer a fortune.
4. Executive Pay. We are all in it together. If Barnet has financial issues, those earning the most should do their bit and take a pay cut. It is simply wrong that those with least should suffer most.
Did you vote Conservative? If you did, was this because you wanted to damage the local economy? One Barnet does nothing for local business. It will depress local business in Barnet and will increase benefit dependency in the Borough. Like many changes, One Barnet will have all manner of hidden nasty side effects on the local economy. Many businesses in the Borough are struggling. For some losing trade through the One Barnet redundancies could be the straw that breaks the camels back.
Local politicians should protect local jobs, not throw them away.
Some people on the left have a mantra of "no cuts, ever". The Barnet Eye does not subscribe to this view. We believe that there are plenty of cuts which urgently need making in Barnet. These could have saved the council millions and completely negated the need to export jobs from the Borough. Here are a few changes that the Barnet Eye would like to see.
1. Councillor Allowance. The first thing the Tories did on reelection in 2010 was vote themselves a huge rise in allowances. Councillors receive over £1 million from the taxpayer and many do little or no work. The Barnet Eye would like to see allowances be linked to the actual amount of work done by councillors. One councillor receives thousands of pounds to chair a committee that has only met once in the last year. Such excess is scandalous.
2. Consultants. Barnet Council is spending millions of pounds a year on consultants on "tax efficient" contracts. This has been going on for years. Barnet Council has dozens
3. Badly managed suppliers. Barnet bloggers have uncovered several examples of massive negligence within Barnet Council and their managing of suppliers, notably RM Countrysides and Metpro security. In one case an internal email instructed a Barnet employee to pay RM Countrysides "whatever it took" to get parking meters removed. With Metpro Security, Barnet was paying up to 30% more than the market rate for services, many of which were later deemed unnecessary. The Barnet Eye estimates that uncovering Metpro problems may have saved the Barnet Council tax payer up to £1 million. Cutting back on these contracts would save the taxpayer a fortune.
4. Executive Pay. We are all in it together. If Barnet has financial issues, those earning the most should do their bit and take a pay cut. It is simply wrong that those with least should suffer most.
Did you vote Conservative? If you did, was this because you wanted to damage the local economy? One Barnet does nothing for local business. It will depress local business in Barnet and will increase benefit dependency in the Borough. Like many changes, One Barnet will have all manner of hidden nasty side effects on the local economy. Many businesses in the Borough are struggling. For some losing trade through the One Barnet redundancies could be the straw that breaks the camels back.
Local politicians should protect local jobs, not throw them away.
Wednesday, 3 April 2013
One Barnet will cost the local economy £14 million and 397 jobs
Ever since the decision to award the One Barnet contract to Capita, we have been trying to ascertain the true cost to staff and jobs. A letter from Barnet Council to Unions, passed to the Barnet Eye reveals the massive scale of job losses. Out of *597 posts currently providing Council services to Barnet residents only 200 will remain within the borough of Barnet, meaning *397 jobs in Barnet will be lost.
* Still awaiting a decision for Procurement services (12 posts)
The number of job losses in our community is significantly much higher than was being claimed by the council when the contract was first announced in December 2012.
Did this have to happen?
No,
Barnet Council could have inserted a clause into the contract which
stated the Council would only consider bids which promised to bring jobs
to their community. This is not an uncommon factor when councils are
looking at outsourcing as an option. Indeed Capita have recently won a contract with Staffordshire County Council to deliver services which includes a commitment to bring 1,613 additional jobs to their community.
In most other communities, local politicians campaign to bring jobs to the area, not take them away. You may wonder what the true cost to the local economy is. The average London wage (according to the BBC http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20442666). The loss of 397 jobs in the borough (assuming that they are paid the London average) will cost the Barnet economy up to £14 million. That is money not being spent in shops, cafes and restaurants. As most readers are aware, this is at a time of economic hardship. At a time when jobs are hard to come by, that means local shops will suffer. Many of these staff are main breadwinners in households with children, meaning more social depravation in Barnet. One should consider that people who have built their careers in local government, may find it difficult to find employment in the private sector as their skill sets are completely different. What is even more galling is that these jobs will still be paid for by the Barnet Council Tax payer, but to promote economic activity in other parts of the country or even abroad. For shopkeepers and local traders who will lose trade, One Barnet is really a hidden stealth tax.
Perhaps the worst aspect of this export of jobs is that Barnet are paying Capita's shareholders a premium to export these jobs. Capita shareholders expect the company to make a decent return on their investment, so the taxpayer is subsidising a private company to do this. As far as the Barnet Eye is concerned, such a project is economic madness. Is this really what you voted for at the 2010 Council elections? Probably not as the local Conservative Party neglected to mention the One Barnet outsourcing in their manifesto.
Tuesday, 2 April 2013
Will One Barnet really be as bad as the left are making out?
Whilst Barnet sometimes seems awash with Bloggers, Tweeters and protests, it isn't exactly awash with ordinary people standing up to defend the One Barnet program. We do actually have a right wing blogger, Mr Dan Hope (AKA The Barnet Bugle), who sporadically writes rather strange blogs, making all sorts of bizarre statements about events he hasn't attended. Sadly he doesn't appear to have bought into the One Barnet ideology, so we've had no robust defence from him. We also have Councillor Robert Rams who writes blogs on the subject but these are also rather uninformative. So in the interests of balance, I've decided to have a look at some of the questions which no one on the right has the guts to address.
A question I've been asked time and time again is whether "One Barnet will really be as bad as the left are making out?". The truthful answer is that nobody really knows. For some people, such as those former workers of Barnet Council, it will most certainly be bad, because they have been made redundant. But if you are a resident who doesn't work for Barnet Council and your interaction is pretty much limited to paying your rates and having your car's suspension knobbled by badly maintained roads, what will be the effects for you?
This is where it gets complicated. Research on the subject of public sector outsourcings shows that approx one in four fail completely. As to what the other three in four actually deliver and whether it does what it says on the tin, who knows. What will complete failure mean? Well for those of us who have minimal interaction with the Council, it will mean higher Council Tax bills than would have otherwise been the case. It will also mean that the council will have to go into savage costcutting mode. I made a short list of things which they are likely to attack if the projects fail and the council are left with bills into the hundreds of millions.
1. Parking charge hikes.
2. Massive reductions in council gritting on icy days.
3. Reduced frequency of bin collections.
4. Turning off Street lighting in the middle of the night.
5. Less street cleaning.
6. No park and open space maintenance.
7. Library Closures.
8. Increased prices for Council administered licenses.
9. Increased parking fines.
10. Increases in school meal prices.
There are many other things in the field of social care etc which will also receive massive cuts, but these are the things which will affect most ordinary families in Barnet in some way. As we mentioned, there is an approximate one in four chance of a catastrophic failure of the project, based on the success rate of other outsourcing projects. Although most of us would not buy a car which had a one in four chance of the wheels falling off, we seem to take a different view with public services. The left have also been accused of over egging the one in four failures statistic. Surely this means that we have a 75% chance of a successful implementation of One Barnet. This is a fair point. The question is, what exactly is "success" in One Barnet terms. I asked a Tory Councillor this question. His response was "as far as I'm concerned if we manage to provide the same or better quality of services for less money, One Barnet will be deemed a success".
I asked a follow up question which is "But what if some services are good under the new regime and some fail to meet expectations?" His response was "If it saves money, it will be deemed a success". He then went on to say "The problem for measuring the success is that as we don't know what would have happened if we had gone down another route, any measurement of success or failure is fairly subjective". In other words, unless One Barnet fails catastrophically, it will be deemed a success.
I have also recently had a rather interesting chat with a Capita employee. They informed me that, in their opinion, the left in Barnet were being overly pessimistic about the prospects for One Barnet to fail. Their arguement took four strands.
1) Capita have learned from previous outsourcing mistakes and so are in good shape to deliver the project.
2) Capita have experience of delivering all of the services elsewhere successfully.
3) Capita have not signed the contract with a mission to fail. They want to succeed as this will give them further business opportunities and will deliver shareholder value.
4) Capita can derive savings from economies of scale which a stand alone Barnet Council operation can't hope to match.
All of the points are valid and are deserving of rational discussion.
Here is my take on these points.
1) Capita would be stupid (which they are clearly not) to have ignored the lessons of past failures. At the same time, whilst it is easy to say "We've learned", are the project teams structured in such a way that we can have confidence that the actions match the words and the lessons really have been learned. As far as the people of Barnet are concerned, the jury really is out on this issue.
2) It comes down to the "what is success?" Given that all of the commercials in these cases are confidential, how do we really know what has happened in the "other 75%" of outsourcings which have not completely failed.
3) Success of the mission in Capita terms is delivery of profits for the shareholder. So long as they do this, the projects will be successful as far as they are concerned, whether they save Barnet Council money or not.
4) The argument for this is undeniable. The reason that they can do this is because they are exporting jobs out of Barnet. Whilst this may reduce council tax (if the project delivers the savings Barnet Council hope), it will have damaged the wider local economy and removed jobs. Is this a price worth paying? The jury is most definately out.
So is One Barnet really as bad as the left are making out? The honest answer is that we will only know if it goes completely wrong. If there are major issues, which are shrouded in corporate secrecy, we could be paying a lot more than if we'd continued to use the in house solutions, but we won't know. The truth is that One Barnet is a gamble. Barnet Council are playing it with our cash. I personally feel that Barnet Council do not have the corporate know how to successfully manage an outsourcing on the scale of One Barnet. The failure of past Barnet contracts and the track record of Capita fill me with trepidation. But the truth is that no one will know the answer to the question until it is too late. If it does go wrong, Barnet will have disbanded the in house operation and will have no place to run. Unlike G4S at the Olympics, the army won't be on hand to bale out the taxpayer.
A question I've been asked time and time again is whether "One Barnet will really be as bad as the left are making out?". The truthful answer is that nobody really knows. For some people, such as those former workers of Barnet Council, it will most certainly be bad, because they have been made redundant. But if you are a resident who doesn't work for Barnet Council and your interaction is pretty much limited to paying your rates and having your car's suspension knobbled by badly maintained roads, what will be the effects for you?
This is where it gets complicated. Research on the subject of public sector outsourcings shows that approx one in four fail completely. As to what the other three in four actually deliver and whether it does what it says on the tin, who knows. What will complete failure mean? Well for those of us who have minimal interaction with the Council, it will mean higher Council Tax bills than would have otherwise been the case. It will also mean that the council will have to go into savage costcutting mode. I made a short list of things which they are likely to attack if the projects fail and the council are left with bills into the hundreds of millions.
1. Parking charge hikes.
2. Massive reductions in council gritting on icy days.
3. Reduced frequency of bin collections.
4. Turning off Street lighting in the middle of the night.
5. Less street cleaning.
6. No park and open space maintenance.
7. Library Closures.
8. Increased prices for Council administered licenses.
9. Increased parking fines.
10. Increases in school meal prices.
There are many other things in the field of social care etc which will also receive massive cuts, but these are the things which will affect most ordinary families in Barnet in some way. As we mentioned, there is an approximate one in four chance of a catastrophic failure of the project, based on the success rate of other outsourcing projects. Although most of us would not buy a car which had a one in four chance of the wheels falling off, we seem to take a different view with public services. The left have also been accused of over egging the one in four failures statistic. Surely this means that we have a 75% chance of a successful implementation of One Barnet. This is a fair point. The question is, what exactly is "success" in One Barnet terms. I asked a Tory Councillor this question. His response was "as far as I'm concerned if we manage to provide the same or better quality of services for less money, One Barnet will be deemed a success".
I asked a follow up question which is "But what if some services are good under the new regime and some fail to meet expectations?" His response was "If it saves money, it will be deemed a success". He then went on to say "The problem for measuring the success is that as we don't know what would have happened if we had gone down another route, any measurement of success or failure is fairly subjective". In other words, unless One Barnet fails catastrophically, it will be deemed a success.
I have also recently had a rather interesting chat with a Capita employee. They informed me that, in their opinion, the left in Barnet were being overly pessimistic about the prospects for One Barnet to fail. Their arguement took four strands.
1) Capita have learned from previous outsourcing mistakes and so are in good shape to deliver the project.
2) Capita have experience of delivering all of the services elsewhere successfully.
3) Capita have not signed the contract with a mission to fail. They want to succeed as this will give them further business opportunities and will deliver shareholder value.
4) Capita can derive savings from economies of scale which a stand alone Barnet Council operation can't hope to match.
All of the points are valid and are deserving of rational discussion.
Here is my take on these points.
1) Capita would be stupid (which they are clearly not) to have ignored the lessons of past failures. At the same time, whilst it is easy to say "We've learned", are the project teams structured in such a way that we can have confidence that the actions match the words and the lessons really have been learned. As far as the people of Barnet are concerned, the jury really is out on this issue.
2) It comes down to the "what is success?" Given that all of the commercials in these cases are confidential, how do we really know what has happened in the "other 75%" of outsourcings which have not completely failed.
3) Success of the mission in Capita terms is delivery of profits for the shareholder. So long as they do this, the projects will be successful as far as they are concerned, whether they save Barnet Council money or not.
4) The argument for this is undeniable. The reason that they can do this is because they are exporting jobs out of Barnet. Whilst this may reduce council tax (if the project delivers the savings Barnet Council hope), it will have damaged the wider local economy and removed jobs. Is this a price worth paying? The jury is most definately out.
So is One Barnet really as bad as the left are making out? The honest answer is that we will only know if it goes completely wrong. If there are major issues, which are shrouded in corporate secrecy, we could be paying a lot more than if we'd continued to use the in house solutions, but we won't know. The truth is that One Barnet is a gamble. Barnet Council are playing it with our cash. I personally feel that Barnet Council do not have the corporate know how to successfully manage an outsourcing on the scale of One Barnet. The failure of past Barnet contracts and the track record of Capita fill me with trepidation. But the truth is that no one will know the answer to the question until it is too late. If it does go wrong, Barnet will have disbanded the in house operation and will have no place to run. Unlike G4S at the Olympics, the army won't be on hand to bale out the taxpayer.
Five things in Barnet that are "so last year"
We didn't do a Saturday list this week. So here belatedly is our late late Saturday List. We didn't do a Friday joke either, but that was because we were preparing for our April fool specials. We have to ration our humour here in Barnet you know. We don't want anyone getting too excited.
1. Nick Walkley
2. Brian Colemans political career
3. Library Closures
4. Mad Vicars
5. Faith in outsourcing
Nuff said really !
1. Nick Walkley
2. Brian Colemans political career
3. Library Closures
4. Mad Vicars
5. Faith in outsourcing
Nuff said really !
Sometimes spam emails really piss me off
As some of you know, one of the subjects I deal with on the blog is the effects of living with cancer. It is for me a serious subject and one which I put a lot of care into writing about. A rather unwanted side effect of blogging is I receive many spam emails. Most I can simply ignore. Many are generated by Spambots, computer programs which scan thru blogs for keywords. Sometimes they send the most inappropriate sh*te imaginable. Today I received the worst one yet.
I sincerely hope that whoever Mike Joba is, he gets inundated with Spam emails, because to be quite honest with you, this has really pissed me off.
I sincerely hope that whoever Mike Joba is, he gets inundated with Spam emails, because to be quite honest with you, this has really pissed me off.
----- Original Message -----From: Mike JobaSent: Monday, April 01, 2013 10:44 PMSubject: Smelly Videos for barneteye.blogspot.comHey,
Yes, I said smelly videos. Since you talked about odor eliminators and smell removal I thought you might be interested in this site made by KLC Brands that shows some pretty funny prank videos induced by horrible smells.
The site is called willitstink.com and you can check out there videos here.
It would be great if you could help me out by simply placing a link on your site to willitstink.com.
barneteye.blogspot.com/2012/11/rog-ts-cancer-blog-smell-of-death-is-in.html
You could maybe add it to this page here or a links/resource page if you would like. If there is a video that you like you could also just put that on your site as well.
If there is anything I can do in return please let me know. If you decide to link to it and want me to share your site socially please let me know the url of where it is at. If you have any other questions or comments let me know.
Thanks,
Mike Joba
Monday, 1 April 2013
Barnet Alliance for Public Services announces important changes
Press Release - 1st April 2013
The Barnet Alliance for Public Services (BAPS) today announced important changes to the structure of the organisation. In response to comments that BAPS was stuck in the past and not recognising the huge challenges facing the Borough, in light of budget cuts, the organisation has decided to adopt a new name.
From today it will be known as the Society for Upgrading Barnet Services (SUBS). In a groundbreaking deal with Barnet Council, all opposition to the One Barnet program has been outsourced to SUBS. Councillor Robert Rams, speaking at Friern Barnet Library explained.
"The local Labour party has been completely ineffective in curbing all of the hare brained ideas and opinions spouted by right wing ideologues such as myself. At present hundreds of thousands of pounds have been spent on members allowances for Labour Councillors, who have failed miserably at their job of curbing right wing lunacy. As BAPS (SUBS) has provided the only sane, rational and sensible opposition to the One Barnet madness, and they do it all at no expense to the taxpayer, it makes perfect sense to Outsource all opposition to this third sector organisation".
Mr Julian Silverman, the newly appointed SUBS leader added "For the last four and a half years, BAPS has provided the most effective local protest movement in Barnet. We hope that the new relationship with Barnet Council will lead to a full blown revolution at the Town Hall and the locking in the Bastille of Councillors such as Rams, who have brought misery to thousands".
Speaking on behalf of the local Labour Party, Councillor Alison Moore said "These changes are news to me. The local Labour Party has worked tirelessly to do something about these policies. We have ensured that at least 2 or 3 of our councillors have attended all marches organised by BAPS and we have also been very vocal in the town hall saying that One Barnet was a bit of silly piffle".
For further information on SUBS PLEASE CLICK HERE
Disclaimer (all above quotes were provided by Ms Avril d'un at SUBS - The Barnet Eye is far too lazy to verify them on a bank holiday morning)
******** Disclaimer - Please note for the purposes of clarity, this blog is part of the Barnet Eye April 1st attempt to cheer up the Borough. The statements attributed to the individuals should in no way be taken as anything other than parody and humour. We have no idea whatsoever of the specific view of the individuals mentioned. We must also state that BAPS are quite happy with their current name. We hope all concerned appreciated the humourous nature of this blog *********
The Barnet Alliance for Public Services (BAPS) today announced important changes to the structure of the organisation. In response to comments that BAPS was stuck in the past and not recognising the huge challenges facing the Borough, in light of budget cuts, the organisation has decided to adopt a new name.
From today it will be known as the Society for Upgrading Barnet Services (SUBS). In a groundbreaking deal with Barnet Council, all opposition to the One Barnet program has been outsourced to SUBS. Councillor Robert Rams, speaking at Friern Barnet Library explained.
"The local Labour party has been completely ineffective in curbing all of the hare brained ideas and opinions spouted by right wing ideologues such as myself. At present hundreds of thousands of pounds have been spent on members allowances for Labour Councillors, who have failed miserably at their job of curbing right wing lunacy. As BAPS (SUBS) has provided the only sane, rational and sensible opposition to the One Barnet madness, and they do it all at no expense to the taxpayer, it makes perfect sense to Outsource all opposition to this third sector organisation".
Mr Julian Silverman, the newly appointed SUBS leader added "For the last four and a half years, BAPS has provided the most effective local protest movement in Barnet. We hope that the new relationship with Barnet Council will lead to a full blown revolution at the Town Hall and the locking in the Bastille of Councillors such as Rams, who have brought misery to thousands".
Speaking on behalf of the local Labour Party, Councillor Alison Moore said "These changes are news to me. The local Labour Party has worked tirelessly to do something about these policies. We have ensured that at least 2 or 3 of our councillors have attended all marches organised by BAPS and we have also been very vocal in the town hall saying that One Barnet was a bit of silly piffle".
For further information on SUBS PLEASE CLICK HERE
Disclaimer (all above quotes were provided by Ms Avril d'un at SUBS - The Barnet Eye is far too lazy to verify them on a bank holiday morning)
******** Disclaimer - Please note for the purposes of clarity, this blog is part of the Barnet Eye April 1st attempt to cheer up the Borough. The statements attributed to the individuals should in no way be taken as anything other than parody and humour. We have no idea whatsoever of the specific view of the individuals mentioned. We must also state that BAPS are quite happy with their current name. We hope all concerned appreciated the humourous nature of this blog *********
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)