Manchester Council budget cuts etc.

[Duke Fame]

MCC are a labour council and so have had a much inflated budget to "play" with where as SMBC (and other surrounding none labour councils)have had much smaller budgets to go on, there was a figure in the press a couple of weeks ago saying that MCC residents got approx £200 more per head than SMBC residents from central govt.

So now that a new govt are in power and have kicked the much over inflated budgets into touch MCC are crying about it. You reep what you sow. But I bet you that very few top managers will go, they pick on the low paid and they are the people we really need eg lolly pop people etc.

Point made very well.

[belleesummerbee]

Public sector bashing seems all the rage at the moment. We can all recall instances where we have been less than satisfied with the Local Authority, and other public bodies, many of which have been discussed on this forum, but lets not forget its the glue which holds the fabric of society together. The private sector can also make the odd costly error one of which we are all presently paying for.

[moorendman]

It is amusing to see how this topic about Manchester cuts seems to be more popular than the topic about Stockport. In part this seems to be the product of a lack of meeting of the minds by two of the posters in this topic. Also , as some 40% of the population seem to work in the public sector, it's not surprising to see their point of view being forcefully put. Of course a great many people in Public service do a good job and understandbly take issue with perceived attacks on their competence and the quality of their work. However, salaries in the public sector now match and often exceed those in the private sector. The usual reward for public service, ie a good pension , remains in place and is largely unfunded.

 Just for the record , Neil, the formula grant used by central government per head is over £740 in Manchester and around £300 in Stockport. They get more because they have supposedly more deprivation and need the money to help combat poverty, crime, lack of opportunity and increased need. They have been receiving extra money for years and seemed to made little impact on these issues. They have undoubtedly created many jobs that serve little real purpose ( as listed by Duke Fame's post , regardless of where he found it ) and as such in these times of straitened public finance need to look at serious budget cuts.

[Neil Smith]

MCC are a labour council and so have had a much inflated budget to "play" with where as SMBC (and other surrounding none labour councils)have had much smaller budgets to go on, there was a figure in the press a couple of weeks ago saying that MCC residents got approx £200 more per head than SMBC residents from central govt.

So now that a new govt are in power and have kicked the much over inflated budgets into touch MCC are crying about it. You reep what you sow. But I bet you that very few top managers will go, they pick on the low paid and they are the people we really need eg lolly pop people etc.

[Cripes]

[sarcasm]

eugh, more public sector bashing,

Damn all of those teachers, nursery assistants, nurses, clinicians, doctors, social workers, dinner ladies, lollypop ladies, police men and women, forensic scientists, immigration control, etc etc. all worthless scroungers on £100,000 pa with gold plated final salary pensions.

[/sarcasm]

Its so easy to sit and guess what these people actually do, then draw the wrong conclusion but post it anyway and back it up with right-wing tosh.

What amazes me is that it is you lot who are the first to complain when there are no bobbies on the beat, you have to do a bit of recycling, or your held up in traffic because a youngster has been knocked over because the crossing patrol has been axed.

Not sure who you are directing this at, but it appears to be more than one with "you lot".   Its about appropriate cuts,  for example Howard Bernstein salary which has not been touched while they attempt to close libraries etc. And I competely stand by my point about not having very positive experience with the public sector. Ironically I have just been on the phone now to try and sort out the cardboard recycling for my business, they are supposed to close at five, but the switchboard have informed me they have all gone hom early.

[andy+kirsty]

[sarcasm]

eugh, more public sector bashing,

Damn all of those teachers, nursery assistants, nurses, clinicians, doctors, social workers, dinner ladies, lollypop ladies, police men and women, forensic scientists, immigration control, etc etc. all worthless scroungers on £100,000 pa with gold plated final salary pensions.

[/sarcasm]

Its so easy to sit and guess what these people actually do, then draw the wrong conclusion but post it anyway and back it up with right-wing tosh.

What amazes me is that it is you lot who are the first to complain when there are no bobbies on the beat, you have to do a bit of recycling, or your held up in traffic because a youngster has been knocked over because the crossing patrol has been axed.

[Cripes]

I don't remember it - isn't it horrifying!  Let's hope it's an isolated case of one local authority service which had become completely disfunctional.  From time to time there are inevitably incidences of incompetence or worse in all public services - there are so many of them that there are always going to be a few which don't come up to the mark, whether they are schools, hospitals, police or whatever.  And it's not confined to public services, of course.  Ever heard of banks messing up.........

Certainly our own experience with social services here in Stockport, as I wrote above, was utterly different - they were fantastic!   

I think its great to hear that you didn't have to go through anything similar to us or the above story, I do actually think there is a marked difference now we have moved my father in law up here, but really as we still have issues it almost appears to be apathy.  I am really with Duke on a lot of the public sector, I haven't (sadly) had many positive experiences with them, although the charitable organisations that have helped us have been outstanding.

[Dave]

I don't remember it - isn't it horrifying!  Let's hope it's an isolated case of one local authority service which had become completely disfunctional.  From time to time there are inevitably incidences of incompetence or worse in all public services - there are so many of them that there are always going to be a few which don't come up to the mark, whether they are schools, hospitals, police or whatever.  And it's not confined to public services, of course.  Ever heard of banks messing up.........

Certainly our own experience with social services here in Stockport, as I wrote above, was utterly different - they were fantastic!   

[Cripes]

Anyone remember this case? http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/article6169378.ece

[Duke Fame]

The social workers appointed themselves ...... the social services step up there interest dramatically and decide which services they are going to impose on you

I'm puzzled by this.  We had extensive dealings with local authority social services in the last year of my mum's life, and as far as I remember no-one appoints themself or imposes anything.  You are entitled to get your care needs met privately (and pay what it costs, of course), or you can choose to use means-tested local authority provision, aka a 'self-serving waste of time'  as Duke puts it!

Duke, you write:

As soon as I got back up here, social services decided to up the care doubling the cost to us.

....so presumably you want to pay less?

Whilst on another thread you write: 

I vote for whomever plans to reduce spending & taxing

....which would mean you'd end up paying more.  Which is it?   

Dave, I would have gladly told social services where to get off, & that we'll make the decisions but we were threatened with legal action at the time if we didn't go along with thei plan.. Furthermore, naively we thought social services were there to help, it is only with hindsight that I realized that it’s a huge game of role justification.

WRT to paying more money, social services decided that instead of the one helper living in (at our cost) there needed to be more (you guessed it, at our cost).  We had no control over this.

Your final point? The price of fish?

[Cripes]

The social workers appointed themselves ...... the social services step up there interest dramatically and decide which services they are going to impose on you

I'm puzzled by this.  We had extensive dealings with local authority social services in the last year of my mum's life, and as far as I remember no-one appoints themself or imposes anything.  You are entitled to get your care needs met privately (and pay what it costs, of course), or you can choose to use means-tested local authority provision, aka a 'self-serving waste of time'  as Duke puts it!
 

They do, however in fairness this was in the South. There were 'best interest meetings' 12 interest parties meeting up and deciding what happened to them all the time. The social services put a care package together which was imposed on them and they then had to stump up for it, 24 hour live in help, another carer to cover for breaks, another one to help hoist my mother in law. Essentially they were paying for three carers a day. A long story, this failed for various reasons, which the social services then admitted that they never expected it to work. It was a sad, horrible time in our lives filled with frustration. My mother in law got stuck in a horrible system cycle that  was heavily flawed and ultimately lead to her premature death.

[Dave]

The social workers appointed themselves ...... the social services step up there interest dramatically and decide which services they are going to impose on you

I'm puzzled by this.  We had extensive dealings with local authority social services in the last year of my mum's life, and as far as I remember no-one appoints themself or imposes anything.  You are entitled to get your care needs met privately (and pay what it costs, of course), or you can choose to use means-tested local authority provision, aka a 'self-serving waste of time'  as Duke puts it!

Duke, you write:

As soon as I got back up here, social services decided to up the care doubling the cost to us.

....so presumably you want to pay less?

Whilst on another thread you write: 

I vote for whomever plans to reduce spending & taxing

....which would mean you'd end up paying more.  Which is it?   

[Duke Fame]

I do not wish  show direspect to you or your mother, but 36 social workers is rather excessive in my book. your case sounds rather complex to me. £2900 00 per month on taxi fares?You could of bought the best private care for less than that. It must have been your choice not Social services. what have they to gain keeping your mother in hospital? If you are to tell this story. please state the facts.

That is my point, 36 people working on the case meant none would make a decision. The doctors waned me that once social services get involved, the solution will not be what we want.

They allowed my mother to come home with a live in helper at a cost of thousands. As soon as I got back up here, social services decided to up the care doubling the cost to us. THen, they decided to find a care home to place her miles away from home, they had the cheek to say my father could harm my mother!

As Cripes say, they are like all socialists, good with other people'smoney & minds.

[Cripes]

I do not wish  show direspect to you or your mother, but 36 social workers is rather excessive in my book. your case sounds rather complex to me. £2900 00 per month on taxi fares?You could of bought the best private care for less than that. It must have been your choice not Social services. what have they to gain keeping your mother in hospital? If you are to tell this story. please state the facts.

Oh the naivety and assumptions in this post are painful.  The social workers appointed themselves my love and made it complex. They lived in the country and his father as stated has Alzheimers so could not use public transport, the social services made the decision to move her so far away that a taxi for him to visit her was the only solution. We decided to keep her in hospital did we? how does that work when there are rarely enough beds.  As for stating the facts, this is a free speech forum and we will disclose or not as we see fit.

Oh, and if you have self funding parents, you will find that the social services step up there interest dramatically and decide which services they are going to impose on you and then make you pay for it. They are very good at spending other peoples money.

[Dave]

We had a very similar experience, Mike.  My Mum died four years ago at the age of 85.  For her last year, she had fantastic support from visiting carers, who enabled her to stay with dignity in her sheltered flat, living more or less independently.  She only went into a care home for the last six weeks of her life, when it became unavoidable.  Fortunately I think Stockport has been spared the worst of the cuts, so far, but as you say, that is just the kind of service which is being cut in other areas, such as Manchester.  And the worst of it is that it's a false economy - it just means that people have to go into care or hospital earlier, and that ultimately costs a great deal more.    

'Daily Mail' prejudices

You've said it