Alternatively another indication Starmer may be a continuity Corbyn candidate afterall.
Have we seen any indication of Starmer rejecting and denouncing Corbyn or Corbynism yet?
Not to my knowledge. But even 'the same thing, but more competently' would be something.
You think "The Gulags - but more competently" would be a way to sell a new and improved Stalinism?
No, but as awful as Corbyn would be he isn't Stalin, so I'm not sure what point you think you are making by being so bloody silly. My point was that competency in general even with the same policies would be more beneficial for Labour than mirroring the incompetence of Corbyn along with his policies. I didn't comment on whether those policies were any good. Quite why that was taken as endorsing Corbyn, or equatable to Stalin, I have no idea.
Or rather I do have an idea why people would pretend to believe that. Unfortunately.
There seem to be an awful lot of opposition politicians who have only just woken up today to what the Brexit vote means.....
Hang on, I've been repeatedly reassured on here by a lot of PB Leavers that Brexit was nothing to do with immigration.
Really?! Don’t fall for that old claptrap
Yes, it was quite obviously so.
Now we get to see if the policy of only allowing admission to people of intelligence* and income into Britain to our higher status jobs to rule over the unskilled Britons is a successful one as far as the depressed old coalfields and coastal towns are concerned.
Exactly. So he is musing that in some hypothetical future, some people might suggest a response. He is certainly not suggesting that the NHS should (present tense) cover the cost of such selection, which in any case isn't possible today. He's not even suggesting it for the future hypothetical circumstances. He's musing that it might be a future suggestion by others.
Precisely. He's even musing (oh the mock horror) that in this weird dystopian future that we'd still have an NHS.
It says something about the people who run care homes that they are charging a grand a week per guest, yet the staff apparently won’t make the minimum amount required to get a work VISA.
The voters don’t care about Cummings - utter bubble story.
Pension tax relief however is Brexit level voter annoyance.
I agree about Cummings. Not sure that pension tax relief will be much more than a minority interest though. Not bothered about it will be: - all those already retired - all those not in employment - all those making no or next to no pension contributions
I reckon that adds up to a large majority of the country.
PS I am not saying discouraging citizens from saving for their retirement is a good thing though, far from it.
Add in public sector types on defined benefits.
There will be a sizeable % who IMHO are Con voters who will be ferking livid.
They are grafting and doing the right thing and are about to get punched in the face whilst the public sector and Boomers escape.
That they have the gall to think themselves superior to the Mail is astonishing.
The Guardian is not only superior to the Mail but in a completely different class. One quick look at the websites or typical front pages tells you that.
What is it about the Guardian article you think is dishonest?
Err - the fact that it is entirely based on a lie that Cummings proposed or supported something which he didn't. Pretty basic, surely?
You think they are making up the Cummings quotes?
No, quite the opposite. They have no doubt quoted them accurately, which is why it is entirely clear that they are smearing him Mail-style. He says nothing which bears the interpretation they've put on his words.
Pah! Cummings is fair game. Live by the sword...
Oh, he's fair game for sure. But you can' t twist words into a lie and also claim the moral high ground or be respected as a serious newspaper.
I am struggling to see the lie tbh. Spin, yes, but show me the newspaper serious or otherwise that doesn't do that?
"he suggested in his own writings that the NHS should cover the cost of selecting babies to have higher IQs".
Which they support with this Cummings quote (my bold):
"Once we identify a substantial number of IQ genes, there is no obvious reason why rich people will not select the egg that has the highest prediction for IQ. This clearly raises many big questions. If the poor cannot do the same, then the rich could quickly embed advantages and society could become not only more unequal but also based on biological classes. One response is that if this sort of thing does become possible, then a national health system should fund everybody to do this."
Exactly. So he is musing that in some hypothetical future, some people might suggest a response. He is certainly not suggesting that the NHS should (present tense) cover the cost of such selection, which in any case isn't possible today. He's not even suggesting it for the future hypothetical circumstances. He's musing that it might be a future suggestion by others.
Yep, they've spun his own words. Never seen that done by any paper before.
The voters don’t care about Cummings - utter bubble story.
Pension tax relief however is Brexit level voter annoyance.
I agree about Cummings. Not sure that pension tax relief will be much more than a minority interest though. Not bothered about it will be: - all those already retired - all those not in employment - all those making no or next to no pension contributions
I reckon that adds up to a large majority of the country.
PS I am not saying discouraging citizens from saving for their retirement is a good thing though, far from it.
Add in public sector types on defined benefits.
There will be a sizeable % who IMHO are Con voters who will be ferking livid.
They are grafting and doing the right thing and are about to get punched in the face whilst the public sector and Boomers escape.
Boris will rue the day.
Let's see what the actual budget proposals are shall we?
That they have the gall to think themselves superior to the Mail is astonishing.
The Guardian is not only superior to the Mail but in a completely different class. One quick look at the websites or typical front pages tells you that.
What is it about the Guardian article you think is dishonest?
Yes, quoting Cummings on eugenic selection of babies on the NHS seems reasonable reporting to me.
Is Dominic on his last legs, in your opinion?
No, he will run a while longer. Johnson is too lazy to sack him, and he won't give up his precious lightly.
He wants to smash all the institutions of state. Like many Brexiteers he hates modern Britain.
Given his apparent hatred for institutions and institutional ways of doing things, its surely not merely modern Britain.
Not that a shake up, a deep one, is not necessary sometimes and unlikely to be done without unhappy disruption, but the man does come across as a bit student politics, all usually basic ideas dressed up to be profound. He's at least got some wins under his belt.
The Guardian is not only superior to the Mail but in a completely different class. One quick look at the websites or typical front pages tells you that.
What is it about the Guardian article you think is dishonest?
Err - the fact that it is entirely based on a lie that Cummings proposed or supported something which he didn't. Pretty basic, surely?
You think they are making up the Cummings quotes?
No, quite the opposite. They have no doubt quoted them accurately, which is why it is entirely clear that they are smearing him Mail-style. He says nothing which bears the interpretation they've put on his words.
Pah! Cummings is fair game. Live by the sword...
Oh, he's fair game for sure. But you can' t twist words into a lie and also claim the moral high ground or be respected as a serious newspaper.
I am struggling to see the lie tbh. Spin, yes, but show me the newspaper serious or otherwise that doesn't do that?
"he suggested in his own writings that the NHS should cover the cost of selecting babies to have higher IQs".
Which they support with this Cummings quote (my bold):
"Once we identify a substantial number of IQ genes, there is no obvious reason why rich people will not select the egg that has the highest prediction for IQ. This clearly raises many big questions. If the poor cannot do the same, then the rich could quickly embed advantages and society could become not only more unequal but also based on biological classes. One response is that if this sort of thing does become possible, then a national health system should fund everybody to do this."
Exactly. So he is musing that in some hypothetical future, some people might suggest a response. He is certainly not suggesting that the NHS should (present tense) cover the cost of such selection, which in any case isn't possible today. He's not even suggesting it for the future hypothetical circumstances. He's musing that it might be a future suggestion.
But I thought the plan was to sell the NHS to Trump ?
That they have the gall to think themselves superior to the Mail is astonishing.
The Guardian is not only superior to the Mail but in a completely different class. One quick look at the websites or typical front pages tells you that.
What is it about the Guardian article you think is dishonest?
Yes, quoting Cummings on eugenic selection of babies on the NHS seems reasonable reporting to me.
Is Dominic on his last legs, in your opinion?
No, he will run a while longer. Johnson is too lazy to sack him, and he won't give up his precious lightly.
He wants to smash all the institutions of state. Like many Brexiteers he hates modern Britain.
Boris wasn't lazy last week, sacking all round him.
I thought Dom was the back bone of the government.
Sacking enemies and rivals is easy, it is sacking allies and friends that takes effort.
Johnson will continue to let Cummings to run riot, until he becomes a threat to the PM.
It says something about the people who run care homes that they are charging a grand a week per guest, yet the staff apparently won’t make the minimum amount required to get a work VISA.
Agreed - that's always baffled me. Where does the money go?!
It says something about the people who run care homes that they are charging a grand a week per guest, yet the staff apparently won’t make the minimum amount required to get a work VISA.
No. It shows that it is an extremely labour-intensive business.
The voters don’t care about Cummings - utter bubble story.
Pension tax relief however is Brexit level voter annoyance.
I agree about Cummings. Not sure that pension tax relief will be much more than a minority interest though. Not bothered about it will be: - all those already retired - all those not in employment - all those making no or next to no pension contributions
I reckon that adds up to a large majority of the country.
PS I am not saying discouraging citizens from saving for their retirement is a good thing though, far from it.
Add in public sector types on defined benefits.
There will be a sizeable % who IMHO are Con voters who will be ferking livid.
They are grafting and doing the right thing and are about to get punched in the face whilst the public sector and Boomers escape.
Boris will rue the day.
Let's see what the actual budget proposals are shall we?
I think there is a tin ear floating this - potential to be a massive game changer.
That they have the gall to think themselves superior to the Mail is astonishing.
The Guardian is not only superior to the Mail but in a completely different class. One quick look at the websites or typical front pages tells you that.
What is it about the Guardian article you think is dishonest?
Err - the fact that it is entirely based on a lie that Cummings proposed or supported something which he didn't. Pretty basic, surely?
You think they are making up the Cummings quotes?
No, quite the opposite. They have no doubt quoted them accurately, which is why it is entirely clear that they are smearing him Mail-style. He says nothing which bears the interpretation they've put on his words.
Pah! Cummings is fair game. Live by the sword...
Oh, he's fair game for sure. But you can' t twist words into a lie and also claim the moral high ground or be respected as a serious newspaper.
I am struggling to see the lie tbh. Spin, yes, but show me the newspaper serious or otherwise that doesn't do that?
"he suggested in his own writings that the NHS should cover the cost of selecting babies to have higher IQs".
Which they suppohealth system should fund everybody to do this."
Exactly. So he is musing that in some hypothetical future, some people might suggest a response. He is certainly not suggesting that the NHS should (present tense) cover the cost of such selection, which in any case isn't possible today. He's not even suggesting it for the future hypothetical circumstances. He's musing that it might be a future suggestion.
What is fascinating is how much the Guardian HATES Cummings. And fears him.
Their pursuit of him is obsessive. This is not a front page headline in any normal paper, but they have put it at the top.
I agree with that point. It's also a bit pointless because, given the typical Guardian reader, they are preaching to the converted.
It says something about the people who run care homes that they are charging a grand a week per guest, yet the staff apparently won’t make the minimum amount required to get a work VISA.
I agree. There's a black hole in the care industry which, judging by the comments of those I've seen interviewed, seems to disproportionately benefit those running it, quite possibly at a cost to the Revenue.
That they have the gall to think themselves superior to the Mail is astonishing.
The Guardian is not only superior to the Mail but in a completely different class. One quick look at the websites or typical front pages tells you that.
What is it about the Guardian article you think is dishonest?
Err - the fact that it is entirely based on a lie that Cummings proposed or supported something which he didn't. Pretty basic, surely?
You think they are making up the Cummings quotes?
No, quite the opposite. They have no doubt quoted them accurately, which is why it is entirely clear that they are smearing him Mail-style. He says nothing which bears the interpretation they've put on his words.
Pah! Cummings is fair game. Live by the sword...
Oh, he's fair game for sure. But you can' t twist words into a lie and also claim the moral high ground or be respected as a serious newspaper.
I am struggling to see the lie tbh. Spin, yes, but show me the newspaper serious or otherwise that doesn't do that?
"he suggested in his own writings that the NHS should cover the cost of selecting babies to have higher IQs".
It is settled science that Yorkshiremen have higher IQs.
It says something about the people who run care homes that they are charging a grand a week per guest, yet the staff apparently won’t make the minimum amount required to get a work VISA.
No. It shows that it is an extremely labour-intensive business.
It says to me that even if each guest had a care assistant each, the home would have over 27k a year per guest left over. Seems alright
It says something about the people who run care homes that they are charging a grand a week per guest, yet the staff apparently won’t make the minimum amount required to get a work VISA.
Agreed - that's always baffled me. Where does the money go?!
Nice margin for the owners I guess. Now it might not be quite as lucrative
That they have the gall to think themselves superior to the Mail is astonishing.
The Guardian is not only superior to the Mail but in a completely different class. One quick look at the websites or typical front pages tells you that.
What is it about the Guardian article you think is dishonest?
Err - the fact that it is entirely based on a lie that Cummings proposed or supported something which he didn't. Pretty basic, surely?
You think they are making up the Cummings quotes?
No, quite the opposite. They have no doubt quoted them accurately, which is why it is entirely clear that they are smearing him Mail-style. He says nothing which bears the interpretation they've put on his words.
Pah! Cummings is fair game. Live by the sword...
Oh, he's fair game for sure. But you can' t twist words into a lie and also claim the moral high ground or be respected as a serious newspaper.
I am struggling to see the lie tbh. Spin, yes, but show me the newspaper serious or otherwise that doesn't do that?
"he suggested in his own writings that the NHS should cover the cost of selecting babies to have higher IQs".
It is settled science that Yorkshiremen have higher IQs.
It says something about the people who run care homes that they are charging a grand a week per guest, yet the staff apparently won’t make the minimum amount required to get a work VISA.
Doesn't surprise me. Its not like you can have 20-30 residents per care worker and they only need care for 8 hours a day Monday to Friday is it?
Its a very labour intensive business that requires 24/7 care. There's 168 hours in a week so to provide 24/7 care you need more than 4 employees doing 40 hours per week just to have 1 person working at any one time.
It says something about the people who run care homes that they are charging a grand a week per guest, yet the staff apparently won’t make the minimum amount required to get a work VISA.
Pet peeve: it’s “visa” not “VISA”. VISA is a brand of credit/debit card. The etymology of the document authorizing entry to a country is from the Latin “which has been seen”.
That they have the gall to think themselves superior to the Mail is astonishing.
The Guardian is not only superior to the Mail but in a completely different class. One quick look at the websites or typical front pages tells you that.
What is it about the Guardian article you think is dishonest?
Yes, quoting Cummings on eugenic selection of babies on the NHS seems reasonable reporting to me.
Is Dominic on his last legs, in your opinion?
No, he will run a while longer. Johnson is too lazy to sack him, and he won't give up his precious lightly.
He wants to smash all the institutions of state. Like many Brexiteers he hates modern Britain.
Boris wasn't lazy last week, sacking all round him.
I thought Dom was the back bone of the government.
Sacking enemies and rivals is easy, it is sacking allies and friends that takes effort.
Johnson will continue to let Cummings to run riot, until he becomes a threat to the PM.
It says something about the people who run care homes that they are charging a grand a week per guest, yet the staff apparently won’t make the minimum amount required to get a work VISA.
Pet peeve: it’s “visa” not “VISA”. VISA is a brand of credit/debit card. The etymology of the document authorizing entry to a country is from the Latin “which has been seen”.
It says something about the people who run care homes that they are charging a grand a week per guest, yet the staff apparently won’t make the minimum amount required to get a work VISA.
I agree. There's a black hole in the care industry which, judging by the comments of those I've seen interviewed, seems to disproportionately benefit those running it, quite possibly at a cost to the Revenue.
Care home bankruptcies are on the rise, and indeed stressing the NHS as a result. They are not gold mines, even if understaffed with underpaid staff.
It says something about the people who run care homes that they are charging a grand a week per guest, yet the staff apparently won’t make the minimum amount required to get a work VISA.
Pet peeve: it’s “visa” not “VISA”. VISA is a brand of credit/debit card. The etymology of the document authorizing entry to a country is from the Latin “which has been seen”.
It says something about the people who run care homes that they are charging a grand a week per guest, yet the staff apparently won’t make the minimum amount required to get a work VISA.
No. It shows that it is an extremely labour-intensive business.
It says to me that even if each guest had a care assistant each, the home would have over 27k a year per guest left over. Seems alright
How do you figure that out?
A grand a week, divided by 168 hours per week, would mean that the care assistant each is earning just £5.95 per hour. But don't forget the grand a week the care home is charging will include 20% VAT so you're going to paying your assistant below £5 per hour - and that's with no other costs whatsoever.
It says something about the people who run care homes that they are charging a grand a week per guest, yet the staff apparently won’t make the minimum amount required to get a work VISA.
Pet peeve: it’s “visa” not “VISA”. VISA is a brand of credit/debit card. The etymology of the document authorizing entry to a country is from the Latin “which has been seen”.
That they have the gall to think themselves superior to the Mail is astonishing.
The Guardian is not only superior to the Mail but in a completely different class. One quick look at the websites or typical front pages tells you that.
What is it about the Guardian article you think is dishonest?
Yes, quoting Cummings on eugenic selection of babies on the NHS seems reasonable reporting to me.
Is Dominic on his last legs, in your opinion?
No, he will run a while longer. Johnson is too lazy to sack him, and he won't give up his precious lightly.
He wants to smash all the institutions of state. Like many Brexiteers he hates modern Britain.
Boris wasn't lazy last week, sacking all round him.
I thought Dom was the back bone of the government.
Sacking enemies and rivals is easy, it is sacking allies and friends that takes effort.
Johnson will continue to let Cummings to run riot, until he becomes a threat to the PM.
Is Cummings allowed to run for PM?
I don't think he is even a member of the Conservative party.
It says something about the people who run care homes that they are charging a grand a week per guest, yet the staff apparently won’t make the minimum amount required to get a work VISA.
Doesn't surprise me. Its not like you can have 20-30 residents per care worker and they only need care for 8 hours a day Monday to Friday is it?
Its a very labour intensive business that requires 24/7 care. There's 168 hours in a week so to provide 24/7 care you need more than 4 employees doing 40 hours per week just to have 1 person working at any one time.
Plus at least the same again for holidays/time off/etc.
Then again I haven't got my spreadsheet out to guesstimate it. Has @isam?
It says something about the people who run care homes that they are charging a grand a week per guest, yet the staff apparently won’t make the minimum amount required to get a work VISA.
Doesn't surprise me. Its not like you can have 20-30 residents per care worker and they only need care for 8 hours a day Monday to Friday is it?
Its a very labour intensive business that requires 24/7 care. There's 168 hours in a week so to provide 24/7 care you need more than 4 employees doing 40 hours per week just to have 1 person working at any one time.
Wow that's some patient/ carer ratio. Not much change out of a grand to fund wages alone. 🤔
That they have the gall to think themselves superior to the Mail is astonishing.
The Guardian is not only superior to the Mail but in a completely different class. One quick look at the websites or typical front pages tells you that.
What is it about the Guardian article you think is dishonest?
Err - the fact that it is entirely based on a lie that Cummings proposed or supported something which he didn't. Pretty basic, surely?
You think they are making up the Cummings quotes?
No, quite the opposite. They have no doubt quoted them accurately, which is why it is entirely clear that they are smearing him Mail-style. He says nothing which bears the interpretation they've put on his words.
Pah! Cummings is fair game. Live by the sword...
Oh, he's fair game for sure. But you can' t twist words into a lie and also claim the moral high ground or be respected as a serious newspaper.
I am struggling to see the lie tbh. Spin, yes, but show me the newspaper serious or otherwise that doesn't do that?
"he suggested in his own writings that the NHS should cover the cost of selecting babies to have higher IQs".
It is settled science that Yorkshiremen have higher IQs.
That's the Inability_to_spend_money Quotient ?
Yorkshiremen: Deep pockets; short arms.
During my 10 years at boarding school (in Yorkshire) walking around with your hands in your pockets was severely frowned upon. I've just realized why
It says something about the people who run care homes that they are charging a grand a week per guest, yet the staff apparently won’t make the minimum amount required to get a work VISA.
I agree with that point. It's also a bit pointless because, given the typical Guardian reader, they are preaching to the converted
****
It's not pointless. Firstly, they hate him for winning Brexit and the rest. So it is emotionally gratifying to attack him.
They also think if they bang on enough, they can damage him sufficiently that he becomes a pain and a distraction to the government, and Boris will reluctantly sack him. This would be a victory, for them, BECAUSE they know he is very clever and an asset for the Tories. Like getting Barca to drop Messi about five years ago.
It is an agenda. The Guardian has a slanted agenda and it is pursuing it, just as the Daily Mail does. The papers are maniacal twin sisters, and saying one is superior to the other is just silly.
Nah. The Guardian and the Telegraph might be classed as maniacal twin sisters but the Daily Mail is just utter shite.
It says something about the people who run care homes that they are charging a grand a week per guest, yet the staff apparently won’t make the minimum amount required to get a work VISA.
Doesn't surprise me. Its not like you can have 20-30 residents per care worker and they only need care for 8 hours a day Monday to Friday is it?
Its a very labour intensive business that requires 24/7 care. There's 168 hours in a week so to provide 24/7 care you need more than 4 employees doing 40 hours per week just to have 1 person working at any one time.
Say you have 10 employees for 20 residents....
10 x £25k wages is £250k 20 x £1000 x 52 is £1.04m
And I doubt there is usually a member of staff per two residents is there?
It says something about the people who run care homes that they are charging a grand a week per guest, yet the staff apparently won’t make the minimum amount required to get a work VISA.
Pet peeve: it’s “visa” not “VISA”. VISA is a brand of credit/debit card. The etymology of the document authorizing entry to a country is from the Latin “which has been seen”.
That they have the gall to think themselves superior to the Mail is astonishing.
The Guardian is not only superior to the Mail but in a completely different class. One quick look at the websites or typical front pages tells you that.
What is it about the Guardian article you think is dishonest?
Err - the fact that it is entirely based on a lie that Cummings proposed or supported something which he didn't. Pretty basic, surely?
You think they are making up the Cummings quotes?
No, quite the opposite. They have no doubt quoted them accurately, which is why it is entirely clear that they are smearing him Mail-style. He says nothing which bears the interpretation they've put on his words.
Pah! Cummings is fair game. Live by the sword...
Oh, he's fair game for sure. But you can' t twist words into a lie and also claim the moral high ground or be respected as a serious newspaper.
I am struggling to see the lie tbh. Spin, yes, but show me the newspaper serious or otherwise that doesn't do that?
"he suggested in his own writings that the NHS should cover the cost of selecting babies to have higher IQs".
It is settled science that Yorkshiremen have higher IQs.
That's the Inability_to_spend_money Quotient ?
Yorkshiremen: Deep pockets; short arms.
Who would you say is stingier between the Scots and the Welsh?
I agree with that point. It's also a bit pointless because, given the typical Guardian reader, they are preaching to the converted
****
It's not pointless. Firstly, they hate him for winning Brexit and the rest. So it is emotionally gratifying to attack him.
They also think if they bang on enough, they can damage him sufficiently that he becomes a pain and a distraction to the government, and Boris will reluctantly sack him. This would be a victory, for them, BECAUSE they know he is very clever and an asset for the Tories. Like getting Barca to drop Messi about five years ago.
It is an agenda. The Guardian has a slanted agenda and it is pursuing it, just as the Daily Mail does. The papers are maniacal twin sisters, and saying one is superior to the other is just silly.
Nah. The Guardian and the Telegraph might be classed as maniacal twin sisters but the Daily Mail is just utter shite.
I can't prove it, it just is.
So how do you keep abreast of what Kim Kardashian is up to if you don't read the Mail, mister smarty pants? Eh?
It says something about the people who run care homes that they are charging a grand a week per guest, yet the staff apparently won’t make the minimum amount required to get a work VISA.
Pet peeve: it’s “visa” not “VISA”. VISA is a brand of credit/debit card. The etymology of the document authorizing entry to a country is from the Latin “which has been seen”.
It says something about the people who run care homes that they are charging a grand a week per guest, yet the staff apparently won’t make the minimum amount required to get a work VISA.
Pet peeve: it’s “visa” not “VISA”. VISA is a brand of credit/debit card. The etymology of the document authorizing entry to a country is from the Latin “which has been seen”.
It says something about the people who run care homes that they are charging a grand a week per guest, yet the staff apparently won’t make the minimum amount required to get a work VISA.
No. It shows that it is an extremely labour-intensive business.
It says to me that even if each guest had a care assistant each, the home would have over 27k a year per guest left over. Seems alright
How do you figure that out?
A grand a week, divided by 168 hours per week, would mean that the care assistant each is earning just £5.95 per hour. But don't forget the grand a week the care home is charging will include 20% VAT so you're going to paying your assistant below £5 per hour - and that's with no other costs whatsoever.
It says something about the people who run care homes that they are charging a grand a week per guest, yet the staff apparently won’t make the minimum amount required to get a work VISA.
I agree. There's a black hole in the care industry which, judging by the comments of those I've seen interviewed, seems to disproportionately benefit those running it, quite possibly at a cost to the Revenue.
Care home bankruptcies are on the rise, and indeed stressing the NHS as a result. They are not gold mines, even if understaffed with underpaid staff.
It says something about the people who run care homes that they are charging a grand a week per guest, yet the staff apparently won’t make the minimum amount required to get a work VISA.
It says something about the people who run care homes that they are charging a grand a week per guest, yet the staff apparently won’t make the minimum amount required to get a work VISA.
Doesn't surprise me. Its not like you can have 20-30 residents per care worker and they only need care for 8 hours a day Monday to Friday is it?
Its a very labour intensive business that requires 24/7 care. There's 168 hours in a week so to provide 24/7 care you need more than 4 employees doing 40 hours per week just to have 1 person working at any one time.
Say you have 10 employees for 20 residents....
10 x £25k wages is £250k 20 x £1000 x 52 is £1.04m
And I doubt there is usually a member of staff per two residents is there?
Plus £25k is stretching it. Most will be on minimum wage, so £17k.
I agree with that point. It's also a bit pointless because, given the typical Guardian reader, they are preaching to the converted
****
It's not pointless. Firstly, they hate him for winning Brexit and the rest. So it is emotionally gratifying to attack him.
They also think if they bang on enough, they can damage him sufficiently that he becomes a pain and a distraction to the government, and Boris will reluctantly sack him. This would be a victory, for them, BECAUSE they know he is very clever and an asset for the Tories. Like getting Barca to drop Messi about five years ago.
It is an agenda. The Guardian has a slanted agenda and it is pursuing it, just as the Daily Mail does. The papers are maniacal twin sisters, and saying one is superior to the other is just silly.
Nah. The Guardian and the Telegraph might be classed as maniacal twin sisters but the Daily Mail is just utter shite.
I can't prove it, it just is.
So how do you keep abreast of what Kim Kardashian is up to if you don't read the Mail, mister smarty pants? Eh?
It says something about the people who run care homes that they are charging a grand a week per guest, yet the staff apparently won’t make the minimum amount required to get a work VISA.
Doesn't surprise me. Its not like you can have 20-30 residents per care worker and they only need care for 8 hours a day Monday to Friday is it?
Its a very labour intensive business that requires 24/7 care. There's 168 hours in a week so to provide 24/7 care you need more than 4 employees doing 40 hours per week just to have 1 person working at any one time.
Say you have 10 employees for 20 residents....
10 x £25k wages is £250k 20 x £1000 x 52 is £1.04m
And I doubt there is usually a member of staff per two residents is there?
Usually as in anyone time? No.
Over the week and across the business? Yes, 100% I believe that.
To provide 24/7 uninterrupted coverage of just a single person working you need essentially 5 full time staff. There are 168 working hours per week in that industry, plus statutory holidays etc
But do you think there's just 1 person working at any one time?
I agree with that point. It's also a bit pointless because, given the typical Guardian reader, they are preaching to the converted
****
It's not pointless. Firstly, they hate him for winning Brexit and the rest. So it is emotionally gratifying to attack him.
They also think if they bang on enough, they can damage him sufficiently that he becomes a pain and a distraction to the government, and Boris will reluctantly sack him. This would be a victory, for them, BECAUSE they know he is very clever and an asset for the Tories. Like getting Barca to drop Messi about five years ago.
It is an agenda. The Guardian has a slanted agenda and it is pursuing it, just as the Daily Mail does. The papers are maniacal twin sisters, and saying one is superior to the other is just silly.
Nah. The Guardian and the Telegraph might be classed as maniacal twin sisters but the Daily Mail is just utter shite.
I can't prove it, it just is.
So how do you keep abreast of what Kim Kardashian is up to if you don't read the Mail, mister smarty pants? Eh?
That they have the gall to think themselves superior to the Mail is astonishing.
The Guardian is not only superior to the Mail but in a completely different class. One quick look at the websites or typical front pages tells you that.
What is it about the Guardian article you think is dishonest?
Err - the fact that it is entirely based on a lie that Cummings proposed or supported something which he didn't. Pretty basic, surely?
You think they are making up the Cummings quotes?
No, quite the opposite. They have no doubt quoted them accurately, which is why it is entirely clear that they are smearing him Mail-style. He says nothing which bears the interpretation they've put on his words.
Pah! Cummings is fair game. Live by the sword...
Oh, he's fair game for sure. But you can' t twist words into a lie and also claim the moral high ground or be respected as a serious newspaper.
I am struggling to see the lie tbh. Spin, yes, but show me the newspaper serious or otherwise that doesn't do that?
"he suggested in his own writings that the NHS should cover the cost of selecting babies to have higher IQs".
It is settled science that Yorkshiremen have higher IQs.
That's the Inability_to_spend_money Quotient ?
Yorkshiremen: Deep pockets; short arms.
Who would you say is stingier between the Scots and the Welsh?
Neither: I never descend to lazy national or regional stereotypes (apart from Yorkshiremen obvs.)
I agree with that point. It's also a bit pointless because, given the typical Guardian reader, they are preaching to the converted
****
It's not pointless. Firstly, they hate him for winning Brexit and the rest. So it is emotionally gratifying to attack him.
They also think if they bang on enough, they can damage him sufficiently that he becomes a pain and a distraction to the government, and Boris will reluctantly sack him. This would be a victory, for them, BECAUSE they know he is very clever and an asset for the Tories. Like getting Barca to drop Messi about five years ago.
It is an agenda. The Guardian has a slanted agenda and it is pursuing it, just as the Daily Mail does. The papers are maniacal twin sisters, and saying one is superior to the other is just silly.
Nah. The Guardian and the Telegraph might be classed as maniacal twin sisters but the Daily Mail is just utter shite.
I can't prove it, it just is.
So how do you keep abreast of what Kim Kardashian is up to if you don't read the Mail, mister smarty pants? Eh?
There is never a requirement to import staff to fill vacancies (besides skills shortages etc which will still happen).
If there are more vacancies than staff available for unskilled jobs then the solution is not to bring in more staff. Its for the free market to resolve it. Wages will go up for unskilled staff until the least competitive employers go out of business or switch to automation.
How does that work in care homes?
I'm gonna design and patent an automatic arse-wiper.
It says something about the people who run care homes that they are charging a grand a week per guest, yet the staff apparently won’t make the minimum amount required to get a work VISA.
No. It shows that it is an extremely labour-intensive business.
It says to me that even if each guest had a care assistant each, the home would have over 27k a year per guest left over. Seems alright
How do you figure that out?
A grand a week, divided by 168 hours per week, would mean that the care assistant each is earning just £5.95 per hour. But don't forget the grand a week the care home is charging will include 20% VAT so you're going to paying your assistant below £5 per hour - and that's with no other costs whatsoever.
Based on 4 carers per resident?
Do you understand care homes are 24/7 or not? Do you believe care home employees work 24/7 at no extra cost?
Or do you think the care home needs many staff to provide 24/7 uninterrupted coverage?
"Beijing has ordered three journalists working for the Wall Street Journal to leave the country after the newspaper published a “racist” article about the coronavirus outbreak that “maliciously attacks China”"
It says something about the people who run care homes that they are charging a grand a week per guest, yet the staff apparently won’t make the minimum amount required to get a work VISA.
I agree. There's a black hole in the care industry which, judging by the comments of those I've seen interviewed, seems to disproportionately benefit those running it, quite possibly at a cost to the Revenue.
Care home bankruptcies are on the rise, and indeed stressing the NHS as a result. They are not gold mines, even if understaffed with underpaid staff.
It says something about the people who run care homes that they are charging a grand a week per guest, yet the staff apparently won’t make the minimum amount required to get a work VISA.
I agree. There's a black hole in the care industry which, judging by the comments of those I've seen interviewed, seems to disproportionately benefit those running it, quite possibly at a cost to the Revenue.
Care home bankruptcies are on the rise, and indeed stressing the NHS as a result. They are not gold mines, even if understaffed with underpaid staff.
It says something about the people who run care homes that they are charging a grand a week per guest, yet the staff apparently won’t make the minimum amount required to get a work VISA.
Doesn't surprise me. Its not like you can have 20-30 residents per care worker and they only need care for 8 hours a day Monday to Friday is it?
Its a very labour intensive business that requires 24/7 care. There's 168 hours in a week so to provide 24/7 care you need more than 4 employees doing 40 hours per week just to have 1 person working at any one time.
Say you have 10 employees for 20 residents....
10 x £25k wages is £250k 20 x £1000 x 52 is £1.04m
And I doubt there is usually a member of staff per two residents is there?
Usually as in anyone time? No.
Over the week and across the business? Yes, 100% I believe that.
To provide 24/7 uninterrupted coverage of just a single person working you need essentially 5 full time staff. There are 168 working hours per week in that industry, plus statutory holidays etc
But do you think there's just 1 person working at any one time?
Well, upon googling, the ratio seems to be worse than one member of staff per five residents rather than the five per one that you mention
It says something about the people who run care homes that they are charging a grand a week per guest, yet the staff apparently won’t make the minimum amount required to get a work VISA.
I agree. There's a black hole in the care industry which, judging by the comments of those I've seen interviewed, seems to disproportionately benefit those running it, quite possibly at a cost to the Revenue.
Care home bankruptcies are on the rise, and indeed stressing the NHS as a result. They are not gold mines, even if understaffed with underpaid staff.
About 50% of care home income goes on wages. A lot can go on interest payments.
A common business model with regular long term income like care homes or utilities is to borrow a large amount of debt and then pay a large special dividend to shareholders. This can often more than cover the cost of acquiring the company in the first place.
The resulting high interest payments are then covered by the regular income. However if there is pressure on margins (minimum wage, cash strapped local authorities etc ) then the company can go under.
The shareholders are OK because they've more than got their money back from the special dividend, and the taxpayer picks up the cost of looking after the elderly residents who can't be simply kicked out on the street.
There is never a requirement to import staff to fill vacancies (besides skills shortages etc which will still happen).
If there are more vacancies than staff available for unskilled jobs then the solution is not to bring in more staff. Its for the free market to resolve it. Wages will go up for unskilled staff until the least competitive employers go out of business or switch to automation.
How does that work in care homes?
I'm gonna design and patent an automatic arse-wiper.
That they have the gall to think themselves superior to the Mail is astonishing.
The Guardian is not only superior to the Mail but in a completely different class. One quick look at the websites or typical front pages tells you that.
What is it about the Guardian article you think is dishonest?
Err - the fact that it is entirely based on a lie that Cummings proposed or supported something which he didn't. Pretty basic, surely?
You think they are making up the Cummings quotes?
No, quite the opposite. They have no doubt quoted them accurately, which is why it is entirely clear that they are smearing him Mail-style. He says nothing which bears the interpretation they've put on his words.
Pah! Cummings is fair game. Live by the sword...
Oh, he's fair game for sure. But you can' t twist words into a lie and also claim the moral high ground or be respected as a serious newspaper.
I am struggling to see the lie tbh. Spin, yes, but show me the newspaper serious or otherwise that doesn't do that?
"he suggested in his own writings that the NHS should cover the cost of selecting babies to have higher IQs".
It is settled science that Yorkshiremen have higher IQs.
That's the Inability_to_spend_money Quotient ?
Yorkshiremen: Deep pockets; short arms.
Who would you say is stingier between the Scots and the Welsh?
Neither: I never descend to lazy national or regional stereotypes (apart from Yorkshiremen obvs.)
To be fair, I've only ever known one Yorkshire man and he was stingy.
It says something about the people who run care homes that they are charging a grand a week per guest, yet the staff apparently won’t make the minimum amount required to get a work VISA.
Doesn't surprise me. Its not like you can have 20-30 residents per care worker and they only need care for 8 hours a day Monday to Friday is it?
Its a very labour intensive business that requires 24/7 care. There's 168 hours in a week so to provide 24/7 care you need more than 4 employees doing 40 hours per week just to have 1 person working at any one time.
Say you have 10 employees for 20 residents....
10 x £25k wages is £250k 20 x £1000 x 52 is £1.04m
And I doubt there is usually a member of staff per two residents is there?
Plus £25k is stretching it. Most will be on minimum wage, so £17k.
Which won't cost the care home £17k. Don't forget taxes like Employers National Insurance etc
National Minimum (Living) Wage, 40 hours per week, costs a company close to £21k per employee - make that 24/7 and including statutory payments etc and you're upto £100k just paying minimum wage to have just a single person working 24/7 . . . throw in VAT on top of that and you're up to over £120k for just a single person working by themselves.
It says something about the people who run care homes that they are charging a grand a week per guest, yet the staff apparently won’t make the minimum amount required to get a work VISA.
No. It shows that it is an extremely labour-intensive business.
It says to me that even if each guest had a care assistant each, the home would have over 27k a year per guest left over. Seems alright
How do you figure that out?
A grand a week, divided by 168 hours per week, would mean that the care assistant each is earning just £5.95 per hour. But don't forget the grand a week the care home is charging will include 20% VAT so you're going to paying your assistant below £5 per hour - and that's with no other costs whatsoever.
Based on 4 carers per resident?
Do you understand care homes are 24/7 or not? Do you believe care home employees work 24/7 at no extra cost?
Or do you think the care home needs many staff to provide 24/7 uninterrupted coverage?
The simple way of solving this is how many staff are employed, and how many residents are there in the home?
It says something about the people who run care homes that they are charging a grand a week per guest, yet the staff apparently won’t make the minimum amount required to get a work VISA.
Doesn't surprise me. Its not like you can have 20-30 residents per care worker and they only need care for 8 hours a day Monday to Friday is it?
Its a very labour intensive business that requires 24/7 care. There's 168 hours in a week so to provide 24/7 care you need more than 4 employees doing 40 hours per week just to have 1 person working at any one time.
Say you have 10 employees for 20 residents....
10 x £25k wages is £250k 20 x £1000 x 52 is £1.04m
And I doubt there is usually a member of staff per two residents is there?
Plus £25k is stretching it. Most will be on minimum wage, so £17k.
More like 16 hr a week staff so to keep Employer NI low
It says something about the people who run care homes that they are charging a grand a week per guest, yet the staff apparently won’t make the minimum amount required to get a work VISA.
Doesn't surprise me. Its not like you can have 20-30 residents per care worker and they only need care for 8 hours a day Monday to Friday is it?
Its a very labour intensive business that requires 24/7 care. There's 168 hours in a week so to provide 24/7 care you need more than 4 employees doing 40 hours per week just to have 1 person working at any one time.
Say you have 10 employees for 20 residents....
10 x £25k wages is £250k 20 x £1000 x 52 is £1.04m
And I doubt there is usually a member of staff per two residents is there?
Plus £25k is stretching it. Most will be on minimum wage, so £17k.
Which won't cost the care home £17k. Don't forget taxes like Employers National Insurance etc
National Minimum (Living) Wage, 40 hours per week, costs a company close to £21k per employee - make that 24/7 and including statutory payments etc and you're upto £100k just paying minimum wage to have just a single person working 24/7 . . . throw in VAT on top of that and you're up to over £120k for just a single person working by themselves.
Yes, all valid points. The question then moves to how many residents can that £120k 24/7 virtual staff member look after?
I am beginning to see why running a care home might not be a gold mine.
It says something about the people who run care homes that they are charging a grand a week per guest, yet the staff apparently won’t make the minimum amount required to get a work VISA.
No. It shows that it is an extremely labour-intensive business.
It says to me that even if each guest had a care assistant each, the home would have over 27k a year per guest left over. Seems alright
How do you figure that out?
A grand a week, divided by 168 hours per week, would mean that the care assistant each is earning just £5.95 per hour. But don't forget the grand a week the care home is charging will include 20% VAT so you're going to paying your assistant below £5 per hour - and that's with no other costs whatsoever.
Based on 4 carers per resident?
Do you understand care homes are 24/7 or not? Do you believe care home employees work 24/7 at no extra cost?
Or do you think the care home needs many staff to provide 24/7 uninterrupted coverage?
The simple way of solving this is how many staff are employed, and how many residents are there in the home?
What do you think the typical answers are?
Counting everyone? Cooks, cleaners, care workers, nurses etc, etc, etc that works at a home - I'd expect there'd be about as many employees as there are residents.
What do you think the typical answers are? Bearing in mind its a high intensity sector requiring 24/7 care?
It says something about the people who run care homes that they are charging a grand a week per guest, yet the staff apparently won’t make the minimum amount required to get a work VISA.
Agreed - that's always baffled me. Where does the money go?!
They aren't charging £1000 a week per guest for care homes. It is exaggerated by 25% to 65% depending on region. For care homes in the East Midlands the numbers were £600-650 a week.
The claim is nonsense on stilts. Where did it come from?
I think you may be confusing care home with *nursing* homes, and using a nursing home number from one of the expensive regions.
This is from the AgeUK website, and fits in roughly with numbers I was given when looking for my mum 6 months ago:
"How much will I have to pay for care?
Care home fees will vary depending on the area that you live in, the individual care home itself, plus your own personal financial circumstances. Costs average around £600-650 a week for a care home place and over £800 a week for a place in a nursing home. You can use this cost of care and eligibility in England tool to get an estimate for care costs in your area."
There is never a requirement to import staff to fill vacancies (besides skills shortages etc which will still happen).
If there are more vacancies than staff available for unskilled jobs then the solution is not to bring in more staff. Its for the free market to resolve it. Wages will go up for unskilled staff until the least competitive employers go out of business or switch to automation.
How does that work in care homes?
I'm gonna design and patent an automatic arse-wiper.
It says something about the people who run care homes that they are charging a grand a week per guest, yet the staff apparently won’t make the minimum amount required to get a work VISA.
No. It shows that it is an extremely labour-intensive business.
It says to me that even if each guest had a care assistant each, the home would have over 27k a year per guest left over. Seems alright
How do you figure that out?
A grand a week, divided by 168 hours per week, would mean that the care assistant each is earning just £5.95 per hour. But don't forget the grand a week the care home is charging will include 20% VAT so you're going to paying your assistant below £5 per hour - and that's with no other costs whatsoever.
Based on 4 carers per resident?
Do you understand care homes are 24/7 or not? Do you believe care home employees work 24/7 at no extra cost?
Or do you think the care home needs many staff to provide 24/7 uninterrupted coverage?
I think there are different levels of care and different levels of costs and charges so it is difficult to talk in generalities. Having seen both ends of caring (obviously not on any basis that could be relied upon as being representative), I believe the industry leaves quite a bit to be desired.
It says something about the people who run care homes that they are charging a grand a week per guest, yet the staff apparently won’t make the minimum amount required to get a work VISA.
No. It shows that it is an extremely labour-intensive business.
It says to me that even if each guest had a care assistant each, the home would have over 27k a year per guest left over. Seems alright
How do you figure that out?
A grand a week, divided by 168 hours per week, would mean that the care assistant each is earning just £5.95 per hour. But don't forget the grand a week the care home is charging will include 20% VAT so you're going to paying your assistant below £5 per hour - and that's with no other costs whatsoever.
Based on 4 carers per resident?
Do you understand care homes are 24/7 or not? Do you believe care home employees work 24/7 at no extra cost?
Or do you think the care home needs many staff to provide 24/7 uninterrupted coverage?
The simple way of solving this is how many staff are employed, and how many residents are there in the home?
What do you think the typical answers are?
Counting everyone? Cooks, cleaners, care workers, nurses etc, etc, etc that works at a home - I'd expect there'd be about as many employees as there are residents.
What do you think the typical answers are? Bearing in mind its a high intensity sector requiring 24/7 care?
It says something about the people who run care homes that they are charging a grand a week per guest, yet the staff apparently won’t make the minimum amount required to get a work VISA.
No. It shows that it is an extremely labour-intensive business.
It says to me that even if each guest had a care assistant each, the home would have over 27k a year per guest left over. Seems alright
How do you figure that out?
A grand a week, divided by 168 hours per week, would mean that the care assistant each is earning just £5.95 per hour. But don't forget the grand a week the care home is charging will include 20% VAT so you're going to paying your assistant below £5 per hour - and that's with no other costs whatsoever.
Based on 4 carers per resident?
Do you understand care homes are 24/7 or not? Do you believe care home employees work 24/7 at no extra cost?
Or do you think the care home needs many staff to provide 24/7 uninterrupted coverage?
The simple way of solving this is how many staff are employed, and how many residents are there in the home?
What do you think the typical answers are?
Counting everyone? Cooks, cleaners, care workers, nurses etc, etc, etc that works at a home - I'd expect there'd be about as many employees as there are residents.
What do you think the typical answers are? Bearing in mind its a high intensity sector requiring 24/7 care?
No not counting everyone. Cooks and cleaners, for instance, don’t need to be there 24/7 365
But let’s say you’re right, and it’s 1:1. The staff are all on 25k pa, and the residents pay a grand a week... that’s 27k a year per resident to cover the other costs and wet the owners beak. Seems alright
It says something about the people who run care homes that they are charging a grand a week per guest, yet the staff apparently won’t make the minimum amount required to get a work VISA.
Agreed - that's always baffled me. Where does the money go?!
They aren't charging £1000 a week per guest for care homes. It is exaggerated by 25% to 65% depending on region. For care homes in the East Midlands the numbers were £600-650 a week.
The claim is nonsense on stilts. Where did it come from?
I think you may be confusing care home with *nursing* homes, and using a nursing home number from one of the expensive regions.
This is from the AgeUK website, and fits in roughly with numbers I was given when looking for my mum 6 months ago:
"How much will I have to pay for care?
Care home fees will vary depending on the area that you live in, the individual care home itself, plus your own personal financial circumstances. Costs average around £600-650 a week for a care home place and over £800 a week for a place in a nursing home. You can use this cost of care and eligibility in England tool to get an estimate for care costs in your area."
Lets not forget any number quoted immediately is inflated by 20% - employers get no refund on VAT for paying wages, in fact they get double-taxed. Charge a customer? 20% VAT whacked on top. Hire someone? Employers NI whacked on top.
And so far we're just discussing wages. Not even covered the cost of food, drinks, building, gas, electricity, NNDR or anything else whatsoever.
It says something about the people who run care homes that they are charging a grand a week per guest, yet the staff apparently won’t make the minimum amount required to get a work VISA.
Agreed - that's always baffled me. Where does the money go?!
They aren't charging £1000 a week per guest for care homes. It is exaggerated by 25% to 65% depending on region. For care homes in the East Midlands the numbers were £600-650 a week.
The claim is nonsense on stilts. Where did it come from?
I think you may be confusing care home with *nursing* homes, and using a nursing home number from one of the expensive regions.
This is from the AgeUK website, and fits in roughly with numbers I was given when looking for my mum 6 months ago:
"How much will I have to pay for care?
Care home fees will vary depending on the area that you live in, the individual care home itself, plus your own personal financial circumstances. Costs average around £600-650 a week for a care home place and over £800 a week for a place in a nursing home. You can use this cost of care and eligibility in England tool to get an estimate for care costs in your area."
It says something about the people who run care homes that they are charging a grand a week per guest, yet the staff apparently won’t make the minimum amount required to get a work VISA.
Pet peeve: it’s “visa” not “VISA”. VISA is a brand of credit/debit card. The etymology of the document authorizing entry to a country is from the Latin “which has been seen”.
Visa in Latin is plural, so you mean 'from the Latin "which have to bee seen"'.
It says something about the people who run care homes that they are charging a grand a week per guest, yet the staff apparently won’t make the minimum amount required to get a work VISA.
No. It shows that it is an extremely labour-intensive business.
It says to me that even if each guest had a care assistant each, the home would have over 27k a year per guest left over. Seems alright
How do you figure that out?
A grand a week, divided by 168 hours per week, would mean that the care assistant each is earning just £5.95 per hour. But don't forget the grand a week the care home is charging will include 20% VAT so you're going to paying your assistant below £5 per hour - and that's with no other costs whatsoever.
Based on 4 carers per resident?
Do you understand care homes are 24/7 or not? Do you believe care home employees work 24/7 at no extra cost?
Or do you think the care home needs many staff to provide 24/7 uninterrupted coverage?
The simple way of solving this is how many staff are employed, and how many residents are there in the home?
What do you think the typical answers are?
Counting everyone? Cooks, cleaners, care workers, nurses etc, etc, etc that works at a home - I'd expect there'd be about as many employees as there are residents.
What do you think the typical answers are? Bearing in mind its a high intensity sector requiring 24/7 care?
No not counting everyone. Cooks and cleaners, for instance, don’t need to be there 24/7 365
But let’s say you’re right, and it’s 1:1. The staff are all on 25k pa, and the residents pay a grand a week... that’s 27k a year per resident to cover the other costs and wet the owners beak. Seems alright
Not everyone is 24/7 - though cooks and cleaners are required 7 days a week even if not 24/7 - but I'm estimating overall the 24/7 staff and simply 7 days a week staff etc will sum up to about a 1:1 average.
If the residents pay a grand per week then instantly nearly 9k of that is VAT and going straight to HMRC not the care home
So now you're down to just 18k a year per resident to cover the cost of the building, food, drinks, electricity, gas and everything else.
It says something about the people who run care homes that they are charging a grand a week per guest, yet the staff apparently won’t make the minimum amount required to get a work VISA.
No. It shows that it is an extremely labour-intensive business.
It says to me that even if each guest had a care assistant each, the home would have over 27k a year per guest left over. Seems alright
Ummm: if care assistants work eight hour shifts, five days a week, that means they work 40 hours out of 168. Now, you need fewer people at night. But even so, once you add:
- food - rent - maintenance - etc.
Then you can see how it easily adds up. Looking after the old and the infirm is labour intensive. Hence how many of these care homes end up going bust.
It says something about the people who run care homes that they are charging a grand a week per guest, yet the staff apparently won’t make the minimum amount required to get a work VISA.
Doesn't surprise me. Its not like you can have 20-30 residents per care worker and they only need care for 8 hours a day Monday to Friday is it?
Its a very labour intensive business that requires 24/7 care. There's 168 hours in a week so to provide 24/7 care you need more than 4 employees doing 40 hours per week just to have 1 person working at any one time.
Say you have 10 employees for 20 residents....
10 x £25k wages is £250k 20 x £1000 x 52 is £1.04m
And I doubt there is usually a member of staff per two residents is there?
Usually as in anyone time? No.
Over the week and across the business? Yes, 100% I believe that.
To provide 24/7 uninterrupted coverage of just a single person working you need essentially 5 full time staff. There are 168 working hours per week in that industry, plus statutory holidays etc
But do you think there's just 1 person working at any one time?
It says something about the people who run care homes that they are charging a grand a week per guest, yet the staff apparently won’t make the minimum amount required to get a work VISA.
Agreed - that's always baffled me. Where does the money go?!
They aren't charging £1000 a week per guest for care homes. It is exaggerated by 25% to 65% depending on region. For care homes in the East Midlands the numbers were £600-650 a week.
The claim is nonsense on stilts. Where did it come from?
I think you may be confusing care home with *nursing* homes, and using a nursing home number from one of the expensive regions.
This is from the AgeUK website, and fits in roughly with numbers I was given when looking for my mum 6 months ago:
"How much will I have to pay for care?
Care home fees will vary depending on the area that you live in, the individual care home itself, plus your own personal financial circumstances. Costs average around £600-650 a week for a care home place and over £800 a week for a place in a nursing home. You can use this cost of care and eligibility in England tool to get an estimate for care costs in your area."
Lets not forget any number quoted immediately is inflated by 20% - employers get no refund on VAT for paying wages, in fact they get double-taxed. Charge a customer? 20% VAT whacked on top. Hire someone? Employers NI whacked on top.
And so far we're just discussing wages. Not even covered the cost of food, drinks, building, gas, electricity, NNDR or anything else whatsoever.
No.
VAT is not charged on Care Services and Supplies, but is on the "Hotel Charges" element.
And IIRC homes which are charities are fully exempt.
But it is complex.
Similarly if I order diabetic medical supplies, I do not pay VAT - which helps with the £50 a fortnight for a Continuous Glucose Monitoring Sensor supply.
It says something about the people who run care homes that they are charging a grand a week per guest, yet the staff apparently won’t make the minimum amount required to get a work VISA.
Agreed - that's always baffled me. Where does the money go?!
They aren't charging £1000 a week per guest for care homes. It is exaggerated by 25% to 65% depending on region. For care homes in the East Midlands the numbers were £600-650 a week.
The claim is nonsense on stilts. Where did it come from?
I think you may be confusing care home with *nursing* homes, and using a nursing home number from one of the expensive regions.
This is from the AgeUK website, and fits in roughly with numbers I was given when looking for my mum 6 months ago:
"How much will I have to pay for care?
Care home fees will vary depending on the area that you live in, the individual care home itself, plus your own personal financial circumstances. Costs average around £600-650 a week for a care home place and over £800 a week for a place in a nursing home. You can use this cost of care and eligibility in England tool to get an estimate for care costs in your area."
Lets not forget any number quoted immediately is inflated by 20% - employers get no refund on VAT for paying wages, in fact they get double-taxed. Charge a customer? 20% VAT whacked on top. Hire someone? Employers NI whacked on top.
And so far we're just discussing wages. Not even covered the cost of food, drinks, building, gas, electricity, NNDR or anything else whatsoever.
No.
VAT is not charged on Care Services and Supplies, but is on the "Hotel Charges" element.
And the table I posted is based on what people pay.
And IIRC homes which are charities are fully exempt.
But it is complex.
Fair point. But still, are they exempt from NNDR, food, drinks, building costs, gas, electricity etc?
It says something about the people who run care homes that they are charging a grand a week per guest, yet the staff apparently won’t make the minimum amount required to get a work VISA.
No. It shows that it is an extremely labour-intensive business.
It says to me that even if each guest had a care assistant each, the home would have over 27k a year per guest left over. Seems alright
How do you figure that out?
A
Based on 4 carers per resident?
Do you understand care homes are 24/7 or not? Do you believe care home employees work 24/7 at no extra cost?
Or do you think the care home needs many staff to provide 24/7 uninterrupted coverage?
The simple way of solving this is how many staff are employed, and how many residents are there in the home?
What do you think the typical answers are?
Counting everyone? Cooks, cleaners, care workers, nurses etc, etc, etc that works at a home - I'd expect there'd be about as many employees as there are residents.
What do you think the typical answers are? Bearing in mind its a high intensity sector requiring 24/7 care?
No not counting everyone. Cooks and cleaners, for instance, don’t need to be there 24/7 365
But let’s say you’re right, and it’s 1:1. The staff are all on 25k pa, and the residents pay a grand a week... that’s 27k a year per resident to cover the other costs and wet the owners beak. Seems alright
Not everyone is 24/7 - though cooks and cleaners are required 7 days a week even if not 24/7 - but I'm estimating overall the 24/7 staff and simply 7 days a week staff etc will sum up to about a 1:1 average.
If the residents pay a grand per week then instantly nearly 9k of that is VAT and going straight to HMRC not the care home
So now you're down to just 18k a year per resident to cover the cost of the building, food, drinks, electricity, gas and everything else.
Well we are guessing the ratio which really renders the discussion futile. I would be astonished if it’s 1 member of staff per 2 residents. This place had 5 staff a day for 33 residents
It says something about the people who run care homes that they are charging a grand a week per guest, yet the staff apparently won’t make the minimum amount required to get a work VISA.
No. It shows that it is an extremely labour-intensive business.
It says to me that even if each guest had a care assistant each, the home would have over 27k a year per guest left over. Seems alright
How do you figure that out?
A grand a week, divided by 168 hours per week, would mean that the care assistant each is earning just £5.95 per hour. But don't forget the grand a week the care home is charging will include 20% VAT so you're going to paying your assistant below £5 per hour - and that's with no other costs whatsoever.
Based on 4 carers per resident?
Do you understand care homes are 24/7 or not? Do you believe care home employees work 24/7 at no extra cost?
Or do you think the care home needs many staff to provide 24/7 uninterrupted coverage?
The simple way of solving this is how many staff are employed, and how many residents are there in the home?
What do you think the typical answers are?
Counting everyone? Cooks, cleaners, care workers, nurses etc, etc, etc that works at a home - I'd expect there'd be about as many employees as there are residents.
What do you think the typical answers are? Bearing in mind its a high intensity sector requiring 24/7 care?
No not counting everyone. Cooks and cleaners, for instance, don’t need to be there 24/7 365
But let’s say you’re right, and it’s 1:1. The staff are all on 25k pa, and the residents pay a grand a week... that’s 27k a year per resident to cover the other costs and wet the owners beak. Seems alright
Why do you think that care homes have been such terrible businesses then?
Four Seasons went bust last year, and has gone through a succession of owners, each of which have failed to make it profitable.
Comments
Or rather I do have an idea why people would pretend to believe that. Unfortunately.
Now we get to see if the policy of only allowing admission to people of intelligence* and income into Britain to our higher status jobs to rule over the unskilled Britons is a successful one as far as the depressed old coalfields and coastal towns are concerned.
* as approved by the Eugenics team at number 10.
Did make me laugh....
There will be a sizeable % who IMHO are Con voters who will be ferking livid.
They are grafting and doing the right thing and are about to get punched in the face whilst the public sector and Boomers escape.
Boris will rue the day.
Are you allowed to use swear words on here?
Be careful, you might get a ban, lol.
Not that a shake up, a deep one, is not necessary sometimes and unlikely to be done without unhappy disruption, but the man does come across as a bit student politics, all usually basic ideas dressed up to be profound. He's at least got some wins under his belt.
Johnson will continue to let Cummings to run riot, until he becomes a threat to the PM.
Agreed - that's always baffled me. Where does the money go?!
HINT: every naughty word - however mild - if aimed at those who monitor this site, will result in the ban hammer dropping......
Yorkshiremen: Deep pockets; short arms.
Its a very labour intensive business that requires 24/7 care. There's 168 hours in a week so to provide 24/7 care you need more than 4 employees doing 40 hours per week just to have 1 person working at any one time.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/959234/care-home-crisis-uk-government-elderly-care-bankruptcy
A grand a week, divided by 168 hours per week, would mean that the care assistant each is earning just £5.95 per hour. But don't forget the grand a week the care home is charging will include 20% VAT so you're going to paying your assistant below £5 per hour - and that's with no other costs whatsoever.
My head says Denotay Wilder but my heart says Tyson Fury.
Are you in a similar situation?
Then again I haven't got my spreadsheet out to guesstimate it. Has @isam?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visa_Debit
I can't prove it, it just is.
10 x £25k wages is £250k
20 x £1000 x 52 is £1.04m
And I doubt there is usually a member of staff per two residents is there?
Visa Electron
Over the week and across the business? Yes, 100% I believe that.
To provide 24/7 uninterrupted coverage of just a single person working you need essentially 5 full time staff. There are 168 working hours per week in that industry, plus statutory holidays etc
But do you think there's just 1 person working at any one time?
A 22-year-old man left in a coma after his genitals were "ripped off and eaten" by a bulldog had apparently smeared his crotch in peanut butter.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/man-who-genitals-ripped-eaten-13520910
Or do you think the care home needs many staff to provide 24/7 uninterrupted coverage?
(£)
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/china-expels-journalists-for-racist-article-w9x0ml7dd
I will come back in the morning to see if one has appeared.
A common business model with regular long term income like care homes or utilities is to borrow a large amount of debt and then pay a large special dividend to shareholders. This can often more than cover the cost of acquiring the company in the first place.
The resulting high interest payments are then covered by the regular income. However if there is pressure on margins (minimum wage, cash strapped local authorities etc ) then the company can go under.
The shareholders are OK because they've more than got their money back from the special dividend, and the taxpayer picks up the cost of looking after the elderly residents who can't be simply kicked out on the street.
National Minimum (Living) Wage, 40 hours per week, costs a company close to £21k per employee - make that 24/7 and including statutory payments etc and you're upto £100k just paying minimum wage to have just a single person working 24/7 . . . throw in VAT on top of that and you're up to over £120k for just a single person working by themselves.
What do you think the typical answers are?
I am beginning to see why running a care home might not be a gold mine.
Translated: “how the hell am I going to spend my undeclared income”
What do you think the typical answers are? Bearing in mind its a high intensity sector requiring 24/7 care?
The claim is nonsense on stilts. Where did it come from?
I think you may be confusing care home with *nursing* homes, and using a nursing home number from one of the expensive regions.
This is from the AgeUK website, and fits in roughly with numbers I was given when looking for my mum 6 months ago:
"How much will I have to pay for care?
Care home fees will vary depending on the area that you live in, the individual care home itself, plus your own personal financial circumstances. Costs average around £600-650 a week for a care home place and over £800 a week for a place in a nursing home. You can use this cost of care and eligibility in England tool to get an estimate for care costs in your area."
Here is the detail:
https://twitter.com/mattwardman/status/1230281161907240960
Fortunately he's a fussy eater and under supervision at all times.
(Sorry - lost the £1000 per week for care home quote in the previous comment. Not sure who it was from, but the claim is massively exaggerated.)
But let’s say you’re right, and it’s 1:1. The staff are all on 25k pa, and the residents pay a grand a week... that’s 27k a year per resident to cover the other costs and wet the owners beak. Seems alright
And so far we're just discussing wages. Not even covered the cost of food, drinks, building, gas, electricity, NNDR or anything else whatsoever.
https://www.signature-care-homes.co.uk/price/signature-the-beeches-brentwood-care-home-prices
If the residents pay a grand per week then instantly nearly 9k of that is VAT and going straight to HMRC not the care home
So now you're down to just 18k a year per resident to cover the cost of the building, food, drinks, electricity, gas and everything else.
Maybe, ours are the cheapest because less people?
- food
- rent
- maintenance
- etc.
Then you can see how it easily adds up. Looking after the old and the infirm is labour intensive. Hence how many of these care homes end up going bust.
VAT is not charged on Care Services and Supplies, but is on the "Hotel Charges" element.
And the table I posted is based on what people are charged I think. But the report with all the detail is a couple of hundred. See
https://www.payingforcare.org/how-much-does-care-cost/
And IIRC homes which are charities are fully exempt.
But it is complex.
Similarly if I order diabetic medical supplies, I do not pay VAT - which helps with the £50 a fortnight for a Continuous Glucose Monitoring Sensor supply.
http://forum.iosh.co.uk/posts/m736194-Care-Home-Staff-to-client-ratio
Have a google yourself, I’d say 1:1 would be like staying at the Ritz
Four Seasons went bust last year, and has gone through a succession of owners, each of which have failed to make it profitable.