This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/jun/26/council-services-close-to-meltdown

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Council services close to meltdown Council services close to meltdown
(3 months later)
As George Osborne adds further misery to the already devastating cuts to public spending as part of the Coalition's austerity programme (Town halls in firing line, 26 June), it's vital the voice of those who have no access to the media should be heard. Many of those most affected will be provided with services carried out by, or commissioned for, local government. Such services have already had drastic cuts in funding. Areas of greatest deprivation have been hit hardest. The first thing the coalition did was to withdraw the specific funding to meet targeted needs, such as the early intervention grant which offered youngsters the start all politicians claim they support, and a range of other vital services. In disadvantaged areas – mainly outside the south-east of England – such funding amounted to up to 30% of the council's total budget. Those councils then found themselves subject to the English-wide reductions in local government funding. These maintain the pretence that local authorities have all been treated fairly and there has not been a disproportionate reduction in those areas most in need.As George Osborne adds further misery to the already devastating cuts to public spending as part of the Coalition's austerity programme (Town halls in firing line, 26 June), it's vital the voice of those who have no access to the media should be heard. Many of those most affected will be provided with services carried out by, or commissioned for, local government. Such services have already had drastic cuts in funding. Areas of greatest deprivation have been hit hardest. The first thing the coalition did was to withdraw the specific funding to meet targeted needs, such as the early intervention grant which offered youngsters the start all politicians claim they support, and a range of other vital services. In disadvantaged areas – mainly outside the south-east of England – such funding amounted to up to 30% of the council's total budget. Those councils then found themselves subject to the English-wide reductions in local government funding. These maintain the pretence that local authorities have all been treated fairly and there has not been a disproportionate reduction in those areas most in need.
A further 10% in local government funding from central government, coupled with the fact that money made available to freeze the council tax will no longer fill the gap, and it doesn't take a genius to see why authorities like Surrey, Dorset and the outer London borough of Richmond have seen cuts of around just 1%, while in the West Midlands and the north of England we are already talking about meltdown in basic provision. From early years to support and care of the elderly and frail, this coalition is responsible for making those least able to carry the load bear the biggest burden for the government's failure to regenerate the economy and restore growth.A further 10% in local government funding from central government, coupled with the fact that money made available to freeze the council tax will no longer fill the gap, and it doesn't take a genius to see why authorities like Surrey, Dorset and the outer London borough of Richmond have seen cuts of around just 1%, while in the West Midlands and the north of England we are already talking about meltdown in basic provision. From early years to support and care of the elderly and frail, this coalition is responsible for making those least able to carry the load bear the biggest burden for the government's failure to regenerate the economy and restore growth.
Percentages must not hide the reality of the impact on the lives of so many people and it is vital that the opposition, ensuring prudence and economic responsibility, must not abandon those for whom publicly funded and locally provided support is the difference between dignity and squalor.
David Blunkett MP
Lab, Sheffield Brightside		Percentages must not hide the reality of the impact on the lives of so many people and it is vital that the opposition, ensuring prudence and economic responsibility, must not abandon those for whom publicly funded and locally provided support is the difference between dignity and squalor.
David Blunkett MP
Lab, Sheffield Brightside
Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.