John Healey MP speech to Adult Services Conference.

John Healey National Children and Adult Services Conference 2010 Thursday 4th November 2010, 9.00am Manchester Central

Thank you for inviting to me to this important conference so early in my new job as Shadow Secretary of State for Health
If you think it’s been an early start from Rotherham and I haven’t shaved properly, you’re right. I’m growing a sponsored moustache during November – raising funds and awareness for the Prostate Cancer Charity. They tell me that 50,000 other men in the country doing it, but I haven’t met one yet.
Andy Burnham, having done this job before me, could have delivered my speech and then his own. I’m very pleased I follow Andy, who did a great deal while Labour were in Government.
I am less than a month into my new job, and I am here to listen as much to as to speak. I am looking forward to talking and working with you closely in the months to come.
And listening is no bad thing for a shadow minister to do for now. It’s what I – and my great Shadow team including shadow minister for social care Emily Thornberry – will do.
Labour lost the election. And for the moment there is a general good will towards the Government, towards two parties coming together in the national interest and attempt to put their differences behind them. But the public have not yet seen or felt the affect of the cuts and the changes to come.
If they have not felt or have not seen what is to come, you do. You are the professional experts and leading local politicians with unparalleled expertise in providing social services. I am very interested in your views.
It’s fair to see that we’re adjusting to opposition. As Minister of State for Housing and Planning I had nearly two and a half thousand people working for me. Since May I’ve been doing my own diary, and last week I had to order the replacement ink cartridge for the printer. Although, I have now been able to appoint one full time person to help me.
But Conservatives and Liberal Democrats are still adjusting to Government. They have to realise that they are making the decisions now, not us. They are the ones with responsibility for current and future care of elderly and disabled people. They are the ones entrusted with the future of our National Health Service.
Now it matters so much less what Labour planned, and so much more what the Tories and Lib Dems plan.
The debate is now no longer between what the Government is doing and what we would have done if we were in Government.
And the serious question is the difference between what they plan and what they do; and in particular the gap between what they say and what they do, what they propose and what they deliver.
It’s early days but the initial signs suggest serious grounds for concern for the future of social care and the National Health Service.
Let me quote a vision and a commitment:
“People should receive health and social care support, which promotes their recovery, independence, inclusion, health and wellbeing. People needing care deserve to be treated with dignity and respect. We understand the urgency of reforming the system of social care to provide much more control to individuals and their carers, and to ease the cost burden that they and their families face.”
1
Andy Burnham could have said that as Secretary of State, but it comes from the Coalition Agreement.
They are setting the right aims, but are they taking the right actions?
I see major flaws that risk serious errors in three main areas:
•
Funding
•
Powers
•
Philosophy
And my underlying concern for the essential services that you provide and commission – to which we are all committed – is that the national Government is setting up local government to fail on social care and health.
Funding
We’re all familiar with the figures on public spending in adult social care:
•
£14.4bn a year spent on adult social services, with a 4% pressure built into the system by increasing demographic pressures
•
Local authorities facing a grant reduction of over 25% - and many councils in the poorest areas face much more. Savings on the scale needed, even with 3% efficiency gains, an increase in charges, and some changes in the eligibility criteria “will be impossible to achieve within the current legal framework.”
That was your analysis; your warning to the Government in the submission made by the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services to the spending review.
There is some extra money being out into personal social services, though I suspect that’s more a tribute to David Behan than Andrew Lansley. This is welcome, as it is for adult social care, but there is no guarantee that the money will be spent on social care because there is no longer any ringfence.
And we’ve seen already this year important funding streams consolidated in the local government grant, but non-ringfenced, being eroded in budget decisions across councils.
The Government claims that social care funding streams are being “protected” but the £1.1b billion in year council cuts show that promise to be not worth the paper the press release was printed on.
And it simply isn’t sufficient to meet the pressure of need.
Figures from Age UK this week claim:
•
Over 250,000 over 65s set to lose home care
•
There will be a 7% real terms cut to council social care spending
I will be more measured, and offer two objections on funding, both of which give us a glimpse of the emerging character of this new Government.
First, it’s fair enough for Andrew Lansley and Paul Burstow to make a lot of the extra £2 billion for social care – both did in the House of Commons this week at Health Questions.
But both must know that it won’t be enough to avoid severe funding shortages.
And both must realise that reading out word for word the Departmental lines to take – as both did in the House of Commons : “
“On this basis there is no need for local authorities to have to reduce eligibility to social care.”
We know from Government that if you adopt a policy, set a position, and become too rigid in repetition, you seem:
•
Out of touch
2
•
Not listening
•
Unwilling to take advice
Second, by all means point, as ministers do, to the extra money for social care. But don’t double count the credit and don’t double count the funding for both NHS spending and social care at the same time. Because when £1 billion switched from the NHS to social care is taken into account, the Government has not protected the NHS as it promised. It’s not the real terms increase of 0.4 percent they claimed, it’s a real terms cut of 0.5 percent.
Powers
The Government set out an important role for Local authorities in the Coalition Agreement in “joining up the commissioning of local NHS services, social care and health improvement,” by promoting integration and partnerships, and by leading joint strategic needs assessments.
We’ve some experience of how easy it is to say and how hard it is to do in practice: planning, housing, the local economy and of course in health and social care.
My fear is that local authorities will get responsibility without the resources or powers to do the jobs the Government says it wants councils and councillors to do. This will be a recipe for frustration and failure in local government.
The public health white paper will be a big test for the Government, and our two principal tests of the Government’s plan when it’s published will be whether local government is given the necessary resources and powers to take on responsibility for public health.
This is the right aim but it requires the right action to achieve it.
Philosophy
Anyone believing the new Government’s commitment to localism meant a commitment to local government will already be deeply disappointed.
On schools, on housing, on police, central Government is reducing and restraining, not reinforcing, local government’s role.
And councils were first in line for more than £1 billion cuts in May and frontline cuts in the spending review.
I don’t see the Government having a consistent belief, as I have, in:
•
Councils as first among equals of local agencies
•
Public accountability through elected representatives
•
The public service ethos as an essential part of the services many of us and our families rely on
I don’t see a consistent government commitment to the public service reforms I want:
•
Greater personalisation of services
•
Greater area not agency funding streams and pooled budgets
•
Greater integration of social care with health – planning, funding, commissioning and delivering
•
Greater investment in umbrella services like those for mental health and learning disabilities.
And I don’t see a consistent government will to make the hard decisions about long term reform.
I welcome Andrew Dilnot’s work on heading the Government’s commission – as Andy Burnham did when it was set up in the summer.
But so much of the ground has been so well covered before, not least by Labour in our Green Paper and White Paper.
3
And Andy Burnham got close to a consensus but we got too close to the General Election. Short term political gain was too tempting for the Conservatives.
I’m glad they’ve allowed the Commission to look at all the funding options and I had hoped we could see the work Andrew Dilnot is doing speeded up.
But when there is no provision in the spending review to implement any recommendation the Commission might make, I think it’s reasonable to doubt the Government’s determination to effect the long term reforms that are needed.
NHS
Now is not the time or the place for a detailed discussion of the Government’s NHS reforms and White Paper, but these are so intermeshed with social care, and in my view ought to be more integrated.
My overriding concern is that the NHS will go backwards under the Government’s plans:
•
GPs and the National Commissioning Board will take health services further away from, not closer to local authorities
•
More GP consortia than PCTs with weaker statutory duties will lead to greater fragmentation not integration
•
Light legal reporting and accountability requirements for GP consortia will mean a more secretive not a more transparent NHS.
•
Any willing provider, and maximum, not set tariffs, will result in the economies of the private market driving the NHS, not the ethics of public service
•
Providers command by local GPs will lead to less patient choice and personalisation, not more
I fear we will lose the ‘N’ in the NHS and see “commercial in confidence” stamped over many of the most important decisions taken.
And let us not forget that this has been described as the biggest reorganisation since the NHS was set up over 60 years ago.
It’s not what NHS patients, staff or the public expected when David Cameron promised before the election and the Coalition Agreement pledged after the election, “no more top down reorganisations in the NHS”.
But like on funding, on the moratorium on service closures, on improving waiting times for patients – in six short months the new Government is falling short of the promises it made on the NHS.
This reorganisation is untested and unnecessary. It is high cost and high risk.
At a time when finances are tight, all efforts should be made to find efficiencies and improve patient care.
But Andrew Lansley is not listening.
NHS experts, professional bodies and patient groups say “slow down”, because this big reorganisation is a big risk for the NHS.
We know from experience in Britain that if people see a Government
•
locked into decisions they’ve taken come-what-may
•
breaking the promises they made to the public
•
and failing to listen to advice
…concern will rise and confidence will fall that these are the right actions to fulfil the aims of civil service reform.
Thank you

Let's pay our respects‏

Dear John,

Ethel Lote was a nurse at the outbreak of World War Two. At a hospital in Birmingham she treated soldiers injured in the war. "The men were all in a terrible state," she remembers. "As well as being absolutely exhausted there were bullet and shrapnel wounds, along with breathing problems after being in the sea for hours. They were the first casualties to arrive after the defeat at Dunkirk.

"The women also suffered through this war. They had to endure being parted from their children, as well as from their men. I remember seeing a group of children who had been evacuated from a city and were waiting for someone to offer to take them home with them. They stood crying with their gas masks over their shoulders, some holding a toy, but all were terribly bewildered and wanting their mothers."

Ethel was part of a generation who helped keep Britain free from Nazism. Next week the HOPE not hate campaign is organising events across the country to pay our respects to them.

Will you join us?
http://action.hopenothate.org.uk/eventsnearme

In remembering those who sacrificed so much we also remind people how the British National Party has repeatedly sided with the Nazis and believed it was wrong that Britain went to war with Germany.

Only this August Adam Walker, a leading BNP officer, attended an international far-right gathering in Japan hosted by Issuikai, a right-wing association that denies Japanese war crimes. While there he visited the Yasukuni Shrine to commemorate the Japanese war dead and excused their actions by claiming they "were doing what they thought was right at the time".

We have come to expect nothing less from the BNP, whose leaders have repeatedly praised the Waffen SS while accusing RAF crews of being the real war criminals.

Will you help us tell people how the BNP have insulted the war generation?
http://action.hopenothate.org.uk/eventsnearme

Unlike the BNP we think we should remember those who sacrificed so much to rid Europe of Nazism. That is why we will be campaigning across the country next week to show our respect to Ethel and her generation. Please join us.

Thanks

Nick



PS if there is no event near you and you are keen to organise one then drop me an email at nick@hopenothate.org.uk.

"The Strasbourg Declaration on Roma”

I represent the Labour Party on The Council of Europe. I serve on the Social Cohesion Committee and have been appointed as Thematic Rapporteur on Roma and Travellers.
Yesterday I represented the Congres of Local & Regional Authorities at a high level meeting on the Roma issue in Strasbourg. Below is the declaration that was agreed.

Council of Europe High Level Meeting on Roma
Strasbourg, 20 October 2010

“The Strasbourg Declaration on Roma”

____________________

(1) Roma1 in many parts of Europe continue to be socially and economically marginalised, which undermines the respect of their human rights, impedes their full participation in society and effective exercise of civic responsibilities, and propagates prejudice.

(2) Any effective response to this situation will have to combine social and economic inclusion in society and the effective protection of human rights. The process must be embraced and supported by society as a whole. A genuine and effective participation of our fellow Europeans of Roma origin is a precondition for success.

(3) While the primary responsibility for promoting inclusion lies with the member states of which Roma are nationals or long-term legal residents, recent developments concerning Roma in Europe have demonstrated that some of the challenges we face have cross-border implications and therefore require a pan-European response.

(4) As situations differ from country to country, the role of international organisations should be first and foremost to support and assist the efforts carried out at national, regional and especially local level.

(5) Based on these considerations the member states of the Council of Europe have adopted the following “Strasbourg Declaration”:

(6) Reaffirming that all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights;

(7) Reaffirming their attachment to human dignity and the protection of human rights for all persons;

(8) Recalling the fundamental values, norms and standards of democracy, human rights and the rule of law, which are shared by the Council of Europe member states and which must guide action at all levels;

(9) Confirming their commitment to promote social inclusion and create the conditions for an effective exercise of civic rights and responsibilities by every individual;

(10) Recalling that active participation of the Roma is crucial for achieving their social inclusion and encouraging them to participate in addressing the problems of, inter alia, relatively low rates of education and employment;

(11) Bearing in mind that the process of inclusion of Roma contributes to social cohesion, democratic stability and to the acceptance of diversity;

(12) Recalling that in the exercise of his/her rights and freedoms everyone must respect the national legislation and the rights of others;

(13) Condemning unequivocally racism, stigmatisation and hate speech directed against Roma, particularly in public and political discourse;

(14) Recalling the obligations of States Parties under all relevant Council of Europe legal instruments which they have ratified, in particular the European Convention on Human Rights and the Protocols thereto, and, where applicable, the European Social Charter and the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities and the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages;

(15) Recommending that State Parties take fully into account the relevant judgments of the European Court of Human Rights and relevant decisions of the European Committee of Social Rights, in developing their policies on Roma;

(16) Recalling their commitment to the principles of tolerance and non-discrimination, as expressed in the statute of European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI);

(17) Drawing on the initiatives, activities and programmes already developed and conducted by member states aimed at the full inclusion of Roma;

(18) The member states of the Council of Europe agree on the following non-exhaustive list of priorities, which should serve as guidance for more focused and more consistent efforts at all levels, including through active participation of Roma:

Non-discrimination and citizenship

Non-discrimination
(19) Adopt and effectively implement anti-discrimination legislation, including in the field of employment, access to justice, the provision of goods and services, including access to housing and key public services, such as health care and education.

Criminal legislation
(20) Adopt and effectively implement criminal legislation against racially motivated crime.

Citizenship
(21) Take effective measures to avoid statelessness in accordance with domestic law and policy and to grant Roma legally residing in their national territory access to identification papers.

Women’s rights and gender equality
(22) Put in place effective measures to respect, protect and promote gender equality of Roma girls and women within their communities and in the society as a whole.

(23) Put in place effective measures to abolish where still in use harmful practices against Roma women’s reproductive rights, primarily forced sterilisation.

Children’s rights
(24) Promote through effective measures the equal treatment and the rights of Roma children especially the right to education and protect them against violence, including sexual abuse and labour exploitation, in accordance with international treaties.

Empowerment
(25) Promote effective participation of Roma in social, political and civic life, including active participation of representatives of Roma in decision-making mechanisms affecting them, and co-operation with independent authorities such as Ombudsmen in the field of human rights protection.

Access to justice
(26) Ensure equal and effective access to the justice system, including where appropriate through affordable legal aid services.

(27) Ensure timely and effective investigations and due legal process in cases of alleged racial violence or other offences against Roma.

(28) Provide appropriate and targeted training to judicial and police services.

Combat trafficking
(29) Bearing in mind that Roma children and women are often victims of trafficking and exploitation, devote adequate attention and resources to combat these phenomena, within the general efforts aimed at curbing trafficking of human beings and organised crime, and, in appropriate cases, issue victims with residence permits.

Fighting stigmatisation and hate speech
(30) Strengthen efforts in combating hate speech. Encourage the media to deal responsibly and fairly with the issue of Roma and refrain from negative stereotyping or stigmatisation.

(31) Remind public authorities at national, regional and local levels of their special responsibility to refrain from statements, in particular to the media, which may be reasonably understood as hate speech, or as speech likely to produce the effect of legitimising, spreading or promoting racial hatred, xenophobia, or other forms of discrimination or hatred based on intolerance.

(32) Consider joining the campaign of the Council of Europe and the European Commission “Dosta! Go beyond prejudice, discover the Roma!” and enhance activities in this framework.

Social inclusion

Education
(33) Ensure effective and equal access to the mainstream educational system, including pre-school education, for Roma children and methods to secure attendance, including, for instance, by making use of school assistants and mediators. Provide, where appropriate, in service training of teachers and educational staff.

Employment
(34) Ensure equal access of Roma to employment and vocational training in accordance with international and domestic law, including, when appropriate, by using mediators in employment offices. Provide Roma, as appropriate, with possibilities to validate their skills and competences acquired in informal settings.

Health Care
(35) Ensure equal access of all Roma to the healthcare system, for instance, by using health mediators and providing training for existing facilitators.

Housing
(36) Take appropriate measures to improve the living conditions of Roma.

(37) Ensure equal access to housing and accommodation services for Roma.

(38) Provide for appropriate and reasonable notice and effective access to judicial remedy in cases of eviction, while ensuring the full respect of the principle of the rule of law.

(39) In consultation with all concerned and in accordance with the domestic legislation and policy, provide appropriate accommodation for nomadic and semi-nomadic Roma.

Culture and language
(40) Where appropriate, take measures to foster knowledge of the culture, history and languages of Roma and understanding thereof.

International cooperation

(41) Ensure focused, sustained and effective co-operation regarding Roma, at the pan-European level, between member states, regions, local authorities and European organisations, drawing on the many examples of good practice which exist at European, national, regional and local levels. In particular, encourage co-operation with the European Union, including through joint programmes such as the intercultural cities, as well as the OSCE;

(42) Ensure close cooperation with Roma communities at all levels, pan-European, national, regional and local, in the implementation of these commitments;

(43) Recognising the need to contribute to the implementation of these priorities through the use of good practices, expertise and available financial resources which exist at European, national, regional and local level, the member states of the Council of Europe:

- (44) welcome the decision of the Secretary General to re-organise resources in a transversal manner within the Council of Europe Secretariat with the task of further developing co-operation with national, regional and local authorities and international organisations in collecting, analysing, exchanging and disseminating information on policies and good practice on Roma, providing advice and support upon the request of national, regional and local authorities as well as practical assistance in the implementation of new policy initiatives, especially at the local level, and providing access to training, capacity-building and educational material;

- (45) encourage close co-operation with member states, other Council of Europe institutions, other international organisations, especially the European Union and the OSCE, as well as civil society, including Roma associations and relevant non-governmental organisations, in order that its work complements rather than duplicates that of other bodies;

- (46) agree to set up a European Training Programme for Roma Mediators with the aim to streamline, codify and consolidate the existing training programmes for and about Mediators for Roma, through the most effective use of existing Council of Europe resources, standards, methodology, networks and infrastructure, notably the European Youth Centres in Strasbourg and Budapest, in close co-operation with national and local authorities;

- (47) encourage member states to use a coordinated, inter-agency approach to dealing with issues which affect Roma;

- (48) take note of the list of good practices elaborated by the Secretary General, entitled “Strasbourg Initiatives” for which he calls for support. This open catalogue of projects having an immediate and measurable impact could serve as a catalyst for future action;

- (49) invite the Secretary General of the Council of Europe to present a first progress report on the implementation of the “Strasbourg Declaration” to the Council of Europe Ministerial Session in Istanbul in May 2011.

Note 1 The term “Roma” used throughout the present text refers to Roma, Sinti, Kale, Travellers, and related groups in Europe, and aims to cover the wide diversity of groups concerned, including groups which identify themselves as Gypsies.

Mindless Vandalism to Parks

As a ward councillor there are times you get really dispondent. You fight for funds for playgrounds for young people, then some mindless yob comes along and does the damage pictured.

If you have any information regarding Chimney Pot park or Clarendon Rec. please pass it on to Greater Manchester Police or contact me.

Rufus May: We must all learn how to care for one another

Found this comment in The Independent on Sunday. Thought I'd share it.

The medical approach to mental health has created whole industries around helping people. We spent £21bn last year on pills, psychiatrists and brief psychological interventions, all of which create dependence among people, rather than empowering them to help themselves. The whole mental health industry is self-sustaining, so the more you "treat" people and suppress the root causes, the more they will come back for more treatment.


This is a big, expensive fallacy, built on the belief that all mental distress is to do with a second-rate brain. But mental health problems are generally a reasonable response to difficult life circumstances. It is our failure to help people acknowledge and address these root causes – lifestyle, relationships, work conditions, loneliness, lack of opportunities, and abuse – that has led to mental distress rates in the UK being among the highest in Europe.

As an NHS psychologist, I am working at the wrong end of things. People like me are being asked to work with those peoplewho have already burnt out, which I love, but is this the best use of resources? We should be working in schools, churches, community organisations and workplaces, to help stop people ever reaching breaking point.

As a society we no longer know how to take care of each other. We need a complete re-think: more money learning how to relate to each other, care for one another, and tolerate each other, rather than more psychiatrists, more nurses, more psychologists and more drugs. We need to work alongside distressed people and help them become more resilient, not treat them like lepers. Such stigma about mental health is shattering people, yet there is no such thing as ill or not ill, no "them" and "us"; mental health is a continuum we all move along. At the moment, we are spending billions of pounds on boats to rescue those who are drowning, when we should be teaching everyone, from a very young age, how to swim and how to help those who are floundering.

Part of this is teaching people, especially children, about mental distress, showing them how to be kinder and more generous if a friend stops eating or is self-harming, so that professionals are not the only answer.

Rufus May is a clinical psychologist, working in West Yorkshire

Rufus May: We must all learn how to care for one another

The medical approach to mental health has created whole industries around helping people. We spent £21bn last year on pills, psychiatrists and brief psychological interventions, all of which create dependence among people, rather than empowering them to help themselves. The whole mental health industry is self-sustaining, so the more you "treat" people and suppress the root causes, the more they will come back for more treatment.


This is a big, expensive fallacy, built on the belief that all mental distress is to do with a second-rate brain. But mental health problems are generally a reasonable response to difficult life circumstances. It is our failure to help people acknowledge and address these root causes – lifestyle, relationships, work conditions, loneliness, lack of opportunities, and abuse – that has led to mental distress rates in the UK being among the highest in Europe.

As an NHS psychologist, I am working at the wrong end of things. People like me are being asked to work with those peoplewho have already burnt out, which I love, but is this the best use of resources? We should be working in schools, churches, community organisations and workplaces, to help stop people ever reaching breaking point.

As a society we no longer know how to take care of each other. We need a complete re-think: more money learning how to relate to each other, care for one another, and tolerate each other, rather than more psychiatrists, more nurses, more psychologists and more drugs. We need to work alongside distressed people and help them become more resilient, not treat them like lepers. Such stigma about mental health is shattering people, yet there is no such thing as ill or not ill, no "them" and "us"; mental health is a continuum we all move along. At the moment, we are spending billions of pounds on boats to rescue those who are drowning, when we should be teaching everyone, from a very young age, how to swim and how to help those who are floundering.

Part of this is teaching people, especially children, about mental distress, showing them how to be kinder and more generous if a friend stops eating or is self-harming, so that professionals are not the only answer.

Rufus May is a clinical psychologist, working in West Yorkshire

John Denham's speech to Labour Party Conference

John Denham MP, Labour's Shadow Communities and Local Government Secretary, speaking to Labour Party Conference today said:

Conference,

John Denham,

New Generation. SAGA section.

I want to thank all the Labour Councillors.

Labour changed Britain for the better, and every one of you was part of that story.

Labour councillors aren't supporters on the touchline of a Labour Government.

You're real players; you've got real passion, real commitment, real power and real responsibility.

And you're going to be challenged like never before.

There are 4500 Labour councillors today.

We can make sure there will be a lot more soon.

Actually there can't be many more here in Manchester.

Manchester would be a Conservative free zone already – if their only Lib Dem hadn't just joined the Tories

Nothing new there then.

The Lib Dems wanted a conference in a Lib Dem City.

By the time they got there Liverpool was Labour.

But look; it's going to be tough. Being a Labour councillor won't be a job for the faint-hearted.

The Coalition is going to slash spending far faster, far harder – and far more unfairly – than this country needs or can stand.

People are going to be asking us to look after their interests in the worst possible circumstances; against all the odds.

We're no use to anyone if we hang our heads in despair or defeat.

Our campaign – supported by CampaignEngineRoom.org.uk – will bring us all together – the people who use public services with the people who provide them...

From village to village, town to town, city to city.

We'll make Labour's case in every election from next May to the General Election.

But we also know that marching round the town hall saying 'no cuts' – it isn't going to be enough when we run the Town Hall.

What I know;

What you know;

Is that we've always found a way to show that Labour values make a difference even in the hardest times.

We won't be able to protect everything we care about; but we'll defend the most important things.

We won't be able keep everything the way it is; so we'll find better ways of doing things.

We all know we'd have had to face some tough decisions.

But we wouldn't be doing what they are doing.

I mean, look at Eric Pickles.

Alright, don't look at Eric Pickles.

There's no excuse, Eric, for putting the biggest cuts on the communities that are hardest pressed.

It's no good telling people they've got more say, when you're telling them how often bins should be emptied o r street parties organised.

It's no good telling people they've got more say, when you're letting Michael Gove waste £200m of their money on cancelled schools.

It's no good telling people they've got more say, when you're wasting a fortune on a top down reorganisation of the NHS.

We don't want elected sheriffs riding off into the sunset with police budgets in their saddlebags, when it's working closely with councils that brought down anti-social behaviour.

It's not good telling local people they've got more say when, instead of bringing local services together, you are pulling them apart.

You're not just cutting too fast and too deep; you're throwing people's money down the drain.

And when every penny of local taxpayers' money has to work harder than ever before, there's no excuse for that.

Frankly, Conference, it's a dog's breakfast of muddle and waste.

And this is the mess they call the Big Society.

Conference, when David Cameron talks about people relying too much on the state and not doing enough for themselves, you'd think we were all sat at home waiting for the council to come round and do the dishes.

I'm sure, that like me, you live in a community of extraordinary generosity, where thousands of people help their neighbours and their communities with countless acts of thoughtfulness every day.

We don't have to choose between state and society.

I know a group in Southampton who befriend lonely older people.

They don't bath them, they don't clothe them or give them medication.

It's the public services – the carers, the nurses, the financial support which make it possible for them to live at home in comfort.

But it's the volunteer friends who shop with them, go to the theatre with them, have cup of tea and a conversation with them.

Who give time that, frankly, no state could ever give – who make their lives not just comfortable but rich.

The best of public service; the best of personal giving.

But take the public service away, and personal giving can't fill the gap.

Conference, we claim no monopoly on generosity, but our party and our members have given birth to countless organisations of change – environmental groups and neighbourhood watches, coops and housing associations, residents' organisations and community centres.

Our party and our members know the difference between a really big society, a good society; and a narrow and mean society.

And that's why we will make a difference over the next few years.

Despite the challenges, despite the Coalition cuts, despite the Coalition chaos, we will win the argument that the deficit is no excuse to destroy a good society.

Despite the challenges, despite the coalition cuts, despite the coalition c haos we will win local elections up and down this country.

And despite the challenges, despite the coalition cuts, despite the coalition chaos, this new generation: our members, our councillors are ready to show that being Labour, thinking Labour, voting Labour makes a difference that really counts.