Wednesday, 16 June 2010

H&F Council cuts in Guardian

Today's Guardian Society Section features the latest in our Council's cuts to public services, this time the closure of Hammersmith Carers Centre. Why does our local authority always go for the most vulnerable people's services? The Guardian says this:

For 12 years, Margaret Turley has known where to go in a crisis. Eighteen months ago, when the 26-year-old learning-disabled son she cares for developed epilepsy and began going blind, Turley headed for the Princess Royal Trust Hammersmith and Fulham Carers Centre
"You're among people who know what carers do," she says of the Hammersmith Road centre in west London. "I can come in here just because I've had a horrendous day." The centre provides advice and peer support, and runs a Department of Health-funded programme, Caring with Confidence, offering free training for carers who want to develop their caring skills.
However, in two weeks' time, the centre is to close, depriving Turley and 600 other carers of their lifeline. Its contract with the Tory-run council has not been renewed and, in a separate issue, its council lease had expired and it regarded alternative accommodation offered by the council as unsuitable. Last week, campaigners staged a protest at the town hall.

Now read on


  1. "Why does our local authority always go for the most vulnerable people's services?"
    How else are they going to sustain their own salaries and build their monstrous new town hall?
    This is what Tories do. We are the barometer for what's coming across the country for the next five years, both at local and national level.

  2. fair enough but since the LibDems are part of that Government, and seem just as keen to wield the axe, I don't think its fair to say that its just the Tories anymore!

  3. I once voted for LibDem candidates (or whatever they were called then)for H&FC believing they might wield a moderating and sensible influence... then watched them vote with their Tory co-councilors all the way along the line. That was a very long time ago.Plus ça change...

  4. Any government would have to make cuts. That is the unfortunate situation we are now in. Unless of course we are happy to be paying more in interest payments than we spend on education...

    Cuts are the inevitable consequence of overspending in the past. Anyone who has ever controlled a budget of any sort (household, business, department, national) knows that.

    These sorts of things wouldn't have to happen if there was a bit of fiscal responsibility in the first place.

    However, I believe these particular cuts are wrong - surely there are other areas that could be cut instead?

  5. Sheesh, this is what they will do, slash and burn and god help the vulnerable. What a surprise that Palingswick House happens to be a prime piece of real estate that now may well be closed.

  6. @anonymous: exactly - we have to make cuts. but when you see the type of cuts, and know that the council is planning to proceed NOW (after at least 5 years of waiting) with a multimillion pound redevelopment of its own offices, in partnership with Tesco's development group, apparently getting rid of a massive amount of housing authority flats in the process, you wonder whether they're the right people to decide where the axe should fall. personally, I don't trust them to prioritize for the good of the borough and the most vulnerable. they have other priorities.

    and Chris, my point is that it's a Tory council, and a vastly Tory-controlled government, and this is showing the direction we're headed. you're right of course that the Lib Dems should shoulder some of the blame for decisions. I hoped they would provide more of a tempering influence on the Tory cut-lust. But reading Margybargy, perhaps I was a little naïve.