And every one knows 40% is just to get a list o potential cuts and will never happen, scare scaremongering plane and simple.

Their will be big cuts, but you can’t point out the real issues with where they fall (and their will be plenty I’m sure) if you run around panicking about beyond worst case scenarios.

I disagree Nathanial.

Firstly about the level of cuts being faced and the idea that cuts at this level “will never happen”.

In this instance we’re talking about funding from local government that comes from via central government. Assuming cuts of around 25% or more from the Treasury doesn’t give the full picture of the challenge local authorities are face.

Given, say, low or zero council tax increases, inflation and the further reduction in other specific funding through area based grants, local authorities could well plan cuts about 8-10% per year for four years, from an initial 25% cut to unprotected funding streams at the treasury. And that’s just in terms of revenue funding for services from local government, without including in implications of Housing benefit cuts on vulnerable people.

We’re talking here about lean services run by charities, not-for-profit organisations and housing providers, big cuts means cuts to frontline services.

Secondly, I disagree that we “can’t point out the real issues” by looking at worst-case scenarios. For many of the groups mentioned, there is no statutory duty to provide support and there is no protected funding to meet their needs. Of course, there’s a need for local discussion about where cuts should fall and ways of minimising the impact but here are vulnerable groups that aren’t politically popular or often engaged with those debates. I think it is helpful to raise these issues to get a meaningful debate about what the scale of cuts we’re facing could mean.

I said BEYOND worst case (i.e. panicking about what won’t happen)

The so called “plans” are the start point. I’m not saying there won’t be horrible (and knowing the Tories unfair) cuts but saying “oh woe is us, there WILL BE 400,000 in this area” is not realistic or helpful, it means that when the real cuts come they don’t seem as bad by comparison, but are actually serious issues that need looking at.