True Mancunians, SureStart and Youth Services

Six weeks after the riots, comes news from Manchester City Council (MCC) confirming it will cut funding to the city’s SureStart centres.

With one of the main factors suggested for the cause of the riots being poverty and with rioters coming from high deprivation areas, this is particularly bad news.

But what is Surestart? “Sure Start was part of a Labour government policy to prevent social exclusion, and as such, it was targeted at preschool children and their families in disadvantaged areas. The initiative was the result of a cross cutting review of services for young children chaired by the Treasury. The review's conclusions focused on the importance of the early years for child development, and highlighted the problems of multiple disadvantage for young children, the variation in quality of services for children and families and the need for community-based programmes of early intervention.”

The Labour government eventually devolved responsibility and money for the programme to local councils. This money however, was not ring-fenced and now with the Coalition government budget cuts forced on the Council, MCC has decided to withdraw funding from Manchester SureStart centres.

The Council has done this despite Manchester being named the child poverty capital of Britain, with over 25000 children growing up in ‘severe poverty’. In percentage terms, it is twice the number of neighbours Trafford and Stockport.

On top of this, Manchester has massively cut its youth services provision when the number of young people not in employment, education or training is on the rise. With these actions, the Council is abandoning young people as avenues for employment, further education and higher education for young people are being cut back.

This Council’s attitude has not been to support the people of the city, or to support their services. Its attitude has been to focus on regeneration and business. It can be seen in the comments of Council Leader Richard Leese, in response to a question on whether putting regeneration ahead of services was the right thing to do. It can be seen in the £2 million recent acquisition of land around MCC’s swanky new First Street offices.

This ‘leadership’ does Manchester no favours. With the high levels of deprivation in this city, it is imperative to try and maintain services to the most vulnerable. MCC should be addressing these issues alongside encouraging business development not instead of it.

The Council’s claims that there is ‘no other way’ of progressing should be taken with a bowl of salt. This year it has made drastic decisions on services and jobs which have THEN been followed by ‘consultations’. The Youth services and Surestart cuts have been prime examples of this. The Equality Impact Assessment requirements have happened AFTER cuts have been made. Why?

And of those consultations, have any of the results been made public?

The other side this is about democracy and representation. No Labour Councillor has stood up against the cuts to Manchester Youth and Surestart. Maybe too scared or weak to speak its mind, the body of the local Labour party is one that has forgotten its progressive left roots. The Council spin-doctors in fact even accused the Manchester Save SureStart Mums campaign as ‘hi-jacking’ the issue.

Is this the representation of democracy in Manchester?

The Conservatives and the Labour Council share this in common, both are making a CHOICE to cut essential services in Manchester. And before Labour complain, if they CHOOSE to spend over £2 million on land around their new town hall building instead of putting that money into keeping a some Surestarts open until things turn around, it says more than words.

Hulme Green Party stands against the Council on these cuts. We support the Save SureStart campaigns both locally and nationally.

We stand with the Manchester Coalition Against the Cuts in defending Manchester’s services.

In the wake of the riots, MCC ran the ‘I heart Manchester’ campaign, aimed at getting shoppers back spending money in the city centre. NOT pulling together community spirit, volunteering, supporting local communities in need, their campaign was aimed at shoppers.

Within that intense period, Council spokesman Pat Karney talked about ‘true Mancunians’ supporting the city.

The thing about Manchester, it has a strong history of protest and radical reform.

In keeping with this tradition, the ‘Save Manchester SureStart’ campaigners, Manchester Coalition Against the Cuts, BARAC Manchester, Manchester AntiCuts, Greater Manchester Against the Cuts, the Manchester Unemployed Workers Union, the students of both Manchester University and Metropolitan University and many more, are all closer to the spirit of being ‘True Mancunians’ than any merchandise-heavy shopping campaign by Council fat cats will ever tell us.

Hulme is home to both a SureStart (Martenscroft) , youth facilities and a library. Proctor’s Youth Centre has closed, Hulme Adventure Playground under threat. Our SureStart will be affected with all the other centres in Manchester and Hulme library building is about to be closed.

That being so, we have our own campaign. If a decision to cut services hurts the most vulnerable in our communities, it doesn’t matter if it comes from right-wing government or ‘left’-wing Council.

I “heart” Manchester Surestart – Don’t Cut It

I “heart” Mcr Libraries – Keep Them Open

I “heart” Hulme (of course)

And

If anyone wants to use the logos included in this post in a positive way, for a positive cause, go ahead.

Read Full Article >>

Well, I 'heart' Manchester too…

The ‘I Y Manchester’ logo is everywhere you look in Manchester City Centre - posters, bus stops, bags, clothing, mugs, even baby-grows.

The campaign, on the surface, is a call for unity after the shocking riots of August 9^th, a call for the community spirit that led100’s of people to help with the clean-up the morning after.

The notion was great but there is something wrong.

The under-current of the campaign is sour, with a proportion of the city irritated and aggrieved by it.

There are a few of reasons for this but one of the most prominent is the naked attempt to get the local population to spend money, to the backdrop of unprecedented cuts to local services and an increasingly poor economic environment.

The excellent article ‘I YCorporate Manchester’, in the Manchester Mule points out that “with an initial 20 per cent drop in visitors to the centre the Saturday after the disturbances, [Richard] Leese told businesses he needed their help in “getting the message out that Manchester is open for business as usual””.

Of the campaign, Manchester City Council’s Head of Communications Mark Lawrence wrote “ There are a number of events and initiatives going on in the city to encourage people to come into the centre and make the most of the shops, restaurants and bars and show their love for Manchester ”. This was supported by free parking, free tram transport, and ‘spectacular’ outdoor events (including a ‘Manchester Moment’).

Running alongside ‘IYManchester’ has been the lower profile, ‘Shop a Looter’ campaign by the Greater Manchester Police, aimed at tracking down the individuals involved in the rioting.

Following the government's lead, the Council took a tough stance with the rioters, the legal system intent on heavily prosecuting those involved, those in council property threatened with eviction and bans from the city centre.

The Council’s angry tone in response to the riots not only condemned the law breakers in strong terms, it constructed in new terms, the idea of the ‘real’ and the ‘true’ Mancunian.

Pat Karney, council spokesman spoke several times in the absence of Council Leader Richard Leese, saying “We want to send out a strong message that Manchester’s business community is standing together and those that disrespect our city are not welcome and will not be allowed to enjoy it” and in an interview references ‘normal working people’ and ‘thuggish kids’.

There has been no strong lead from the Council on the causes of the riots in Manchester and what it aims to do about it.

Whether or not you are ‘True/Real Manc’ or not, ‘good’ or ‘bad’, how you see yourself described or find yourself defined depends on your social and financial situation.

The Council’s decision to lay off thousands of its staff at the beginning of the year was a blow to the city.

The Mule article states ‘Unemployment in the North West rose 13 per cent in the last three months’, with the source of that information also stating that this increase ‘compared with 1.8 per cent nationally’.

The North West, including Manchester, is being hit hard on the employment front.

In addition, cuts to funding from the Coalition government forced the Council to make controversial decisions about its staffing and services. It moved to cut 2000 staff, and withdrew funding to services like advice centres, youth services and Sure Start. Those moves, coupled with cuts to national support programmes (Job Centres, Connexions, NHS etc) have severely eroded the social safety net for the unemployed, those on low income and those who expect to be made redundant in the coming year.

This is important as Manchester already has some of the highest levels of deprivation in the country (4^th most deprived). The city constantly features in these national indices.

All this indicates that many more people in Manchester are moving towards low income and the poverty line than is publicly admitted.

In light of this however Manchester City Council priorities seem misplaced. In fact it makes great play of the investment coming into the city with the development of Eastlands football complex, the renovation of the Town Hall, its new First Street offices and the NOMA development, while unapologetically cutting back on support services (which not all Councils have done). Council Leader Richard Leese, when asked by MULE editor Richard Goulding whether it would be more sensible to spend money on services like Sure Start and social services rather than continue investment in large regeneration projects he replied: “If you want to create Manchester as the welfare capital of the world that’s a good route to go down.” This is an amazing stance given that Manchester is currently the child poverty capital of England.

The council is unintentionally bringing these differences to the fore with its ‘I Y Manchester’ campaign.

Maybe it is no coincidence that a significant proportion of those arrested in the riots come from areas of high deprivation. A significant number of those arrested were young people, whose avenues for employment, further education and higher education are being curtailed at the same time as their support services.

As the numbers of unemployed grow in Manchester, and the services that normally support those in need dwindle, the implied line that defines who are ‘good and bad’ Mancunians will get closer for a lot of people.

Commenting on these issues Hulme activist Deyika Nzeribe said “The ‘I Y Manchester’ campaign has been a huge disappointment. Instead of using all that energy to pull the city together, to support the people, defend services and yes, support business, it has just been used to encouraging people to shop. And its not a lack of leadership from the Council, they just care more for its businesses and buildings than its citizens. They act and think like 1980s Tories these days.

Manchester isn’t just a place, it’s a people. We pull together. Mancunian. Union isn’t in the name but it should be.

I seriously wonder how much this ‘I Y ’ operation has cost.

And as for ‘shop a looter’, that campaign really gets under my skin. They should have found a way of calling for information on and the arrest of looters without using a guy in a ‘hoodie’. It just adds to the demonization of our young people. They are our young people. Whoever thought of that campaign, whoever signed off on it, is causing bad feeling on top of a bad situation. They should re-do it or get rid of it.”

Read Full Article >>