Celyn Vincent's case makes no sense, morally or economically.

Whether the family of Celyn Vincent are suffering because of Tory cuts, or whether the possibility of her being put into care is due to the already-established system in the UK, surely the case of the Vincent family should make the current government think twice about cutting care for the disabled.

Celyn's mother Riven, who was visited by David Cameron before the election, says she can no longer cope with the round-the-clock care that her daughter needs. Gloucestershire Council are alleged to have refused any more help - the family currently gets six hours a week - and with the lack of ringfencing around funds supposedly meant for improving respite provision for kids with disabilities and their families, councils may well dip into the pot for other things.

David Cameron had a disabled child. He knows what it's like, or at least that's what you'd think. News reports say he's going to write to Riven Vincent personally. That's great. But as Riven Vincent says herself, what about the other thousands of families who are in exactly the same position?

I'm no economist, and I can only hope that the government knows something I don't. Could someone explain to me how families being forced to put their kids into respite care, full time, costs less than the authorities providing support for a child to live at home, with people who love them and friends and family who can help with looking after them? Surely creating a situation where institutionalisation is the only option is the exact opposite of the 'Big Society' idea that the Tories seem to be so proud of?