Recently in politics Category

by Steve Rogowski, a social worker (children and families) with a local authority in NW England

'Tis the season to be cheerful, and for many children and families it will be. But such a sentiment does not always apply to the children and families social workers are involved with. They are having to pay the price for what the academic George Lambie calls the 'debacle of neoliberalism' (see 'From Recession to Renewal' edited by Joanna Richardson). They had no part in causing the economic and fiscal crisis facing the globalised, capitalist world, and yet are facing cuts in services and welfare benefits. There is also ever more job insecurity and anxiety, even if people manage to find increasingly scarce employment. Christmas will be a stressful time for many, though social workers and others will be doing their best to make a positive difference.

Skeleton staff

Although children and families are facing the brunt of austerity measures, social workers are not immune. Many local authority offices only open with 'skeleton' staff over the Xmas/New Year period. They will have to cope with increases in domestic abuse referrals, often related to the stress caused by the current economic and financial catastrophe. There will also be instances of family breakdown. For example, young people falling out with parents/carers and deciding (not a real 'choice' in the current jargon) to leave home. Because of austerity measures they will be unable to turn to local authorities or charities for assistance. Homelessness always becomes a more important issue over the festive period.

Twist in the tale

More positively perhaps, managers praise the fact that 'everyone' has worked hard over the preceding year - targets have been met, outcomes for children have been positive, and good inspection reports have been written. But there is a twist in the tale - next year is 'going to be challenging' with ever more resource constraints and efficiency savings needed. The need is to 'get more for less'.

The unspoken narrative is that there will be continued job losses and reductions in services. While social workers might feel secure, thinking that support and other staff are in the firing line, this should not be overstated or taken for granted.

An ideological problem

The key problem is ideological. The Conservative-led coalition is using the economic crisis as a front to reduce the role of the state in meeting citizens' needs unless they happen to be 'troubled' families needing 'trouble-shooters'. Other than this, people are expected to rely on themselves, family, friends and charity. If this project succeeds the danger is it will take us back to Victorian times.

But perhaps all is not lost. Ed Miliband has spoken about what comes after the neoliberalism, this echoed by academics who talk about the 'post-liberal world', one where notions of social justice and equality will be more to the fore. Then there is the Social Work Action Network conference in Spring of next year focussing in 'cuts, crisis and resistance', together with the need to build alliances in social work and social care. This is with a view to working towards a different world.

A season to be cheerful it may well be and, despite the doom and gloom, there may be hope on the horizon.   

by Nigel Leaney, manager of a mental health residential service

The government may have been forced to rethink its Health and Social Care Bill by endorsing the main proposals of the Future Forum report but they have quickly regrouped and re-emerged as the government which is all listening, all caring. It's a sickening spectacle, especially when nothing much has changed. But sorry there are no sick bowls available; they've disappeared amongst the stink of efficiency savings.

The reforms to the legislation will now require the NHS regulator, Monitor, to soft focus its role in introducing more competition to the NHS while hyping its duties to promote choice, collaboration and integrated provision between health and social care.

Choice or quality

The rhetoric sounds laudable yet increased choice does not necessarily mean a better service. My cable TV offers more choice of channels than I know what to do with. But why bother when most of them are crap? Quality was better when we had a choice of just three or four channels.

Health and social care would be better served if we concentrated less on choice and more on quality. Yet the legislation and proposed reforms don't seem to grasp this.

Extending local commissioning consortia to include other health and social care professionals as well as GPs is clearly an improvement on the original proposals but hardly worthy of hanging out the bunting and issuing three cheers for enlightened reform.

Privatisation obsession

At the heart of the legislation, with or without reforms, lies the government's ideological obsession with privatisation. And the plans to fully embrace the private sector to meet our health and social care needs will continue as before, with the reforms just slowing the pace a little.

The most telling outcome of the government drive is that vulnerable adults will remain exposed to the risk of abuse of the type recently exposed at Winterbourne View. The Financial Times revealed that sub-standard care is far more likely to occur in homes ran for-profit than in charitable institutions.

Left floundering

Spouting the benefits of consumer choice is a smokescreen to ensure as many private care companies as possible get to dip their bread in an £80 billion gravy train. Good for them, good for all the Tories with personal shares in private healthcare companies and future seats on their boards.

The less profitable, more difficult services, not so attractive to the private sector, such as mental health and the elderly, will be left floundering in a financially bereft NHS after £20 billion is stolen in so-called efficiency savings.

No cherry picking, announce the reforms. And how exactly will the government stop this? Of course! In the same way stern, no nonsense way they reined in the bankers - excuse my cockney rhyming slang.

(Pic: Kreative Eye - Dean McCoy)

by Steve Rogowski, a social worker (children and families) with a local authority in NW England

Public expenditure cuts are now beginning to seriously bite, affecting services users (rising eligibility criteria, increased charges, closure of facilities etc), social workers and other staff. All are paying the price for a financial crisis they had no part whatsoever in creating.
What amazes me is how 'the powers that be' have managed to convince almost everyone that cutting deep and fast is the only way out of the economic mess we are now in. There seems to be a general feeling among many that cuts are inevitable and there is nothing people can do about them. You even have the situation where social workers and others seem willing to accept pays cuts as a way of saving jobs or services.

Similar deficit, different response

However, one has only to recall that Britain faced a similar financial deficit after the Second World War and how the response then was very different; millions of pounds were invested in housing and the welfare state was created.

As Ken Livingstone has pointed out, the result was that industrialised western countries saw the most successful period of economic growth ever, something which coincided with a strongly redistributive tax policy.

Over ensuing decades the proceeds of such growth sustained high levels of public and private investment and closed the inequality gap. This was not just because of benign governance from both 'old' Labour and 'one nation' Conservatives, but coincided with the high point of the influence of trade unions over the economy.

 

No alternative?

The 'there is no alternative' view of the Con-Dem coalition government to the current crisis has to be seriously challenged. Even if one accepts the need for the deficit to be reduced, this could be done in the form of progressive taxation, a clampdown on the multi-billion pound tax-dodging industry, harnessing the banking system to play a positive role in stimulating the economy, and investment in public services such as council housing. 

There also has to be a change to the craven failure to rein in the financial system which in turn indicates how business and economic policy is dictated by multi-national conglomerates. Surely  we could have an economy geared to producing goods and services that meet our shared human needs rather than securing excessive financial gain for a few.

Determination to fight

So how should service users, social workers and others respond to what is happening to services, salaries and terms and conditions of employment? In the first place, apathy must be replaced by a determination to fight and resist, by working both through and with users groups, trade unions, professional associations, charities and other progressive groups. Not least the TUC day of action on 26 March provides an opportunity for all concerned to show their anger and dismay at the dismantling of, as Pierre Bourdieu once wrote, 'the economic and social bases of the most precious gains of humanity' i.e. the welfare state. As Marx might have said, social workers you have nothing to lose but your apathy.

by Steve Rogowski, a social worker (children and families) with a local authority in NW England

It comes as no surprise that the Tory-led boroughs of Westminster, Hammersmith and Fulham and Kensington and Chelsea are at the forefront of implementing government public expenditure cuts. In particular, children and adult services are to be merged by creating a single department in the hope that £35 million can be saved by 2014/15, mainly by cutting senior management.

Too many chiefs?

At first sight cutting senior management will come as no bad thing to hard pressed social workers. The old adage about 'too many chiefs' comes to mind. After all social workers hardly see or hear from the 'powers that be', and often wonder what they are really up to. When they do, it is often only to be told about some new target to meet or report/form/procedure to complete/follow. Losing a few local government (relatively speaking) 'fat cats' will not make much difference to, nor will it overly concern, those on the frontline or, more importantly, service users.

Seige mentality

In fact, if the millions saved in 'driving efficiency' and 'cutting bureaucracy' by reducing senior management were invested in the frontline it would be welcomed. It could ease the somewhat siege mentality that seems to have been adopted by many children and families teams. Such a mentality has resulted in preventive social work virtually disappearing with only child protection cases being taken seriously and acted upon. As it is, many children and families are simply being left to cope as best they can, presumably in the hope that the 'Big Society' will come along and offer some help and support.

Ideologically driven

Notwithstanding the comments about senior management losses, and bearing in mind such savings are not to be reinvested in the frontline, it is not far-fetched to see that the merged services and ensuing cuts are ideologically-driven so as to reduce services and bring forward the fig-leaf of the 'Big Society'. And as Unison points out children, young people and vulnerable young people could even be put at risk.

Just as worryingly is what effect the merging of all services, as has happened in the aforementioned boroughs, will have on local government and local democracy more generally? The authorities concerned have referred to retaining current democratic structures. But if services are increasingly provided by 'super authorities' is there a need for so many local authorities?

As argued in Joanna Richardson's excellent new book 'From Recession to Renewal - the impact of the financial crisis on public services and local government', the UK already witnesses a 'practice of government' that is more centralised than in many other countries. One wonders if this unsatisfactory trend is likely to increase, especially as forthcoming battles between local and central government are likely. Surely other councils will not be as malleable, even enthusiastic about cuts, as the Tory ones.

by Nigel Leaney, manager of a mental health residential service

Anyone having any doubts that the recently announced cuts were ideologically driven need doubt no more. After Osborne finished his devastating demolition on the supports and structures that keep the most vulnerable people in our society afloat he was rewarded by his Tory cronies with shouts of 'more, more!' They were intoxicated huntsman high on the blood of the public sector and braying for more.

by Peter Corser, a social worker in a mental health team

The chancellor's spending review is done and it seems the people most likely to feel the pain are those least able to fight back. It's not been easy trying to help clients in recent years anyway. Add to that the effect of so many people being out of work and we are likely to see an increase the number of those who need the very services that are being shrunk.

by Jennifer Harvey, who works with people with autism

The government's spending review proposes to slash the social housing budget in England by 50%, and increase existing rents to make up the shortfall.

It also suggests that private landlords can take on the job of housing the poorest people. Anyone who has ever tried to find private rented accommodation when they don't have a steady job will know how unlikely this is. Add to this the effect of massive cuts in housing benefit and you have a recipe for more people becoming homeless and vulnerably housed, and all the ensuing problems that brings to individuals and families. This can only put more pressure on health and social services in the long run.

Cuts to social housing are a false economy, people need good, affordable housing to reach their full potential and contribute to society.

by Steve Rogowski, a social worker (children and families) with a local authority in NW England

Despite a permanent bank levy, as was expected it is ordinary people who are having to pay for the follies of the free market spivs and speculators, namely the banks, that got us into the credit crunch and resulting recession. Also, instead of the deficit being reduced by far more emphasis on taxing the rich, it is public services which are to feel the brunt of massive cuts.

by Dr Steve Rogowski,  a social worker (children and families) with a local authority in NW England

The events at Suffolk County Council herald what is likely to occur in many other local authorities over the coming months. The council plans to outsource nearly all of its services, including social care, to private and voluntary groups. It wants to be a strategic, planning council rather than a provider of services. The aim is to reduce costs by 30% in order to cope with forthcoming the Con-Dem coalition public spending cuts.