After 28 years of Labour in power in Nottinghamshire, the Tories have gained hold, with the final votes coming in from Hucknall to give them victory.
To say this is profoundly depressing - albeit under current circumstances utterly unsurprising - would be a mild interpretation events.
Since 1973, the Tories have only controlled Nottinghamshire for one 4 year period: 1977-1981, that great period of the tumultuous end days of the Callaghan government into the we-can-make-unemployment-figures-even-worse early days of Thatcher. That, despite everything, Labour held onto the council after that point til now says a great deal.
First amongst the likely casualties as the Tories take power and slash costs - should they stick to their manifesto - will be the demise of the Nottingham tram extension.
I know these projects divide opinion, but I really cannot see how holding up this project - or drastically changing it after numerous consultations - is a feasible and reasonable action (with all the expense and waste that will create with it having gone so far already). The Tories argue that the costs so far are precisely the reason they want to call a halt to the expansion, but in a period of declining employment the loss/delay of any major civil engineering project like this is surely short-sighted at the very least.
They particularly claim that the routes are not right, but Nottingham is cornered by a number a limited factors affecting tram expansion that sooner or later have to be tackled and which aren't resolved by mere road amendments and more 4-wheel transport (either cars or buses). The impossible-to-widen A52 as it runs along Wollaton Park and the university is one; the residential and shopping areas of Beeston along the other side of the University an inevitable other.
I'm also desperately concerned about the effect of the Tories slash and burn cost-cutting on local government jobs: and not just because I have people I care about who work for the council. There has been quite enough 'efficiency savings' in the region so far. Can services - and people's jobs - cope with more? I don't think so.
Whatever council leader Kathy Cutts may say, this election was chiefly about political disenchantment with politics in general and the Labour Party as the party of Government at a national level being seen as, well, rubbish frankly. Good individuals at a local level have consequently lost out. It will be interesting to see how the next significant set of local elections turns out in the likely event (oh help us all) that the Cameronites take power after the next General Election. Last time, after their brief flurry of power, the Tories were returned to local exile for 28 years...
Showing posts with label Local Government. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Local Government. Show all posts
Sunday, June 07, 2009
Sunday, December 07, 2008
Rullsenberg Rants: Social Services reorganisation
I don't lightly criticise the government - I know there are plenty out there eager to do so - but the latest edict from Ed Balls has had both Cloud and I cursing loudly at the radio this morning. Heads of Social Services for Children must now be required to have experience of both Social Services and Education - given that it has been deemed that one of the failings in the baby P case was that the head of Social Services for Children only had experience of Education.
Well there is a F$@*ing good reason for that you complete %*$@! That is because until very recently local authorities were organised into Education departments and Social Services departments - with Social Services covering everyone from 0 years - death. Which was fine, except that anything that was happening under the edicts of Education was getting missed by those working with children under Social Services care, and vice versa.
So, not entirely unreasonably, the departments were reorganised to split Social Services into Children and Young Persons Services (bringing together Education and Social Services) and Adult Social Care and Health Services.
HOWEVER: what happens when children turn 18 years old? Hmm...
Anyway. With the reorganisation, there was obviously a need for new heads to be appointed to the amalgamated services for CYPS. You were always therefore going to be appointing someone without experience of half of the new service because someone with Education experience was likely to not have experience of Social Services and vice versa.
Now, I'm all for bringing people in who have experience of both Education and children's Social Services - but the recent reorganisation was hardly likely to have produced anything other than the likes of the Haringey Childrens' Services Head who had mostly/exclusively experience in one or the other due to the way in which the systems had been previously organised.
Similarly, I'm all in favour of people having more hands on experience before they have their own caseload of Social Services cases. BUT: how to achieve this? One of the key things affecting the delivery of good social services is that many social workers are just overloaded with work. This can never excuse poor choices and failing to follow the systems that are meant to protect, but when priorities have to be made between one horrific case and twenty-five, one hundred, or several hundred horrific cases it is easy to see how those failings can occur in the cases that capture the public imagination. All too often good social work goes unnoticed. That doesn't mean that the few failings that come to attention are only a small number - nor does it mean that they are guaranteed to be the tip of an iceberg. But the structures are failing both the workers and those needing protection. And making 'sweeping changes' yet again to the structures will not in itself prevent further tragedies occurring.
Well there is a F$@*ing good reason for that you complete %*$@! That is because until very recently local authorities were organised into Education departments and Social Services departments - with Social Services covering everyone from 0 years - death. Which was fine, except that anything that was happening under the edicts of Education was getting missed by those working with children under Social Services care, and vice versa.
So, not entirely unreasonably, the departments were reorganised to split Social Services into Children and Young Persons Services (bringing together Education and Social Services) and Adult Social Care and Health Services.
HOWEVER: what happens when children turn 18 years old? Hmm...
Anyway. With the reorganisation, there was obviously a need for new heads to be appointed to the amalgamated services for CYPS. You were always therefore going to be appointing someone without experience of half of the new service because someone with Education experience was likely to not have experience of Social Services and vice versa.
Now, I'm all for bringing people in who have experience of both Education and children's Social Services - but the recent reorganisation was hardly likely to have produced anything other than the likes of the Haringey Childrens' Services Head who had mostly/exclusively experience in one or the other due to the way in which the systems had been previously organised.
Similarly, I'm all in favour of people having more hands on experience before they have their own caseload of Social Services cases. BUT: how to achieve this? One of the key things affecting the delivery of good social services is that many social workers are just overloaded with work. This can never excuse poor choices and failing to follow the systems that are meant to protect, but when priorities have to be made between one horrific case and twenty-five, one hundred, or several hundred horrific cases it is easy to see how those failings can occur in the cases that capture the public imagination. All too often good social work goes unnoticed. That doesn't mean that the few failings that come to attention are only a small number - nor does it mean that they are guaranteed to be the tip of an iceberg. But the structures are failing both the workers and those needing protection. And making 'sweeping changes' yet again to the structures will not in itself prevent further tragedies occurring.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)