Our fears for Wirral's disabled transport services (From Wirral Globe)

The writer of this letter is just about spot on about everything they say. I wish them the very best of luck in the future. They already know they need it.
..
The usual suspects have stayed away from this thread, I see. They always do unless it looks like an invitation to a Daily Mail rantfest!

You should be aware, Mr and Mrs Hopkins, that it was not just MBW own transport services that got all the service users home, there was a charitable transport provider who was heavily involved in the operation as well.
As far as the service going out to tender goes this process will provide a considerably cheaper service and please dont come back and say the service will suffer as my nephew has been transported by the said charitable service for many years and it is arguably as good if not better than MBWs own service

piggy, this looks like you are supporting cuts to me. The charity you mention has, I'm sure, done a good job, but why was it neccessary to begin with?
..
I dont know of any service that has improved through being privatised. Why should this be any different?

Why was what, necessary to begin with?
Considerable savings to the tax payer can be achieved without any loss in quality of service, as explained, my nephew has been transported for a number of years by said charity, the drivers and escorts are brilliant and can count on one hand the number of times a breakdown or some other reason has made them late.....they have never once not turned up

Local Authorities should provide such things. The council should employ these people. It is wrong in my opinion that charities should have to get invovled, or anyone else, just because they can do it cheaper.
..
It isn't about saving a few quid for people who do not use the service.
..
Privatisation has never led to improvement in service provided or working conditions for those employed. Anywhere!
..
You are effectively supporting cuts.

If a charity can provide at least an equally efficient service at a lesser cost, whats the problem. Gone are the days when councils provide jobs for life for the boys (unless of course you are one of Foulkes`s boys)
"Privatisation has never led to improvement in service provided or working conditions for those employed. Anywhere!" Sorry Slumdog I dont agree with your generalisation. Of course the other advantage to the charity is that contracted work could lead them into not having to go cap in hand to charitable trusts to survive, thus leaving other charities with possible funding streams for work that cannot be contracted.

piggy, tell me where in Wirral a service has been put out to tender and resulted in an improvement for the service user or those employed? Gone are lots of things piggy, but change isn't necessarily progress.
..
The massive amount of good work done, and the provision made through charities, in any area, should be an 'extra' not a replacement for the services provided through state or local authority funding.
..
It does not save any money for anyone either piggy. It means you pay twice. Once to the council, and then through donations to charity. That is unless you dont donate, in which case you are just interested in looking after number one and people in need of community or disabled transport can do the same.

Sorry Slumdog, but I dont think you know much about charities and the work they do. I dont know where you get the idea that the public are paying twice. Only the big national charities benefit from public donations
The smaller, less high profile charities are all struggling to survive as general all round cuts in funding have even forced closure on many of them. So IMO if a charity can produce an income from contract work to enable it to survive and continue its traditional work then that scenario is a better model than having to rely on public and charitable donations.
I agree that the work charities do should be additional and supportive of the legal duties of national and local governments but hey, get real,
that never has and never will happen.

I agree that local authorities should provide services for those vulnerable people in our society but basically they don’t always do so, so charities often have to pick up essential services rather than provide additional support. It is a sad fact which makes me angry but I'd rather that happened than there be no service at all. And yes people do end up paying twice; once from their taxes and second from the donations made to charities. Many charities do a fantastic job but it shouldn’t be about saving public money it should be about adding value. That said, I wonder how many charities could save money on overheads and thus have more money available to benefit those in need if they moved out of London?

For me the writer has highlighted what seems to be a very relevant issue i.e. the elderly and people with disabilities, particularly if these relate to learning disability or mental ill health, often lose out. For the first time in the UK there are more people aged over retirement age than aged under 16 and this is likely to increase as people live longer. However, for many people their life worsens with age and they don’t get the help they need, want or deserve. Most people know about Sure Start for Children but who knew about Sure Start to Later Life? We hear about the dreadful issue of child poverty, and the government and opposition use it to score points off each other, but much less about the 2.1 million older people are living in poverty in the UK; we spend millions in cancer research and relatively little on dementia research; we have older people at risk of malnourishment DURING a stay in hospital. I could go on and on with other examples but I think these illustrate my point. I am not saying that the much needed services to children should not be provided or should be cut, neither am I saying that we shouldn’t invest in cancer research (although I wonder about the fact that survival is given priority over quality of life but that is another entirely different subject); what I am saying is that we should ensure that there is provision for everyone in our society whether that is statutory provision from local authorities or services from the Third Sector.

I know that people will argue that the money isn't available and I am no economist so can't suggest how it may be found but feel strongly that unless such issues are highlighted they will be brushed under the carpet and never be addressed.

Rainbowbright, whilst I agree with most of your text, I say again I cannot agree that "people end up paying twice" yes it may well be that people donating cash tend to donate to the high profile charities and in particular, animal charities but that is their choice.
When you are next asked to put a donation in the tin ask "how much of my £1 actually goes in the charity pot after expenses are removed, if you get an answer I think you will be shocked. And back to animal charities....they tend to be the richest charities in the world never mind this country (RSPCA and Guide Dogs for the Blind) so is it any wonder why elderly and disabled support charities are struggling and even having to close down. I would ask the public to equalise this imbalance and think about people support charities rather than animal support charities for a couple of years.

Piggy, I agree I bet people would be shocked if they knew how much (little?) money they donate actually gets to the cause.

Yep Rainbow, from my knowledge of charities, particularly the ones that tin rattle in the street, only 20p in the pound actually gets used for charitable work. The other 80p goes in expenses for the tin rattlers and salaries for fund raising staff. Which is why I always ask the question before I put any money in tins and if the charity gets less than 80p or the question cannot or wont be answered, they get nowt.