Forum Topic

Council: Not much time for the unwell

Terry Freestone and Philippa Bond make an excellent point about Ealing Council not increasing Council Tax by two per cent to cover requirements in Adult Social Welfare (which is is allowed to in spite of Central Grovernment caps).I have broken my reply to them on the other rubbish colelction-related thread where they refer to this as I think it is very important as few people reaise that many on the cuts in care and support for adults could have been avoided.Ealing Labour Group has bever had much time for the disabled or adults in need of care. It is a political group rather than a social group. The fact that Poltical Assistants are still employed and paid for by the Council while disabled care centres are closed emphasizes this situation. We have seen extra charges imposed in adult respite care and for Council Tax for the disabled and their carers (who do what they do out of love and not for money saving the state a fortune). The two percent hike in Council Tax for adult social care could have helped keep many facilities for the ill and for the disabled open. Once a leading Labour apparatchik told me that there were only two homeless in Ealing, who didn't want to live indoors, although there were already hundreds of rough sleepers in Ealing, as these people were not legal, and were not signed on, they did not exist and so were not homeless. This mentality prevails today in Ealing Labour, with the emphasis on ignoring those that are not part of the latest (Stalinist) five-year plan.

John Murias ● 3176d8 Comments

This does not surprise me. I know several stories of obstruction of people trying to get support from ealing. In fact they have spent thousands on legal advice in two cases know of to obstruct or deny people help. But this is also true in  Hounslow. But then  Housing is at a crisis point in London and the limited resources are stretched too far so is it surprising that the staff on the front line are so unhelpful.

Peter Chadburn ● 3135d

Watching a programme on the television today 'Can't pay? We'll take it away' on Channel 5 a couple of the topics were filmed in Acton.One vulnerable couple were evicted from rented accommodation and told to telephone Ealing Council so they can have a bed for the night.The lady facing eviction (who was extremely upset by the way) was advised to telephone the Council by the bailiff.She then rang Ealing Council, the conversation was brief,  all she was told was that she had to make her way to Ealing Town Hall, then the person at Ealing Council actually HUNG UP on the lady!!!No wonder the bailiff was speechless!

Jean F Fernandez ● 3136d

It would be like you going for a mortgage from Wonga.com such bad value. I remember the battle between Ken and Gordon Brown over the financing of the Tube. these contracts only benefit the investment bankers. But West Middlesex is all nice and shiny but as my girlfriend found out in the last couple of days is staffed by very unhelpful people who send you to the wrong places and give out false information. God help us if Ealing closes.

Peter Chadburn ● 3167d

Some excellent points above about disastrous PFI contracts.With interests rates so low, we should seize the opportunity and look to buy ourselves out of them completely.

Mark Walker ● 3167d

Yes It worries me about Ealing and is the main reason for their opposition to hospital changes is that the responsibility for sick people will also be on the council.Given the threats to Ealing Hospital people will have to go to other hospitals. This is really a frightening situation as the whole mess is as a result of the PFI hospitals not being able to pay their bills. as a result find a reason to close the non-PFI hospitals and build loads of expensive flats to subisidise the madness of PFI for a few more years. In all the politics about local hospital reorganisation no one has said what is the PFI burden.see  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-15010279but this is the big issue in the health service. the cost is due to overpaying for shiny new hospitals. The mortgage cost is the worst way to finance them. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200203/cmselect/cmpubacc/155/155.pdfbecause PFI has been the way for the last 20 years to provide new hospitals we see a leaking of much needed money to investment bankers from the NHS. So New Labour and the Tories preferred this option. but now the underlying cost is crippling NHS trusts forcing reorganisations that close decent hospitals. So by tying in councils to also sort out this mess is another way of hiding from the real issues. West Middlesex and other PFI hospitals are the main driving force behind the reorganisation than clinical excellence!! Yes Ealing are already failing the sick. God help us if Ealing Hospital closes

Peter Chadburn ● 3167d

I like the many sleeping rough,am not entitled to care by Social Services,my wife is my carer,as I suffer from Multiple Sclerosis,and do need help, not forthcoming because,I do not fit the criteria,being over fifty years old,services are unavailable due to age,all this help in the community is a farce,people are still kicked out of Hospitals at ungodly hours to sink or swim on their own!!!!!!Thing are only going to get worse,those who think things are good,have blinked sight,or don't live in the real world.

Dr John Stolworthy D.Sc ● 3167d

Party political point-scoring and pandering to the masses who think the only service they use is the bin collection - and can't see past that.It does have to be ring-fenced for this social care.  The first cuts this Council made were to the social services.  We are told that there is a growing elderly population who will need help.  People have to leave hospital earlier than they would have done in the past and then need care and support in their own homes both temporarily and permanently.  It is important that carers have support and that there are accessible buildings and transport for services and outside activities.

Philippa Bond ● 3175d

I have corrected some of the spelling mistakes that I made in my previous post so that it makes better sense.Terry Freestone and Philippa Bond make an excellent point about Ealing Council not increasing Council Tax by two per cent to cover requirements in Adult Social Welfare (which it is allowed to in spite of Central Grovernment caps).I have broken out my reply to them on the other Filthy Ealing-related thread where they refer to this as I think it is very important as few people realise that many of the cuts in care and support for adults could have been avoided.Ealing Labour Group has never had much time for the disabled or adults in need of care. It is a party politically-focused group rather than a local-needs socially-oriented group. The fact that Poltical Assistants are still employed and paid for by the Council while disabled care centres are closed emphasizes this situation. We have seen extra charges imposed in adult respite care and for Council Tax for the disabled and their carers (who do what they do out of love and not for money surviving on carers' benefits and saving the state a fortune). The two percent hike in Council Tax for adult social care could have helped keep many facilities for the ill and for the disabled open.Once a leading Labour apparatchik told me that there were only two homeless in Ealing, who didn't want to live indoors, although there were already hundreds of rough sleepers in Ealing, as these people were not legal, and were not signed on, they did not exist and so were not homeless. This mentality prevails today in Ealing Labour, with the emphasis on ignoring those that are not contributing to the latest (Stalinist) five-year plan.

John Murias ● 3176d