politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Johnson care home comment row – Day 2

Philip_Thompson said:

Sandpit said:

Philip_Thompson said:

rkrkrk said:

Philip_Thompson said:

MaxPB said:

Philip_Thompson said:

FPT

MaxPB said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Whenever the topic of care homes comes up the fact they're expensive is used as evidence they're profitable rather than simply considering that providing quality care is expensive.

The thing that always strikes me as remarkable is that for every staff member on 24/7 requires FIVE full time equivalent staff.

Philip, if there was no money in it they wouldn't be doing it. Quite simply the owners are a bunch of shysters who use opaque property holding companies to siphon cash from the companies and then post nominal losses to claim poverty. If care home companies were required to directly own the property they were present in or rent from a non-beneficial landlord it would "solve" the money problems overnight.

That's a disgusting attitude Max that I'd expect far from left anti-business Marxists not yourself.

Some owners may be shysters but that can happen in any industry, but that's far from universal or typical.

That a business pays rent (or if not has debt to pay for a property) is not either a disgrace or unusual.

The most expensive part of care, like the most expensive part of almost any business, is presumably the staffing. It takes FIVE full time equivalent staff per one person on the rota to provide 24/7 care - or another way of phrasing it is that even on minimum wage including National Insurance etc to have one person on costs the equivalent of nearly £60 per hour.

In the care industry, the care company pays rent at over the odds to a separate (usually based in a tax haven) company also owned by the same person. It's a gigantic scam industry which incidentally looks after the sick and aged.

Tackling the ownership structures and forcing them to rent from companies or individuals not linked to the directors or owners is an easy and uncontroversial change.

[Citation Needed]

There are many thousands of Care providers. Some may do that, just as some in other sectors, but when there are thousands of providers there are going to be some bad apples. But they won't be able to stay around for long as they won't be able to meet their costs.

Have you got evidence that the cost of providing 24/7 care to people with dementia isn't the reason behind high costs and that dodgy rent is instead? Across many thousands of providers.

It's very hard to get the evidence because there are so many holding companies, shell companies, offshore arrangements, being based in tax havens etc.

But according to this report, of the 26 largest care home providers: 18 had separated operating and property companies, (they think this is so that if they get sued, there are no assets to go after), 12/26 had significant purchases from related companies, most of those backed by private equity (4/5) have offshore owners in a tax haven.

https://chpi.org.uk/papers/reports/plugging-the-leaks-in-the-uk-care-home-industry/

Out of a sector of over 5000 providers.

Separating assets in Limited Companies is standard practice in many industries for the largest providers as you you said to limit liability. Looking at only the largest providers will distort things.

12 out of 'top 26' is fewer than half purchasing from related companies - 12 from over 5000 is a different matter entirely.

Multi-company structures are indeed common, especially in industries where there's a high possibility of being sued.

However, that doesn't mean that care homes should be operated like Starbucks or Amazon, and it's legitimate to enquire as to whether there's abuse and profiteering occurring from companies with government contracts to care for people.

Absolutely of course.

But nobody rational would suggest all coffee shops or cafes are the same as those operated by Starbucks and simply ignore the great proportion of coffee shops or cafes that are family operated.

Oh indeed.

We have needed for decades a Royal Commission on social care, care home company structures is just one more thing to add to their remit.

Paying government money on an ongoing basis to any company that then shovels it offshore should be discouraged though, I think we all agree on that.

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Essexit said:

TOPPING said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

FPT:
I learned everything I needed to know about Johnson and his ilk working as a waiter when I was a teenager, in a town with a university popular with English public school Oxbridge rejects. The casual rudeness to those considered their social inferiors is entirely familiar. It's no surprise to see him blaming the working class and immigrant workforce, mostly women, who've been risking their own health and wellbeing in minimum wage jobs in the care sector, for the mistakes of his government.

Everything you needed to know from some ra spilling your beer when they gave it to you?

I think more research is needed.

Also, Johnson and his ilk weren't in Durham (I'm guessing). They were in Oxford. Which is not as good as being in Cambridge, I grant you.

Only Living Boy is Scottish, so could be St Andrews? One of our nat posters at the time of the indyref was psychologically scarred by his experience of braying toffs at St Andrews. Who knows, it may even be the same person, though it was a different name.

You have correctly identified the town. I wasn't at university there, though. I had further exposure to these people at university later on, which confirmed earlier impressions. It wasn't me posting back in 2014, I was a Unionist then. I still like to observe how high-up people interact with waiting staff, it is an excellent way of obtaining insights into their character. In case you think I'm being partisan, John Major scores very highly in this regard.

Grammar school JM proof of the old adage of be nice to people on the way up etc. Of course those born 'up' and having their 'upness' reinforced in every subsequent waking moment have no need for such minor quibbles as manners and empathy.

TOPPING said:

Bloody hell just reading that FT article about care homes.

One of them had been owned by Guy Hands. And then Spencer Haber! Both ex-Lehman Bros. Surely anyone who has likewise worked at Lehman should hang their head in shame.

I worked with Guy Hands - but not at Lehmans.

MaxPB said:

No_Offence_Alan said:

MaxPB said:

Philip_Thompson said:

FPT

MaxPB said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Whenever the topic of care homes comes up the fact they're expensive is used as evidence they're profitable rather than simply considering that providing quality care is expensive.

The thing that always strikes me as remarkable is that for every staff member on 24/7 requires FIVE full time equivalent staff.

Philip, if there was no money in it they wouldn't be doing it. Quite simply the owners are a bunch of shysters who use opaque property holding companies to siphon cash from the companies and then post nominal losses to claim poverty. If care home companies were required to directly own the property they were present in or rent from a non-beneficial landlord it would "solve" the money problems overnight.

That's a disgusting attitude Max that I'd expect far from left anti-business Marxists not yourself.

Some owners may be shysters but that can happen in any industry, but that's far from universal or typical.

That a business pays rent (or if not has debt to pay for a property) is not either a disgrace or unusual.

The most expensive part of care, like the most expensive part of almost any business, is presumably the staffing. It takes FIVE full time equivalent staff per one person on the rota to provide 24/7 care - or another way of phrasing it is that even on minimum wage including National Insurance etc to have one person on costs the equivalent of nearly £60 per hour.

In the care industry, the care company pays rent at over the odds to a separate (usually based in a tax haven) company also owned by the same person. It's a gigantic scam industry which incidentally looks after the sick and aged.

Tackling the ownership structures and forcing them to rent from companies or individuals not linked to the directors or owners is an easy and uncontroversial change.

I have a family member who works in a care home. The home is run by those well-known uber-capitalists - The Methodists.

And who owns the property and what property management fees do they pay? I'm sure they do a great job with caring for people.

From the FT article:

Meanwhile, Four Seasons care homes continued to close. In October, the company started playing hardball with landlords — refusing without warning to pay rent. Since then the business has shrunk further. 

Doesn't sound like the landlords are either related companies or raking it in.

Pro_Rata said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Essexit said:

TOPPING said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

FPT:
I learned everything I needed to know about Johnson and his ilk working as a waiter when I was a teenager, in a town with a university popular with English public school Oxbridge rejects. The casual rudeness to those considered their social inferiors is entirely familiar. It's no surprise to see him blaming the working class and immigrant workforce, mostly women, who've been risking their own health and wellbeing in minimum wage jobs in the care sector, for the mistakes of his government.

Everything you needed to know from some ra spilling your beer when they gave it to you?

I think more research is needed.

Also, Johnson and his ilk weren't in Durham (I'm guessing). They were in Oxford. Which is not as good as being in Cambridge, I grant you.

Only Living Boy is Scottish, so could be St Andrews? One of our nat posters at the time of the indyref was psychologically scarred by his experience of braying toffs at St Andrews. Who knows, it may even be the same person, though it was a different name.

You have correctly identified the town. I wasn't at university there, though. I had further exposure to these people at university later on, which confirmed earlier impressions. It wasn't me posting back in 2014, I was a Unionist then. I still like to observe how high-up people interact with waiting staff, it is an excellent way of obtaining insights into their character. In case you think I'm being partisan, John Major scores very highly in this regard.

I don't know if I've ever been this specific, but the culture shock that confirmed me as centre left was the realisation that the braying Tory toffs of St. Andrews didn't have the slightest clue about life outside their bubble and, moreover, didn't really give a flying damn.

By contrast, I got on OK with a few of the more working class liibertarians who crept round the edges of the StAs Tory society. Even if their ideas were often bat crazy, they were OK people.

Isn't this a bit nuts? Left wing policies either work or they don't. They either help the people they purport to help or they make things worse for them. There are any number of examples worldwide that can be looked at. OR you can just adopt an entire political philosophy as a rejection of red trouser wearers.

Who knew that all it would take for the establishment of 1000 years of uncontested Tory domination is to quarantine St Andrews?

MaxPB said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Sandpit said:

Philip_Thompson said:

rkrkrk said:

Philip_Thompson said:

MaxPB said:

Philip_Thompson said:

FPT

MaxPB said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Whenever the topic of care homes comes up the fact they're expensive is used as evidence they're profitable rather than simply considering that providing quality care is expensive.

The thing that always strikes me as remarkable is that for every staff member on 24/7 requires FIVE full time equivalent staff.

Philip, if there was no money in it they wouldn't be doing it. Quite simply the owners are a bunch of shysters who use opaque property holding companies to siphon cash from the companies and then post nominal losses to claim poverty. If care home companies were required to directly own the property they were present in or rent from a non-beneficial landlord it would "solve" the money problems overnight.

That's a disgusting attitude Max that I'd expect far from left anti-business Marxists not yourself.

Some owners may be shysters but that can happen in any industry, but that's far from universal or typical.

That a business pays rent (or if not has debt to pay for a property) is not either a disgrace or unusual.

The most expensive part of care, like the most expensive part of almost any business, is presumably the staffing. It takes FIVE full time equivalent staff per one person on the rota to provide 24/7 care - or another way of phrasing it is that even on minimum wage including National Insurance etc to have one person on costs the equivalent of nearly £60 per hour.

In the care industry, the care company pays rent at over the odds to a separate (usually based in a tax haven) company also owned by the same person. It's a gigantic scam industry which incidentally looks after the sick and aged.

Tackling the ownership structures and forcing them to rent from companies or individuals not linked to the directors or owners is an easy and uncontroversial change.

[Citation Needed]

There are many thousands of Care providers. Some may do that, just as some in other sectors, but when there are thousands of providers there are going to be some bad apples. But they won't be able to stay around for long as they won't be able to meet their costs.

Have you got evidence that the cost of providing 24/7 care to people with dementia isn't the reason behind high costs and that dodgy rent is instead? Across many thousands of providers.

It's very hard to get the evidence because there are so many holding companies, shell companies, offshore arrangements, being based in tax havens etc.

But according to this report, of the 26 largest care home providers: 18 had separated operating and property companies, (they think this is so that if they get sued, there are no assets to go after), 12/26 had significant purchases from related companies, most of those backed by private equity (4/5) have offshore owners in a tax haven.

https://chpi.org.uk/papers/reports/plugging-the-leaks-in-the-uk-care-home-industry/

Out of a sector of over 5000 providers.

Separating assets in Limited Companies is standard practice in many industries for the largest providers as you you said to limit liability. Looking at only the largest providers will distort things.

12 out of 'top 26' is fewer than half purchasing from related companies - 12 from over 5000 is a different matter entirely.

Multi-company structures are indeed common, especially in industries where there's a high possibility of being sued.

However, that doesn't mean that care homes should be operated like Starbucks or Amazon, and it's legitimate to enquire as to whether there's abuse and profiteering occurring from companies with government contracts to care for people.

Absolutely of course.

But nobody rational would suggest all coffee shops or cafes are the same as those operated by Starbucks and simply ignore the great proportion of coffee shops or cafes that are family operated.

But the point is that neither Starbucks nor those independent chains were claiming poverty and asking for state bailouts. The care sector was and still is. As I've previously stated, I'm happy for them to be bailed out, but I would insist on taking ownership of the whole business and all of the associated property hived off in separate companies and wiping out all of the shareholders and bondholders. These guys have been taking years worth of profits from a private business, where was their rainy day money, where we're shareholder cash injections? Loads of other private businesses have sold new shares, sold new low yield bonds or convertible bonds to tide them over, I don't see why you're making a special exemption for this one industry, it's either private or it isn't. No halfway houses which allow them to take profits and socialise losses.

So there's no furlough scheme for Starbucks employees?
They've not had their business rates waived for an entire year?
They've not been eligible for other support?

Is that your position?

TOPPING said:

MaxPB said:

No_Offence_Alan said:

MaxPB said:

Philip_Thompson said:

FPT

MaxPB said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Whenever the topic of care homes comes up the fact they're expensive is used as evidence they're profitable rather than simply considering that providing quality care is expensive.

The thing that always strikes me as remarkable is that for every staff member on 24/7 requires FIVE full time equivalent staff.

Philip, if there was no money in it they wouldn't be doing it. Quite simply the owners are a bunch of shysters who use opaque property holding companies to siphon cash from the companies and then post nominal losses to claim poverty. If care home companies were required to directly own the property they were present in or rent from a non-beneficial landlord it would "solve" the money problems overnight.

That's a disgusting attitude Max that I'd expect far from left anti-business Marxists not yourself.

Some owners may be shysters but that can happen in any industry, but that's far from universal or typical.

That a business pays rent (or if not has debt to pay for a property) is not either a disgrace or unusual.

The most expensive part of care, like the most expensive part of almost any business, is presumably the staffing. It takes FIVE full time equivalent staff per one person on the rota to provide 24/7 care - or another way of phrasing it is that even on minimum wage including National Insurance etc to have one person on costs the equivalent of nearly £60 per hour.

In the care industry, the care company pays rent at over the odds to a separate (usually based in a tax haven) company also owned by the same person. It's a gigantic scam industry which incidentally looks after the sick and aged.

Tackling the ownership structures and forcing them to rent from companies or individuals not linked to the directors or owners is an easy and uncontroversial change.

I have a family member who works in a care home. The home is run by those well-known uber-capitalists - The Methodists.

And who owns the property and what property management fees do they pay? I'm sure they do a great job with caring for people.

From the FT article:

Meanwhile, Four Seasons care homes continued to close. In October, the company started playing hardball with landlords — refusing without warning to pay rent. Since then the business has shrunk further. 

Doesn't sound like the landlords are either related companies or raking it in.

None of them are especially if you pay attention to the industry (I do as a lot of the head offices are local to me).

When Four Seasons went bankrupt last time around the bail out was done by selling the properties and leasing them back.

I think that was back in 2014 so it's hardly surprising that come 2019 (after the first lot of rent increases) problems kick off..

Stereotomy said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

Stereotomy said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

Stereotomy said:

NerysHughes said:

ONS deaths data out.
No of deaths is below average by 3.4%

Over what period?

A comparison of this week this year against this week in a basket of previous years.

Got a link for other weeks?

It's this series:

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/bulletins/deathsregisteredweeklyinenglandandwalesprovisional/weekending26june2020

You can find previous whole bulletins at the bottom, if the graphical summary isn't enough detail.

Thanks. So from that it looks like covid causes excess deaths but- as seen from recent data- lockdown doesn't.

Not a surprising result - the deaths lockdown saves are immediate. Those it causes, such as cancer treatments, will come later.

Luckyguy1983 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

MaxPB said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Sandpit said:

Philip_Thompson said:

rkrkrk said:

Philip_Thompson said:

MaxPB said:

Philip_Thompson said:

FPT

MaxPB said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Whenever the topic of care homes comes up the fact they're expensive is used as evidence they're profitable rather than simply considering that providing quality care is expensive.

The thing that always strikes me as remarkable is that for every staff member on 24/7 requires FIVE full time equivalent staff.

Philip, if there was no money in it they wouldn't be doing it. Quite simply the owners are a bunch of shysters who use opaque property holding companies to siphon cash from the companies and then post nominal losses to claim poverty. If care home companies were required to directly own the property they were present in or rent from a non-beneficial landlord it would "solve" the money problems overnight.

That's a disgusting attitude Max that I'd expect far from left anti-business Marxists not yourself.

Some owners may be shysters but that can happen in any industry, but that's far from universal or typical.

That a business pays rent (or if not has debt to pay for a property) is not either a disgrace or unusual.

The most expensive part of care, like the most expensive part of almost any business, is presumably the staffing. It takes FIVE full time equivalent staff per one person on the rota to provide 24/7 care - or another way of phrasing it is that even on minimum wage including National Insurance etc to have one person on costs the equivalent of nearly £60 per hour.

In the care industry, the care company pays rent at over the odds to a separate (usually based in a tax haven) company also owned by the same person. It's a gigantic scam industry which incidentally looks after the sick and aged.

Tackling the ownership structures and forcing them to rent from companies or individuals not linked to the directors or owners is an easy and uncontroversial change.

[Citation Needed]

There are many thousands of Care providers. Some may do that, just as some in other sectors, but when there are thousands of providers there are going to be some bad apples. But they won't be able to stay around for long as they won't be able to meet their costs.

Have you got evidence that the cost of providing 24/7 care to people with dementia isn't the reason behind high costs and that dodgy rent is instead? Across many thousands of providers.

It's very hard to get the evidence because there are so many holding companies, shell companies, offshore arrangements, being based in tax havens etc.

But according to this report, of the 26 largest care home providers: 18 had separated operating and property companies, (they think this is so that if they get sued, there are no assets to go after), 12/26 had significant purchases from related companies, most of those backed by private equity (4/5) have offshore owners in a tax haven.

https://chpi.org.uk/papers/reports/plugging-the-leaks-in-the-uk-care-home-industry/

Out of a sector of over 5000 providers.

Separating assets in Limited Companies is standard practice in many industries for the largest providers as you you said to limit liability. Looking at only the largest providers will distort things.

12 out of 'top 26' is fewer than half purchasing from related companies - 12 from over 5000 is a different matter entirely.

Multi-company structures are indeed common, especially in industries where there's a high possibility of being sued.

However, that doesn't mean that care homes should be operated like Starbucks or Amazon, and it's legitimate to enquire as to whether there's abuse and profiteering occurring from companies with government contracts to care for people.

Absolutely of course.

But nobody rational would suggest all coffee shops or cafes are the same as those operated by Starbucks and simply ignore the great proportion of coffee shops or cafes that are family operated.

But the point is that neither Starbucks nor those independent chains were claiming poverty and asking for state bailouts. The care sector was and still is. As I've previously stated, I'm happy for them to be bailed out, but I would insist on taking ownership of the whole business and all of the associated property hived off in separate companies and wiping out all of the shareholders and bondholders. These guys have been taking years worth of profits from a private business, where was their rainy day money, where we're shareholder cash injections? Loads of other private businesses have sold new shares, sold new low yield bonds or convertible bonds to tide them over, I don't see why you're making a special exemption for this one industry, it's either private or it isn't. No halfway houses which allow them to take profits and socialise losses.

So there's no furlough scheme for Starbucks employees?
They've not had their business rates waived for an entire year?
They've not been eligible for other support?

Is that your position?

Starbucks has been forced to close. Care homes obviously have not.

No instead they've been forced to adopt pandemic measures with mammothly more PPE and other safeguarding measures.

And they've been stopped from taking on new clients without a plethora of extra steps meaning they've got higher costs and lower income.

kinabalu said:

Late to this and I'm sure I'm only echoing what everyone bar the most supine of Johnson sycophants have said already but really - what appalling comments. Seeking to deflect blame for the care home fiasco (which cost thousands of lives) onto the front line staff who worked for peanuts through the epidemic whilst he faffed around to no great effect except for ensuring we have the worst covid outcome in the world. Quite incredible. How low can this man go? How on earth have we ended up with an individual like this as our PM? Answers on a postcard.

Have we already discussed this article?

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jul/06/boris-johnson-brexit-coronavirus

I think it is a brilliant article giving me new insights into the nature of leadership (dependence on followers) and also Boris's strengths and weakneses.  

"His brilliance lay in his performance as the non-political politician. Not well prepared, but chaotic. Not carefully controlled, but outrageous. Not dignified, but happy to appear a buffoon. Even the look – rumpled suit, tousled hair – and the name, Boris, foreswore the traditional politician’s dignity. Everything his political critics saw as gaffes and weaknesses actually served to affirm his anti-political identity, and their outrage marginalised themselves rather than Johnson.

None of this was accidental. Johnson’s apparently dishevelled, disorganised, improvised buffoonery was in fact very carefully rehearsed. His brilliance did not come despite his blundering. His blundering was his brilliance."

This is how we ended up with an individual like this as our PM. The answer isn't on a postcard but in this article.

eek said:

TOPPING said:

MaxPB said:

No_Offence_Alan said:

MaxPB said:

Philip_Thompson said:

FPT

MaxPB said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Whenever the topic of care homes comes up the fact they're expensive is used as evidence they're profitable rather than simply considering that providing quality care is expensive.

The thing that always strikes me as remarkable is that for every staff member on 24/7 requires FIVE full time equivalent staff.

Philip, if there was no money in it they wouldn't be doing it. Quite simply the owners are a bunch of shysters who use opaque property holding companies to siphon cash from the companies and then post nominal losses to claim poverty. If care home companies were required to directly own the property they were present in or rent from a non-beneficial landlord it would "solve" the money problems overnight.

That's a disgusting attitude Max that I'd expect far from left anti-business Marxists not yourself.

Some owners may be shysters but that can happen in any industry, but that's far from universal or typical.

That a business pays rent (or if not has debt to pay for a property) is not either a disgrace or unusual.

The most expensive part of care, like the most expensive part of almost any business, is presumably the staffing. It takes FIVE full time equivalent staff per one person on the rota to provide 24/7 care - or another way of phrasing it is that even on minimum wage including National Insurance etc to have one person on costs the equivalent of nearly £60 per hour.

In the care industry, the care company pays rent at over the odds to a separate (usually based in a tax haven) company also owned by the same person. It's a gigantic scam industry which incidentally looks after the sick and aged.

Tackling the ownership structures and forcing them to rent from companies or individuals not linked to the directors or owners is an easy and uncontroversial change.

I have a family member who works in a care home. The home is run by those well-known uber-capitalists - The Methodists.

And who owns the property and what property management fees do they pay? I'm sure they do a great job with caring for people.

From the FT article:

Meanwhile, Four Seasons care homes continued to close. In October, the company started playing hardball with landlords — refusing without warning to pay rent. Since then the business has shrunk further. 

Doesn't sound like the landlords are either related companies or raking it in.

None of them are especially if you pay attention to the industry (I do as a lot of the head offices are local to me).

When Four Seasons went bankrupt last time around the bail out was done by selling the properties and leasing them back.

I think that was back in 2014 so it's hardly surprising that come 2019 (after the first lot of rent increases) problems kick off..

It sounds like a classic case of bigger fool theory. Until the final fool realised that the debt they took on was not going to be covered by govt subsidies for those eligible patients so tried (and failed) to charge private payers ever higher fees.

Classic mismanagement and sadly for them they didn't get a Greenspan put.

BluestBlue said:

Stuartinromford said:

eek said:

Boris - when in a hole never admit you are in a hole... Just keep digging and eventually you will get out.

Fairly soon I think this philosophy is going to result in him being buried alive..

Unfortunately, I'm increasingly of the view that the remarks made here by a government loyalist in the early days of Dom's Adventures in Durhamland were right. Not morally right, but an accurate reflection of reality.

Unless 40+ Conservative MPs defect to the opposition, or 183 vote against him in an internal vote of confidence, there's no reason for him to go anywhere. And having purged the most obvious traitors in 2019, those are both huge hurdles.

There's no actual process to get Boris or his favourites out before 2024. So until then, we plebs should just jog on. I think some of them enjoy the impotent rage.

Freezing Stamp Duty? £1.3 billion
Cost of the Job Retention Scheme? £123 billion
Watching Piers Morgan rant and wail because Boris dared to demure from his sacred view of Who Is To Blame?

Priceless

You've misspelt demur.
I know as a classicist and alumni of one of the UK's great universities (as you never tire of telling us) that you're a stickler for that kind of thing, and would prefer to have it pointed out.

Philip_Thompson said:

Mexicanpete said:

RochdalePioneers said:

It does feel to me like Care Homes are a classic case of the British problem. Which is that we find a very expensive way of doing something. And then can't / won't pay for it. People don't want to be on the hook looking after their parents who thanks to expensive modern medicine can live for decades into retirement. So someone else needs to do it. But we don't want a national care system because booo taxes so instead we find ourselves in a place where people pay £lots to warehouse their supposedly loved ones in a box with imported carers on the minimum wage because its yet another job that Brits largely refuse to do.

We don't want to personally care for our parents. We don't want the job of caring for someone else's parents. We don't want the bloody foreigners who end up caring for our parents. And we don't want to pay for it but end up doing so in a system where seemingly nobody can get by. No wonder "just dump them back in the care homes virus or not" because government policy. Nobody seems to care.

There is a point at which one cannot care for one's parents. My father in his last weeks was totally immobile and needed assistance throughout his waking hours.

When selecting a care home for a relative due diligence is a must. I visited places I wouldn't kennel a dog. There were homes that I wanted to leave within moments of my arrival. The aroma of stale urine and cabbage was unbearable in one.

Unbelievably all were expensive, but the price differential between the best and the worst was not as much as expected.

Doesn't surprise me whatsoever. The cost of providing 24/7 care is going to be exorbitantly expensive come what may.

The difference between doing so with well motivated staff who keep busy cleaning and those who can't be arsed is going to be a difference more of attitude, training, discipline and standards than a difference of cost.

Attitude, aptitude and motivation were clearly head and shoulders better at the best compared to the worst.

Stereotomy said:

NerysHughes said:

ONS deaths data out.
No of deaths is below average by 3.4%

Over what period?

Assume last week

Richard_Nabavi said:

Reading various comments on this thread, it's curious that prejudice against a whole group, based on anecdote or the behaviour of a small number of the group, is seen as OK when the group is public-school educated toffs. I rather that imagine that the same people who show this prejudice would be utterly outraged if the group being unfairly vilified were, for example, benefit claimants, tenants, or black kids from inner London.

Nope, I'm merely prejudiced against people who aren't polite to others.

Richard_Nabavi said:

Reading various comments on this thread, it's curious that prejudice against a whole group, based on anecdote or the behaviour of a small number of the group, is seen as OK when the group is public-school educated toffs. I rather that imagine that the same people who show this prejudice would be utterly outraged if the group being unfairly vilified were, for example, benefit claimants, tenants, or black kids from inner London.

Yeah but tbf "pity the public school toffs" isn't a campaign that's going anywhere fast!

Mexicanpete said:

RochdalePioneers said:

It does feel to me like Care Homes are a classic case of the British problem. Which is that we find a very expensive way of doing something. And then can't / won't pay for it. People don't want to be on the hook looking after their parents who thanks to expensive modern medicine can live for decades into retirement. So someone else needs to do it. But we don't want a national care system because booo taxes so instead we find ourselves in a place where people pay £lots to warehouse their supposedly loved ones in a box with imported carers on the minimum wage because its yet another job that Brits largely refuse to do.

We don't want to personally care for our parents. We don't want the job of caring for someone else's parents. We don't want the bloody foreigners who end up caring for our parents. And we don't want to pay for it but end up doing so in a system where seemingly nobody can get by. No wonder "just dump them back in the care homes virus or not" because government policy. Nobody seems to care.

There is a point at which one cannot care for one's parents. My father in his last weeks was totally immobile and needed assistance throughout his waking hours.

When selecting a care home for a relative due diligence is a must. I visited places I wouldn't kennel a dog. There were homes that I wanted to leave within moments of my arrival. The aroma of stale urine and cabbage was unbearable in one.

Unbelievably all were expensive, but the price differential between the best and the worst was not as much as expected.

The other constraint, of course, is proximity.
One of the most most important considerations when it comes to selecting a care home is the ability regularly to visit, and depending on where you live, that can mean some compromises.

Richard_Nabavi said:

Reading various comments on this thread, it's curious that prejudice against a whole group, based on anecdote or the behaviour of a small number of the group, is seen as OK when the group is public-school educated toffs. I rather that imagine that the same people who show this prejudice would be utterly outraged if the group being unfairly vilified were, for example, benefit claimants, tenants, or black kids from inner London.

Ah yes, the powerless group who *Checks Notes* runs the country.

Real punching down there.

Luckyguy1983 said:

Pro_Rata said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Essexit said:

TOPPING said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

FPT:
I learned everything I needed to know about Johnson and his ilk working as a waiter when I was a teenager, in a town with a university popular with English public school Oxbridge rejects. The casual rudeness to those considered their social inferiors is entirely familiar. It's no surprise to see him blaming the working class and immigrant workforce, mostly women, who've been risking their own health and wellbeing in minimum wage jobs in the care sector, for the mistakes of his government.

Everything you needed to know from some ra spilling your beer when they gave it to you?

I think more research is needed.

Also, Johnson and his ilk weren't in Durham (I'm guessing). They were in Oxford. Which is not as good as being in Cambridge, I grant you.

Only Living Boy is Scottish, so could be St Andrews? One of our nat posters at the time of the indyref was psychologically scarred by his experience of braying toffs at St Andrews. Who knows, it may even be the same person, though it was a different name.

You have correctly identified the town. I wasn't at university there, though. I had further exposure to these people at university later on, which confirmed earlier impressions. It wasn't me posting back in 2014, I was a Unionist then. I still like to observe how high-up people interact with waiting staff, it is an excellent way of obtaining insights into their character. In case you think I'm being partisan, John Major scores very highly in this regard.

I don't know if I've ever been this specific, but the culture shock that confirmed me as centre left was the realisation that the braying Tory toffs of St. Andrews didn't have the slightest clue about life outside their bubble and, moreover, didn't really give a flying damn.

By contrast, I got on OK with a few of the more working class liibertarians who crept round the edges of the StAs Tory society. Even if their ideas were often bat crazy, they were OK people.

Isn't this a bit nuts? Left wing policies either work or they don't. They either help the people they purport to help or they make things worse for them. There are any number of examples worldwide that can be looked at. OR you can just adopt an entire political philosophy as a rejection of red trouser wearers.

Who knew that all it would take for the establishment of 1000 years of uncontested Tory domination is to quarantine St Andrews?

Yes, one way you can judge the likely efficacy of a basket of policies by the company those policies keep.

And putting public services under the direction of people who, very typically, neither have much interaction with those services nor much care for them or understand, at a human level, why they exist, is not generally a great idea.

If I saw that understanding on any level from Conservative front benches over the last 10 years, I would have applauded that.

Austerity was a classic example. It was absolutely not a problem to try and put the public finances in order in 2010, it was correct. And you have to make quick decisions on cutting things, perhaps salami slicing, up front. But you absolutely have to follow it up with a reform agenda that says 'what do we want these public services to look like in 10 years with the money we have'.

The Cameroon effort at doing that was derisory, it was like they simply didn't understand they needed to do it - I reach the conclusion that they didn't. A bit of deckchair shuffling from Lansley, a 'let Ian get on with it' on benefits, a Big Society that could have done minor good at the fringes, but barely got beyond the slogan board. And then the vacuous, mindless, complete and utter pointlessness of Brexit.

I'm all for talented posh people getting on, they have thing to offer this country. But at the point it starts to become a cabalistic club, well, they didn't have a clue, they don't have a clue, and looking at that policies with those experiences in the back of one's mind, I'm sorry but it is absolutely relevant.

Scott_xP said:

Barnesian said:

"His brilliance lay in his performance as the non-political politician. Not well prepared, but chaotic. Not carefully controlled, but outrageous. Not dignified, but happy to appear a buffoon. Even the look – rumpled suit, tousled hair – and the name, Boris, foreswore the traditional politician’s dignity. Everything his political critics saw as gaffes and weaknesses actually served to affirm his anti-political identity, and their outrage marginalised themselves rather than Johnson.

It's the Trump playbook

It works in an election, but you end up with someone completely incapable of rising to the challenges of office.

For normal politicians, for whom sitting in the big chair is a means to an end (making changes they think will make the world a better place, even if they're mistaken) that's a problem.

Once you conclude that, for Johnson, sitting in the big chair is an end in itself, his unsuitability for the role becomes much less of an issue, for him anyway.

As long as he can mishear "we hate King Boris" as "we hail King Boris" the current setup works for him. Even if it sucks for the rest of us. So how long can he keep that up? Given some of the moments from the election campaign (hiding in the fridge, taking that journalist's phone), I suspect that he has a thinner skin than most top-rank politicians. Thatcher and Blair just absorbed criticism; if anything, it made them stronger because they knew they were right. Major and May took it in a more painful way, but they took their medicine because it was their duty.

For all his massive majority and confident bluster, Johnson is at some risk to running away crying at everybody being so mean to him. And that might be the last we see of him.

RobD said:

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/robfordmancs/status/1280432360501194753?s=20

84% taking the vaccine? More than enough.

Indeed. The power of a headline: "84% of Britons ready to take COVID-19 vaccine, according to new poll". Equally true, opposite spin. The one in x approach is also good way to make relatively small numbers look big.

“ The Johnson care home comment row – Day 2”

I suppose if you post a thread at 10.30pm, then another ten hours later it is technically 2 days

Mexicanpete said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Mexicanpete said:

RochdalePioneers said:

It does feel to me like Care Homes are a classic case of the British problem. Which is that we find a very expensive way of doing something. And then can't / won't pay for it. People don't want to be on the hook looking after their parents who thanks to expensive modern medicine can live for decades into retirement. So someone else needs to do it. But we don't want a national care system because booo taxes so instead we find ourselves in a place where people pay £lots to warehouse their supposedly loved ones in a box with imported carers on the minimum wage because its yet another job that Brits largely refuse to do.

We don't want to personally care for our parents. We don't want the job of caring for someone else's parents. We don't want the bloody foreigners who end up caring for our parents. And we don't want to pay for it but end up doing so in a system where seemingly nobody can get by. No wonder "just dump them back in the care homes virus or not" because government policy. Nobody seems to care.

There is a point at which one cannot care for one's parents. My father in his last weeks was totally immobile and needed assistance throughout his waking hours.

When selecting a care home for a relative due diligence is a must. I visited places I wouldn't kennel a dog. There were homes that I wanted to leave within moments of my arrival. The aroma of stale urine and cabbage was unbearable in one.

Unbelievably all were expensive, but the price differential between the best and the worst was not as much as expected.

Doesn't surprise me whatsoever. The cost of providing 24/7 care is going to be exorbitantly expensive come what may.

The difference between doing so with well motivated staff who keep busy cleaning and those who can't be arsed is going to be a difference more of attitude, training, discipline and standards than a difference of cost.

Attitude, aptitude and motivation were clearly head and shoulders better at the best compared to the worst.

I'm pleased to say that this Home was closed by the authorities, but many years ago I was asked to go to somewhere, where the Inspectors were unhappy about the medication handling, and give a talk to the staff on the matter.
So I did,
It was abundantly clear that my audience were were not either with me or interested. So I asked why, and was told that while I was being paid to give the talk they had been told that a) that if they did not attend they would be dismissed and b) that as it was in their interest to be there they would not be paid!

isam said:

“ The Johnson care home comment row – Day 2”

I suppose if you post a thread at 10.30pm, then another ten hours later it is technically 2 days

And when allows Starmer to focus PMQs back onto Johnson's lamentable record on care homes at noon tomorrow, it'll be Day 3.

Stuartinromford said:

Scott_xP said:

Barnesian said:

"His brilliance lay in his performance as the non-political politician. Not well prepared, but chaotic. Not carefully controlled, but outrageous. Not dignified, but happy to appear a buffoon. Even the look – rumpled suit, tousled hair – and the name, Boris, foreswore the traditional politician’s dignity. Everything his political critics saw as gaffes and weaknesses actually served to affirm his anti-political identity, and their outrage marginalised themselves rather than Johnson.

It's the Trump playbook

It works in an election, but you end up with someone completely incapable of rising to the challenges of office.

For normal politicians, for whom sitting in the big chair is a means to an end (making changes they think will make the world a better place, even if they're mistaken) that's a problem.

Once you conclude that, for Johnson, sitting in the big chair is an end in itself, his unsuitability for the role becomes much less of an issue, for him anyway.

As long as he can mishear "we hate King Boris" as "we hail King Boris" the current setup works for him. Even if it sucks for the rest of us. So how long can he keep that up? Given some of the moments from the election campaign (hiding in the fridge, taking that journalist's phone), I suspect that he has a thinner skin than most top-rank politicians. Thatcher and Blair just absorbed criticism; if anything, it made them stronger because they knew they were right. Major and May took it in a more painful way, but they took their medicine because it was their duty.

For all his massive majority and confident bluster, Johnson is at some risk to running away crying at everybody being so mean to him. And that might be the last we see of him.

After repeated forensic questioning by an experienced prosecutor, for example?

https://twitter.com/StewartWood/status/1280444744947171330

Nigelb said:

MaxPB said:

Philip_Thompson said:

MaxPB said:

rottenborough said:

https://twitter.com/GMB/status/1280407255515619329

Honestly, I'd like to see how much he has taken out of his company over the last decade and then compare it to how much was spent on infectious disease planning. These owners are basically all shysters and troughers.

Do you have that attitude for all sectors of business?

The only reason energy is expensive is that the owners of energy companies are all shysters and troughers?

Should we nationalise everything and become a Communist utopia in your eyes?

Well no, they all went to their shareholders for cash calls in the last few months. That's what shareholders are for. I'm taking issue with this idea that the government should take the blame for carehome owners not wanting to spend the money they needed to.

No one is arguing that.
the government should take responsibility for its own actions, and that is what Johnson appears to be trying to avoid.

Tbf, I'm not disputing that point either, I'm just saying that there is a lot of blame to be shared around and care home owners aren't an innocent party this was done to as they seem to be trying to claim. They are profit making private companies, whether or not you or I agree with that structure it is what it is, and for them to be claiming poverty when they have taken years worth of profits out of these companies in dividends and interest on shareholder loans is just not plausible. They failed their residents and the families of those residents when they claimed they didn't have the money to implement measures to counteract the virus. It was never the case, they just didn't want to spend the money because it would eat into their margins.

Richard_Nabavi said:

Reading various comments on this thread, it's curious that prejudice against a whole group, based on anecdote or the behaviour of a small number of the group, is seen as OK when the group is public-school educated toffs. I rather that imagine that the same people who show this prejudice would be utterly outraged if the group being unfairly vilified were, for example, benefit claimants, tenants, or black kids from inner London.

@Richard_Nabavi - black people have been "unfairly vilified" for most of history in a way the Etonian and Harrovian snobs have no conception of.

The Posh Boys have got off lightly in comparison...

Philip_Thompson said:

FPT

MaxPB said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Whenever the topic of care homes comes up the fact they're expensive is used as evidence they're profitable rather than simply considering that providing quality care is expensive.

The thing that always strikes me as remarkable is that for every staff member on 24/7 requires FIVE full time equivalent staff.

Philip, if there was no money in it they wouldn't be doing it. Quite simply the owners are a bunch of shysters who use opaque property holding companies to siphon cash from the companies and then post nominal losses to claim poverty. If care home companies were required to directly own the property they were present in or rent from a non-beneficial landlord it would "solve" the money problems overnight.

That's a disgusting attitude Max that I'd expect far from left anti-business Marxists not yourself.

Some owners may be shysters but that can happen in any industry, but that's far from universal or typical.

That a business pays rent (or if not has debt to pay for a property) is not either a disgrace or unusual.

The most expensive part of care, like the most expensive part of almost any business, is presumably the staffing. It takes FIVE full time equivalent staff per one person on the rota to provide 24/7 care - or another way of phrasing it is that even on minimum wage including National Insurance etc to have one person on costs the equivalent of nearly £60 per hour.

How many staff for 2 residents FIVE or TEN?

How many staff for 3 residents FIVE or FIFTEEN?

£60 PER HR OR £20 PER HR?

Nigelb said:

Philip_Thompson said:

MaxPB said:

Philip_Thompson said:

MaxPB said:

rottenborough said:

https://twitter.com/GMB/status/1280407255515619329

Honestly, I'd like to see how much he has taken out of his company over the last decade and then compare it to how much was spent on infectious disease planning. These owners are basically all shysters and troughers.

Do you have that attitude for all sectors of business?

The only reason energy is expensive is that the owners of energy companies are all shysters and troughers?

Should we nationalise everything and become a Communist utopia in your eyes?

Well no, they all went to their shareholders for cash calls in the last few months. That's what shareholders are for. I'm taking issue with this idea that the government should take the blame for carehome owners not wanting to spend the money they needed to.

The government pays for care (or private individuals do) so if the costs for PPE goes up then the government needs to pay more and/or fees need to go up.

Again, at the beginning of the pandemic, we know that the NHS with the unlimited resources of government behind it was unable to access adequate PPE for a time. Care homes, however well managed (and both we and government knew that many aren't), quite clearly would be in a worse situation.
To expect that Covid patients could safely be dumped on care homes was simply irresponsible.

Though it was never policy to discharge Covid patients.

What went wrong was discharging patients assumed to be Covid-negative who weren't.

OldKingCole said:

LostPassword said:

OldKingCole said:

HYUFD said:

https://twitter.com/GuidoFawkes/status/1280406968151289856?s=20

Silly lady dog.

I'm a fan of wordplay as much as the next person, but I think that if you are going to be needlessly rude about a complete stranger on a public forum it is cowardly to hide your bile.

Commenting on a public figure is surely fair game?

Not with gratuitous and misogynist insults, no.

https://twitter.com/Tyndale7/status/1280269832861241345

algarkirk said:

NorthofStoke said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Essexit said:

TOPPING said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

FPT:
I learned everything I needed to know about Johnson and his ilk working as a waiter when I was a teenager, in a town with a university popular with English public school Oxbridge rejects. The casual rudeness to those considered their social inferiors is entirely familiar. It's no surprise to see him blaming the working class and immigrant workforce, mostly women, who've been risking their own health and wellbeing in minimum wage jobs in the care sector, for the mistakes of his government.

Everything you needed to know from some ra spilling your beer when they gave it to you?

I think more research is needed.

Also, Johnson and his ilk weren't in Durham (I'm guessing). They were in Oxford. Which is not as good as being in Cambridge, I grant you.

Only Living Boy is Scottish, so could be St Andrews? One of our nat posters at the time of the indyref was psychologically scarred by his experience of braying toffs at St Andrews. Who knows, it may even be the same person, though it was a different name.

You have correctly identified the town. I wasn't at university there, though. I had further exposure to these people at university later on, which confirmed earlier impressions. It wasn't me posting back in 2014, I was a Unionist then. I still like to observe how high-up people interact with waiting staff, it is an excellent way of obtaining insights into their character. In case you think I'm being partisan, John Major scores very highly in this regard.

Thatcher too.

I have heard similar about Thatcher, who was apparently quite kind in her personal life. Equally many left wing people are quite obnoxious on a personal level. My view is that there is no excuse for rudeness, which I hope is also largely reflected in my interactions here.

I agree. The Tories have too many who lack empathy or have a totally unrealistic view of life at lower income levels.

On the same theme to illustrate arrogance reinforced with self-serving ideological fervour: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/rhodes-must-fall-campaigner-ntokozo-qwabe-oxford-university-claims-cape-town-waitress-white-tears-a7037911.html

There ought to be an official and well paid post of being the person who is licensed to pour custard over public figures while receiving full support from the PM of the day.

You would be more likely to find this post in the Royal Household. The Queen's Custardier, or somesuch.

BluestBlue said:

Theuniondivvie said:

BluestBlue said:

Stuartinromford said:

eek said:

Boris - when in a hole never admit you are in a hole... Just keep digging and eventually you will get out.

Fairly soon I think this philosophy is going to result in him being buried alive..

Unfortunately, I'm increasingly of the view that the remarks made here by a government loyalist in the early days of Dom's Adventures in Durhamland were right. Not morally right, but an accurate reflection of reality.

Unless 40+ Conservative MPs defect to the opposition, or 183 vote against him in an internal vote of confidence, there's no reason for him to go anywhere. And having purged the most obvious traitors in 2019, those are both huge hurdles.

There's no actual process to get Boris or his favourites out before 2024. So until then, we plebs should just jog on. I think some of them enjoy the impotent rage.

Freezing Stamp Duty? £1.3 billion
Cost of the Job Retention Scheme? £123 billion
Watching Piers Morgan rant and wail because Boris dared to demure from his sacred view of Who Is To Blame?

Priceless

You've misspelt demur.
I know as a classicist and alumni of one of the UK's great universities (as you never tire of telling us) that you're a stickler for that kind of thing, and would prefer to have it pointed out.

Somehow I knew you would. But talented as I am, I am not many alumni, but just the one alumnus...

Pedantry and whataboutery combined; impressive.

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/StewartWood/status/1280444744947171330

Government regulates the care sector.
Why would you discharge infected patients in the middle of a pandemic into facilities you regard as disorganised ?

Nigelb said:

Philip_Thompson said:

MaxPB said:

Philip_Thompson said:

MaxPB said:

rottenborough said:

https://twitter.com/GMB/status/1280407255515619329

Honestly, I'd like to see how much he has taken out of his company over the last decade and then compare it to how much was spent on infectious disease planning. These owners are basically all shysters and troughers.

Do you have that attitude for all sectors of business?

The only reason energy is expensive is that the owners of energy companies are all shysters and troughers?

Should we nationalise everything and become a Communist utopia in your eyes?

Well no, they all went to their shareholders for cash calls in the last few months. That's what shareholders are for. I'm taking issue with this idea that the government should take the blame for carehome owners not wanting to spend the money they needed to.

The government pays for care (or private individuals do) so if the costs for PPE goes up then the government needs to pay more and/or fees need to go up.

Again, at the beginning of the pandemic, we know that the NHS with the unlimited resources of government behind it was unable to access adequate PPE for a time. Care homes, however well managed (and both we and government knew that many aren't), quite clearly would be in a worse situation.
To expect that Covid patients could safely be dumped on care homes was simply irresponsible.

I think it was the complete lack of testing before putting residents back in care homes that was the most irresponsible decision of this crisis. It should have been possible to test a few thousand people for the virus before sending them back, that no one in PHE thought to do it is another indictment of that organisation which has completely failed the country time and again. The original decision to free up bed space for expected incoming patients made sense, but the manner in which it was achieved gave the worst possible outcome.

bigjohnowls said:

Philip_Thompson said:

FPT

MaxPB said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Whenever the topic of care homes comes up the fact they're expensive is used as evidence they're profitable rather than simply considering that providing quality care is expensive.

The thing that always strikes me as remarkable is that for every staff member on 24/7 requires FIVE full time equivalent staff.

Philip, if there was no money in it they wouldn't be doing it. Quite simply the owners are a bunch of shysters who use opaque property holding companies to siphon cash from the companies and then post nominal losses to claim poverty. If care home companies were required to directly own the property they were present in or rent from a non-beneficial landlord it would "solve" the money problems overnight.

That's a disgusting attitude Max that I'd expect far from left anti-business Marxists not yourself.

Some owners may be shysters but that can happen in any industry, but that's far from universal or typical.

That a business pays rent (or if not has debt to pay for a property) is not either a disgrace or unusual.

The most expensive part of care, like the most expensive part of almost any business, is presumably the staffing. It takes FIVE full time equivalent staff per one person on the rota to provide 24/7 care - or another way of phrasing it is that even on minimum wage including National Insurance etc to have one person on costs the equivalent of nearly £60 per hour.

How many staff for 2 residents FIVE or TEN?

How many staff for 3 residents FIVE or FIFTEEN?

£60 PER HR OR £20 PER HR?

Some dementia units are obliged to have one staff member on duty per five residents. However as I said to have one staff member on duty requires paying full time 5 staff's wages (since there's 168 hours in a week plus statutory holidays) - which means that at that ratio the care staff are the same number of staff as the residents.

That's before you consider ancillary staff like chefs etc

Wouldn't surprise me if dementia homes have more staff than residents.

LostPassword said:

OldKingCole said:

LostPassword said:

OldKingCole said:

HYUFD said:

https://twitter.com/GuidoFawkes/status/1280406968151289856?s=20

Silly lady dog.

I'm a fan of wordplay as much as the next person, but I think that if you are going to be needlessly rude about a complete stranger on a public forum it is cowardly to hide your bile.

Commenting on a public figure is surely fair game?

Not with gratuitous and misogynist insults, no.

Noted.

An interesting article on Labour's thinking about taxes on the wealthy:

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/amp/entry/keir-starmer-anneliese-dodds-covid-budget_uk_5f038d13c5b6acab28546368

Richard_Nabavi said:

Beibheirli_C said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Reading various comments on this thread, it's curious that prejudice against a whole group, based on anecdote or the behaviour of a small number of the group, is seen as OK when the group is public-school educated toffs. I rather that imagine that the same people who show this prejudice would be utterly outraged if the group being unfairly vilified were, for example, benefit claimants, tenants, or black kids from inner London.

@Richard_Nabavi - black people have been "unfairly vilified" for most of history in a way the Etonian and Harrovian snobs have no conception of.

The Posh Boys have got off lightly in comparison...

That's all right then. Some unfair vilification is OK because some other unfair vilification is worse. Got it.

I think this is the wrong horse to be riding, Richard.

The only institution I know of which discriminates against all public schools but one (yes, Slough Grammar) is the Household Cavalry.

Not exactly a ditch to die in, now, is it!!

https://twitter.com/George_Osborne/status/1280449460456361986

isam said:

Wulfrun_Phil said:

isam said:

“ The Johnson care home comment row – Day 2”

I suppose if you post a thread at 10.30pm, then another ten hours later it is technically 2 days

And when allows Starmer to focus PMQs back onto Johnson's lamentable record on care homes at noon tomorrow, it'll be Day 3.

Care homes are private, profit making enterprises, lets not canonize the owners just yet

I think the issue is that many of them don't seem to be doing that well at the "profit" bit.

They have been at the mercy of mismanaged, or mis-forecast LBOs resulting in many of them now needing bailouts either from public or private (via haircuts) means.

Richard_Nabavi said:

TOPPING said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Beibheirli_C said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Reading various comments on this thread, it's curious that prejudice against a whole group, based on anecdote or the behaviour of a small number of the group, is seen as OK when the group is public-school educated toffs. I rather that imagine that the same people who show this prejudice would be utterly outraged if the group being unfairly vilified were, for example, benefit claimants, tenants, or black kids from inner London.

@Richard_Nabavi - black people have been "unfairly vilified" for most of history in a way the Etonian and Harrovian snobs have no conception of.

The Posh Boys have got off lightly in comparison...

That's all right then. Some unfair vilification is OK because some other unfair vilification is worse. Got it.

I think this is the wrong horse to be riding, Richard.

The only institution I know of which discriminates against all public schools but one (yes, Slough Grammar) is the Household Cavalry.

Not exactly a ditch to die in, now, is it!!

My interest isn't in the prejudicee but the prejudicer, if you forgive the ugly neologisms. The toffs can look after themselves, of course, but I'm running a Quixotic one-man campaign to encourage those showing the prejudice to be more self aware. I suppose you could say that I'm trying to extend the boundaries of Wokeness.

I appreciate that my campaign is doomed to failure.

Ah, so it's a cast the first stone thing?

No problem with that. Carry on Trooper Nabavi.

Selebian said:

RobD said:

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/robfordmancs/status/1280432360501194753?s=20

84% taking the vaccine? More than enough.

Indeed. The power of a headline: "84% of Britons ready to take COVID-19 vaccine, according to new poll". Equally true, opposite spin. The one in x approach is also good way to make relatively small numbers look big.

I think 16% not wanting to take the vaccine when it becomes available is shocking.

Richard_Nabavi said:

TOPPING said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Beibheirli_C said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Reading various comments on this thread, it's curious that prejudice against a whole group, based on anecdote or the behaviour of a small number of the group, is seen as OK when the group is public-school educated toffs. I rather that imagine that the same people who show this prejudice would be utterly outraged if the group being unfairly vilified were, for example, benefit claimants, tenants, or black kids from inner London.

@Richard_Nabavi - black people have been "unfairly vilified" for most of history in a way the Etonian and Harrovian snobs have no conception of.

The Posh Boys have got off lightly in comparison...

That's all right then. Some unfair vilification is OK because some other unfair vilification is worse. Got it.

I think this is the wrong horse to be riding, Richard.

The only institution I know of which discriminates against all public schools but one (yes, Slough Grammar) is the Household Cavalry.

Not exactly a ditch to die in, now, is it!!

My interest isn't in the prejudicee but the prejudicer, if you forgive the ugly neologisms. The toffs can look after themselves, of course, but I'm running a Quixotic one-man campaign to encourage those showing the prejudice to be more self aware. I suppose you could say that I'm trying to extend the boundaries of Wokeness.

I appreciate that my campaign is doomed to failure.

I dropped them all long ago - as you must when you awake - but some of my best friends used to be public schoolboys.

That confidence they have - if allied to a naturally benign personality - can be extremely appealing.

Apparently the problem with Starkey's dropped bollock was down to a comprehension problem. I'm guessing it isn't his own comprehension he's talking about.

'The historian said the “misunderstanding of my words in no way reflects my views or practice on race”.'

Not dissimilar to the way we poor oiks have misunderstood “Too many care homes didn’t really follow the procedures”. We really need to up our game.

https://twitter.com/ITVNewsPolitics/status/1280452141719699458

.

Philip_Thompson said:

Nigelb said:

Philip_Thompson said:

MaxPB said:

Philip_Thompson said:

MaxPB said:

rottenborough said:

https://twitter.com/GMB/status/1280407255515619329

Honestly, I'd like to see how much he has taken out of his company over the last decade and then compare it to how much was spent on infectious disease planning. These owners are basically all shysters and troughers.

Do you have that attitude for all sectors of business?

The only reason energy is expensive is that the owners of energy companies are all shysters and troughers?

Should we nationalise everything and become a Communist utopia in your eyes?

Well no, they all went to their shareholders for cash calls in the last few months. That's what shareholders are for. I'm taking issue with this idea that the government should take the blame for carehome owners not wanting to spend the money they needed to.

The government pays for care (or private individuals do) so if the costs for PPE goes up then the government needs to pay more and/or fees need to go up.

Again, at the beginning of the pandemic, we know that the NHS with the unlimited resources of government behind it was unable to access adequate PPE for a time. Care homes, however well managed (and both we and government knew that many aren't), quite clearly would be in a worse situation.
To expect that Covid patients could safely be dumped on care homes was simply irresponsible.

Though it was never policy to discharge Covid patients.

What went wrong was discharging patients assumed to be Covid-negative who weren't.

I think it goes beyond that.

If you look at the discharge requirements published in March, ALL patients not requiring intensive care, or in a high dependency unit, or on oxygen, should be actively considered, twice daily, for discharge*. As far as I can see, this was irrespective of Covid status (and as you say, many at the time simply weren't tested).

(* annex B on p30 of the guidance)

(p29)
Where applicable to the patient, COVID-19 test results are included in documentation that accompanies the person on discharge.

As an aside, the discharge requirements included that:
the local commissioner for NHS and Social Care Equipment must ensure...
...Providers have access to adequate stocks of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE).