I have been helping to organise a meeting called 'Barnet residents: We can Shape our own Future'. It's at 7-9pm on Wednesday 4 March at Barnet Multicultural Community Centre, Algernon Road, NW4 3TA. I invite you all to attend!
Regular readers will spot the reference in the title of the meeting to Barnet Council's 'Future Shape' plan, which started out life as a grandiose plan to privatise vast swathes of the council's services, but - since that aroused the ire of vast swathes of the Barnet populace - is now being sold as 'oh, nothing out of the ordinary, just the odd bit of contracting out here or there'. Or perhaps I am being too optimistic...
At the meeting, Professor Dexter Whitfield, of the European Services Strategy Unit, will describe the context - political, economic - for local government moves to privatise. Those who want to can ask more detailed questions about Future Shape, and share campaigning ideas. There will also be a chance for other campaigners from the borough to describe their work. And a representative of the postal workers' union, CWU, will put the case against part-privatisation of Royal Mail.
It promises to be a very varied evening, hopefully with everyone able to contribute some ideas and get inspiration for their own work. Please try to get along, and please tell friends, colleagues and neighbours about it. Email info@barnettuc.org.uk with any questions or to request leaflets/posters.
Saturday, 28 February 2009
Friday, 27 February 2009
Barnet council's budget consultation - catch it while you can
I'm not sure that it's actually better than nothing, but Barnet council is seeking people's comments on its budget proposals for 2009-2010 online. The catch is you only have a day left to do it (they did actually put it up there a few days ago, but only the eagle-eyed have spotted it at all).
In the olden days (as far back as the 1980s) quite a large number of people in a borough would have a rough idea of what the council's budget was to be - at this stage of the cycle there would have been a few marches to the town hall, several rowdy public meetings, activists in all the main parties and many fringe parties would have discussed the budget headlines, e.g., any proposed cuts, and would have taken a position on them which they would by now have defended in full public glare.
The causes for the decline of local democracy are many, but it's clear that there is a problem and that the rot must stop! I find it staggering, but I'm afraid it's true, that Mike Freer et al believe that the residents of Barnet are not interested in questions like this, and that that is the reason they do not, for example, take part in token 'online consultations' like this budget consultation, or submit questions for 'public question time' at council meetings.
Is Mike Freer so arrogant as to believe that the poverty of residents' engagement with council policies is due to their complete satisfaction with his regime? Or so cynical as to believe that residents do not give a fig what the council does? Me, I suspect he doesn't think too hard about these questions at all, but is just happy enough to be getting away with things: what residents don't know about can't hurt them, and, anyway, they seem happy enough.
It's time to use the democratic channels that do exist - please take part in the online consultation, if you've time in the next 24 hours. But also take the time to find out more about how you can hold the council to account. There is information about it here, and it is certainly a theme that I will return to again and again (for my hordes of avid readers).
In the olden days (as far back as the 1980s) quite a large number of people in a borough would have a rough idea of what the council's budget was to be - at this stage of the cycle there would have been a few marches to the town hall, several rowdy public meetings, activists in all the main parties and many fringe parties would have discussed the budget headlines, e.g., any proposed cuts, and would have taken a position on them which they would by now have defended in full public glare.
The causes for the decline of local democracy are many, but it's clear that there is a problem and that the rot must stop! I find it staggering, but I'm afraid it's true, that Mike Freer et al believe that the residents of Barnet are not interested in questions like this, and that that is the reason they do not, for example, take part in token 'online consultations' like this budget consultation, or submit questions for 'public question time' at council meetings.
Is Mike Freer so arrogant as to believe that the poverty of residents' engagement with council policies is due to their complete satisfaction with his regime? Or so cynical as to believe that residents do not give a fig what the council does? Me, I suspect he doesn't think too hard about these questions at all, but is just happy enough to be getting away with things: what residents don't know about can't hurt them, and, anyway, they seem happy enough.
It's time to use the democratic channels that do exist - please take part in the online consultation, if you've time in the next 24 hours. But also take the time to find out more about how you can hold the council to account. There is information about it here, and it is certainly a theme that I will return to again and again (for my hordes of avid readers).
Mike Freer dumps partner by text
It's been noted by Barnet bloggers that Mike Freer has begun posting reports of long-ago meetings on his Leader Listens blog (aka Has Mike Freer Got Old News for You), probably in a desperate attempt to redress the serious lack of content (to use the jargon) so far.
At least he had the decency this week to apologise for his tardiness. At the start of a post about 'Leader Listens - Finchley Church End 2 October 2008', posted on 24 February 2009, he said:
Councillor Alan Schneiderman referred Freer to an article in the Sunday Times that was scathing about the sort of people that use Twitter.
I don't honestly think that Mike Freer wants to use Twitter, it's just that the council (or someone in it) has decided to go in for all of this social media stuff. Unfortunately, it just isn't an appropriate use of the council leader's time, I believe, to be posting inane, maximum 140 character messages to whichever people are sad (or vengeful) enough to follow what he is doing. And it can tempt him to do crass things like, in my view, dumping the Local Government Association by text! This is particularly egregious behaviour, since they recently gave him a page to boast about Barnet's social media revolution.
Let's stop trying to get down with the kids, because it'll soon only be 40-year-olds who'll be using these toys, anyway. We might not have the wit to invent this stuff, but we can, most of us, work out how to use it pretty quickly. Frankly, there are many, many more grown-up ways for the council to communicate important policies and decisions to the residents, and it is this that they are failing to do properly. See the next post on the 2009-2010 budget for a burning example!
At least he had the decency this week to apologise for his tardiness. At the start of a post about 'Leader Listens - Finchley Church End 2 October 2008', posted on 24 February 2009, he said:
[Apologies for the delay in this post - I am catching up and will endeavour to post feedback on events far sooner after each Leader Listens event once I have]At the Cabinet Overview and Scrutiny Committee on Monday 23 February, Freer was invited to assess the usefulness of the council's much vaunted use of social media (Flickr, Twitter, Leader Listens, etc). His enthusiasm was luke-warm, to say the least, but he boasted (half-jokingly) about his prolific output on Twitter.
I visited Finchley Church End in early October last year to speak to the residents about any issues or suggestions they had about their neighbourhood... [etc.]
Councillor Alan Schneiderman referred Freer to an article in the Sunday Times that was scathing about the sort of people that use Twitter.
I don't honestly think that Mike Freer wants to use Twitter, it's just that the council (or someone in it) has decided to go in for all of this social media stuff. Unfortunately, it just isn't an appropriate use of the council leader's time, I believe, to be posting inane, maximum 140 character messages to whichever people are sad (or vengeful) enough to follow what he is doing. And it can tempt him to do crass things like, in my view, dumping the Local Government Association by text! This is particularly egregious behaviour, since they recently gave him a page to boast about Barnet's social media revolution.
Let's stop trying to get down with the kids, because it'll soon only be 40-year-olds who'll be using these toys, anyway. We might not have the wit to invent this stuff, but we can, most of us, work out how to use it pretty quickly. Frankly, there are many, many more grown-up ways for the council to communicate important policies and decisions to the residents, and it is this that they are failing to do properly. See the next post on the 2009-2010 budget for a burning example!
Tuesday, 24 February 2009
My housing journey, Or: Around London in 80 sub-standard, private, rented dwellings
Other bloggers have covered the story that Mike Freer wants to build fewer 'affordable housing' units in Barnet than even Boris Johnson. Read the story here and Rog T's comment here.
It is interesting to see Tory councillor Lynne Hillan, cabinet member for community services, admit that the free market cannot deliver a fundamental, human need*:
Thankfully, the Cabinet Overview and Scrutiny Committee afterwards went through the same documents in more detail. For fully an hour and a half, Labour and Liberal councillors questioned Barnet council leader Mike Freer about details of the budget and corporate plan.
Some good points were made; I hope to cover them in future posts. Commenting on the affordable housing issue, Mike Freer said that was all covered by the regeneration projects. Labour's Alison Moore, who is Freer's adversary in the battle to replace Rudi Vis as MP for Finchley and Golders Green, pointed out that the number of new homes built would barely replace the number of homes lost when the old estates were pulled down.
Mike Freer used some jargon during the debate, which I think he has picked up at a conference, about a 'housing journey'.
The vision this phrase conjures is of a struggling but hopeful young couple in their 20s, able only to rent a small but cosy flat in a nice street, but who progress, steadily, over the years, thanks to the inevitable professional advancement and accompanying salary rises, and with the addition of one or two beautiful children, to owning a detached house in Monken Hadley (or some other smart part of Barnet - I'm not au fait with these things).
Of course, the reality is nothing like this for most people. I reflected on my own 'housing journey'. I started out in London as an impoverished student, albeit on a full grant and able to claim housing benefit in the holidays, moving from Kent, and found myself over the years in various sub-standard, private, rented dwellings, or at best, housing association accommodation. Currently I live in a nice, big house in Burnt Oak, on which my other half pays a nice, big mortgage. But I feel that my 'housing journey' is far from over, and that I could easily find myself sliding back down the housing ladder (snakes and ladders is an apt metaphor here). On my journey, I have never attained that holy grail, a council flat/house, and it is still, in many ways, my fantasy!
Most people's housing journey is similarly tortuous, and often leads to a dead-end. Is it seriously beyond us, in a developed economy, to provide a decent, affordable, secure roof over everyone's head? From that so much else would flow: less debt, less stress, less illness, less waste, more stability, more neighbourliness... The savings would be enormous (if you're determined to reckon everything in pounds and pence).
Check out the excellent Defend Council Housing campaign. They have a meeting in Parliament this Wedneday 25 February from 6-8pm.
*Thanks to a socialist friend in Finchley for spelling it out in this way.
It is interesting to see Tory councillor Lynne Hillan, cabinet member for community services, admit that the free market cannot deliver a fundamental, human need*:
“...we rely solely on private developers to provide affordable housing and all across the country development plans have come to a full-stop. They can’t borrow money and there is no guarantee they will be able to sell the properties at the end.”As a member of the public I attended the Barnet council Cabinet meeting last night, which took less than 20 minutes to agree next year's Budget and the Corporate plan for 2009/10 to 2012/13. They are ruthlessly efficient these Tory councillors!
Thankfully, the Cabinet Overview and Scrutiny Committee afterwards went through the same documents in more detail. For fully an hour and a half, Labour and Liberal councillors questioned Barnet council leader Mike Freer about details of the budget and corporate plan.
Some good points were made; I hope to cover them in future posts. Commenting on the affordable housing issue, Mike Freer said that was all covered by the regeneration projects. Labour's Alison Moore, who is Freer's adversary in the battle to replace Rudi Vis as MP for Finchley and Golders Green, pointed out that the number of new homes built would barely replace the number of homes lost when the old estates were pulled down.
Mike Freer used some jargon during the debate, which I think he has picked up at a conference, about a 'housing journey'.
The vision this phrase conjures is of a struggling but hopeful young couple in their 20s, able only to rent a small but cosy flat in a nice street, but who progress, steadily, over the years, thanks to the inevitable professional advancement and accompanying salary rises, and with the addition of one or two beautiful children, to owning a detached house in Monken Hadley (or some other smart part of Barnet - I'm not au fait with these things).
Of course, the reality is nothing like this for most people. I reflected on my own 'housing journey'. I started out in London as an impoverished student, albeit on a full grant and able to claim housing benefit in the holidays, moving from Kent, and found myself over the years in various sub-standard, private, rented dwellings, or at best, housing association accommodation. Currently I live in a nice, big house in Burnt Oak, on which my other half pays a nice, big mortgage. But I feel that my 'housing journey' is far from over, and that I could easily find myself sliding back down the housing ladder (snakes and ladders is an apt metaphor here). On my journey, I have never attained that holy grail, a council flat/house, and it is still, in many ways, my fantasy!
Most people's housing journey is similarly tortuous, and often leads to a dead-end. Is it seriously beyond us, in a developed economy, to provide a decent, affordable, secure roof over everyone's head? From that so much else would flow: less debt, less stress, less illness, less waste, more stability, more neighbourliness... The savings would be enormous (if you're determined to reckon everything in pounds and pence).
Check out the excellent Defend Council Housing campaign. They have a meeting in Parliament this Wedneday 25 February from 6-8pm.
*Thanks to a socialist friend in Finchley for spelling it out in this way.
Friday, 20 February 2009
Closing Barnet's Welfare Rights Unit would be an act of mindless vandalism
Not surprisingly, the unemployment rate is going up in Barnet, as it is everywhere. At the same time, Mike Freer wants to close Barnet council's own Welfare Rights Unit that, among many vital functions, advises people on the benefits they are entitled to claim. This would be an act of vandalism on a highly successful service, when Barnet residents will be needing it more than ever.
Read the Barnet Unison report on why the WRU should not be closed here. You will see that the WRU's work is most important for some of the most vulnerable members of the community.
Read the local Times report on unemployment here.
I have written a comment which I reproduce below.
Read the Barnet Unison report on why the WRU should not be closed here. You will see that the WRU's work is most important for some of the most vulnerable members of the community.
Read the local Times report on unemployment here.
I have written a comment which I reproduce below.
Is this the same Mike Freer that plans on Monday night to steer 'cessation' (closure) of the Welfare Rights Unit through the Council Cabinet meeting?
The WRU, a council service, has been successfully advising Barnet residents on claiming benefits that they are entitled to. Now Freer wants to close it to shave a bit of money off the council budget - but in fact the borough will lose out because less money will come into it in benefits claimed, and the settlement that central government makes to the council is partly based on the number of benefits claimants.
Freer claims that third-sector organisations - charities and so on - already receiving grants from the council can do the work that the Welfare Rights Unit does. But many of them have written to the council to protest at the proposed closure of the WRU - WRU and third-sector organisations work TOGETHER to achieve successful outcomes. Noah's Ark Children's Hospice, Disability Action in the Borough of Barnet, Barnet Mencap, and numerous sections of the council's own social and welfare services have written to support keeping WRU up and running.
Closure of the WRU would be an act of vandalism on a successful service at a time when it will be needed most.
If you agree, please email Mike Freer to let him know your views - Mike@finchleyconservatives.com - and come to the Council cabinet meeting on Monday night to protest.
7pm, Barnet House, 1255 High Road, Whetstone, N20 0EJ; directions here.
Email info@barnettuc.org.uk for more information.
Barnet council prize draw scandal
We are getting used to dodgy quizzes on the television, where you pay to take part but there are no prizes (and sometimes no competition), but this is Barnet council's novel reversal of the concept - giving iPod Touchs away free to the tiny handful of people who ever post a comment on its 'social media' site whereilive.org.
When I initially registered for the site some months ago, I don't remember being told anything about a prize draw. Given how few people register on this site, the odds of winning, if this prize draw turns out to be a regular feature, must be pretty short so I shall check back often! (There aren't many other incentives for going on there.)
I see that the most recent poster on whereilive.org is still the very prolific 'Postal Comments', although what they have to say most recently I find tragically apt: "This [whereilive.org] will only make a difference if Barnet listened and acted according to the results of its consultations". Fat chance of that, sunshine!
This is how whereilive.org broke the news about the latest lucky 'winner' of an iPod Touch:
When I initially registered for the site some months ago, I don't remember being told anything about a prize draw. Given how few people register on this site, the odds of winning, if this prize draw turns out to be a regular feature, must be pretty short so I shall check back often! (There aren't many other incentives for going on there.)
I see that the most recent poster on whereilive.org is still the very prolific 'Postal Comments', although what they have to say most recently I find tragically apt: "This [whereilive.org] will only make a difference if Barnet listened and acted according to the results of its consultations". Fat chance of that, sunshine!
This is how whereilive.org broke the news about the latest lucky 'winner' of an iPod Touch:
whereilive.org prize winner
BarnetCouncil posted this on February 17th, 2009
Congratulations to Kathy Linton of New Barnet, who was the lucky winner of our prize draw (everyone who registered on whereilive.org was entered into this prize draw). Kathy won an Ipod Touch which she says her family are really looking forward to using.
Kathy told us the reasons why she registered was that she came across the site after seeing the speech bubbles on lamp posts in Mill Hill and went home to register and post a comment:
“Hi, I have lived in Barnet for 14 years now and I have to say I love it. I only have one bug bare and this is it. Yes our parks are pretty but the play equipment is useless. If we want to take our kids, age 10, 8 and 6 to a park with decent play equipment we have to go into neighbouring borough Enfield. My local park, near Underhill is easily accessible to us in Hillier close by bike or foot. However when you do get there the play equipment is broken and only suitable for very young children. Oakhill Park is also beautiful and very spacious, but again the park equipment is only suitable for those 8 and under. Come on Barnet loads of mums despair at our parks. I know this because we always meet up in Enfields excellent parks, i.e Oakwood, Broomfield and Grovelands, and moan about Barnet's parks”.
A Council spokesman said: “Many thanks Kathy for your comments [posted in November 2008]. You’ll be pleased to hear that we’ll be looking to improve play within the borough and will be consulting with residents as part of the Government’s funded Play Builder Scheme.”
Tuesday, 17 February 2009
I refer the hon. Resident to the reply that I gave some moments ago
Quite separately, I devised some questions about Future Shape to put to the Hendon residents' forum on 5 February, and David Howard, Chair of the Federation of Residents' Associations in Barnet (FORAB), devised some questions about Future Shape to put to the Chipping Barnet residents' forum on 17 February.
Not surprisingly, they were quite similar questions because they are the most obvious questions that a concerned resident might ask about the Future Shape programme.
My questions were: When and how does the council intend to inform Barnet residents about the Future Shape programme; will it seek their opinions on the proposals; how will it respond if Barnet residents reject the proposals?
To which Richard Grice, Future Shape programme director, replied:
To which Richard Grice, Future Shape programme director, replied:
Is this what the council means by being economical, using the same answer for two different residents at different forums asking similar but different questions? It's contemptuous, is what I call it.
Not surprisingly, they were quite similar questions because they are the most obvious questions that a concerned resident might ask about the Future Shape programme.
My questions were: When and how does the council intend to inform Barnet residents about the Future Shape programme; will it seek their opinions on the proposals; how will it respond if Barnet residents reject the proposals?
To which Richard Grice, Future Shape programme director, replied:
The Future Shape of the Council programme is a direct response to concerns raised by residents about access to and the cost of services. These concerns are reflected in the Annual resident survey and other consultation and engagement initiatives, such as whereilive.org. In the period to June 2009, a number of groups will explore ways in which improvements and savings will be made. Many of these will consult in a targeted way with Barnet residents. For example we have a group looking at the way we assess people with complex needs in the Borough and we will be talking to a group of families about their experiences and how these can be improved.David Howard's questions were: What proposals does the council have to include the ratepayers of Barnet in the Future Shape of the Council Programme? Will the public have an input to the discussions before any decision is made? Will the public have an opportunity to vote in a referendum on any major changes?
Officers will report back to the Council in the summer detailing proposals about where savings and improvements can be made. Should the Council decide after that to change what services are provided or who supplies them, this will be done on a business case by business case basis, taking full account of the likely impact on residents and staff, and the risks involved. This is in line with the way that previous decisions of this type have been made.
To which Richard Grice, Future Shape programme director, replied:
The Future Shape of the Council programme is a direct response to concerns raised by residents about access to and the cost of services. These concerns are reflected in the Annual resident survey and other consultation and engagement initiatives, such as whereilive.org. In the period to June 2009, a number of groups will explore ways in which improvements and savings will be made.As you will see, this is - but for a couple of punctuation changes due to hasty cutting and pasting - an identical answer to that he gave me on 5 February. I admit our questions were similiar, but they were not identical. As it happens, I consider Mr Grice replied to me quite poorly, and I daresay David Howard feels similarly.
Many of these will consult in a targeted way with Barnet residents. For example we have a group looking at the way we assess people with complex needs in the Borough and we will be talking to a group of families about their experiences and how these can be improved.
We will report back to the Council in the summer detailing proposals about where savings and improvements can be made. Should the Council decide after that to change what services are provided or who supplies them, this will be done on a business case by business case basis, taking full account of the likely impact on residents and staff, and the risks involved. This is in line with the way that previous decisions of this type have been made
Is this what the council means by being economical, using the same answer for two different residents at different forums asking similar but different questions? It's contemptuous, is what I call it.
Sunday, 15 February 2009
Sign the petition to stop Essex County Council sell-off
I reported recently how Essex County Council services are being privatised in a contract worth £5bn over eight years. The first that most people knew about this was when they read the tender advert in the EU Journal: that's right, there had been no consultation with councillors, residents or council employees.
Council union Unison has posted a protest petition on the 10 Downing Street website. Sign it here (text below).
Council union Unison has posted a protest petition on the 10 Downing Street website. Sign it here (text below).
Title of petition: Essex County Council Outsourcing
UNISON is deeply concerned that the current "Transformational Services and Delivery Support" procurement exercise by Essex County Council is in breach of European Procurement Regulations. UNISON is calling on Essex County Council to scrap the current exercise and open full discussions with the trade unions about the development of an in-house service improvement plan prior to any tendering process. This will help safeguard the future of staff and council services.
This unprecedented sale, which is worth over £5 billion over an eight year period, offers virtually any public service for sale. The legal consultation period was never adhered to or discussed with any County Council Committee, County Councillors or the Cabinet.
But most importantly, the Council has breached its statutory duty in failing to consult or inform local people whose interests it is supposed to serve.
Wednesday, 11 February 2009
Fight for jobs! Solidarity, not nationalism and racism! And, while we're about it, how about not getting down into the gutter with the Daily Star?
One of trade union Unite's general secretaries (it's complicated), Derek Simpson, shows here (photo by Jess Hurd) how not to fight for jobs, and how to be sexist, nationalist and look a sad plonker all at the same time.
I cottoned onto this because a couple of friends went down to the Isle of Grain, Kent today to take part in a protest for jobs - and to argue against the use of divisive, nationalist slogans.
While they were there the Daily Star turned up with some 'British Jobs for British Workers' posters, some Star Birds and a group of 'oafs', according to my friend, masquerading as local workers. The oafs gave one of my friends, who is black, a hard time, then posed for their photo with Star Birds and posters. How bloody heroic.
Last night Barnet trades council (Barnet TUC) had its first AGM since its relaunch last year. It was a really good meeting, with guest speakers including Unite busworkers and the Campaign for Better Transport - for more on their local relevance read this (later, please).
On the issue of the fight to defend jobs, we passed the following resolution, which we think is a better response to the jobs crisis than what the idiotic Simpson is offering:
I cottoned onto this because a couple of friends went down to the Isle of Grain, Kent today to take part in a protest for jobs - and to argue against the use of divisive, nationalist slogans.
While they were there the Daily Star turned up with some 'British Jobs for British Workers' posters, some Star Birds and a group of 'oafs', according to my friend, masquerading as local workers. The oafs gave one of my friends, who is black, a hard time, then posed for their photo with Star Birds and posters. How bloody heroic.
Last night Barnet trades council (Barnet TUC) had its first AGM since its relaunch last year. It was a really good meeting, with guest speakers including Unite busworkers and the Campaign for Better Transport - for more on their local relevance read this (later, please).
On the issue of the fight to defend jobs, we passed the following resolution, which we think is a better response to the jobs crisis than what the idiotic Simpson is offering:
Unite and fight for jobs! Solidarity, not nationalism and racism!
The recent wildcat strikes by construction workers are a welcome fight for jobs. It is a fight that is long overdue – the leadership of the trade union movement have not done enough to defend workers from the effects of the financial and economic crisis, or to lead their members in a response to the crisis.
Construction workers are one among many groups threatened as employers use tactics of divide and rule, where workers – within the UK and across borders – are encouraged to compete against each other for jobs, by accepting lower and lower wages and conditions, or undermining union agreements.
The specific issues involved in the recent dispute at the Lindsey Oil Refinery, and at other construction sites, must be seen in the context of the wider employers’ offensive, but also in the context of what we need to defeat it: a united fightback by all sections of workers within the UK and across borders.
The slogan ‘British jobs for British workers’ and variations on it have a dangerous nationalist logic which threatens to alienate UK workers who do not necessarily identify as British, at a time when we need to build links of solidarity between groups of workers. They encourage groups like the BNP who are the bitter enemies of working class people. The slogan and variations on it militate against building unity among workers across Europe, who are fighting the same attacks and the same employing class, and sometimes the same employer.
We resolve to fight for jobs, improving pay and conditions, to fight for unity between workers in the UK and across borders, to reject nationalism and racism – they cannot help workers to fight for jobs and only serve to divide us. We also resolve to fight anti-union laws that impede solidarity.
Monday, 9 February 2009
Meet Postal Comments, Barnet's most active citizen
Please check out this website and tell me what you think of it. I would draw your attention particularly to the Forum section and Events. I would be interested in whether you think it deserves the endorsement it got recently from Richard Grice, Future Shape programme director.
If you look at Forum and Events you will perhaps understand my scepticism. Sherlock-like I have looked at the clues I found there and suggest the following narrative:
Forum: the website has been around since September 2008. In November-December 2008 a member of Barnet staff was employed typing in a load of comments/complaints that some department of the council had received by post (explains the posts made by the prolific contributor 'Postal Comments'). This was done to kick-start the website forums. Since then scarcely a living soul has visited the forum to add a remark.
Events: hardly anyone has posted any events. Witness February. It looks like only the Beaver Scouts are making any regular use of it. Before anyone accuses me of being a miserable-hearted knocker, please look at December 2008. You will see there that I have entered an event, the unions' 'Future Shape' lobby of Barnet council Cabinet on 3 December. I believe in giving these things a chance. It's just that I think you have to come to the conclusion that this website is not doing what it was set up to do, and certainly not what Richard Grice claims for it - providing a means to engage with Barnet residents - in any meaningful fashion whatsoever.
It is not living up to its billing. On the website itself it says:
A failure or, worse, a fraud?
It's one thing to say that the whereilive.org website has failed to live up to expectations. There is a debate to be had about whether it represents good value for money. I will try to find out the cost and let you know what I think on that score.
But I think worse things are going on than that. During my investigations, I have learned that Barnet council has gained a high reputation among local government professionals for innovation in the way it engages with residents using social media. I have read articles on many websites making claims along these lines (see here, for example) but I think that's cr*p and to go on claiming as much is nigh-on fraudulent.
If you look at Forum and Events you will perhaps understand my scepticism. Sherlock-like I have looked at the clues I found there and suggest the following narrative:
Forum: the website has been around since September 2008. In November-December 2008 a member of Barnet staff was employed typing in a load of comments/complaints that some department of the council had received by post (explains the posts made by the prolific contributor 'Postal Comments'). This was done to kick-start the website forums. Since then scarcely a living soul has visited the forum to add a remark.
Events: hardly anyone has posted any events. Witness February. It looks like only the Beaver Scouts are making any regular use of it. Before anyone accuses me of being a miserable-hearted knocker, please look at December 2008. You will see there that I have entered an event, the unions' 'Future Shape' lobby of Barnet council Cabinet on 3 December. I believe in giving these things a chance. It's just that I think you have to come to the conclusion that this website is not doing what it was set up to do, and certainly not what Richard Grice claims for it - providing a means to engage with Barnet residents - in any meaningful fashion whatsoever.
It is not living up to its billing. On the website itself it says:
As Barnet is experiencing rapid social change we need to build a stronger relationship with our citizens, have wider and deeper conversations to help understand their needs and preferences. The council has a role to provide the space for citizens to debate with the council and public agencies, and with each other, the competing priorities and build a consensus on priorities for the area, and explain how decisions are reached. This new social media website provides an excellent platform to have this conversation with our residents.I admit that I haven't ventured into the part of the site dedicated to videos, I will do that tomorrow. The photos section looks at a first glance singularly uninspiring. I doubt either of these sections can turn my opinion around.
A failure or, worse, a fraud?
It's one thing to say that the whereilive.org website has failed to live up to expectations. There is a debate to be had about whether it represents good value for money. I will try to find out the cost and let you know what I think on that score.
But I think worse things are going on than that. During my investigations, I have learned that Barnet council has gained a high reputation among local government professionals for innovation in the way it engages with residents using social media. I have read articles on many websites making claims along these lines (see here, for example) but I think that's cr*p and to go on claiming as much is nigh-on fraudulent.
TUC, get off your fat behinds
I am back from France where they really know how to organise against a jobs massacre. That said, there also the momentum has come from the grassroots, but even their trade union bureaucrats are not as supine as ours: the British TUC has called a march on jobs, the economic crisis, etc... at the end of March*. In the meantime, they leave trade union activists in construction alone to navigate as best they can between the treacherous banks of nationalism/protectionism and private contractors undermining union agreements while BNP pirates threaten to hijack the fleet... and all in the freezing winds and snow of January/February.
I hope to reflect the employment climate in Barnet at this time, so if anyone has any news/stories, please get in touch c/o the trades council: publicity@barnettuc.org.uk. Thank you.
We used to say 'TUC, get off your knees', to tell them to get some backbone and pride, but I think TUC, get off your fat, lazy behinds is more to the point today. I mean, it's not as if the ideological edifice of capitalism isn't crumbling around us...
* Actually, I am probably being too kind to them even now - the TUC, along with several dozen other organisations, has called a march to coincide with the G20 summit, which, I hear, might be in Watford... hmm... just up the road. Anyway, but for the G20 summit being held on their patch and this march being there for them to piggy-back on, I wonder whether they would have organised anything.
I hope to reflect the employment climate in Barnet at this time, so if anyone has any news/stories, please get in touch c/o the trades council: publicity@barnettuc.org.uk. Thank you.
We used to say 'TUC, get off your knees', to tell them to get some backbone and pride, but I think TUC, get off your fat, lazy behinds is more to the point today. I mean, it's not as if the ideological edifice of capitalism isn't crumbling around us...
* Actually, I am probably being too kind to them even now - the TUC, along with several dozen other organisations, has called a march to coincide with the G20 summit, which, I hear, might be in Watford... hmm... just up the road. Anyway, but for the G20 summit being held on their patch and this march being there for them to piggy-back on, I wonder whether they would have organised anything.
Thursday, 5 February 2009
Out of office
I am away from the office now and will not return until Monday 9 February. If you urgently need to read or say something trenchant about the administration of Barnet council please contact Roger T at http://barneteye.blogspot.com/.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Hendon residents' forum: counting the hours
I am off to the Hendon residents' forum tonight to pose some questions about the Future Shape programme. Richard Grice, Future Shape programme director, has already provided some written answers to these. I haven't got time now to tell you what I think of them, but maybe after the meeting.
I had been slightly nervous about this, my first such meeting, but looking at the agenda I can see that I will be among friends.
My questions and Grice's answers:
Qs: When and how does the council intend to inform Barnet residents about the Future Shape programme; will it seek their opinions on the proposals; how will it respond if Barnet residents reject the proposals?
As: The Future Shape of the Council programme is a direct response to concerns raised by residents about access to and the cost of services. These concerns are reflected in the Annual resident survey and other consultation and engagement initiatives, such as whereilive.org. In the period to June 2009, a number of groups will explore ways in which improvements and savings will be made. Many of these will consult in a targeted way with Barnet residents. For example we have a group looking at the way we assess people with complex needs in the Borough and we will be talking to a group of families about their experiences and how these can be improved.
Officers will report back to the Council in the summer detailing proposals about where savings and improvements can be made. Should the Council decide after that to change what services are provided or who supplies them, this will be done on a business case by business case basis, taking full account of the likely impact on residents and staff, and the risks involved. This is in line with the way that previous decisions of this type have been made.
Q and petition: The Council’s Future Shape programme is likely to have profound effects on the way council services are delivered in future. So far, however, the information available to residents about the programme has been too little and what has been available has been difficult to understand. The Plain English Campaign described the Future Shape report passed at the Cabinet meeting on 3 December 2008 thus: “From a plain English point of view, it is an awful document”. We are petitioning the Council to make a clear, plain English version of the Future Shape programme available to the public so that residents can judge for themselves what they think of it.
A: Articles have been included on the future shape of the Council programme in recent editions of Barnet First, delivered to all residents, and it is planned to make more use of Barnet Online in the future. Officers will make available a short summary of the background to and progress of the programme on Barnet Online.
Meantime, have fun with this. I can't wait to, nudge, nudge! Wordles as well! But later...
I had been slightly nervous about this, my first such meeting, but looking at the agenda I can see that I will be among friends.
My questions and Grice's answers:
Qs: When and how does the council intend to inform Barnet residents about the Future Shape programme; will it seek their opinions on the proposals; how will it respond if Barnet residents reject the proposals?
As: The Future Shape of the Council programme is a direct response to concerns raised by residents about access to and the cost of services. These concerns are reflected in the Annual resident survey and other consultation and engagement initiatives, such as whereilive.org. In the period to June 2009, a number of groups will explore ways in which improvements and savings will be made. Many of these will consult in a targeted way with Barnet residents. For example we have a group looking at the way we assess people with complex needs in the Borough and we will be talking to a group of families about their experiences and how these can be improved.
Officers will report back to the Council in the summer detailing proposals about where savings and improvements can be made. Should the Council decide after that to change what services are provided or who supplies them, this will be done on a business case by business case basis, taking full account of the likely impact on residents and staff, and the risks involved. This is in line with the way that previous decisions of this type have been made.
Q and petition: The Council’s Future Shape programme is likely to have profound effects on the way council services are delivered in future. So far, however, the information available to residents about the programme has been too little and what has been available has been difficult to understand. The Plain English Campaign described the Future Shape report passed at the Cabinet meeting on 3 December 2008 thus: “From a plain English point of view, it is an awful document”. We are petitioning the Council to make a clear, plain English version of the Future Shape programme available to the public so that residents can judge for themselves what they think of it.
A: Articles have been included on the future shape of the Council programme in recent editions of Barnet First, delivered to all residents, and it is planned to make more use of Barnet Online in the future. Officers will make available a short summary of the background to and progress of the programme on Barnet Online.
Meantime, have fun with this. I can't wait to, nudge, nudge! Wordles as well! But later...
Wednesday, 4 February 2009
Today, I am mostly feeling...
'"Give me your tired, your poor,I found out today that there is a blog called Friends of Freer (does what it says on the tin). It aims to counteract "the cynical, the twisted, the unfair, the miserable" of Barnet who dare to bring to book, call to account, and generally ask the odd question of Mike Freer, leader of Barnet council.
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore,
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"'
(Extract from 'The New Colossus' by Emma Lazarus, poem engraved inside the Statue of Liberty)
It struck me that I sometimes fall into one of these categories (cynical, twisted, unfair, miserable), and, on bad days, all four at once. Today, after tearing into Waitrose doing a Wenceslas, I must mostly be feeling... miserable.
The paucity of our ambition
I have thought further about the good-news-story below (Yours for 240 pints of milk) and it has just sunk in that it actually reveals a profound level of stinginess in the council. The council was going around, checking on vulnerable residents in the snowy weather, as it should. It was clear that those people might be without basic necessities, but instead of the council forking out for bread, fruit, vegetables, the wherewithal to cook a couple of decent meals, and so on, it found them... a pint of milk. And it did not find the money for the milk from its own pocket, but thought, I know, we'll ask some supermarket, in return for some good PR, to provide... something. And the extent of their ambition was... a pint of milk.
I'm not saying that other councils would have been more generous. I don't know. But it really shows what a manky society we have become when a council leader thinks it's something to crow about when the council provides zilch and a supermarket coughs up for 240 pints of milk, while, I wouldn't be surprised, thousands of vulnerable people sat indoors for days with little decent to eat. At least some of them had the consolation of a nice cuppa, eh?
I'm not saying that other councils would have been more generous. I don't know. But it really shows what a manky society we have become when a council leader thinks it's something to crow about when the council provides zilch and a supermarket coughs up for 240 pints of milk, while, I wouldn't be surprised, thousands of vulnerable people sat indoors for days with little decent to eat. At least some of them had the consolation of a nice cuppa, eh?
Yours for 240 pints of milk
Barnet council leader Mike Freer's Leader Listens blog has posted two items in two days! This is some kind of record. I wonder if it's ghost-written...
Anyway, it's all good news it seems. Roads reported clear of snow and everyone able to get about smoothly on 2 February. This has been disputed by some residents, although Freer isn't moderating comments that contradict his good-news story, so they do not appear on his paid-for-by-residents-of-Barnet blog, only comments that agree with him will appear, it seems. (I wonder if they are ghost-written...)
On 3 February, Freer's blog gushes over the gift by Waitrose of... wait for it... 240 pints of milk to house-bound old people of Barnet. Even with the price of a pint of milk being what it is (too high) 240 pints must have cost Waitrose... what, less than 120 quid?
For this they get stacks of free publicity on a rare Leader Listens blogpost. It's a good thing that they have done this, of course, better than not doing it. The milk was delivered to the needy by Barnet council itself. This too is good, of course.
The days of the milk float doing its rounds have long gone, and with them the chance that a friendly face would be able to check up on vulnerable members of the community. Not that milk floats would have had much chance of getting through on Barnet's icy roads.
Anyway, it's all good news it seems. Roads reported clear of snow and everyone able to get about smoothly on 2 February. This has been disputed by some residents, although Freer isn't moderating comments that contradict his good-news story, so they do not appear on his paid-for-by-residents-of-Barnet blog, only comments that agree with him will appear, it seems. (I wonder if they are ghost-written...)
On 3 February, Freer's blog gushes over the gift by Waitrose of... wait for it... 240 pints of milk to house-bound old people of Barnet. Even with the price of a pint of milk being what it is (too high) 240 pints must have cost Waitrose... what, less than 120 quid?
For this they get stacks of free publicity on a rare Leader Listens blogpost. It's a good thing that they have done this, of course, better than not doing it. The milk was delivered to the needy by Barnet council itself. This too is good, of course.
The days of the milk float doing its rounds have long gone, and with them the chance that a friendly face would be able to check up on vulnerable members of the community. Not that milk floats would have had much chance of getting through on Barnet's icy roads.
Flagship pan-public sector alliance going down the toilet?
I borrowed this item from the Barnet Unison site (who borrowed it from the Local Government Chronicle):
Remember the ITV documentary on the IBM takeover of Somerset Council? In the documentary the Somerset Chief Executive explained that he visualised other councils queuing up to join SouthwestOne. Think again! The following story was reported in the Local Government Chronicle:
Remember the ITV documentary on the IBM takeover of Somerset Council? In the documentary the Somerset Chief Executive explained that he visualised other councils queuing up to join SouthwestOne. Think again! The following story was reported in the Local Government Chronicle:
Somerset County Council's chief executive has accused councils in the region of "institutional chauvinism" for refusing to join the authority's flagship Southwest One shared services venture.
Alan Jones criticised councils' unwillingness to consider efficiency projects devised outside their boundaries after the south-west's biggest two authorities, Devon and Cornwall County Councils, both signalled they would not join the initiative.
The chief executive admitted that no new councils were currently considering entering Southwest One, despite Somerset holding talks with many of its regional counterparts. But he insisted the project was still viable. It is hoped the back office partnership between Somerset, Taunton Deane Borough Council, Avon & Somerset Police and IBM will save £200m over a decade.
Institutional chauvinism
Mr Jones queried why councils were not seeking the savings membership offered and concluded: "The answer has got to do with institutional chauvinism. People want something that has been invented in their patch."
He added: "Our experience is that people are too conservative and cautious — they look a gift horse in the mouth."
Earlier, Devon County Council chief executive Phil Norrey said the authority and its public sector partners "don't want to export jobs from Devon to get relatively marginal savings".
He added: "Somerset set up Southwest One with IBM very much with the view of having jobs in Taunton, which is great for them and the Somerset economy. "We monitor it but one of our considerations is providing jobs in our local economy."
Transformed
Meanwhile, Cornwall leader David Whalley (Lib Dem) said of Southwest One: "I don't start out from the premise that we are inclined to be joining it."
Kevin Lavery, chief executive of Cornwall, which is shortly to be transformed into a county-wide unitary, said that the council was based in a relatively low-wage area and more likely to run services for other authorities than have them provided elsewhere.
"What we don't want to be in the business of is exporting jobs outside of Cornwall, given the economics of the area," he said.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
