Forum Topic

Ealing Council to cut £89 million over four years

While it comes as a shock that Ealing Council is going to have to make cuts amounting to £89 million over the next four years I cannot but hope it will be somewhat more humane than during the last round of cuts that saw the closure of so many facilities for the sick and disabled, not to mention the bizarre attack on thr  borough library network that underpins the very fabric of Ealing.If cuts are to be made I would hope that a more humanistic approach, rather than a pride-driven approach is taken. I cannot see how Ealing can justify cutting a single care worker, however, I can think of several non-essential acitivities that could be pruned that are of somewhat lesser value than the effect that a single care worker on the well-being of needy people, for example:*To abolish the honorary and non-political or administrative office of the mayor of Ealing along with the deputy mayor, full time administrative staff, office space, and cars.*To abolish the Ealing Council Events Department, as however nice having free or subsidised entertainment may be it is not essential to the quality of life of people relying on welfare and care services.*To leave the appalling recycled plastic bottle Christmas Tree in storage and not put it up outside the Town Hall ever again saving on labour and admin and of course power.*To not put up unnecessary civic Chrismas decorations and to not proliferate these into new areas of the Borough saving on electricity and also reducing Ealing's carbon footprint for the electricity saved.*To rent out under say 20 year leases (as I am loathe to see beautiful historic civic buildings sold off) the old Town Hall and the so-called Pitxhanger Manor in Walpole Park (perhaps it could be to somebody like the YMCA who could provide much-needed temporary social accomodation).*To stop wasting time effort and money on ridiculous posturing like creating a virtual National Park of London.These are things that come to mind that would "save a care worker" from being cut if people are prioritised above political posturing.

Neil F. Weber ● 4157d45 Comments

>who would want to relocate from Reading today?I know two people that did just this, just last month!Why wouldn't people want to?Notwithstanding with crossrail going in we'll probably see lots of people taking advantage of being able to live further away from where the jobs are in town so we'll probably see a fair few moving west.

Paul James ● 4154d

They would be migrants not immigrants and who the hell, following your own fatuous line of thinking, would want to relocate from Reading today? 700 years ago they would be bringing wool to market (although probably via Brentford)?They most definitely would not have wanted a school place, hospital bed, seat on the bus etc.Must try harder.

Nigel Brooks ● 4154d

Yawn.

Keith Iddon ● 4154d

>London is stretched to breaking point in many areas.Alwasy has been, always will be.If there was slack in any service people would be demanding it's cut, whether there was 1,000 people, 10,000 people or 100,000,000 people in London.So, I imagine 700 years ago Nigel and Keith sitting on ye olde ealing today complaining that the two local roads were too busy and blaming all the immigrants from Reading.

Paul James ● 4154d

Yes Paul, the Refugee Council would say that. And I know that MOST asylum seekers don't get lots of State money but some manage to get abundant financial and housing help, sometimes fraudulently. And quite a few know how to cheat the authorities, according to reliable and trusted TV programmes and some investigative journals. How do we stop those cunning asylum seekers?

Gerry Tan ● 4154d

PedantBy we I refer to government failure to regenerate areas other than the south east. People move to London for many reasons, lack of local opportunity being a key one.London is stretched to breaking point in many areas.Simply acknowledging that "it's where the fun is" and citing this as some form of justification is simplistic to the point of obtuseness.

Nigel Brooks ● 4154d

"We focus far too much on the south east and seemingly want to concentrate the population into already overcrowded areas. "What do you mean we?Last time I checked people move to London because they want to in the main, it's where the fun is and where the money is, it's the world's best capital city! Sure it's going to attract people to live in it and around it, it always has, always will do.

Paul James ● 4154d

That Paul, is why I consciously used the term migration rather than immigration. We focus far too much on the south east and seemingly want to concentrate the population into already overcrowded areas. Japan has the same infrastructure problems but in reverse as net migration from Tokyo and other major cities has been growing steadily since the mid 1980's with companies decentralising as a result of incentives so to do. There is now far less 'stress' on urban infrastructure as a result with the load more equitably spread. The problem now is paying for infrastructure as some areas expand exponentially and others are virtual areas of urban blight with not enough people to support vital services in 'dormitory' towns. My source for this is a friend who has worked in urban planning across Japan for the last 20 years and is currently working on the rebuild of parts of the prefecture around Fukushima.Your comparison with Japan is therefore woefully flawed.

Nigel Brooks ● 4154d

Of course there are people in the country that haven't filled out the paper work and are therefore "illegal".Most of these are probably people that came legally with an intention to leave, but just didn't get round to it, or chose not to.And yes, some come here illegally. Some, a tiny percentage I imagine.All the immigrants I know and work with (quite a few!), came here legally, to work.But to assert that somehow Tony Blair allowed this to happen is utter nonsense.By uncontrolled immigration did you actually mean the free movement of workers within EU borders, which was a central tenant that came out of the 1951 treaty of Rome and enshrined in the subsequent Maastrict treaty, signed by the Conservative gov?

Paul James ● 4154d

PS...What do you think the estimate was?

Keith Iddon ● 4154d

Yeah...you're right Paul. There are absolutely no unaccounted for people in the UK, and especially in London. I don't know why everyone is so concerned and why successive governments have asserted that they do not know how many 'illegals' are here as there obviously aren't any. As for those thousands of 'sham' colleges that have bogus students that was obviously a misunderstanding. Better we just carry on doing what we are doing.

Keith Iddon ● 4154d

> I am against unregulated and unmonitored  immigration What unregulated and unmonitored immigration do we have Keith, serious question!?

Paul James ● 4154d

Oh, btw ...waht do you think their estimate was?

Keith Iddon ● 4154d

Where did I imply that? I sometimes wonder whether it's worth it. And while we are on the subject I take exception to you 'trying to asset' that I am against immigration. Like millions of others I am against unregulated and unmonitored  immigration which was foisted upon us mostly by someone you no doubt hold in great esteem.But you don't seem to care what most people are concerned about. I don't know how old you are but I am hopefully going to be retiring in the next few years. I only hope that the future of our youngsters isn't to play second fiddle in the workplace because no one can be bothered to teach them a trade or a skill. It's very cosy for the middle classes to have a cheap plumber and a cheap nanny but when it's your own people's livelyhood that is at stake it's not worth it. I am sure that if the situation was that lawyers were coming here to undercut British lawyers we would soon have a law against it.

Keith Iddon ● 4154d

Gerry: "I'm not sure what you mean Paul. Please explain."Gerry, people like to make out asylum seekers are routinely given million pound homes, cars and free money.Nothing could be further from the truth.http://www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/policy_research/the_truth_about_asylum/facts_about_asylum_-_page_1

Paul James ● 4154d

If you're trying to assert that 1939's population estimate is more accurate than 2014's...

Paul James ● 4154d

How many do you think was their estimate...but I suppose it's easy to google.

Keith Iddon ● 4154d

Keith, the census is less about gauging the population than collecting information about it.Local councils and government have far more accurate ways of assessing population numbers than the census, that's why it's pointless.

Paul James ● 4154d

The Independent in 2007 stated that the census can be ignored as many people don't fill it in and illegal immigrants certainly don't. After their investigations with food and sewage companies( you can own four houses but only eat one lunch) I wonder if anyone would like to guess at how many people they estimated the UK population to be?

Keith Iddon ● 4154d

Nigel, you've got it all wrong I'm afraid!The problem is mismanagement of resources.If there were 10,000 people living in London we'd be having the same problems.As for controlling the population by controlling immigration.Japan is a nation of 100 million on an island with less habital space than us.It has little or no immigration.And for those moaning that London has 10 million people, it's population has not grown since 1939, actually, it's gone down a little bit

Paul James ● 4154d

I don't know why you are directing your comments about London to me...Paul was the one who first mentioned London. I merely suggested what countless millions now feel and most newspapers and political discussion shows hve as a topic ie: that there is a problem with the number of people coming to Britain. Perhaps if Paul took his head out of the  sand instead of making offensive remarks about '10 people in London' etc he would be more in touch with what is reality for most people. As for London and what Johnson said, I would imagine being upper or middle class as he was (and as all of us on here probably are) makes it a lot more attractive a place. If I was skint I would probably rather live in a village or the small town I was born in because everyone would know me and the quality of life there is not as dependent on having money as it is in towns. Economic freedom ( having money) always puts a finer patina on any surroundings.

Keith Iddon ● 4155d

We control migration.Sadly, there is still the 'streets paved with gold' fallacy and, as many know, this is far from the harsh reality.People gravitate towards London and Gerry if they knew the underlying problems it would a far less attractive proposition.The problem is that London is still far, far better than many other cities/ countries.

Nigel Brooks ● 4155d

Nigel, your observations are worrying.  How do we stop London from expanding its population before the situation becomes intolerable?

Gerry Tan ● 4155d

Keith, I think Paul's clearly happy and not tired of living in London - as Ben Johnson observed: "When a man is tired of London, he is tired of life."

Gerry Tan ● 4155d

I think Paul would be happy with 20 million in London, as long as he is happy.

Keith Iddon ● 4155d

As I Posted GerryHealth, education, housing and transport are stressed.GPs now routinely send patients to A&Es, the buses are heaving at 06:30 in the morning, we have temporary classrooms again and a loss of play space as schools are forced to build on every scrap of land. One central Ealing primary school has expanded from 540 to 840 pupils by putting a playground on the roof. Even poorly performing schools are now over-subscribed.There is little space (or will) to build affordable housing leading to overcrowding and the scan of beds in sheds.We either limit numbers and growth or accept that this will not get better without even more money being thrown at the problem which, in a time of limited growth coming out of recession, isn't going to happen.

Nigel Brooks ● 4155d

"...significant parts of the infrastructure are under strain or close to breaking point."Nigel, this is a very worrying situation. Which part of the infrastructure is under the most dangerous strain in your opinion? And could it ever be cured?

Gerry Tan ● 4155d

It's an amazing city and all the more so for the people who have chosen to live here but Paul you need to accept that significant parts of the infrastructure are under strain or close to breaking point.Billions have been spent on public transport but it is still overcrowded.Billions been spent on schools but they are overcrowded with a good number in Ealing not even securing a place in borough last September. With rising birth rates this will not improve despite the biggest schools building programme for decades.Housing demand has led to 'hyper-inflation' of prices and the rise of 'rogue landlords'.The health service cannot cope with overstretched GPs simply 'pushing' people to already overcrowded A&E Departments.We either accept this, spend more billions or control numbers.

Nigel Brooks ● 4155d

"Be careful conflating asylum with immigration".I'm not sure what you mean Paul. Please explain.

Gerry Tan ● 4155d

Dunno about you Keith but I LOVE living in London. Amazing place, all the more so for all the people!

Paul James ● 4155d

PS..is that's the best your imagination can come up with Paul? Rather than make snide comments about '10 people in London'the reality is more like 10 million.

Keith Iddon ● 4155d

No, far from it Paul.

Keith Iddon ● 4155d

Keith, I imagine if 10 people lived in london you'd think it was full up right?

Paul James ● 4155d

'For centuries, Britain has been sanctuary to countless waves of immigrants...' Some might say that's why we're full up now.

Keith Iddon ● 4155d

Gerry.Be careful conflating asylum with immigration.Asylum seekers can't work, so can't earn money.https://www.gov.uk/asylum-support/overview

Paul James ● 4155d

There are some lovely Singaporeans about! :-)I do fail to understand why we continually fail to implement a 'contributions based' benefits system. It is common across Europe. Even the Dutch, who few can argue, are a very liberal nation, insist on proof of contribution before one can claim any of their very generous (old age pension is c.£800 per month) benefits. We seem to have a problem putting something similar in place.

Nigel Brooks ● 4156d

"...OK let's blame it all on the immigrants..."For centuries, Britain has been sanctuary to countless waves of immigrants - long may that continue. I'm all for freedom of asylum seekers, war immigrants and freedom to receive benefits, but claimant have to have contributed for a reasonable period before receiving benefits from the State. Britain has always benefitted and become enriched from the various immigrants who've come here imo.

Gerry Tan ● 4156d

PaulNot only do the council 'translate' many of their own documents but they give grants (search the council website under 'translation') to eternal agencies to provide translation services. I maintain that to be part of society one needs to integrate, a key factor is the ability to communicate in the local tongue. I don't see why one's inability to do so should be effectively subsidised and, in so doing, perpetuate isolation. There are many subsidised English language courses in the borough equally those communities who seek to maintain such isolation could provide translation services on an ad-hoc basis without charge to the local taxpayer.

Nigel Brooks ● 4156d

>No services for those who have not put into the pot for anything less than 5 years of arriving in the Borough.No services for students arriving in the borough to study then?All they've done is take take take, never had a job, never paid tax, in fact, they've cost us money.No money for key workers either, which could mean some can't afford to come to fill very important jobs.Oh, I'm bored, OK let's blame it all on the immigrants... ug ug ug.

Paul James ● 4156d

>Scrap translation services.You seem to assume this would save money. I'm not sure it would.

Paul James ● 4156d

Probably not that much but enough, I would venture, to contribute towards a front-line post.

Nigel Brooks ● 4157d

How much do translation services cost the Borough of Ealing? Does anyone know the answer to this one?

Neil F. Weber ● 4157d

Scrap translation services. No other country in which I have lived or worked makes such a concession in translating everything into multiple languages. One is expected to be able to converse (or at least get by) in the local 'tongue' to access services. If you want a translator you pay for their services. Why are we different?

Nigel Brooks ● 4157d

No services for those who have not put into the pot for anything less than 5 years of arriving in the Borough.This borough ( and others) have for generations, supported those who are less fortunate.The trouble is others have been drawn to this in droves and take it as granted that they are entitled to full use of council services from day one.It sounds tough but we should help and support those who have paid their way and through no fault of their own fallen into difficulties. There are too many who take, take, take and make no effort or intention to respect what's given or ever put something back.The pot is not infinite but it's really unfair on those who have paid their way, no matter how modest, and at some find themselves in dire straits but also behind those who have not.

Anthony Waller ● 4157d

If there are a swathe of cuts to be made I would hope that the 'silos' of administrative functions are merged.There is simply no need to have countless separate infrastructures  associated 'managers' to deliver services.Start by looking at the 'global' organisation and then 'drill down' to the detail rather than the normal 'bottom up (e.g. cut the workers)' organisations that take place.Councillors could also take a lead by declining anything more than their basic allowance which would release around £300,000 per year to pay for front line staff- I am not holding my breath. Not cynical just pragmatic.

Nigel Brooks ● 4157d