Friday, 22 April 2016
Green Candidate calls for Reversal of Cuts to Mental Health Services
Sunday, 15 November 2015
Comment: Where are Manchester Council’s emergency homeless shelters?
When it explained what was offered in the press the response was [to paraphrase
and replace words] – ‘Goodness me, they should hurry up, this is no flowery
joke being out here’.Wednesday, 5 August 2015
Claremont Resource Centre to Close
Over the last few months it has become apparent that the Claremont Resource Centre on Rolls Crescent is to close.
The substantial expansion of Rolls Crescent Primary School next door will mean that the Claremont will be demolished to make way.
Though in the past the building was home to the much-loved Hulme Resource Centre and a Citizens Advice Bureau, its main current occupant is the African Caribbean Care Group (ACCG).
Though initially there were fears the Care Group was also closing down, this appears not to be the case.
The Care Group is however, looking for a new home and as of this moment is still uncertain as to where that would be.
We hope that the Group is aiming to and able to remain in Hulme.
Sunday, 26 July 2015
Manchester Green Party praises Labour MPs willing to oppose damaging Welfare bill
Saturday, 19 November 2011
Manchester’s Surestart Consultations: A flawed argument

Hulme Greens recently commented on the news that the Council was to cut funding to Manchester’s Sure Start services. These cuts were happening against a back drop of high local child poverty and riots in the city.
As the Council moves forward with its plans, it has started a consultation process outlining its reasons for the Sure Start cuts, proposals for the future, a questionnaire and series of public events.
The extensive public consultations are to be commended, with events over 2 months covering most of the Sure Start venues in the city. (It also helpfully published a Directory of Support for Parents and Carers.)
But Manchester City Council’s arguments put forward for the cuts and the scope of the consultations are misleading and ‘unhelpful’. Its ‘Why are we proposing changes?’ page states
“We need to:
- Increase the number of families that access the services available (currently less than a third of families in Manchester)
- Make better use of the buildings we have so they deliver a wider range of services and attract more people to use them
- Identify those families and children who need extra help (especially children aged 0-3 years) more accurately and quickly to ensure that more children enter school ready to thrive, and more families, parents and carers are supported into work. ”
The first line suggests the 40 Sure Start Centres in the city are under-used and inefficient especially as they are used by ‘less than a third of families in Manchester’.
Though open to all families, the POINT of Sure Start is to help the poorest families in society, to help break the cycle of deprivation and it is recognized as an attempt to do so (page 10).
This is especially important as Manchester is recognized as the ‘child poverty capital of Britain’. Framing Sure Start as a service aimed at all families is wrong and the Council is wrong to do so.
The second line specifically mentions the Sure Start buildings above and again in the questionnaires. At the moment, these are exclusively used for Sure Start and related services. This may not be the case by the end of this process and it is important that these buildings primarily do the job they were built for.
The two areas NOT up for negotiation/ consultation are the
- increase in childcare fees (from £126 to £150 per week) by nearly 20%
- reduction of funded childcare provision by 50% to 15 hours per week, the legal minimum.
The combination of these 2 actions will exclude the very families Sure Start was created to support.
Will Manchester City Council makes public what the effects of cutting these services will be and how its proposed outreach service will mitigate these effects?
Having a consultation which leaves out the important aspects of a service so important to the long term health of the city is short sighted and unsafe.
The national concern of the effect the Sure Start cuts will have are especially applicable to Manchester.
Wednesday, 9 February 2011
Manchester Cuts: A severe blow

There is no doubting the severity of the cuts announced by Manchester City Council.
While its understood that budget reductions have been imposed from the Coalition Government, the Council’s pledge to defend front line services is nonsense.
Cutting the majority of youth services and SureStarts in Manchester, then hoping the voluntary sector could take over them could make sense. Unfortunately the voluntary sector is being slashed by 22%.
In Hulme and Moss Side its expected that at least Hulme Library, the Martenscroft SureStart Centre, debt advice service and youth centres will go.
There has been no call to local groups and unions to discuss the best way of saving services, no consultation on how to support the most vulnerable in our communities.
Add this to the increase in charges from Council services and Housing Trusts, VAT increase, cuts to Manchester Advice services, reduced support available from Job Centres, it is not a stretch to imagine serious hardship coming back to Manchester. The Council wrings its hands and says there is nothing to be done yet the Airport owes it £83 million.
And when the dust settles, the Council will look to cut another £60 million next year.
Sunday, 30 January 2011
Manchester Cuts: Is there really no choice?

The shocking announcement of 2000 job losses at Manchester City Council is the biggest result of the cuts handed down from the Coalition Government.
The Council, forced to deal with a £110 million reduction, expects to save £70 million pounds with these staffing reductions. This still means that £40 million pounds will still have to be found and it looks likely that front line services will be in the firing line.
In addition, because of the expected cuts in Manchester’s police, fire and health services Manchester residents are going find it more difficult to access the support they need.
Manchester Green Party (MGP) believes nationally, these cuts could largely be avoided by concentrating the deficit reduction by increasing taxes on the financial sector that caused the deficit.
MGP Chair Brian Candeland said “Not only is the Government pursuing the wrong policies, it is seeking to pass the blame onto local authorities. Whilst all local authorities are being hit to some degree, urban councils in the north such as Manchester and its neighbouring boroughs are being hit particularly hard. This will widen the north-south divide.”
While the Coalition Government has forced this budget reduction on the Council, the Council decides what services will be cut.
MGP urges the Council to make every effort to prioritise services to the vulnerable and saving jobs over capital building projects.
Following last weekend’s GMTUC conference, we note:
- that in the most recent Council accounts (Accounts Statement 2009/10, page 47, 102), Manchester Airport owes the council over £83 million. The airport is currently raising over £280 million to develop its facilities. As a major investor in the airport, the Council is in a position of influence and should look to reclaim those monies.
- the Council's 'sale/transfer' of Hulme's Birley Fields to Manchester Metropolitan University (MMU) for far less than the value of the land (worth £10 million in some estimates). Hulme Green Party says "Its outrageous. The value of that land would go a long way to reducing the effects of the cuts in Hulme and Manchester. As it stands, the whole MMU proposal is not good for the area."





