Bristol Greens Slash In-House Care While Claiming In-House Saves Money,

Council plans £900,000 cuts to day centres for elderly and disabled people—the very services other authorities kept in-house to save millions.

Feb 05, 2026

Picture this. You’re running a business. You’ve got two options: Option A costs you 20% less. Option B costs 20% more. Which one do you pick?

Now watch what Bristol’s Green administration just did. They’re cutting £900,000 from their own in-house day centres and respite services for elderly and disabled people. At the same time—literally in the same breath—Green councillor Lorraine Francis is telling you they’re “increasing our own in-house provision” to avoid “throwing council taxpayers’ money at expensive private care companies.”

See the problem? She’s praising the cheaper option whilst voting to cut it. Not last year. Not next year. Right now. Same budget. Same decision.

But here’s where your brain should really start asking questions. Lorraine Francis isn’t some random councillor who wandered in off the street. She’s worked as a social worker for 30 years, specialising in mental health within the NHS. She’s a qualified therapist. She chairs the Adult Social Care Policy Committee.

So when she signs off on cutting £900,000 from services for vulnerable adults, does she not know what happens next? Or does she know exactly what happens and she’s voting for it anyway? Which backwards institute gave her that training? Does she need a refresher course? Or is her own mental competence heading towards needing the same services she’s cutting—as a recipient rather than a professional?

Though I suppose when you’re a Green Party councillor, cuckoo land’s just familiar territory, isn’t it?

What Are They Actually Cutting?

Bristol provides care for over 5,000 elderly and disabled residents. They spend £221 million a year on adult social care. Between April and March next year, they need to save £8.4 million from this budget.

Day centres? Getting chopped by £600,000 over two years. Respite care—you know, the thing that stops exhausted family carers from collapsing? That’s getting cut by £250,000.

Now stay with me here because this is where it gets mental. Two care companies have already walked up to the council and said “we can’t afford to look after people anymore” and handed their contracts back. More companies are expected to fold because of inflation, wage rises, and the fact that people’s care needs are getting more complex and expensive to meet.

So you’ve got private providers collapsing. And the council’s response? Cut funding from their own services.

Does that make sense to you? When the ship’s sinking, do you drill more holes in the hull? This bunch of hapless numpties seemingly would.

But Where’s The Money Going?

Here’s what gets protected in the same 2025/26 budget where Francis is cutting £900,000 from vulnerable adults.

Labour flagged it during the budget debate itself: “We have seen an explosion in spending on executive salaries while the council undertakes reviews of vital frontline services, particularly relating to Adult Social Care.”

Those aren’t historical costs. That’s happening right now, in the same budget planning period where these cuts were finalised.

The council’s own published figures as at December 31, 2024? Executive directors earning £135,000 to £165,000. Directors pulling in £94,000 to £120,000. Annual salaries. Being paid whilst day centres and respite care get slashed.

Labour documented the specifics during budget scrutiny. The Greens spent an extra £216,000 on a new Executive Director. They spent £198,000 fixing a typo on council tax bills. They wasted £460,000 on their failed attempt to privatise the Bottle Yard Studios. And those new council-owned children’s homes sitting empty? They’re bleeding a million pounds a year.

Do the maths. That million quid haemorrhaging from empty properties every year? That’s £100,000 more than the entire £900,000 being cut from day centres and respite care. The Bottle Yard privatisation failure alone would’ve covered half the cuts. The typo fix would’ve funded a third of the day centre cuts.

Same budget. Same planning period. Same set of choices about what to fund and what to cut.

Francis sat in that committee and chose to protect executive salaries whilst cutting services for the people a social worker’s professionally trained to support. Does that sound like social work to you? Or does it sound like something else?

The Services Being Dismantled.

Bristol Community Links—BCL North, South and Central. Council-run day centres rated “Good” by the Care Quality Commission. The council directly employs everyone who works there. They own the buildings. They control the quality.

And here’s what matters: running it yourself costs 15 to 25% less than paying private companies to do it for you. That’s not opinion. That’s documented research any first-year social work student could cite.

Day centres provide what the budget documents call “meaningful activities” for adults with additional needs. Respite care gives planned short breaks for carers and the people they’re looking after. Not luxuries. Prevention. The thing that stops family carers from reaching absolute breaking point and the whole support structure collapsing.

Which Francis would know, wouldn’t she?

How Are They Hiding It?

Labour councillor Ellie King spotted it immediately. “There were some pretty carefully chosen words which didn’t necessarily get across what was being proposed. Does that mean we’re proposing to close a day centre? It was probably most pronounced in adult social care, where it was quite unclear phrasing that was used.”

You know how this works, don’t you? You ask people what they think, but you phrase the question so vaguely they can’t actually tell you what they think about what you’re really planning. The budget documents say staff will “look at what people need” and make sure “the right services are in place.”

Translation? We’re closing stuff, but we’ve buried it under so much bureaucratic bollocks you won’t work it out until after we’ve done it.

The council promises to “consult the public on the upcoming reviews.” Right. Because they’ve got such a brilliant track record with public consultation, haven’t they? They implemented transport schemes when 54 per cent of residents opposed them. But sure, this consultation will definitely matter this time.

What Did Other Councils Do Instead?

While Bristol’s cutting its in-house services, other councils went the complete opposite direction. And saved millions.

Wigan? Saved £25 million on adult social care between 2011 and 2018 by keeping services in-house. By 2017-18, they’d balanced their adult social care budget after it was heading for a £6.9 million overspend. They got 3,000 fewer people needing traditional social care services whilst getting 71 per cent the support they needed in their own homes. They froze council tax for six years straight. Total savings? £141.5 million.

Islington brought waste collection, street cleaning and grounds maintenance back in-house. Saved £3 million a year. Nottingham brought catering back in-house. Now it generates £1.25 million turnover instead of paying fees to outside contractors. Derby saved over £1 million bringing highways maintenance back in-house after Carillion went bust.

The research? Crystal clear. Running services in-house typically saves you 10 to 30 per cent compared to outsourcing when you add up contract management costs, profit margins private companies extract, and transaction costs. For social care specifically? You’re looking at 15 to 25 per cent cheaper running it in-house versus private contracts.

Core social work training. The research Francis has been working with for three decades. She just can’t seem to apply it when it conflicts with her political priorities, can she?

So What Did Francis Actually Say?

Go back and read it. “By increasing our own in-house provision for supported housing, we will enable people to stay in Bristol without throwing council taxpayers’ money at expensive private care companies.”

She said it. Out loud. In a meeting. Then her administration cuts £900,000 from in-house day centres and respite services as private care providers literally collapse and hand contracts back because they can’t afford to continue.

Does that sound consistent to you?

This is the same administration that promised 1,000 council homes a year and sold 1,222 existing properties instead. They implemented transport schemes despite majority opposition. They systematically stonewalled Freedom of Information requests. They wasted £430,000 on a failed attempt to privatise the Bottle Yard Studios.

Now they’re cutting services for the most vulnerable people whilst claiming those exact services save money. See the pattern? It’s not incompetence. It’s consistency.

What Happens When Those Care Companies Fold?

Two firms have already said “we can’t afford to look after your vulnerable residents anymore” and given the contracts back. More companies are going under imminently.

What’s the rational response when private providers are failing? Strengthen your in-house provision to fill the gap. Any social worker with three months’ experience would tell you this.

Francis has got 30 bloody years behind her!

When those care companies fold completely, where do these vulnerable adults go? What happens to the exhausted carers?

Ask yourself three questions:

Is it practical to cut care services as demand rises and providers collapse?

Is it logical to dismantle the cheaper in-house option whilst praising in-house provision and watching the expensive private option fail?

What’s the likely outcome? More vulnerable people without support. More exhausted carers reaching breaking point. Increased pressure on emergency services and hospitals. Higher long-term costs from crisis interventions that could’ve been prevented by the day centres and respite care you just cut.

Francis knows these answers. She’s been trained on them for 30 years. She’s cutting the services that prevent the crisis.

Why?

What This Actually Means.

The elderly and disabled residents using these day centres aren’t budget line items on a spreadsheet. They’re real people whose quality of life depends on these services. Their carers aren’t statistics. They’re exhausted family members who desperately need those short breaks to keep going.

Wigan, Islington, Nottingham, Derby—they all proved keeping services in-house saves money and improves outcomes. Bristol’s Green administration heard this. Francis lived it for three decades. She said it explicitly.

Then they cut £900,000 from the in-house services they’re simultaneously praising.

It’s a big club, and you ain’t in it. Bristol’s councillors are showing you exactly what that means. They’ll protect their narrative and cut support for people who’ve got no power to fight back.

The Greens have mastered sounding progressive whilst implementing regressive cuts. They’ve built their entire brand around virtue signalling on fashionable causes whilst systematically dismantling services for people who actually need them. It’s activism pretending to be governance. And vulnerable adults are paying the price as a qualified social worker with three decades of experience chairs the committee making the cuts.

When activists move from opposition into government without changing how they think, this is what you get. They’ve seen what works. Other councils proved it saves millions. Francis learned exactly why it works.

They just can’t bring themselves to do it when it conflicts with looking good on the causes they care about being seen caring about, can they?

Bristol Citizen nailed the absurdity: “Instead of daycare, we can dump the elderly in their local parklet and give them a trans flag to wave at passing cyclists.”

That’s not commentary anymore. That’s just honest reporting.