This Thursday, Glasgow City Council's Executive Committee will reconsider the strategy it previously voted through for mental health services in the city.

Given that executive director for social care David Williams is not expected to change his advice on the way forward, it seems likely the council will press ahead with its plan to cut the budget of Glasgow Association for Mental Health, and reshape the way it and Carr Gomm, another mental health charity, work.

But while feelings are still running high over the policy, the issues risk being lost amid party political rivalries and arguments over definitions.

The committee at which councillors voted to force the rethink raised the question 'when is a cut not a cut'.

Mr Williams seemed to argue that the driving force for the changes was not to save money and that because GAMH was being asked to do something different for less money, the term 'cut' was inappropriate.

This was given short shrift by the charity's chief executive Jenny Graydon after the meeting. "If 30 qualified mental health workers are going to lose their jobs, and the number of hours of support are being cut in half, surely that's a cut - even if you call it a realignment?" she said.

Ms Graydon expressed her feelings during the meeting as well, contrasting the respectful way discussions took place in the City Chambers with the 'disquieting' dealings since GAMH began discussing a range of cuts with officials last autumn - including the need for services to be more focused on outcomes.

It was wrong to say outcomes for service users were not recorded, she said, they are - in an academically approved manner - but the council now wants something different.

This was under discussion, and the charity had accepted and budgeted for a 30 per cent cut in September, that all changed in October, on the basis of a new review of mental health services, she said. "All of a sudden it was 40 per cent with no reason being given, in writing or verbally. We didn't see the service review until the day before the executive committee met - giving us no chance to respond.

"That meant 10 more people would lose their jobs and users would lose 1000 hours of service. It felt quite punitive."

Statements from the council suggested GAMH had not been performing, she said. "In public the council was saying 'GAMH has to improve its services. But there is no evidence for that. We found that unacceptable."

The council denies any such briefing against the charity took place. However the service review itself does state: "A review of the services delivered by GAMH... has highlighted a clear need to improve the performance of the provision."

The row looks set to rumble on. But there are real questions at the heart of this about the best way to deliver mental health services and the potential cost to other services of getting it wrong. It is in noone's interests for it to become bogged down in politics, or semantics.