.jpg)
BARNET: THE MARRIAGE FROM HELL
We didn't sign up for this
I stepped out of Barnet Town Hall and into the rainy night on
Thursday, 6 December 2012, full of inspiration, full of things
to say in my blog about the extraordinary events I had
witnessed, those famous lines from Shakespeare's 'Henry V'
in my mind: "And gentlemen in England now a-bed, Shall think
themselves accursed they were not here".
But each time I made a start, a bIog appeared in print that
said it all and told it superbly. I was content to read rather than write: Mrs
Angry, Mr Reasonable, Mr Mustard, Barnet Eye, Citizen Barnet. But an idea was
germinating. My muse was doing its job and I had my subject.
There is an agreement between a Council and its electorate,
a relationship, a 'marriage' based on trust, commitment, empowerment, enablement,
the pooling of assets and resources for the common good of the family. And when
a marriage breaks down, as it has in Barnet, it is advisable amid blame and
accusations to consider both sides of the story.
In the case of The Residents of Barnet (Plaintiff) v
Conservative Barnet Council (Respondent) there seems to be little or no
possibility of a reconciliation. The inevitable consequence seems to be divorce
with either 'adultery' or 'unreasonable behaviour' as grounds. But though
things are acrimonious and fractious, realistically the injured party may have
to be patient and wait until 2014 to be free, but with consent on only one side
and no sign of a final settlement.
The grounds of 'unreasonable behaviour' can be argued by the
Plaintiff. A breakdown in communication resulting in secrecy and lies; the
Respondent risking the Plaintiff's hard-earned money on life-changing ventures without
their knowledge, without consultation and with no consideration of an
alternative; ignoring or ridiculing the Plaintiff's wishes. And as far as
'adultery' is concerned, the Respondent has eagerly jumped into bed with the
money-grabbing, discredited contractor, Capita, guaranteed of being screwed. To
hell with the Plaintiff, the vulnerable long-term partner who will have to pick
up the pieces and foot the bill if things go wrong.
The Respondent,
however, claims to be acting in everyone's best interests. So who
do the beleaguered Barnet Council Cabinet believe to be at fault? Who was responsible for the angry protest at
Barnet Town Hall on 6 December, when a packed public gallery chanting "You
have no mandate" and "Out, out, out" brought a Cabinet meeting
to a standstill and forced its members to run for the safety of an adjoining
room to continue the meeting in private with a police guard at its door to
protect them from their own electorate?
Opposition to
'One Barnet', they believe, is confined to a tiny minority. Richard Cornelius,
Leader of Tory Barnet Council, claimed at a public meeting on 9 November that
it is none other than the unions. Cornelius is stuck in a past in which Tories
blamed everything on "the unions" and "socialists". He continues to cling to that belief. The
unions are not only a spanner in the works, they make a fuss about people
losing their jobs. And Cornelius is not the only Tory member of the Cabinet who
feels this way. In an exultant, self-congratulatory blog Cllr Robert Rams
claims: "The decision is being opposed by the Barnet Alliance for Public
Services [BAPS], a front organisation for various trade unions." And former Barnet mayor, Brian Coleman, is
certain that some fantasy "Mr and Mrs Average Barnet would run a mile from
last night's disgraceful behaviour".
At the meeting on Thursday I sat beside an elegant, charming,
middle-aged woman who chanted quietly but with gusto along with everyone
else "We will not let you take our
democracy away". She seemed
surprised at her own behaviour and told me she was shy, but she was also angry.
Yet like Cornelius and Rams, Coleman believes that all opposition is down to a
small bunch of pesky lefties.
As there has been no public consultation it is not
surprising that the Tories have got it so wrong. Cornelius should have bothered to listen at
the BAPS-organised question and answer session that attracted hundreds of
concerned Barnet residents. He would have heard one resident after another
declare that they had never been involved in politics before"
I've been impressed at recent 'One Barnet' meetings by the
diversity and number of people who have turned up to express their concerns, wanting
to be part of a democratic process that has so far been denied them. On
Thursday, there were indeed representatives of UNISON there to protect the
hundreds of jobs that will be lost in Barnet. That is their job. A grinning
Cornelius made it clear on 9 November that he couldn't see there was a problem
about jobs going out of the Borough (http://ibloggeuse.blogspot.co.uk). He said as much on BBC 'Sunday Politics'. It
would be so much easier for Cornelius and Rams if all those vulnerable
employees had no-one to support them and fight for their rights. (Councillor Cornelius's Delores http://ibloggeuse.blogspot.co.uk )
The Labour Party and Lib Dems were opposing 'One Barnet',
because among other things it has no mandate, has never been compared with any
alternative to see if it is indeed better or worse than any other option, and they
are against Council services being run far from the Borough to make profits for
a giant private company.
Members of the Barnet Alliance for Public Services (BAPS) were
in attendance and led the protest. BAPS is not a "front for various trade
unions" as the paranoid Rams claims. It is made up of "residents,
local organisations and trade unions campaigning for high quality public
services in the London Borough of Barnet".
Disparate groups have come together with a common aim: to democratically
organise and unite against 'One Barnet'.
They are residents and business owners of all ages and backgrounds,
apolitical or from across the political spectrum (including, yes, Tories and
even UKIP). BAPS already have more than
7,000 signatures on their petition. Can
they all be dangerous "lefties" eager to fly the red flag over
Totteridge, which is Rams' ludicrous scenario? Perhaps this sort of
scaremongering goes down well in certain Tory circles, but it just reveals that
Rams like Cornelius has misjudged their opposition as they have misjudged
everything else.
Millions of pounds have been spent by the Council on
external consultants and the cabinet is content to act on their
"expert" advice and that of their officers rather than read the
contract themselves. But it wouldn't
make any difference if they had.
Cornelius clearly stated on 9 November that he would be recommending 'One
Barnet' to go ahead on 6 December. He also admitted that with a month to go the
contract had not been seen, was incomplete and certain information was still to
be received. He had already made up his
mind before even the advisers, on whom he and his cabinet were relying, had
seen a complete contract. He had decided to go ahead on a wing and a song.
The Tories are living in the past in a rapidly changing
world as are their advisers. Outsourcing
has become outdated, discredited, rejected. There are new models that successfully
keep services in-house for the economic and social benefit of the local
community. The Council hasn't even considered
such an option. Read this article by an IT expert in the latest edition of Computer
Weekly about the 'One Barnet' IT outsourcing. The alarm bells are not only ringing, they are
deafening.
No comments:
Post a Comment