therefore be abolished."}} Thus, the rationale for Best Value emphasised three points: the failure of compulsory competitive tendering; the importance of partnership in service provision; and the adverse effect of competition as a prime objective. History Under the leadership of John Major the Conservative government pursued compulsory competitive tendering almost as a dogma, often against the wishes of local government. This led to an uncomfortable stand-off between the two, with CCT regulations being produced in increasing detail, and sometimes extending further than would have been the case in the private sector. The government was unambiguous about what was required – issue of tender, receipt of tender, selection of provider. The term compulsory competitive tendering was superseded in 2000 by best value''. Labour's Best Value proved more difficult to define. The notion of Best Value prior to implementation was enshrined within one key consultation document: Modernising Local Government — Improving local services through best value. This set out four defining elements of Best Value. The first was the duty to secure economic, efficient and effective services continuously (the ‘3 Es’). The second required service reviews within which the authority must demonstrate that in the fulfilment of their duties under Best Value they have: compared their service provision with that of other private and public providers; consulted with local business and community; considered competition in provision; and challenged the reasons for, and methods of, provision (the ‘4 Cs’). The third defining element introduced a regime of audit and measurement of performance, with the broad expectation that, year-on-year, costs would reduce and quality would increase. Performance would be monitored locally through Best Value Performance Reviews (BVPRs), partly through adherence to locally and statutorily determined Best Value performance indicators (BVPIs), and disseminated annually through Performance Plans (BVPPs). The fourth defining element of Best Value outlined the consequence of performance: government intervention in cases of Best Value failure, and reward in cases of success. In turn these four aspects of Best Value are bound by adherence to twelve principles of Best Value mentioned above. The answer to the question of what method of service delivery, precisely, the government expected to arise from Best Value seemed to centre on local interpretation as satisfactory. The lack of clear definition, in the context of housing services, was explained as follows: Therefore, while the message was unequivocally that compulsory competitive tendering was to be withdrawn, the replacement was to