Sunday 27 February 2011

What is Eric Pickles really like? - Update 27/02/2011

I just read this blog. I've no idea if it is true or not, but as he's the local authorities minister, I'd suggest that you take a look.

From our near neighbours in "Not The Harrow Times".

****** Updated 27/02/2011 ******  Following comments from Dan Hope and emails from readers of the blog, here is some extra info on the career of Eric Pickles. What I love about blogging is that we learn more about such figures as a result of these posts.

Pickles Papers

I hope Dan agrees that these ARE SLIGHTY MORE CREDIBLE sources.


Anonymous said...

What load of rambling old nonsense! An unreferenced article full of nonsense such as how terrible it is for the Mayor to use a casting vote to support the administration! Hello - this is pretty much how it always works..

And what's all this about? "And this blog NO LONGER HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH "PCS WILL" - it now belongs to ME, HARROW HARRY"

I thought Rog PCS WILL was your old mate from your Rachel Joyce blogging days? Has HARROW HARRY done in PCS WILL ! Was there murder on the dancefloor in Harrow?

If people have things to criticise from Eric Pickles actions in the dim distance past (when Neil Kinnock was still arguing for unilateral nuclear disarmament, pulling out of Europe and shutting down American bases) that's fine. But attacking him for being a 'fat twat' says all you need to know about the author, or those who republish or promote such articles, and little about Eric.

Also who wrote the last part of his article, looks like a copy and past job without any attribution. Was it from the Morning Star?

baarnett said...

In your last post, Barnet was saying that privatisation of hot-meals-provision was not because of cost, but because of:

"such things as culturally sensitive meals, a choice in meals and deserts, better quality control over portions, content, protein, vitamins etc., and compliance with EU regulations around labelling and health and safety, when compared with the traditional service."

Was any of this true?

Market testing of any complacent in-house operation might be acceptable to many people.

Mr Reasonable on his web site raises questions about pure ideology driving changes instead, exactly as they did for Eric Pickles.

Particularly concerning is his suggestion that in-house bids for services under One Barnet are simply not allowed. As he points out, that would surely hollow out services well in advance, as people left, rather like is happening in the NHS at present.

Rog T said...


I've no idea what has happened to PCS Will or the blog, although I understand PCS Will handed it over when he was elected as a councillor.

If the article is factually incorrect you have a great opportunity to expose it here.

I thought that with Eric Pickles being in the news in Barnet that it was a relevent post. I must say that your main beef, that it was all a bit old news, never stopped the Tories from having a dig at Kinnock.

It is interesting that you don't give any references that it is wrong

Anonymous said...

Hey Rog,

Hmm, not too sure about that analysis. Doesn't look like HARROW HARRY thinks too much of your old buddy PCS Will from the blaring headline comments.

I'm not here to defend what Eric Pickles may or may not have been up to twenty three years ago in Bradford. What is indisputable is that whatever it was it was sufficient to propel him fast up the ranks of the Conservative Party.

My main beef is that "HARROW HARRY" has republished a hatchet job article without any attribution. How can we judge it's veracity? It could be made up nonsense? Who wrote it? Was it in a paper other than the Morning Star or Tribune? Was it even ever published?

You will excuse me if I pass on your offer to go through it line by line as my knowledge of local politics in Bradford in 1988 is a bit rusty.

I guess I'm just a bit disappointed that you've chosen to flag up an article written by this blogger that is of such poor quality, bubbling with personal abuse and with no referencing to its source.

Moaneybat said...

Dan could not expose anything other than his archaic Tory Right Wing views. Here's a man who got laughed at by his own colleagues, a man who backed a leader rightly criticised by the Ombudsman for abusing his position, that's what the Tories elected as Leader in 2006. The point is missed as to why he was replaced (and why the local Labour never opposed) by people who abdicated their responsibility in costing the local taxpayers so much more in the coming months.

Dan is the man when asked, "were it him in the current regime would he take the money or resign?" His answer was "he does not do resigning." Well,the voters did it for him. Contrast that with ex-councillor and Deputy leader Kanti Patel. Have you seen Mark Shooter resign his seat following his failed challenge. That is how principled local Tories are.

What portly Pickles touts about Transparency and Open Democracy predates his espousals on the subject, that began when the Left that was left out by B'liar and Co, just over a couple of years after 'Blue' Labour took over their turn at "Elected" dicatorship and their partnership with the City run by many a Tory. Over the past 30 years Europe has changed and so also, a Britain and it's politics that few politicos like Dan Hope get, let alone us, the electorate. For today's Tory mantra of change and privatisation, see Blair/Brown.

The Left, NOT quite the Morning Star type, has also followed the Changing Society which now speaks of a Changing Constitution and PR with should also look at the PR of Party Political membership in Local Government. Let's face it many of you without Party political affiliations attend Forums,Scrutiny and Town Hall meetings before Pickles came along. Now the many diverse voices are here louder rather than a whisper.

Anonymous said...

So to quote a reasonably independent source, rather than the hatchet man from Harro, from the update section of your 'book'

Francine Lee (Yorkshire Post 26/2/91)

"...Staffing levels were cut and services privatised in a programme which, he insisted, was necessary - not to cut costs, but to breathe new life into what he described as a cosy world in which town halls stifled enterprise.

He argued that local services should be run by local authorities only if that was the most efficient option."

Pretty good record if that was what he was up to...

baarnett said...

"He argued that local services should be run by local authorities, only if that was the most efficient option."

Whereas staying 'in-house' is not even a possibility in the future of One Barnet.

Aren't there legal requirements to consider in-house as the best provider of services, as well as privatisation? Or is that why the council is spending two or three million pounds on lawyers Sue, Grabbit and Runn?