Today is Elvis Presley's 77th birthday. Elvis is the iconic performer of the 20th century. He redefined what a singer was and what performance was. As a rock and roll guitarist and a keen rock and roll historian, I could write a million words about what he was, what he achieved and how good he was. However, there is no need. Just check this video out
I thought long and hard about what clip to post here. I chose this one, because the band is stripped down, the footage is grainy and the sound ain't great. Despite all of that, you still get the feeling you are watching something special. Happy Birthday Elvis. I hope it's a great party up in the sky for you tonight !
Sunday, 8 January 2012
Saturday, 7 January 2012
What exactly are Barnet spending this £374,000 on?
Barnet Council are at it again. They are planning to spend £374,000 of our money, to buy a load of gear for a play scheme to put into storage. Once they've bought it, they will spend another £10,000 per annum on storing it. You can read the full sorry story on the council website here - http://committeepapers.barnet.gov.uk/democracy/reports/reportdetail.asp?ReportID=10913 -
I've loaded it up onto Scribd and here it is in it's full glory.
Youth Spending
You may wonder how Barnet Council can be so profligately wasting our money in this time of cuts. The answer is simple. They are so disorganised that they have been unable to organise a proper use of the money, that if they don't spend it by March they'll lose it. The tragedy of this is that there are all sorts of
local youth groups which would hugely benefit from some of this cash.
My son belongs to a local scouts group, which did a bagpacking exercise at Waitrose in Mill Hill before Xmas. They raised £2,000 towards replacing the troop's camping gear, much of which was over 30 years old, smelly and falling apart. Why on earth didn't the council contact such groups and ask if they needed some equipment. There are all manner of youth groups.
As it is, they are going to buy over 1/3rd of a million quids worth of equipment and store it. This is absolutely criminal.
The financial tale of woe is in section 5. It says :-
They give the game away in section 8.
I've highlighted section 8.3 in red. The reason? Well it is clear they are buying all of this equipment before they actually know what people need. In other words, they are trying to second guess what all of the diverse groups in Barnet may actually need. They will buy the gear and store it. We could have the ridiculous situation where Barnet Council have spent £374,000 on such equipment. They could then contact a group like Edgware Scouts and say "We've got £374,000 worth of equipment for young people, can we help you?" The Scouts would then say "Yes, we need tents for 20 boys for our camps" and Barnet would say "Oh sorry, we didn't buy any of them".
What is most bizarre is that Barnet is a Tory regime. One of the big criticisms the West always aimed at the "planned economies" of the Soviet Bloc is that a bureaucrat would draw up a "masterplan" for producing items for the economy without taking into account what the economy actually needed. This resulted in tractors being built and allocated for areas where there were no farms and beach chairs being built for areas that there were no beaches in. This blog has charged Barnet Council with being Stalinist on a few occasions. We hadn't realised that the Stalinism had spread to procurement in this way.
The tragedy is that there are so many groups who could have spent the cash on something really useful, yet the stuff will all be put in storage. Even worse, they will have to employ a team of bureaucrats to decide how it will eventually be allocated. Needless to say that the "positive action steering group" mentioned in section 8.4 will all be on nice fat salaries, which you my friend will be paying.
Sadly this £374,000 seems to be more about jobs for the boys than toys for the children. Needless to say, all of this was in a delegated powers report, that you'd never have seen if it hadn't been for the bloggers of Barnet.
I've loaded it up onto Scribd and here it is in it's full glory.
Youth Spending
You may wonder how Barnet Council can be so profligately wasting our money in this time of cuts. The answer is simple. They are so disorganised that they have been unable to organise a proper use of the money, that if they don't spend it by March they'll lose it. The tragedy of this is that there are all sorts of
local youth groups which would hugely benefit from some of this cash.
My son belongs to a local scouts group, which did a bagpacking exercise at Waitrose in Mill Hill before Xmas. They raised £2,000 towards replacing the troop's camping gear, much of which was over 30 years old, smelly and falling apart. Why on earth didn't the council contact such groups and ask if they needed some equipment. There are all manner of youth groups.
As it is, they are going to buy over 1/3rd of a million quids worth of equipment and store it. This is absolutely criminal.
The financial tale of woe is in section 5. It says :-
5. FINANCIAL, STAFFING, ICT AND PROPERTY IMPLICATIONS
5.1 Staffing
The proposal set out in this DPR will not have any impact on staffing levels within
the Youth Support Service. Oversight of the equipment will be maintained by the
Youth Support Service.
5.2 Finance
The Playbuilder’s funding has been allocated to LA’s to develop and provide
activities for children and their families. We propose to use the £374,000 capital
funding to purchase equipment which will support community groups in delivering
Positive Activities. This funding must be spent by 31st March 2011
5.3 Property
Equipment will be the property of LBB and stored at existing Youth Support Service
or provider/partner property.
5.4 Sustainability
Purchasing this pool of equipment will support a more sustainable approach to
Positive Activities. By Barnet supplying high quality equipment and relevant
training, the cost to the third sector in establishing engaging and innovative
programmes will greatly reduce. Any hiring charges made to groups will support
ongoing maintenance costs. Ongoing running costs (c£10k) will be met out of the
Positive Activities Budget.
They give the game away in section 8.
8. BACKGROUND INFORMATION
8.1 The service has developed the ability to reach large numbers of young people
through a range of engagement methods including positive activities. However, the
Youth Support Service currently has very few resources that can be loaned out to
groups within Barnet. By making available a central pool of resources it will enable
the service to target needs within the community and to quality assure the activities,
ensuring agreed standards are met.
8.2 The Local Authority has been working with third sector partners to identify
appropriate equipment that will best enable them to meet the needs of children and
young people. This includes equipment that will support the delivery of activities
such as tools, sports and media resources to reduce economic disadvantage by
increasing young people’s knowledge, skills and increasing employability.
8.3 Equipment will be allocated and agreed by the Positive Activities Steering Group.
The Positive Activities steering group brings together a range of partners such as
the police, schools and the voluntary sector to share information and data to ensure
that we focus the resources at targeted groups.
8.4 The Youth Support Service is committed to supporting capacity building within the
third sector. As well as making available a central pool of equipment it will deliver a
training programme to support the use of the equipment, facilitate the Positive
Activities steering group, and identify, train and support a group of young people to
become ambassadors for Positive Activities across the borough. This group have
already supported in identifying relevant equipment to be purchased.
I've highlighted section 8.3 in red. The reason? Well it is clear they are buying all of this equipment before they actually know what people need. In other words, they are trying to second guess what all of the diverse groups in Barnet may actually need. They will buy the gear and store it. We could have the ridiculous situation where Barnet Council have spent £374,000 on such equipment. They could then contact a group like Edgware Scouts and say "We've got £374,000 worth of equipment for young people, can we help you?" The Scouts would then say "Yes, we need tents for 20 boys for our camps" and Barnet would say "Oh sorry, we didn't buy any of them".
What is most bizarre is that Barnet is a Tory regime. One of the big criticisms the West always aimed at the "planned economies" of the Soviet Bloc is that a bureaucrat would draw up a "masterplan" for producing items for the economy without taking into account what the economy actually needed. This resulted in tractors being built and allocated for areas where there were no farms and beach chairs being built for areas that there were no beaches in. This blog has charged Barnet Council with being Stalinist on a few occasions. We hadn't realised that the Stalinism had spread to procurement in this way.
The tragedy is that there are so many groups who could have spent the cash on something really useful, yet the stuff will all be put in storage. Even worse, they will have to employ a team of bureaucrats to decide how it will eventually be allocated. Needless to say that the "positive action steering group" mentioned in section 8.4 will all be on nice fat salaries, which you my friend will be paying.
Sadly this £374,000 seems to be more about jobs for the boys than toys for the children. Needless to say, all of this was in a delegated powers report, that you'd never have seen if it hadn't been for the bloggers of Barnet.
Friday, 6 January 2012
Barnet Parking Wardens - The shape of things to come
Barnet is outsourcing Parking to a company called NSL.What sort of company are they? I've no idea, I'm not an expert eye on parking enforcement companies. What I do know is that one of their former employees in Westminster described them as "Ali Baba And The 40 Thieves". I am endebted to todays Daily Express - http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/293808/Warden-sacked-for-being-fair - for exposing exactly what we can expect. Here is another quote from the article:-
In the next clip, you have the head of parking, John McArdle describing how the contract will work.
Now you may agree with Councillor Coleman that having a company such as NSL issuing parking tickets in such a manner is a great idea. When I read the following quote from Mr Berkani in the Daily Express, I took a rather different view.
At a recent council meeting, Barnet Traffic supremo and Tory GLA candidate hailed this outsourcing as a core Conservative policy. Here is a video clip of Coleman explaining how marvellous such enforcement will be for Barnet motorists and taxpayers.Mr Berkani, who worked in west London for Kensington and Chelsea Council’s parking firm NSL, says bosses cited one colleague as an “excellent example” for issuing 35 tickets, known as Penalty Charge Notices, in a single shift, and a manager said it was “good revenue for the council and that everyone should generate the same revenue as him”.
In the next clip, you have the head of parking, John McArdle describing how the contract will work.
Now you may agree with Councillor Coleman that having a company such as NSL issuing parking tickets in such a manner is a great idea. When I read the following quote from Mr Berkani in the Daily Express, I took a rather different view.
Mr Berkani, 45, told a London Employment Tribunal: “It soon became clear that it was commonly accepted amongst my work colleagues that the whole operation of civil parking enforcement was dishonest and mainly designed to extract as much cash as possible, via both fair means or foul, from the motoring public.
“I have seen during the course of my employment… things which I would never imagined could exist in a country like England, which I have always understood and believed upheld and applied the law in a fair, open and even-handed manner.”
I trust that when it comes to May and you get the chance to pass your verdict on Brian Coleman's bid for re-election to his £50,000 a year part time job at the GLA, you remember what you are voting for and what Mr Coleman considers core Conservative policies to be.Targets for the number of tickets to issue per shift were “impossible to achieve in an entirely legal and honest manner,” he said.
Thursday, 5 January 2012
Guest Blog – Safeguarding Overview & Scrutiny Committee
By Julia Hines
Barnet Council kick off the New Year with a meeting of the
Safeguarding Overview & Scrutiny Committee. The papers are here:
And they start the meeting with
the news that Barnet’s Children’s Safeguarding Service has been recognised with
an award. Congratulations are due; Barnet should feel really proud of this.
I remain critical of the fact
that there was no safeguarding investigation into events at Barbara Langstone
House when MetPro/ Evolution were running security there, given that the
company was committing a criminal offence by operating without a licence, and
that crime reports fell after they were replaced, but that does not mean that
other good work should not be recognised.
Moving on.
Looking down the meeting agenda
you will see an item on the Fairer Contributions Policy. The Council receives
about 17% of its income from Council Tax, about 16% from fines and charges and
the rest essentially from central government. The amount received from central
government is, as everyone knows, being cut. Barnet has a policy of keeping
Council Tax unchanged and increasing the income from fines & charges –
including parking charges, planning application charges, rental for council
buildings like scout huts, and charges for social care. This is partly because
of central government policy, which rewards them for this, but it does lead to
what are effectively stealth taxes.
Barnet Adult Social Services is
being cut by 26% over 4 years. They are
dealing with this in two ways. Firstly they are cutting their contracts to the
voluntary sector, who deliver a significant part of their frontline services,
by 33% in two years, despite the Best Value Statutory Guidance from central
government which mandates that cuts should not be passed on disproportionately
to the voluntary sector. They are making some cuts in-house. And they are
increasing their income from fines and charges. This is the Fairer
Contributions Policy.
Older people and those with
disabilities have always been subject to a financial assessment and, if they
have savings, been expected to pay for, or contribute to, their own care. People
with mild or moderate needs have not received direct financial support from the
Council for some time, although there are some services for them provided or
subsidised by contract funding with Barnet.
The report to the Safeguarding O
& S Committee states that, whereas under the old assessment 33% made a
financial contribution to their care, under the new assessment 59% do. Of those
44% receive no financial support at all for their care now.
Suddenly the “Fairer” bit of the
Fairer Contributions Policy sounds like Orwellian double-speak.
Barnet is not the only local
authority acting this way
There is evidence of older
people reducing their attendance at day care services for dementia since the
policy was introduced. Day care is charged at £38 a day excluding transport costs,
so this is not surprising to me. Homecare costs about £15 ph if you need help
with personal care like washing, dressing, cooking or shopping.
Barnet’s stated view is that if
people are not prepared to pay for their care, they obviously do not need it. Market
forces at work. I do not think this is an accurate analysis, or one that is
sophisticated enough. It seems to me that it is the equivalent of saying that
the 800 older people who die each winter from hypothermia just did not want to
be warm.
The estimated average cost of
care needed by the Council’s own assessment, for people who get no financial
support, is £84/ week and for those who have to make a contribution it is about
half that. How many of us could afford
that? How many of us expect to be able to afford that when we are pensioners. Let
us not forget that this is an average; many people will need to spend much more
than this to get the minimum care the Council’s own assessment says they need.
Clearly there do need to be cuts
to Barnet spending. But scandals like MetPro & RM Countryside show that
there may well be “low-hanging” fruit in terms of savings to be made before
pushing the cuts onto the most vulnerable people in Barnet. Older and disabled
people may not have the voice to speak out in the way that Barnet CPZ Action
do, or the local traders terrified about losing their businesses because of
cashless parking. That does not mean they do not have a case.
In the end, does this approach
save taxpayers’ money?
If older people need care but
cannot afford it they will probably get ill. And that will probably be
expensive. For taxpayers.
Social care is important and
expensive. In the longer term the Government will need to address the thorny
issues of the Dilnot report. To listen to a sensible opinion on this from John
Redwood, amongst others, listen here
Perhaps residents need to
consider whether they are comfortable with the fairness of keeping Council Tax
unchanged, spending vast amounts on consultants, and indirectly taxing people
who need care most.
I am a local resident and chair of Age UK Barnet. This is a
voluntary position. This blog represents my personal view.
Age UK Barnet receives contract funding from the Council. You can
read about Age UK Barnet here:
PS There is a donate button in the top right corner.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Julia Hines is a Barnet Eye reader. Guest blogs are always welcome. Please submit using the email link in the side bar.
Andrew Dismore GLA Candidate press release re Boris commuter fare hike
PRESS RELEASE:
IMMEDIATE
As
fare rises hit Barnet and Camden commuters returning to work today,
Londoners have a clear choice in 2012 Barnet and Camden residents were today suffering a fourth year of inflation-busting fare increases from Boris Johnson, as new research shows that fares in London are now costing over a quarter of minimum wage take home pay.
Today is the first working day back under the new high fares package. It hits Barnet and Camden residents hard at a time when people are facing a squeeze on their quality of life and the London economy continues to struggle under George Osborne’s failed policies.
Ken’s Fare Deal would wipe out Boris Johnson’s planned increases for 2012 and saving the average Barnet and Camden commuter £1000 over the next four years.
Under the Conservative mayor the cost of a single bus ticket has risen by a massive 50 per cent since 2008, whilst the price of a monthly zone 1-2 Travelcard is up 21% costing £230.40 per year more, and the price of a zones 1-6 Travelcard is up a fifth.
New figures from the House of Commons library show that this means an office manager in central London earning £25,600 living in zone 1 or 2 would have to work for three weeks and three days before the cost of their travel was covered. A cleaner on the minimum wage (£11,730) would have to spend 27 per cent of their take home pay in order to pay for a weekly zones 1-6 Travelcard. A newly qualified nurse working in inner London (£25,411) and living in Zone 4 would have to have to work for 5 weeks and a day before they'd paid for their travel, whilst a shop assistant earning the London Living Wage (£16,013) would have to spend 21 per cent of their take home pay to be able to afford to pay for a weekly zones 1-6 travelcard.
Andrew Dismore, Labour’s London Assembly candidate for Barnet and Camden said:
“Before residents even arrive at work this morning they will have felt the pain of a fourth year of above inflation bus, tube and train fare hikes under Boris Johnson.
“This is the wrong fare rise at the wrong time, taking money out of people’s pockets when the London economy is struggling and when people are very hard pressed.
“The impact applies across Barnet and Camden and London as a whole and across ages and income brackets. Yet every year the Mayor rakes in more income from fares than his budgets and business plans says he will.
Ken Livingstone said,
“It’s time for change. Exactly four months today Londoners will face a very clear choice – a Labour mayor who will cut the fares, or a Tory mayor who raises fares, forcing many to spend a quarter of their wages merely getting to and from work. In elected in May I'll cut the fares saving the average Londoners £1000 over four years."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Press releases are welcome from all candidates (except extremist parties) at the Barnet Eye, subject to our discretion. They will be published without editorial comment, for public information
Wednesday, 4 January 2012
D-I-V-O-R-C-E
Of all the things right wing pundits talk nonsense about, marriage and divorce are pretty near the top of the list. I hear people say "we should make it harder to get divorced" or "we should give people cash incentives to get married". To me it just shows how detached from reality people on the right of politics often are. If you give people cash incentives to marry, surely they will be far more likely to find themselves in relationships with people they don't like, from whom they will eventually get divorced. As to making divorce harder, are we really saying that raising children in an environment where there is constant strife is good for their development. A few gold diggers excepted, I doubt anyone gets married thinking they will be getting divorced. We do it because we like someone and we want to be with them and show a commitment. When we find that they are not what we thought (this can take a while) and we realise we don't like them, are we saying it is the job of the state to say "No, you must stay with this person you don't like". As with many things in society, often the people in the Daily Mail who write such stories have often had a string of divorces themselves.
Don't get me wrong, I believe that by far the best environment for having a family is a happily married couple, who get on with each other. In a perfect world all children would have such a home. That doesn't mean that I think single mums fail their children, they just have to work twice as hard to ensure they get a decent upbringing. I've plenty of friends who are single parents. I'm sure all of them work at it far harder than I do at it and I'm certainly not saying their children have suffered, it is just a harder gig.
It may sound perverse, but I'd actually make it harder to get married and offer no financial incentives at all. You see, I'm a bit old fashioned. I think that the only reason you get married is because you love someone and it should be a positive commitment, not a route to back door tax breaks. We all do crazy things when we first hitch up with someone and are crazy about them. I'd make people have to wait three months before they could get married, rather like the backout option on an insurance policy. I honestly believe that if you are planning a lifetime, you should be able to wait.
As to divorce, I don't believe it is the job of the state to stop people. I do believe that the state has a role to play in taking the acrimony out of the process. If children are involved, I would allow courts to hold up granting of divorces until childcare arrangements had been agreed (unless one party was being unreasonably intransigent). I would take unreasonable behaviour into account in settlements. I don't think it's fair that someone can be treated appallingly and be financially shafted into the deal.
Like many areas of law in Great Britain today, the vast majority of problems are caused by the fact people feel they've been treated unfairly. What is sad is that the people who run the country never seem to understand that unfairness is the thing which we find hardest to deal with.
Don't get me wrong, I believe that by far the best environment for having a family is a happily married couple, who get on with each other. In a perfect world all children would have such a home. That doesn't mean that I think single mums fail their children, they just have to work twice as hard to ensure they get a decent upbringing. I've plenty of friends who are single parents. I'm sure all of them work at it far harder than I do at it and I'm certainly not saying their children have suffered, it is just a harder gig.
It may sound perverse, but I'd actually make it harder to get married and offer no financial incentives at all. You see, I'm a bit old fashioned. I think that the only reason you get married is because you love someone and it should be a positive commitment, not a route to back door tax breaks. We all do crazy things when we first hitch up with someone and are crazy about them. I'd make people have to wait three months before they could get married, rather like the backout option on an insurance policy. I honestly believe that if you are planning a lifetime, you should be able to wait.
As to divorce, I don't believe it is the job of the state to stop people. I do believe that the state has a role to play in taking the acrimony out of the process. If children are involved, I would allow courts to hold up granting of divorces until childcare arrangements had been agreed (unless one party was being unreasonably intransigent). I would take unreasonable behaviour into account in settlements. I don't think it's fair that someone can be treated appallingly and be financially shafted into the deal.
Like many areas of law in Great Britain today, the vast majority of problems are caused by the fact people feel they've been treated unfairly. What is sad is that the people who run the country never seem to understand that unfairness is the thing which we find hardest to deal with.
Tuesday, 3 January 2012
Rog T's Cancer Blog - Stephen Szemerenyi RIP and Nile Rodgers cancer blog
For those of you who are
regular readers and have read the previous posts, you can skip this
first paragraph.This is the latest installment in my occasional series about how I'm
adjusting to living with a big C in my life. For those of you who aren't, here's a quick summary.
I'm 49 years old and I recently had a prostate biopsy following two
"slightly high" PSA tests - 2.8 & 4.1. The biopsy took ten tissue
samples and one of these showed a "low grade cancer" which gives me a
3+3 on the Gleason scale. I'm now on a program of active monitoring.
I've no symptoms and sadly for a few people, if I'm gonna die soon, it
won't be from Prostate cancer. Got the picture?
Be calm. Don't Panic. Friends who read the previous blog in the series expressed some concern that I wasn't coping with all of this. I am. Don't worry. I am angry about many aspects, but hey I'm angry about many things. Progess. It seems like I'm in good company. Today I found Nile Rodgers cancer blog - http://nilerodgers.com/blogs - Just reading this made me feel good. It validated the reason I write this. His blog helped me. Maybe my blog will help someone. Now I'd never claim to be in the same league as Nile Rodgers as a musician, but to me he is a brother in many ways (Nope I've never actually met him). Anyone who co wrote "We are family" sits at the top table at my party. Nile understands a groove. He gets music in a way few of us do. When I hear a Nile Rodgers song, I hear quality on every level. He is part of the soundtrack to my life.
Does it surprise me that he's a top guy and is blogging his personal struggle? Not at all. We all have our crosses to bear in life. It's how we deal with them and face the challenge that matters. Today I received the sad news that former headmaster of my old school - FCHS - Stephen Szemerenyi has passed away from the dreaded disease. Stephen took over the school after I left. When I walked out of the doors, tail between my legs in 1978, I vowed never to go back. I said that I'd never send a child of mine there. Stephen took over in 1983 and by the time he left, the school was transformed. In 2010, I went back for an old boys dinner for the 1st time. In September my son started there. Steve transformed the school. He is a great loss. Here is the letter that the school sent out today, which sums up what a great job he did. I endorse every sentence of this.
Dear Parents,
We are saddened to have to inform you that Stephen Szemerenyi, Headteacher at Finchley Catholic High School between 1983 and 1999, passed away on New Year’s Day, following a short illness.
All those who have the interests of the school at heart have reason to be grateful for the service that Steve gave as Headteacher. When he took over the reins the school was in a difficult position and bore little resemblance to the thriving community that exists today. The school was heavily undersubscribed, academic performance was lack lustre and the site consisted of a stock of poorly maintained buildings, some of which were virtually derelict. It would be no exaggeration to suggest that at that point the long term future of the school was far from secure.
Through a combination of hard work, moral certainty and strength of character he led the school through a very turbulent period in its history. He had a strong commitment to Catholic comprehensive education and proved to be an outstanding advocate for the school, making sure that its interests were promoted at both diocesan and local authority levels. He was also something of a pioneer, overseeing the first collaborative arrangement with St Michael’s and seizing the opportunities made available through LMS and Grant Maintained status. Ably assisted by the talented leadership team that he put together and the Governors that he worked alongside, Steve started to rebuild the reputation and standing of the school. There was no quick fix. It was a long haul that demanded tenacity, commitment and attention to detail. These he displayed in abundance and the fortunes of the school began to improve. By the time that he retired in 1999, the foundations for the school that exists today were very much in place.
In retirement, Steve remained closely involved in the world of education as a writer and consultant. He was also heavily involved in the Association of School and College Leaders (ASCL) and represented that body at national level. In 2009 he received an OBE in the New Year’s Honours List for services to education. Please remember Steve and his family in your prayers. A Memorial Mass will be arranged in due course and an invitation extended to all parts of the school community.
Yours sincerely,
Seamus McKenna Jane Inzani,
Headteacher Chair of Governors
My condolences go out to Jan his widow, who is a good friend and the family. He will be missed. Cancer is a terrible disease. My prayers today go out for Steve's family in their loss and Nile Rodgers in his fight. That is all I can do for them, I hope it helps.
Stephen Szemerenyi RIP
Be calm. Don't Panic. Friends who read the previous blog in the series expressed some concern that I wasn't coping with all of this. I am. Don't worry. I am angry about many aspects, but hey I'm angry about many things. Progess. It seems like I'm in good company. Today I found Nile Rodgers cancer blog - http://nilerodgers.com/blogs - Just reading this made me feel good. It validated the reason I write this. His blog helped me. Maybe my blog will help someone. Now I'd never claim to be in the same league as Nile Rodgers as a musician, but to me he is a brother in many ways (Nope I've never actually met him). Anyone who co wrote "We are family" sits at the top table at my party. Nile understands a groove. He gets music in a way few of us do. When I hear a Nile Rodgers song, I hear quality on every level. He is part of the soundtrack to my life.
Does it surprise me that he's a top guy and is blogging his personal struggle? Not at all. We all have our crosses to bear in life. It's how we deal with them and face the challenge that matters. Today I received the sad news that former headmaster of my old school - FCHS - Stephen Szemerenyi has passed away from the dreaded disease. Stephen took over the school after I left. When I walked out of the doors, tail between my legs in 1978, I vowed never to go back. I said that I'd never send a child of mine there. Stephen took over in 1983 and by the time he left, the school was transformed. In 2010, I went back for an old boys dinner for the 1st time. In September my son started there. Steve transformed the school. He is a great loss. Here is the letter that the school sent out today, which sums up what a great job he did. I endorse every sentence of this.
Dear Parents,
We are saddened to have to inform you that Stephen Szemerenyi, Headteacher at Finchley Catholic High School between 1983 and 1999, passed away on New Year’s Day, following a short illness.
All those who have the interests of the school at heart have reason to be grateful for the service that Steve gave as Headteacher. When he took over the reins the school was in a difficult position and bore little resemblance to the thriving community that exists today. The school was heavily undersubscribed, academic performance was lack lustre and the site consisted of a stock of poorly maintained buildings, some of which were virtually derelict. It would be no exaggeration to suggest that at that point the long term future of the school was far from secure.
Through a combination of hard work, moral certainty and strength of character he led the school through a very turbulent period in its history. He had a strong commitment to Catholic comprehensive education and proved to be an outstanding advocate for the school, making sure that its interests were promoted at both diocesan and local authority levels. He was also something of a pioneer, overseeing the first collaborative arrangement with St Michael’s and seizing the opportunities made available through LMS and Grant Maintained status. Ably assisted by the talented leadership team that he put together and the Governors that he worked alongside, Steve started to rebuild the reputation and standing of the school. There was no quick fix. It was a long haul that demanded tenacity, commitment and attention to detail. These he displayed in abundance and the fortunes of the school began to improve. By the time that he retired in 1999, the foundations for the school that exists today were very much in place.
In retirement, Steve remained closely involved in the world of education as a writer and consultant. He was also heavily involved in the Association of School and College Leaders (ASCL) and represented that body at national level. In 2009 he received an OBE in the New Year’s Honours List for services to education. Please remember Steve and his family in your prayers. A Memorial Mass will be arranged in due course and an invitation extended to all parts of the school community.
Yours sincerely,
Seamus McKenna Jane Inzani,
Headteacher Chair of Governors
My condolences go out to Jan his widow, who is a good friend and the family. He will be missed. Cancer is a terrible disease. My prayers today go out for Steve's family in their loss and Nile Rodgers in his fight. That is all I can do for them, I hope it helps.
Stephen Szemerenyi RIP
Welcome back to work - Deus Irae? or the woe of Thameslink
1. No direct service to Moorgate Station
2. The through service suspended for six months to construct the New St Pancras Station
3. Blackfriars tube Station shut for two years.
4. Massive overcrowding.
5. Removal of cross London Services for Sutton Loop.
6. No cross London services at weekends for years on end.
With all this disruption, you would think that rather than fare hikes, they should give passengers a discount whilst there journeys are constantly disrupted. For many people they pay the rises, but by 2016 when the program is finished, they will have retired. Years of disruption at extortionate prices, with what in return? Nothing. We are told that when the program is finished, there will be less overcrowding. I don't believe a word of it. If the service improves, more people will use it. I remember when the M25 was proposed, the argument was that it would "reduce overcrowding". What happened was the opposite. So you may say, how should the Thameslink program be paid for? It is clear to me that it should be paid from general taxation and borrowing. Capital programs produce a return on investments. Presumably there is a good business case for Thameslink and the benefits of the work will be felt for decades, if not centuries. Not only that, but people who never set foot on a Thameslink train will reap huge benefits from it. How you may ask? Because improved infrastructure opens up job opportunities, meaning that people can travel further to work, more quickly and more conveniently. This reduces unemployment and stimulates the economy. It removes cars from the roads, as people switch to rail, making other motorists journeys quicker and more pleasant. Who pays for major road projects? We all do. I rarely use the M1, but the roadworks North of Luton are paid for by me. Road commuters from Bedfordshire into London are subsidised by me, but as a regular rail user, they get a free ride from subsidising me.
The UK has some of the highest fares in Europe and some of the lowest subsidies for travel. Who benefits from all this? The Thameslink service is operated by First Group under the First Capital Connect banner. Has First Group and it's shareholders suffered for this? Of course not. They have hidden behind the program as an excuse for a shoddy service. Regular users have suffered all manner of misfortune under this inept company. We had a period of months where the network virtually ground to a halt due to lack of trained drivers. We have had noticeboards which didn't work, resulting in many people boarding trains to completely the wrong destination. I had a conversation with a First representative about this. This is how the conversation went
Me: What are you doing about the fact your electronic destination boards are consistently not working
FCC: We are talking to our suppliers
Me: That is no use for me, why can't you have a system to tell passengers on the platform?
FCC: We do, we make announcements
Me: That is no use to me, I'm registered deaf (NB> I have a 44db hearing loss) and cannot usually hear them
FCC: Well that's your problem then, isn't it. You should check the front of the train or ask a member of staff.
The bottom line is that this company makes huge profits, is subsidised by the taxpayer and the passengers are lumbered with an uncaring monopoly. If and when they lose the franchise, no one will mourn their demise.
At the Mayoral election in May we have a clear choice and we have two people who have vastly different views on transport. We have Boris Johnson who stands for high fares and cares only for motorists in the posher London Boroughs and we have Ken Livingstone who has a consistant track record of standing up for lower fares and better all round transport infrastructure.
I asked a local Tory what Boris had done for Transport in Barnet. His answer "He got rid of the Bendy buses and he's developed the new Boris bus. He also got the cycle scheme going". An odd response really. There were no bendy buses in Barnet, we've seen one prototype bus delivered, which I've yet to see in Barnet and the cycle scheme hasn't come within miles of the Borough.
I doubt Ken Livingstone will do well in Barnet.I doubt that this fact is anything to do with his record on transport. In fact I doubt that it is based on anything more than a dislike generated by some comments to an Evening Standard reporter who was hassling him. I do understand this and I have some sympathy with the view, I just think it is crying shame that everyone in Barnet who commutes has to pay for these comments on a daily basis.
If like me you've been none too impressed with the performance of First Group, you may wish to sign this petition.
 | ||||||
Monday, 2 January 2012
Wishing all of my readers a happy 2012
May I take this opportunity to wish everyone a very happy 2012. Apologies for the lateness of this greeting. I took the family away to Centreparks for New Year in Sherwood Forest. Sadly for me, the internet on site was not what I expected, so I had an enforced break from blogging. I must say that it was nice to have a break from it and hoped you hadn't missed it too much.
My top 10 predictions for 2012.
1. The OneBarnet project to be rebranded by the end of the year.
2. cBrian Coleman to lose the GLA seat in May (don't know whether to a Tory or Labour Candidate!)
3. Another Tory leadership contest this year in Barnet
4. Barnet Council to feature in a major documentary scandal on national television
5. Ed Milliband to be replaced as Labour Leader
6. 9 Premiership managers to be sacked this year
7. Arsenal to win nothing again
8. Barnet FC to stay in League 2
9. At least 10 shops in Mill Hill Broadway to close/ change hands
10. At least 3 major scandals to hit Barnet Council and make NATIONAL news between now and the end of the year.
Now I'll let you in on a little secret. Some of the above are pure guesses by me, using my psychic powers. Some are flavoured by a little bit of insider knowledge and some are dead certs. At the end of the year, I'll give a round up and we'll see just how close to the mark I was.
I have a pretty good track record of predictions - In this blog in 2009 (when the Tories were streets ahead in the polls and Gordon Brown was clearly a millstone to sink labour) I predicted - http://barneteye.blogspot.com/2009/07/great-britain-will-join-euro-within-5.html -
I predicted
Jan 2010 - Britain begins a borrowing lead recovery
May 2010 - Tories would not get a majority
June 2010 - Tories pass vicious austerity budget
September 2010 - Tory cuts start to bite
May 2011 - Boris Johnson distances himself from Cameron
September 2011 - Mass demonstrations as Tory cuts bite deeper. Nurses and teachers pay frozen. The economy stagnates.
Of course I got a few things wrong in there as well, but at the time everyone with half a brain assumed Cameron would romp home to a massive majority. I predicted that George Osborne's incompetence would cause the economy to unravel. What I didn't for one second consider was that the Lib Dems would prop him up and moderate the worst excesses of right wing bonkers thinking.
I suspect that the coalition deal has saved Osborne's bacon (thus far). If he'd made the cuts that he'd liked to have, with a massive Tory majority, I think the economy would already be over the cliff, rather than teetering on the edge. Having some vaguely sane people such as Vince Cable around to point out the more bleeding obvious flaws in Osbornes strategy and ideology has probably spared us a complete calamity. I know that many on the left hate the Lib Dems for propping up the Tories, I am none to pleased myself. As far as I'm concerned, the fault is with Labour for not getting rid of Gordon Brown, when it was clear he was useless and leading them to defeat. The whole party prostituted itself for his vanity and landed us in the calamitous situation we find ourselves in. They have made matters worse by choosing another leader who is totally unable to connect with the general public and who seems more interested in beating up working people defending their livelyhoods than he does taking the fight to the Tories. He should have backed the recent strikes to the hilt and pointed out that the reason the Tory leadership doesn't understand strikers is because they are all posh boy millionaires, who have no concept of what it is like to worry how you will pay the bills, if you are a low income family.
The Labour Party should be engaging with the radical and left leaning members of the Lib Dems to try and split the coalition, rather than seeing the coalition as the chance to polish off an annoying third party that is a pain in the arse. The Labour Party is under a very strange misapprehension that all of the Lib Dem supporters would vote Labour if the Lib Dems disappeared. This is simply not true. I suspect that what would actually happen is that we'd get a slim Tory majority on the split of seats. Labour should make it a 100% priority to ensure that there is non Tory/Lib Dem pact going into the next election.
I happen to believe that the biggest winner from the coalition is David Cameron. His cabinet is of a far higher calibre than it would have been with an outright Tory victory. I think he's what used to be called a "wet" (ie a Liberal Tory). He knew Osborne was a basket case, but didn't have a clue how to control him. The Lib Dems give him that power (to a degree). He also has a few people in the cabinet to calm the more insane members of his team down, when they start spouting nonsense. I've been told (and I don't know if it's true or not), that whenever the more Europhobic Tory cabinet members start going off on one, Vince Cable gives them a long, tedious lecture on the ways in which the EU benefits the UK economy. As they are all as thick as S*** and do not understand economics (Cable is a career economist, having worked for Shell) they have no choice but to back down, in the face of superior intellect.
Sadly, I think that we are all going to suffer the consequences of a shotgun wedding government, with a bipolar economic strategy. Unless Labour can get it's act together, elect an effective leader and get out on the streets campaigning side by side with it's natural supporters, we are faced with the unenviable choice of the coalition or a full blown Tory government, which to me is like a choice between cancer and the flu (which I am lucky enough to have both of right now!).
My top 10 predictions for 2012.
1. The OneBarnet project to be rebranded by the end of the year.
2. cBrian Coleman to lose the GLA seat in May (don't know whether to a Tory or Labour Candidate!)
3. Another Tory leadership contest this year in Barnet
4. Barnet Council to feature in a major documentary scandal on national television
5. Ed Milliband to be replaced as Labour Leader
6. 9 Premiership managers to be sacked this year
7. Arsenal to win nothing again
8. Barnet FC to stay in League 2
9. At least 10 shops in Mill Hill Broadway to close/ change hands
10. At least 3 major scandals to hit Barnet Council and make NATIONAL news between now and the end of the year.
Now I'll let you in on a little secret. Some of the above are pure guesses by me, using my psychic powers. Some are flavoured by a little bit of insider knowledge and some are dead certs. At the end of the year, I'll give a round up and we'll see just how close to the mark I was.
I have a pretty good track record of predictions - In this blog in 2009 (when the Tories were streets ahead in the polls and Gordon Brown was clearly a millstone to sink labour) I predicted - http://barneteye.blogspot.com/2009/07/great-britain-will-join-euro-within-5.html -
I predicted
Jan 2010 - Britain begins a borrowing lead recovery
May 2010 - Tories would not get a majority
June 2010 - Tories pass vicious austerity budget
September 2010 - Tory cuts start to bite
May 2011 - Boris Johnson distances himself from Cameron
September 2011 - Mass demonstrations as Tory cuts bite deeper. Nurses and teachers pay frozen. The economy stagnates.
Of course I got a few things wrong in there as well, but at the time everyone with half a brain assumed Cameron would romp home to a massive majority. I predicted that George Osborne's incompetence would cause the economy to unravel. What I didn't for one second consider was that the Lib Dems would prop him up and moderate the worst excesses of right wing bonkers thinking.
I suspect that the coalition deal has saved Osborne's bacon (thus far). If he'd made the cuts that he'd liked to have, with a massive Tory majority, I think the economy would already be over the cliff, rather than teetering on the edge. Having some vaguely sane people such as Vince Cable around to point out the more bleeding obvious flaws in Osbornes strategy and ideology has probably spared us a complete calamity. I know that many on the left hate the Lib Dems for propping up the Tories, I am none to pleased myself. As far as I'm concerned, the fault is with Labour for not getting rid of Gordon Brown, when it was clear he was useless and leading them to defeat. The whole party prostituted itself for his vanity and landed us in the calamitous situation we find ourselves in. They have made matters worse by choosing another leader who is totally unable to connect with the general public and who seems more interested in beating up working people defending their livelyhoods than he does taking the fight to the Tories. He should have backed the recent strikes to the hilt and pointed out that the reason the Tory leadership doesn't understand strikers is because they are all posh boy millionaires, who have no concept of what it is like to worry how you will pay the bills, if you are a low income family.
The Labour Party should be engaging with the radical and left leaning members of the Lib Dems to try and split the coalition, rather than seeing the coalition as the chance to polish off an annoying third party that is a pain in the arse. The Labour Party is under a very strange misapprehension that all of the Lib Dem supporters would vote Labour if the Lib Dems disappeared. This is simply not true. I suspect that what would actually happen is that we'd get a slim Tory majority on the split of seats. Labour should make it a 100% priority to ensure that there is non Tory/Lib Dem pact going into the next election.
I happen to believe that the biggest winner from the coalition is David Cameron. His cabinet is of a far higher calibre than it would have been with an outright Tory victory. I think he's what used to be called a "wet" (ie a Liberal Tory). He knew Osborne was a basket case, but didn't have a clue how to control him. The Lib Dems give him that power (to a degree). He also has a few people in the cabinet to calm the more insane members of his team down, when they start spouting nonsense. I've been told (and I don't know if it's true or not), that whenever the more Europhobic Tory cabinet members start going off on one, Vince Cable gives them a long, tedious lecture on the ways in which the EU benefits the UK economy. As they are all as thick as S*** and do not understand economics (Cable is a career economist, having worked for Shell) they have no choice but to back down, in the face of superior intellect.
Sadly, I think that we are all going to suffer the consequences of a shotgun wedding government, with a bipolar economic strategy. Unless Labour can get it's act together, elect an effective leader and get out on the streets campaigning side by side with it's natural supporters, we are faced with the unenviable choice of the coalition or a full blown Tory government, which to me is like a choice between cancer and the flu (which I am lucky enough to have both of right now!).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)