not to be the slightest bit suprised that Cameron told a porky pie again

[gordyslovesheep]

over Sure Start

and I quote:

Questioner: As a parent who relies heavily on Sure Start centres for the educational and social needs of my child, I would like to know whether these centres will continue to receive funding?

David Cameron: Yes, we back Sure Start. It's a disgrace that Gordon Brown has been trying to frighten people about this. He's the Prime Minister of this country but he's been scaring people about something that really matters. Not only do we back Sure Start, but we will improve it, because at the moment the people who need Sure Start the most ? disadvantaged families ? are not getting enough of the benefit. So we'll contract independent organisations that have a proven track record in helping families, such as Lifeline and Homestart, to run children's centres and reach out to those families who need that extra support. What's more, our plan for 4,200 new Sure Start health visitors will give families expert reinforcements at the time when they need them most.?
David Cameron, The Independent, 5 May 2010

?The money for Sure Start is there, so centres do not have to close.
David Cameron, 2 March 2011

yet from the DFE website "Local authorities have informed the Department that the net reduction of 124 children?s centres since April 2010 includes 6 closures with the remainder of the reduction being accounted for by local reorganisations such as the merger of two or more centres?
Department for Education website, 14 November 2011

not at all suprised - is anyone?

nah, not really

Oh, he'll just pull the usual 'We didn't know how bad the economy really was so we had to make some hard choices' crap. I'll have to hide this thread now- utterly depressing.

yeh - sorry about that !

just depresses the fuck out of me - no doubt they will blame individual LA's - because, by reducing their funding by 20/30/40% and freezing council tax they have given them no choice BUT have been able to wash their collective trotters of the actual dirty decision making

is funding for Sure Start not administered at a local level though- so the money may have been available but the local councils then decided to re-prioritise their funding or merge centres, or fund similar local projects?? although I could be wrong. I know that any funding the charity I work for gets doesn't come from Westminster directly but from a central pot administered by the local council or by other funding streams such as the ESF.

It is typical government policy in times of depression to support localisation of services. So they give local councils more control then blame them when it all goes tits up. When the economy is going well however, governments like to keep control of the money and take the credit.

There have been so many policies coming out of the ConDem govt that move responsibility away from central government, often in the name of the "Big Society" and there are more planned. They've effectively tied local governments hands over funding and set them up to fail.

YANBU to not be surprised though. Cameron is a walking gobshite soundbite and the sooner he goes, the better this country will be.

From The New Statesman

The reason for the closures is that, contrary to Cameron's protestations, Sure Start funding is not protected. Shortly after the coalition came to power, the budget for the centres was amalgamated into a new "early intervention grant", which also includes funding for programmes related to teenage pregnancy, mental health and youth crime. These programmes received nearly £2.8bn in 2010-2011 but, this year, they will receive £2.2bn - a real-terms cut of 22.4 per cent.

The EIG has meant money is now not ringfenced and a number of services are competing for funding - some of which are statutory - eg Youth Offending

this grant funds youth services, connexions (hahahahaha for about 8 more monts - hello JSA) and lots of other small and vital providers

think of fish in a once ample river at the hight of a drought fighting over less and less water :(

i know all the funding applications I have been doing are now very much outcome based- if a charity is not showing measurable results for whatever reason they will struggle to get funding. There is definitely more accountability.

these aren't charities though - we are talking CAMHS and YOT - and they are already very heavily performance measured and regulated - as is Connexions (trust me on tht one!)

The other piece of breathtaking cost-shunting that will happen is from youth justice to children's services, in the form of community sentences for under-18s being re-labelled 'intensive fostering' so that Local Authorities pick up the bill. For an LA of 250,000 people this will equate to well over a million quid, e.g. for Newcsatle upon Tyne it will add another few per cent to the council tax; BUT Cameron has said 'no council tax rises' so there will be more cuts to things like .... Sure Start Centres!

You really couldn't make it up.

The thing is, he didn't lie.

Read the quotation in the OP again - nowhere does he say that there won't be closures or mergers of Sure Start Centres. He says services will continue (they are) and that there will be some new providers (I think there are), and an increase in HVs (are there).

So he's backing the concept - not the detail and certainly not any individual centres/premises. (Well, he couldn't unless I was centralised, and I don't think that would be a good thing).

LAs are in a really difficult position (I like the fish swimming in a reduced river analogy), but where would more money come from? What would you cut instead? (Remember, the government is still having to borrow: there's no spare money, something would have to go). Or would you like to see a council tax increase? Or some other tax increase?

The Government will freeze council tax. The government will apply an approx 10% cut over three years in LA and NHS budgets.

The only place to find the required savings is job losses.

I would worry if I worked in a Sure Start Centre.

Cameron might not have lied but he implied a commitment. A bit like the 'greenest government ever' and Solar FiTs. It all just pisses voters off in the end.