When is someone going to have an honest and open conversation with voters about the tradeoffs involved in trying to manage an ageing society with record high levels of taxation and ever rising spending on the elderly? Absent immigration, our labour force is shrinking. People are living longer, often in poor health (frequently related to poor lifestyle choices) and require extensive, labour intensive services. Can we please have a grown up conversation about this? People don't like immigration, okay, fine. What are they willing to sacrifice then? Do they want to pay more tax so we can fill jobs in the care sector wholly from domestic workers, paying much higher salaries to lure workers away from other sectors? Are they okay with worse service and greater automation across the economy as labour shortages become more widespread? Are they good with more cuts to ageing related spending? (The hoohaw about axeing WFP suggests not). Are they okay raising the pension age further to cut pension spending and expand the labour force? Or do we just want to bitch and moan about foreigners coming over to do the jobs that natives are either unwilling or unavailable to do, at wages that we largely can't afford to raise?
We can invest in automation to cut out unnecessary jobs and boost productivity.
If we can't afford to raise wages, then maybe the job is not productive enough and it doesn't need to be done.
That's easy to say when it's not your elderly relative lying in their own shit all day because there are no carers.
He will not be such a smart arse when he or some of his own family are lying in their own crap.
Old people lying in shit is this week's trans people going into a "loo".
My dad required care at home with Alzheimer's, and for a number of years in residential. It was every week, for pretty well all of that time. The quality of residential care (in the same facilities) ranged from very good to very bad, depending on the staff on duty.
I suspect Barty has yet to go through any of that experience.
Quite the contrary. My wife works in a care home and my grandparents who both only recently passed away (my nan over Easter) required care at home.
I don't believe my wife and her colleagues only deserve minimum wage for what they do. I don't think my grandparents should have been looked after by whoever is prepared to do the job for minimum wage, with that being all that matters.
Paying people a reasonable salary is a reasonable solution to solve labour shortages. It's remarkable how many of our sites lefties object to that.
You seem to be wilfully confusing not seeing a plausible path to paying a reasonable salary happening, with being against it.
Trump talking absolute crap on LBC , he has brought in 10 Trillion in investment , big job increases , yadda yadda , China want to give them everything etc. What an absolute numpty.
He tweeted that the price of eggs had fallen 98% since he became President. He's discovered that you just say what you want, then a certain portion of the population will believe you.
What's the old saying about being able to Fool Some of the People All of the Time.
What's worrying is that a certain portion of the population keep believing it. That's, perhaps, the responsibility of the likes of Fox News, who don't necessarily explicitly go along with the nonsense, but don't challenge it.
Sure: there is a lot of "sane washing" of Trump.
But there are a lot of people who want him to be right (they voted for him), and they want the things he says to be true. Cognitive dissonance is a very powerful force.
What were Boris and his cabinet smoking, when they agreed to this?
Never attribute to malice that which might otherwise be explained by stupidity.
UK universities were dying to take foreign students (which they could charge large fees). This meant that the UK government could avoid raising fees on domestic students, and they also thought that - with a reduction in the number of people from the EU coming - that there was ample room to expand numbers.
And the repeat for care staff.
And add in some points based stuff.
And then the fact that they didn't think about dependents, or about the fact that non-EU immigrants were much less likely to return home.
Finally, remember that government decision making is far too slow. After just three months, if visas numbers were coming in far higher than expected, they could have changed course. But they were too slow.
What really surprised me on the official visa figures posted on Twitter today by Tom Newton-Dunn is the large number of dependents, the largest portion of the total by a long way, and quite how much this segment has grown in the last few years.
It was the shift from EU workers who rarely came with dependents and Chinese students who did likewise as they always intended to return to their home countries to Nigerian and South Asian workers and students who viewed the move to the UK on a student or low skill worker visa as a stepping stone to a new life so brought dependents and many are currently attempting to get highly skilled work visas (which has dependent rights) or recycle their existing low skill visa with dependent rights. The government should raise the barrier for high skill visas, push up the threshold to £50k and retrospectively apply the new ILR terms to existing visa holders and add a new income bar to get a low skill visa to £40k or something that isn't realistically achievable.
To be fair, Sunak actually dealt with a number of these issues:
- he raised the minimum salary threshold for skilled workers from £26k to £39k (now should have increased it to £50k?, probably, but this was still a 50% bump.)
- international students are no longer allowed to bring dependents
- there was a substantial reduction in the number of social care visas issued
Of course, he didn't get any credit for any of these (while Boris escaped blame for causing the problems), so one would expect a fairly meaningful decline in the net immigration numbers in the next few years.
But does nothing for the 1m or so people who have 5 year visas (including dependents) for low skilled work and will get ILR for themselves and their dependents in the next 3 years if the government does nothing. It's this cohort that should be gently exited from the country as they will end up being a huge liability to the state and bring little to no tax contribution.
Sure: but I think the reality is that the UK government should not go back on its word. It issued the visa, and if the person has complied with all of its conditions, then I don't think it can revoke them.
The visa doesn't come with a promise of ILR. Declining to give someone ILR is not going back on our word.
But there are a lot of people who want him to be right (they voted for him), and they want the things he says to be true. Cognitive dissonance is a very powerful force.
A lot of people really, really, really want him to be the genius from the Apprentice.
Gorgeous afternoon here in downtown East London with a refreshing breeze off the river but three months of this and we'll be fighting the Great Water War of 2025 - perhaps Starmer will, pace Callaghan, appoint a Drought Minister who will bring three months of relentless rain.
This week and early next will see the AGMs of Councils who had elections on May 1st. It will be fascinating to see how the new Reform majority councils in places like Kent, Derbyshire and Durham will begin to transact business - what will be the relationships with officers for example?
Then we have those authorities with no overall control where the horsetrading has been and probably still is continuing, Who will end up running Cornwall, Wiltshire and Northumberland to name but three?
Cornwall's AGM is a week away on the afternoon of the 20th - Reform are already claiming "the other parties" are trying to put together an administration without them. They probably have the numbers to do so but the 16 Independents don't always function as a single group.
Wiltshire's future administration also seems to hang on what the seven Independents will decide. The Wiltshire AGM is next Tuesday morning.
Yet the hypothetical polls showing Boris would win in 2019 were right. Those who think Boris betrayed them on immigration are baked in for Reform, Reform still get 23% even against Boris in the poll but he wins enough swing voters to get the Conservatives to 26%.
Even your mate Dave doesn't make much difference by comparison, MiC found a Cameron led Tories would still only be on 22% and still trailing Reform (even if they overtook Labour who were down to 20%) so only Boris returning could see the Tories win most seats again. Though Rishi is somewhat rewarded for his tighter visa wage requirements and end to dependents coming in which have started to cut the BorisWave. A Sunak return as Tory leader would see the Tories back to the 24% they got at the GE the poll found, tied with Reform and Rishi unlike Boris is still an MP and so eligible.
Though if Boris gets a 5% Tory bounce he would certainly hold any by election in a Tory held seat if Kemi allowed him on the approved Conservative candidates list
"Dave" in his moderate Conservative persona presumably got right-leaning pro-EU votes,
When is someone going to have an honest and open conversation with voters about the tradeoffs involved in trying to manage an ageing society with record high levels of taxation and ever rising spending on the elderly? Absent immigration, our labour force is shrinking. People are living longer, often in poor health (frequently related to poor lifestyle choices) and require extensive, labour intensive services. Can we please have a grown up conversation about this? People don't like immigration, okay, fine. What are they willing to sacrifice then? Do they want to pay more tax so we can fill jobs in the care sector wholly from domestic workers, paying much higher salaries to lure workers away from other sectors? Are they okay with worse service and greater automation across the economy as labour shortages become more widespread? Are they good with more cuts to ageing related spending? (The hoohaw about axeing WFP suggests not). Are they okay raising the pension age further to cut pension spending and expand the labour force? Or do we just want to bitch and moan about foreigners coming over to do the jobs that natives are either unwilling or unavailable to do, at wages that we largely can't afford to raise?
We can invest in automation to cut out unnecessary jobs and boost productivity.
If we can't afford to raise wages, then maybe the job is not productive enough and it doesn't need to be done.
That's easy to say when it's not your elderly relative lying in their own shit all day because there are no carers.
He will not be such a smart arse when he or some of his own family are lying in their own crap.
Old people lying in shit is this week's trans people going into a "loo".
My dad required care at home with Alzheimer's, and for a number of years in residential. It was every week, for pretty well all of that time. The quality of residential care (in the same facilities) ranged from very good to very bad, depending on the staff on duty.
I suspect Barty has yet to go through any of that experience.
Quite the contrary. My wife works in a care home and my grandparents who both only recently passed away (my nan over Easter) required care at home.
I don't believe my wife and her colleagues only deserve minimum wage for what they do. I don't think my grandparents should have been looked after by whoever is prepared to do the job for minimum wage, with that being all that matters.
Paying people a reasonable salary is a reasonable solution to solve labour shortages. It's remarkable how many of our sites lefties object to that.
Definitely wouldn't categorise dementia care as "unskilled", of the numerous carers my parent has had only 1, maybe 2, have had the requisite skills and patience to get my parent into a working routine (washing, dressing, sleeping). It is difficult, and you're aware that as time goes on it will get more difficult. It couldn't be automated, it requires empathy to get them to cooperate.
I agree 100%, but when it comes to qualifications, it doesn't require any. Just a clean DBS.
My wife started at the home just before Covid and has studying online at home in her own time and recently got a place at Uni so will be leaving the care home to start a professional course from September, she'd only ever stay on minimum wage (or a few pence above it) otherwise.
She cares passionately about what she does. However I hear too many horror stories about people who do not care.
She sat with someone who was on end of life, until they passed away the other day. She was livid and asked to replace the person who was sat with them when she arrived as they were just sat there scrolling on their phone.
From what she says you get some staff who are passionate and will do anything as they truly care, like her, and many who spend more time on their phone than doing anything else. And the passionate people tend to move on as she will be doing in September.
Though what do you expect when you only offer minimum wage and no progression.
My local independent councillor has just announced he’s joined Reform.
Genuinely gobsmacked at that.
Could I ask which county?
Sure.
Durham
Chester le Street South.
What flavour of independent was he? My default assumption with independents in local councils is that they are sort-of-Reformy types. But not all are.
Our other independent is very Reform. He isn’t.
He’s just a guy who likes to do stuff to make the local community better for all. He left the previous coalition, which he had the health portfolio, as he felt he couldn’t make an impact. Not political at all.
Never claimed a single expense.
As for Reformy, when we had Syrian refugees in the community he organised for locals to go and help them settle in.
IME transfers are fairly widely sourced, though hearing his precise reasons would be of interest.
Here in Ashfield District, Reform have 3 Councillors - one each defected from Labour, the Conservatives and the Ashfield Independents (who up until 2015 were mainly Lib Dems). That was all in 2024, so not linked to the new elections this time at County level. We have district elections in 2026.
Previously, Ash Ind would be the default destination, but the as yet unresolved legal questions around Zadrozny are perhaps a deterrent.
'A system, first designed and implemented in Australia, specifically to increase immigration.'
If that's true then the Brexit Right performed one of the greatest political sleights of hand in history. Absolutely everyone was led to believe that Australian branding meant it was all about keeping the blighters out.
"Points based system" is one of those phrases that it's easy for the listener to impose their beliefs on. Everyone assumes the points will reflect the immigration they want. In practice, "points based system" actually tells you almost nothing.
As it turned out, under the Tories a "points based system of immigration" meant that, if you can point in the vague direction of Britain, then we let you in
When is someone going to have an honest and open conversation with voters about the tradeoffs involved in trying to manage an ageing society with record high levels of taxation and ever rising spending on the elderly? Absent immigration, our labour force is shrinking. People are living longer, often in poor health (frequently related to poor lifestyle choices) and require extensive, labour intensive services. Can we please have a grown up conversation about this? People don't like immigration, okay, fine. What are they willing to sacrifice then? Do they want to pay more tax so we can fill jobs in the care sector wholly from domestic workers, paying much higher salaries to lure workers away from other sectors? Are they okay with worse service and greater automation across the economy as labour shortages become more widespread? Are they good with more cuts to ageing related spending? (The hoohaw about axeing WFP suggests not). Are they okay raising the pension age further to cut pension spending and expand the labour force? Or do we just want to bitch and moan about foreigners coming over to do the jobs that natives are either unwilling or unavailable to do, at wages that we largely can't afford to raise?
We can invest in automation to cut out unnecessary jobs and boost productivity.
If we can't afford to raise wages, then maybe the job is not productive enough and it doesn't need to be done.
That's easy to say when it's not your elderly relative lying in their own shit all day because there are no carers.
He will not be such a smart arse when he or some of his own family are lying in their own crap.
Old people lying in shit is this week's trans people going into a "loo".
My dad required care at home with Alzheimer's, and for a number of years in residential. It was every week, for pretty well all of that time. The quality of residential care (in the same facilities) ranged from very good to very bad, depending on the staff on duty.
I suspect Barty has yet to go through any of that experience.
Quite the contrary. My wife works in a care home and my grandparents who both only recently passed away (my nan over Easter) required care at home.
I don't believe my wife and her colleagues only deserve minimum wage for what they do. I don't think my grandparents should have been looked after by whoever is prepared to do the job for minimum wage, with that being all that matters.
Paying people a reasonable salary is a reasonable solution to solve labour shortages. It's remarkable how many of our sites lefties object to that.
You seem to be wilfully confusing not seeing a plausible path to paying a reasonable salary happening, with being against it.
There is a path, it's whether you choose to make the choice or not.
It's all about what priorities you make.
The Government could find the money to pay doctors and nurses more, but care staff need to be minimum wage and there's no possible path to paying them more? Don't be silly.
By that logic we could cut minimum wage and pay them less and cut the deficit. Should we do that?
Trump talking absolute crap on LBC , he has brought in 10 Trillion in investment , big job increases , yadda yadda , China want to give them everything etc. What an absolute numpty.
He tweeted that the price of eggs had fallen 98% since he became President. He's discovered that you just say what you want, then a certain portion of the population will believe you.
What's the old saying about being able to Fool Some of the People All of the Time.
I think the comment was "You can fool some of the people all of the time, qnd they are the ones you want to concentrate on." Was it George W Bush?
Trump: "We're doing what a lot of smart people would do, and we're not necessarily being politically correct. You saw what we did yesterday in healthcare. We've cut our healthcare by 50 to 90 percent."
What were Boris and his cabinet smoking, when they agreed to this?
These Brexiteers aren’t very good.
Lest we forget
Brexiteer PM, Brexiteer Home Secretary, Brexiteer Chancellor, and Brexiteer Foreign Secretary in that government.
It ultimately comes down to the belief that Boris Johnson and others never expected to win the referendum and then had to deliver something without trashing the economy.
Lord Cameron should have not taken a side in the referendum campaign or kept his word and stayed on when leave won, at least until a deal was made.
TSE has pointed out before he resigned because the Brexiteers would have never accepted any deal he came back with (especially after their reaction to his previous renegotiation). That means no deal or trying to do a deal with Corbyn, so he'd have found himself in exactly the same position as May.
Personally, like Shakespeare, I call it "the jakes"
Thou whoreson zed! thou unnecessary letter! My lord, if you will give me leave, I will tread this unbolted villain into mortar, and daub the walls of a jakes with him
When is someone going to have an honest and open conversation with voters about the tradeoffs involved in trying to manage an ageing society with record high levels of taxation and ever rising spending on the elderly? Absent immigration, our labour force is shrinking. People are living longer, often in poor health (frequently related to poor lifestyle choices) and require extensive, labour intensive services. Can we please have a grown up conversation about this? People don't like immigration, okay, fine. What are they willing to sacrifice then? Do they want to pay more tax so we can fill jobs in the care sector wholly from domestic workers, paying much higher salaries to lure workers away from other sectors? Are they okay with worse service and greater automation across the economy as labour shortages become more widespread? Are they good with more cuts to ageing related spending? (The hoohaw about axeing WFP suggests not). Are they okay raising the pension age further to cut pension spending and expand the labour force? Or do we just want to bitch and moan about foreigners coming over to do the jobs that natives are either unwilling or unavailable to do, at wages that we largely can't afford to raise?
We can invest in automation to cut out unnecessary jobs and boost productivity.
If we can't afford to raise wages, then maybe the job is not productive enough and it doesn't need to be done.
That's easy to say when it's not your elderly relative lying in their own shit all day because there are no carers.
He will not be such a smart arse when he or some of his own family are lying in their own crap.
Old people lying in shit is this week's trans people going into a "loo".
My dad required care at home with Alzheimer's, and for a number of years in residential. It was every week, for pretty well all of that time. The quality of residential care (in the same facilities) ranged from very good to very bad, depending on the staff on duty.
I suspect Barty has yet to go through any of that experience.
Quite the contrary. My wife works in a care home and my grandparents who both only recently passed away (my nan over Easter) required care at home.
I don't believe my wife and her colleagues only deserve minimum wage for what they do. I don't think my grandparents should have been looked after by whoever is prepared to do the job for minimum wage, with that being all that matters.
Paying people a reasonable salary is a reasonable solution to solve labour shortages. It's remarkable how many of our sites lefties object to that.
You seem to be wilfully confusing not seeing a plausible path to paying a reasonable salary happening, with being against it.
There is a path, it's whether you choose to make the choice or not.
It's all about what priorities you make.
The Government could find the money to pay doctors and nurses more, but care staff need to be minimum wage and there's no possible path to paying them more? Don't be silly.
By that logic we could cut minimum wage and pay them less and cut the deficit. Should we do that?
It's worthy of study how far a chunk of progressive thought bought into "Immigration for wage suppression is a good thing". Even the grossest company bosses rarely say that one out loud.
Trump talking absolute crap on LBC , he has brought in 10 Trillion in investment , big job increases , yadda yadda , China want to give them everything etc. What an absolute numpty.
He tweeted that the price of eggs had fallen 98% since he became President. He's discovered that you just say what you want, then a certain portion of the population will believe you.
What's the old saying about being able to Fool Some of the People All of the Time.
What's worrying is that a certain portion of the population keep believing it. That's, perhaps, the responsibility of the likes of Fox News, who don't necessarily explicitly go along with the nonsense, but don't challenge it.
Fake news.
That is how Trump overcame the media challenging him first time round. He co-opted his critics' term, fake news.
Personally, like Shakespeare, I call it "the jakes"
Thou whoreson zed! thou unnecessary letter! My lord, if you will give me leave, I will tread this unbolted villain into mortar, and daub the walls of a jakes with him
Thunderbox.
Thunderbox is pretty good, I've used it on adventurous camping trips where you had to build you own thunderbox
In my experience the higher up the social ladder, the less euphemistic one gets, until you reach
"Excuse me, your Grace, where's the shitter"
Heaven knows what His Holiness calls it...
Latrina for a private loo, foricae for the public ones, in ancient Rome, or the quite brilliant lavatorium - which is (maybe !) where Conservatives try to clean their reputation .
But there are a lot of people who want him to be right (they voted for him), and they want the things he says to be true. Cognitive dissonance is a very powerful force.
Those are the people who hear Trump say the price of eggs has gone down 98%, then go to the supermarket and see eggs have doubled in price - and they make mental excuses why Trump is right, why the price they see is an anomaly.
What were Boris and his cabinet smoking, when they agreed to this?
Never attribute to malice that which might otherwise be explained by stupidity.
UK universities were dying to take foreign students (which they could charge large fees). This meant that the UK government could avoid raising fees on domestic students, and they also thought that - with a reduction in the number of people from the EU coming - that there was ample room to expand numbers.
And the repeat for care staff.
And add in some points based stuff.
And then the fact that they didn't think about dependents, or about the fact that non-EU immigrants were much less likely to return home.
Finally, remember that government decision making is far too slow. After just three months, if visas numbers were coming in far higher than expected, they could have changed course. But they were too slow.
What really surprised me on the official visa figures posted on Twitter today by Tom Newton-Dunn is the large number of dependents, the largest portion of the total by a long way, and quite how much this segment has grown in the last few years.
It was the shift from EU workers who rarely came with dependents and Chinese students who did likewise as they always intended to return to their home countries to Nigerian and South Asian workers and students who viewed the move to the UK on a student or low skill worker visa as a stepping stone to a new life so brought dependents and many are currently attempting to get highly skilled work visas (which has dependent rights) or recycle their existing low skill visa with dependent rights. The government should raise the barrier for high skill visas, push up the threshold to £50k and retrospectively apply the new ILR terms to existing visa holders and add a new income bar to get a low skill visa to £40k or something that isn't realistically achievable.
But why were dependants ever included in the first place in these schemes?
What were Boris and his cabinet smoking, when they agreed to this?
These Brexiteers aren’t very good.
Lest we forget
Brexiteer PM, Brexiteer Home Secretary, Brexiteer Chancellor, and Brexiteer Foreign Secretary in that government.
It ultimately comes down to the belief that Boris Johnson and others never expected to win the referendum and then had to deliver something without trashing the economy.
Lord Cameron should have not taken a side in the referendum campaign or kept his word and stayed on when leave won, at least until a deal was made.
TSE has pointed out before he resigned because the Brexiteers would have never accepted any deal he came back with (especially after their reaction to his previous renegotiation). That means no deal or trying to do a deal with Corbyn, so he'd have found himself in exactly the same position as May.
The Brexiteers (the ERG types not Boris or Gove) were already to trying to oust Dave, even if Remain had won.
Dave thought it was best for the country for there not to be a messy ousting of another Tory PM over Europe.
What were Boris and his cabinet smoking, when they agreed to this?
These Brexiteers aren’t very good.
Lest we forget
Brexiteer PM, Brexiteer Home Secretary, Brexiteer Chancellor, and Brexiteer Foreign Secretary in that government.
It ultimately comes down to the belief that Boris Johnson and others never expected to win the referendum and then had to deliver something without trashing the economy.
Lord Cameron should have not taken a side in the referendum campaign or kept his word and stayed on when leave won, at least until a deal was made.
TSE has pointed out before he resigned because the Brexiteers would have never accepted any deal he came back with (especially after their reaction to his previous renegotiation). That means no deal or trying to do a deal with Corbyn, so he'd have found himself in exactly the same position as May.
The Brexiteers (the ERG types not Boris or Gove) were already to trying to oust Dave, even if Remain had won.
Dave thought it was best for the country for there not to be a messy ousting of another Tory PM over Europe.
And thanks to Dave's prompt and selfless action, there has never been a messy ousting of a Tory PM since.
Trump talking absolute crap on LBC , he has brought in 10 Trillion in investment , big job increases , yadda yadda , China want to give them everything etc. What an absolute numpty.
He tweeted that the price of eggs had fallen 98% since he became President. He's discovered that you just say what you want, then a certain portion of the population will believe you.
What's the old saying about being able to Fool Some of the People All of the Time.
I think the comment was "You can fool some of the people all of the time, qnd they are the ones you want to concentrate on." Was it George W Bush?
What were Boris and his cabinet smoking, when they agreed to this?
These Brexiteers aren’t very good.
Lest we forget
Brexiteer PM, Brexiteer Home Secretary, Brexiteer Chancellor, and Brexiteer Foreign Secretary in that government.
It ultimately comes down to the belief that Boris Johnson and others never expected to win the referendum and then had to deliver something without trashing the economy.
Lord Cameron should have not taken a side in the referendum campaign or kept his word and stayed on when leave won, at least until a deal was made.
TSE has pointed out before he resigned because the Brexiteers would have never accepted any deal he came back with (especially after their reaction to his previous renegotiation). That means no deal or trying to do a deal with Corbyn, so he'd have found himself in exactly the same position as May.
The Brexiteers (the ERG types not Boris or Gove) were already to trying to oust Dave, even if Remain had won.
Dave thought it was best for the country for there not to be a messy ousting of another Tory PM over Europe.
And thanks to Dave's prompt and selfless action, there has never been a messy ousting of a Tory PM since.
Well, there certainly hasn't been one messy ousting...
What were Boris and his cabinet smoking, when they agreed to this?
Never attribute to malice that which might otherwise be explained by stupidity.
UK universities were dying to take foreign students (which they could charge large fees). This meant that the UK government could avoid raising fees on domestic students, and they also thought that - with a reduction in the number of people from the EU coming - that there was ample room to expand numbers.
And the repeat for care staff.
And add in some points based stuff.
And then the fact that they didn't think about dependents, or about the fact that non-EU immigrants were much less likely to return home.
Finally, remember that government decision making is far too slow. After just three months, if visas numbers were coming in far higher than expected, they could have changed course. But they were too slow.
What really surprised me on the official visa figures posted on Twitter today by Tom Newton-Dunn is the large number of dependents, the largest portion of the total by a long way, and quite how much this segment has grown in the last few years.
It was the shift from EU workers who rarely came with dependents and Chinese students who did likewise as they always intended to return to their home countries to Nigerian and South Asian workers and students who viewed the move to the UK on a student or low skill worker visa as a stepping stone to a new life so brought dependents and many are currently attempting to get highly skilled work visas (which has dependent rights) or recycle their existing low skill visa with dependent rights. The government should raise the barrier for high skill visas, push up the threshold to £50k and retrospectively apply the new ILR terms to existing visa holders and add a new income bar to get a low skill visa to £40k or something that isn't realistically achievable.
To be fair, Sunak actually dealt with a number of these issues:
- he raised the minimum salary threshold for skilled workers from £26k to £39k (now should have increased it to £50k?, probably, but this was still a 50% bump.)
- international students are no longer allowed to bring dependents
- there was a substantial reduction in the number of social care visas issued
Of course, he didn't get any credit for any of these (while Boris escaped blame for causing the problems), so one would expect a fairly meaningful decline in the net immigration numbers in the next few years.
But does nothing for the 1m or so people who have 5 year visas (including dependents) for low skilled work and will get ILR for themselves and their dependents in the next 3 years if the government does nothing. It's this cohort that should be gently exited from the country as they will end up being a huge liability to the state and bring little to no tax contribution.
Sure: but I think the reality is that the UK government should not go back on its word. It issued the visa, and if the person has complied with all of its conditions, then I don't think it can revoke them.
The visa doesn't come with a promise of ILR. Declining to give someone ILR is not going back on our word.
When is someone going to have an honest and open conversation with voters about the tradeoffs involved in trying to manage an ageing society with record high levels of taxation and ever rising spending on the elderly? Absent immigration, our labour force is shrinking. People are living longer, often in poor health (frequently related to poor lifestyle choices) and require extensive, labour intensive services. Can we please have a grown up conversation about this? People don't like immigration, okay, fine. What are they willing to sacrifice then? Do they want to pay more tax so we can fill jobs in the care sector wholly from domestic workers, paying much higher salaries to lure workers away from other sectors? Are they okay with worse service and greater automation across the economy as labour shortages become more widespread? Are they good with more cuts to ageing related spending? (The hoohaw about axeing WFP suggests not). Are they okay raising the pension age further to cut pension spending and expand the labour force? Or do we just want to bitch and moan about foreigners coming over to do the jobs that natives are either unwilling or unavailable to do, at wages that we largely can't afford to raise?
We can invest in automation to cut out unnecessary jobs and boost productivity.
If we can't afford to raise wages, then maybe the job is not productive enough and it doesn't need to be done.
That's easy to say when it's not your elderly relative lying in their own shit all day because there are no carers.
He will not be such a smart arse when he or some of his own family are lying in their own crap.
Old people lying in shit is this week's trans people going into a "loo".
My dad required care at home with Alzheimer's, and for a number of years in residential. It was every week, for pretty well all of that time. The quality of residential care (in the same facilities) ranged from very good to very bad, depending on the staff on duty.
I suspect Barty has yet to go through any of that experience.
Quite the contrary. My wife works in a care home and my grandparents who both only recently passed away (my nan over Easter) required care at home.
I don't believe my wife and her colleagues only deserve minimum wage for what they do. I don't think my grandparents should have been looked after by whoever is prepared to do the job for minimum wage, with that being all that matters.
Paying people a reasonable salary is a reasonable solution to solve labour shortages. It's remarkable how many of our sites lefties object to that.
You seem to be wilfully confusing not seeing a plausible path to paying a reasonable salary happening, with being against it.
There is a path, it's whether you choose to make the choice or not.
It's all about what priorities you make.
The Government could find the money to pay doctors and nurses more, but care staff need to be minimum wage and there's no possible path to paying them more? Don't be silly.
By that logic we could cut minimum wage and pay them less and cut the deficit. Should we do that?
If I was in charge I'd pay them more, sure. But people wouldn't put me in charge.
Nor will they vote for someone else who says we are going to increase taxes by £10-15bn for pay rises for social care, on top of the £8bn extra we need to find to maintain the current inadequate system by 2032 because of our demographics.
When is someone going to have an honest and open conversation with voters about the tradeoffs involved in trying to manage an ageing society with record high levels of taxation and ever rising spending on the elderly? Absent immigration, our labour force is shrinking. People are living longer, often in poor health (frequently related to poor lifestyle choices) and require extensive, labour intensive services. Can we please have a grown up conversation about this? People don't like immigration, okay, fine. What are they willing to sacrifice then? Do they want to pay more tax so we can fill jobs in the care sector wholly from domestic workers, paying much higher salaries to lure workers away from other sectors? Are they okay with worse service and greater automation across the economy as labour shortages become more widespread? Are they good with more cuts to ageing related spending? (The hoohaw about axeing WFP suggests not). Are they okay raising the pension age further to cut pension spending and expand the labour force? Or do we just want to bitch and moan about foreigners coming over to do the jobs that natives are either unwilling or unavailable to do, at wages that we largely can't afford to raise?
We can invest in automation to cut out unnecessary jobs and boost productivity.
If we can't afford to raise wages, then maybe the job is not productive enough and it doesn't need to be done.
That's easy to say when it's not your elderly relative lying in their own shit all day because there are no carers.
He will not be such a smart arse when he or some of his own family are lying in their own crap.
Old people lying in shit is this week's trans people going into a "loo".
My dad required care at home with Alzheimer's, and for a number of years in residential. It was every week, for pretty well all of that time. The quality of residential care (in the same facilities) ranged from very good to very bad, depending on the staff on duty.
I suspect Barty has yet to go through any of that experience.
Quite the contrary. My wife works in a care home and my grandparents who both only recently passed away (my nan over Easter) required care at home.
I don't believe my wife and her colleagues only deserve minimum wage for what they do. I don't think my grandparents should have been looked after by whoever is prepared to do the job for minimum wage, with that being all that matters.
Paying people a reasonable salary is a reasonable solution to solve labour shortages. It's remarkable how many of our sites lefties object to that.
You seem to be wilfully confusing not seeing a plausible path to paying a reasonable salary happening, with being against it.
There is a path, it's whether you choose to make the choice or not.
It's all about what priorities you make.
The Government could find the money to pay doctors and nurses more, but care staff need to be minimum wage and there's no possible path to paying them more? Don't be silly.
By that logic we could cut minimum wage and pay them less and cut the deficit. Should we do that?
If I was in charge I'd pay them more, sure. But people wouldn't put me in charge.
Nor will they vote for someone else who says we are going to increase taxes by £10-15bn for pay rises for social care, on top of the £8bn extra we need to find to maintain the current inadequate system by 2032 because of our demographics.
You are living in a fantasy world here.
Bollocks.
It is not remotely a fantasy world to say that paying more than minimum wage is a potential solution.
Yes money will have to be found. The Government found billions to give to Junior Doctors when they wanted to. The Government finds billions to boost the pension by triple lock.
To only pay minimum wage is a political choice, not an economic necessity.
Personally, like Shakespeare, I call it "the jakes"
Thou whoreson zed! thou unnecessary letter! My lord, if you will give me leave, I will tread this unbolted villain into mortar, and daub the walls of a jakes with him
Thunderbox.
Thunderbox is pretty good, I've used it on adventurous camping trips where you had to build you own thunderbox
In my experience the higher up the social ladder, the less euphemistic one gets, until you reach
"Excuse me, your Grace, where's the shitter"
Heaven knows what His Holiness calls it...
Latrina for a private loo, foricae for the public ones, in ancient Rome, or the quite brilliant lavatorium - which is (maybe !) where Conservatives try to clean their reputation .
Foricae sounds like a place to catch a disease.
At school they were called a “Fo” for short and “Foricas” in full. Took quite a few years to stop reflexively asking where the Fo is etc.
When is someone going to have an honest and open conversation with voters about the tradeoffs involved in trying to manage an ageing society with record high levels of taxation and ever rising spending on the elderly? Absent immigration, our labour force is shrinking. People are living longer, often in poor health (frequently related to poor lifestyle choices) and require extensive, labour intensive services. Can we please have a grown up conversation about this? People don't like immigration, okay, fine. What are they willing to sacrifice then? Do they want to pay more tax so we can fill jobs in the care sector wholly from domestic workers, paying much higher salaries to lure workers away from other sectors? Are they okay with worse service and greater automation across the economy as labour shortages become more widespread? Are they good with more cuts to ageing related spending? (The hoohaw about axeing WFP suggests not). Are they okay raising the pension age further to cut pension spending and expand the labour force? Or do we just want to bitch and moan about foreigners coming over to do the jobs that natives are either unwilling or unavailable to do, at wages that we largely can't afford to raise?
We can invest in automation to cut out unnecessary jobs and boost productivity.
If we can't afford to raise wages, then maybe the job is not productive enough and it doesn't need to be done.
That's easy to say when it's not your elderly relative lying in their own shit all day because there are no carers.
He will not be such a smart arse when he or some of his own family are lying in their own crap.
Old people lying in shit is this week's trans people going into a "loo".
My dad required care at home with Alzheimer's, and for a number of years in residential. It was every week, for pretty well all of that time. The quality of residential care (in the same facilities) ranged from very good to very bad, depending on the staff on duty.
I suspect Barty has yet to go through any of that experience.
Quite the contrary. My wife works in a care home and my grandparents who both only recently passed away (my nan over Easter) required care at home.
I don't believe my wife and her colleagues only deserve minimum wage for what they do. I don't think my grandparents should have been looked after by whoever is prepared to do the job for minimum wage, with that being all that matters.
Paying people a reasonable salary is a reasonable solution to solve labour shortages. It's remarkable how many of our sites lefties object to that.
You seem to be wilfully confusing not seeing a plausible path to paying a reasonable salary happening, with being against it.
There is a path, it's whether you choose to make the choice or not.
It's all about what priorities you make.
The Government could find the money to pay doctors and nurses more, but care staff need to be minimum wage and there's no possible path to paying them more? Don't be silly.
By that logic we could cut minimum wage and pay them less and cut the deficit. Should we do that?
It's worthy of study how far a chunk of progressive thought bought into "Immigration for wage suppression is a good thing". Even the grossest company bosses rarely say that one out loud.
Except Lord Rose in the leave/remain debate. The leave campaign probably couldn't have asked for a better gift.
The Tories doing a deal with Boris to keep their party alive reminds me of the one Daenerys Targaryen does with the black magic witch to bring her Dothraki husband back to life.
What were Boris and his cabinet smoking, when they agreed to this?
Never attribute to malice that which might otherwise be explained by stupidity.
UK universities were dying to take foreign students (which they could charge large fees). This meant that the UK government could avoid raising fees on domestic students, and they also thought that - with a reduction in the number of people from the EU coming - that there was ample room to expand numbers.
And the repeat for care staff.
And add in some points based stuff.
And then the fact that they didn't think about dependents, or about the fact that non-EU immigrants were much less likely to return home.
Finally, remember that government decision making is far too slow. After just three months, if visas numbers were coming in far higher than expected, they could have changed course. But they were too slow.
What really surprised me on the official visa figures posted on Twitter today by Tom Newton-Dunn is the large number of dependents, the largest portion of the total by a long way, and quite how much this segment has grown in the last few years.
It was the shift from EU workers who rarely came with dependents and Chinese students who did likewise as they always intended to return to their home countries to Nigerian and South Asian workers and students who viewed the move to the UK on a student or low skill worker visa as a stepping stone to a new life so brought dependents and many are currently attempting to get highly skilled work visas (which has dependent rights) or recycle their existing low skill visa with dependent rights. The government should raise the barrier for high skill visas, push up the threshold to £50k and retrospectively apply the new ILR terms to existing visa holders and add a new income bar to get a low skill visa to £40k or something that isn't realistically achievable.
But why were dependants ever included in the first place in these schemes?
Personally, like Shakespeare, I call it "the jakes"
Thou whoreson zed! thou unnecessary letter! My lord, if you will give me leave, I will tread this unbolted villain into mortar, and daub the walls of a jakes with him
Thunderbox.
Thunderbox is pretty good, I've used it on adventurous camping trips where you had to build you own thunderbox
In my experience the higher up the social ladder, the less euphemistic one gets, until you reach
"Excuse me, your Grace, where's the shitter"
Heaven knows what His Holiness calls it...
Latrina for a private loo, foricae for the public ones, in ancient Rome, or the quite brilliant lavatorium - which is (maybe !) where Conservatives try to clean their reputation .
Foricae sounds like a place to catch a disease.
At school they were called a “Fo” for short and “Foricas” in full. Took quite a few years to stop reflexively asking where the Fo is etc.
Posh school I assume. My (semi-posh) school almost universally called them bogs. Sadly that seems to have slipped out of common usage. A 1980s/90s term.
When is someone going to have an honest and open conversation with voters about the tradeoffs involved in trying to manage an ageing society with record high levels of taxation and ever rising spending on the elderly? Absent immigration, our labour force is shrinking. People are living longer, often in poor health (frequently related to poor lifestyle choices) and require extensive, labour intensive services. Can we please have a grown up conversation about this? People don't like immigration, okay, fine. What are they willing to sacrifice then? Do they want to pay more tax so we can fill jobs in the care sector wholly from domestic workers, paying much higher salaries to lure workers away from other sectors? Are they okay with worse service and greater automation across the economy as labour shortages become more widespread? Are they good with more cuts to ageing related spending? (The hoohaw about axeing WFP suggests not). Are they okay raising the pension age further to cut pension spending and expand the labour force? Or do we just want to bitch and moan about foreigners coming over to do the jobs that natives are either unwilling or unavailable to do, at wages that we largely can't afford to raise?
We can invest in automation to cut out unnecessary jobs and boost productivity.
If we can't afford to raise wages, then maybe the job is not productive enough and it doesn't need to be done.
That's easy to say when it's not your elderly relative lying in their own shit all day because there are no carers.
He will not be such a smart arse when he or some of his own family are lying in their own crap.
Old people lying in shit is this week's trans people going into a "loo".
My dad required care at home with Alzheimer's, and for a number of years in residential. It was every week, for pretty well all of that time. The quality of residential care (in the same facilities) ranged from very good to very bad, depending on the staff on duty.
I suspect Barty has yet to go through any of that experience.
Quite the contrary. My wife works in a care home and my grandparents who both only recently passed away (my nan over Easter) required care at home.
I don't believe my wife and her colleagues only deserve minimum wage for what they do. I don't think my grandparents should have been looked after by whoever is prepared to do the job for minimum wage, with that being all that matters.
Paying people a reasonable salary is a reasonable solution to solve labour shortages. It's remarkable how many of our sites lefties object to that.
You seem to be wilfully confusing not seeing a plausible path to paying a reasonable salary happening, with being against it.
There is a path, it's whether you choose to make the choice or not.
It's all about what priorities you make.
The Government could find the money to pay doctors and nurses more, but care staff need to be minimum wage and there's no possible path to paying them more? Don't be silly.
By that logic we could cut minimum wage and pay them less and cut the deficit. Should we do that?
If I was in charge I'd pay them more, sure. But people wouldn't put me in charge.
Nor will they vote for someone else who says we are going to increase taxes by £10-15bn for pay rises for social care, on top of the £8bn extra we need to find to maintain the current inadequate system by 2032 because of our demographics.
You are living in a fantasy world here.
Bollocks.
It is not remotely a fantasy world to say that paying more than minimum wage is a potential solution.
Yes money will have to be found. The Government found billions to give to Junior Doctors when they wanted to. The Government finds billions to boost the pension by triple lock.
To only pay minimum wage is a political choice, not an economic necessity.
Regardless that does not make me against it happening. I might vote for your party that stood on that platform. I would also lay them on Betfair though.......
When is someone going to have an honest and open conversation with voters about the tradeoffs involved in trying to manage an ageing society with record high levels of taxation and ever rising spending on the elderly? Absent immigration, our labour force is shrinking. People are living longer, often in poor health (frequently related to poor lifestyle choices) and require extensive, labour intensive services. Can we please have a grown up conversation about this? People don't like immigration, okay, fine. What are they willing to sacrifice then? Do they want to pay more tax so we can fill jobs in the care sector wholly from domestic workers, paying much higher salaries to lure workers away from other sectors? Are they okay with worse service and greater automation across the economy as labour shortages become more widespread? Are they good with more cuts to ageing related spending? (The hoohaw about axeing WFP suggests not). Are they okay raising the pension age further to cut pension spending and expand the labour force? Or do we just want to bitch and moan about foreigners coming over to do the jobs that natives are either unwilling or unavailable to do, at wages that we largely can't afford to raise?
We can invest in automation to cut out unnecessary jobs and boost productivity.
If we can't afford to raise wages, then maybe the job is not productive enough and it doesn't need to be done.
That's easy to say when it's not your elderly relative lying in their own shit all day because there are no carers.
He will not be such a smart arse when he or some of his own family are lying in their own crap.
Old people lying in shit is this week's trans people going into a "loo".
My dad required care at home with Alzheimer's, and for a number of years in residential. It was every week, for pretty well all of that time. The quality of residential care (in the same facilities) ranged from very good to very bad, depending on the staff on duty.
I suspect Barty has yet to go through any of that experience.
Quite the contrary. My wife works in a care home and my grandparents who both only recently passed away (my nan over Easter) required care at home.
I don't believe my wife and her colleagues only deserve minimum wage for what they do. I don't think my grandparents should have been looked after by whoever is prepared to do the job for minimum wage, with that being all that matters.
Paying people a reasonable salary is a reasonable solution to solve labour shortages. It's remarkable how many of our sites lefties object to that.
You seem to be wilfully confusing not seeing a plausible path to paying a reasonable salary happening, with being against it.
There is a path, it's whether you choose to make the choice or not.
It's all about what priorities you make.
The Government could find the money to pay doctors and nurses more, but care staff need to be minimum wage and there's no possible path to paying them more? Don't be silly.
By that logic we could cut minimum wage and pay them less and cut the deficit. Should we do that?
If I was in charge I'd pay them more, sure. But people wouldn't put me in charge.
Nor will they vote for someone else who says we are going to increase taxes by £10-15bn for pay rises for social care, on top of the £8bn extra we need to find to maintain the current inadequate system by 2032 because of our demographics.
You are living in a fantasy world here.
Bollocks.
It is not remotely a fantasy world to say that paying more than minimum wage is a potential solution.
Yes money will have to be found. The Government found billions to give to Junior Doctors when they wanted to. The Government finds billions to boost the pension by triple lock.
To only pay minimum wage is a political choice, not an economic necessity.
Regardless that does not make me against it happening. I might vote for your party that stood on that platform. I would also lay them on Betfair though.......
If it doesn't happen it is a choice, not a necessity.
There is no economic reason why doctors need a 22% pay rise while care staff need minimum wage.
Your excusing of political choices by implying they're necessary is just sad. If you know its wrong, then say so, no excuses.
When is someone going to have an honest and open conversation with voters about the tradeoffs involved in trying to manage an ageing society with record high levels of taxation and ever rising spending on the elderly? Absent immigration, our labour force is shrinking. People are living longer, often in poor health (frequently related to poor lifestyle choices) and require extensive, labour intensive services. Can we please have a grown up conversation about this? People don't like immigration, okay, fine. What are they willing to sacrifice then? Do they want to pay more tax so we can fill jobs in the care sector wholly from domestic workers, paying much higher salaries to lure workers away from other sectors? Are they okay with worse service and greater automation across the economy as labour shortages become more widespread? Are they good with more cuts to ageing related spending? (The hoohaw about axeing WFP suggests not). Are they okay raising the pension age further to cut pension spending and expand the labour force? Or do we just want to bitch and moan about foreigners coming over to do the jobs that natives are either unwilling or unavailable to do, at wages that we largely can't afford to raise?
We can invest in automation to cut out unnecessary jobs and boost productivity.
If we can't afford to raise wages, then maybe the job is not productive enough and it doesn't need to be done.
That's easy to say when it's not your elderly relative lying in their own shit all day because there are no carers.
He will not be such a smart arse when he or some of his own family are lying in their own crap.
Old people lying in shit is this week's trans people going into a "loo".
My dad required care at home with Alzheimer's, and for a number of years in residential. It was every week, for pretty well all of that time. The quality of residential care (in the same facilities) ranged from very good to very bad, depending on the staff on duty.
I suspect Barty has yet to go through any of that experience.
Quite the contrary. My wife works in a care home and my grandparents who both only recently passed away (my nan over Easter) required care at home.
I don't believe my wife and her colleagues only deserve minimum wage for what they do. I don't think my grandparents should have been looked after by whoever is prepared to do the job for minimum wage, with that being all that matters.
Paying people a reasonable salary is a reasonable solution to solve labour shortages. It's remarkable how many of our sites lefties object to that.
You seem to be wilfully confusing not seeing a plausible path to paying a reasonable salary happening, with being against it.
There is a path, it's whether you choose to make the choice or not.
It's all about what priorities you make.
The Government could find the money to pay doctors and nurses more, but care staff need to be minimum wage and there's no possible path to paying them more? Don't be silly.
By that logic we could cut minimum wage and pay them less and cut the deficit. Should we do that?
If I was in charge I'd pay them more, sure. But people wouldn't put me in charge.
Nor will they vote for someone else who says we are going to increase taxes by £10-15bn for pay rises for social care, on top of the £8bn extra we need to find to maintain the current inadequate system by 2032 because of our demographics.
You are living in a fantasy world here.
Bollocks.
It is not remotely a fantasy world to say that paying more than minimum wage is a potential solution.
Yes money will have to be found. The Government found billions to give to Junior Doctors when they wanted to. The Government finds billions to boost the pension by triple lock.
To only pay minimum wage is a political choice, not an economic necessity.
Regardless that does not make me against it happening. I might vote for your party that stood on that platform. I would also lay them on Betfair though.......
If it doesn't happen it is a choice, not a necessity.
There is no economic reason why doctors need a 22% pay rise while care staff need minimum wage.
Your excusing of political choices by implying they're necessary is just sad. If you know its wrong, then say so, no excuses.
Lots of things are wrong, life is unfair and politics more so. I have said it is wrong. I also say I don't know how to fix it, and whereas you think it is easy to fix and just a matter of choice, I think that is simplistic and doesn't take into account the constraints of modern political reality.
The Tories doing a deal with Boris to keep their party alive reminds me of the one Daenerys Targaryen does with the black magic witch to bring her Dothraki husband back to life.
She eventually realises death is better.
Betfair did pay out on her winning all of Queen of Meereen, Queen of the Andals and the Rhoynar and the First Men, Khalisee of the Great Grass Sea, Breaker of Chains and Mother of Dragons though.
What were Boris and his cabinet smoking, when they agreed to this?
These Brexiteers aren’t very good.
Lest we forget
Brexiteer PM, Brexiteer Home Secretary, Brexiteer Chancellor, and Brexiteer Foreign Secretary in that government.
It ultimately comes down to the belief that Boris Johnson and others never expected to win the referendum and then had to deliver something without trashing the economy.
Lord Cameron should have not taken a side in the referendum campaign or kept his word and stayed on when leave won, at least until a deal was made.
TSE has pointed out before he resigned because the Brexiteers would have never accepted any deal he came back with (especially after their reaction to his previous renegotiation). That means no deal or trying to do a deal with Corbyn, so he'd have found himself in exactly the same position as May.
The Brexiteers (the ERG types not Boris or Gove) were already to trying to oust Dave, even if Remain had won.
Dave thought it was best for the country for there not to be a messy ousting of another Tory PM over Europe.
And thanks to Dave's prompt and selfless action, there has never been a messy ousting of a Tory PM since.
Since Dave’s selfless retirement only one Tory leader has been ousted over Europe the rest for good old fashioned reasons such as lying about putting a known sexual predator in a position of authority, shitting the bed and spooking the markets, and finally losing an election.
When is someone going to have an honest and open conversation with voters about the tradeoffs involved in trying to manage an ageing society with record high levels of taxation and ever rising spending on the elderly? Absent immigration, our labour force is shrinking. People are living longer, often in poor health (frequently related to poor lifestyle choices) and require extensive, labour intensive services. Can we please have a grown up conversation about this? People don't like immigration, okay, fine. What are they willing to sacrifice then? Do they want to pay more tax so we can fill jobs in the care sector wholly from domestic workers, paying much higher salaries to lure workers away from other sectors? Are they okay with worse service and greater automation across the economy as labour shortages become more widespread? Are they good with more cuts to ageing related spending? (The hoohaw about axeing WFP suggests not). Are they okay raising the pension age further to cut pension spending and expand the labour force? Or do we just want to bitch and moan about foreigners coming over to do the jobs that natives are either unwilling or unavailable to do, at wages that we largely can't afford to raise?
We can invest in automation to cut out unnecessary jobs and boost productivity.
If we can't afford to raise wages, then maybe the job is not productive enough and it doesn't need to be done.
That's easy to say when it's not your elderly relative lying in their own shit all day because there are no carers.
He will not be such a smart arse when he or some of his own family are lying in their own crap.
Old people lying in shit is this week's trans people going into a "loo".
My dad required care at home with Alzheimer's, and for a number of years in residential. It was every week, for pretty well all of that time. The quality of residential care (in the same facilities) ranged from very good to very bad, depending on the staff on duty.
I suspect Barty has yet to go through any of that experience.
Quite the contrary. My wife works in a care home and my grandparents who both only recently passed away (my nan over Easter) required care at home.
I don't believe my wife and her colleagues only deserve minimum wage for what they do. I don't think my grandparents should have been looked after by whoever is prepared to do the job for minimum wage, with that being all that matters.
Paying people a reasonable salary is a reasonable solution to solve labour shortages. It's remarkable how many of our sites lefties object to that.
You seem to be wilfully confusing not seeing a plausible path to paying a reasonable salary happening, with being against it.
There is a path, it's whether you choose to make the choice or not.
It's all about what priorities you make.
The Government could find the money to pay doctors and nurses more, but care staff need to be minimum wage and there's no possible path to paying them more? Don't be silly.
By that logic we could cut minimum wage and pay them less and cut the deficit. Should we do that?
If I was in charge I'd pay them more, sure. But people wouldn't put me in charge.
Nor will they vote for someone else who says we are going to increase taxes by £10-15bn for pay rises for social care, on top of the £8bn extra we need to find to maintain the current inadequate system by 2032 because of our demographics.
You are living in a fantasy world here.
Bollocks.
It is not remotely a fantasy world to say that paying more than minimum wage is a potential solution.
Yes money will have to be found. The Government found billions to give to Junior Doctors when they wanted to. The Government finds billions to boost the pension by triple lock.
To only pay minimum wage is a political choice, not an economic necessity.
Regardless that does not make me against it happening. I might vote for your party that stood on that platform. I would also lay them on Betfair though.......
If it doesn't happen it is a choice, not a necessity.
There is no economic reason why doctors need a 22% pay rise while care staff need minimum wage.
Your excusing of political choices by implying they're necessary is just sad. If you know its wrong, then say so, no excuses.
Doctors that are once more balloting for strike action based on pay
Yet the hypothetical polls showing Boris would win in 2019 were right. Those who think Boris betrayed them on immigration are baked in for Reform, Reform still get 23% even against Boris in the poll but he wins enough swing voters to get the Conservatives to 26%.
Even your mate Dave doesn't make much difference by comparison, MiC found a Cameron led Tories would still only be on 22% and still trailing Reform (even if they overtook Labour who were down to 20%) so only Boris returning could see the Tories win most seats again. Though Rishi is somewhat rewarded for his tighter visa wage requirements and end to dependents coming in which have started to cut the BorisWave. A Sunak return as Tory leader would see the Tories back to the 24% they got at the GE the poll found, tied with Reform and Rishi unlike Boris is still an MP and so eligible.
Though if Boris gets a 5% Tory bounce he would certainly hold any by election in a Tory held seat if Kemi allowed him on the approved Conservative candidates list
Lol @ "bounce"!
That dishonest and discredited charlatan pitching up in my seat is pretty much the only thing that would get me voting for whichever party looked like being the best placed alternative, even Labour or Reform. And I doubt I am alone. In British politics, there are no second chances, and rightly so.
Yes well if I recall you hated Boris and voted against him in 2019 when Boris won the biggest Conservative landslide since Thatcher.
So I suggest what you might do if he returned is irrelevant
Boris has sunk the Conservatives' chances, perhaps forever, with his policy of unlimited immigration. So, I think the attack ads would write themselves.
The Tories were polling 30% when Boris resigned in summer 2022, a voteshare Kemi would give her right arm for now and that was even after the Boriswave.
MiC has a Starmer led Labour on 22%, a Johnson led Tories on 26%, Farage led Reform on 23% and the LDs on 15%.
So the vast majority of the anti immigration vote stays Reform even if Boris returns, it is centrist swing voters he wins back
In never trust the credibility of those hypothetical polling questions because I think there’s a lot of suggestion going on. Not deliberately, but in the polled person’s subconscious.
“Okay, so that’s your voting intention now with the current discredited Tory leadership. BUT WHAT ABOUT IF BORIS WAS BACK AS LEADER? WHAT THEN? MIGHT THAT TEMPT YOU BACK TO THE TORIES?”
Wasn't the key to get an answer from hypothetical questions was to ask what their neighbour would do. Seems to have been a 'thing' in recent elections.
When is someone going to have an honest and open conversation with voters about the tradeoffs involved in trying to manage an ageing society with record high levels of taxation and ever rising spending on the elderly? Absent immigration, our labour force is shrinking. People are living longer, often in poor health (frequently related to poor lifestyle choices) and require extensive, labour intensive services. Can we please have a grown up conversation about this? People don't like immigration, okay, fine. What are they willing to sacrifice then? Do they want to pay more tax so we can fill jobs in the care sector wholly from domestic workers, paying much higher salaries to lure workers away from other sectors? Are they okay with worse service and greater automation across the economy as labour shortages become more widespread? Are they good with more cuts to ageing related spending? (The hoohaw about axeing WFP suggests not). Are they okay raising the pension age further to cut pension spending and expand the labour force? Or do we just want to bitch and moan about foreigners coming over to do the jobs that natives are either unwilling or unavailable to do, at wages that we largely can't afford to raise?
We can invest in automation to cut out unnecessary jobs and boost productivity.
If we can't afford to raise wages, then maybe the job is not productive enough and it doesn't need to be done.
That's easy to say when it's not your elderly relative lying in their own shit all day because there are no carers.
He will not be such a smart arse when he or some of his own family are lying in their own crap.
Old people lying in shit is this week's trans people going into a "loo".
My dad required care at home with Alzheimer's, and for a number of years in residential. It was every week, for pretty well all of that time. The quality of residential care (in the same facilities) ranged from very good to very bad, depending on the staff on duty.
I suspect Barty has yet to go through any of that experience.
Quite the contrary. My wife works in a care home and my grandparents who both only recently passed away (my nan over Easter) required care at home.
I don't believe my wife and her colleagues only deserve minimum wage for what they do. I don't think my grandparents should have been looked after by whoever is prepared to do the job for minimum wage, with that being all that matters.
Paying people a reasonable salary is a reasonable solution to solve labour shortages. It's remarkable how many of our sites lefties object to that.
You seem to be wilfully confusing not seeing a plausible path to paying a reasonable salary happening, with being against it.
There is a path, it's whether you choose to make the choice or not.
It's all about what priorities you make.
The Government could find the money to pay doctors and nurses more, but care staff need to be minimum wage and there's no possible path to paying them more? Don't be silly.
By that logic we could cut minimum wage and pay them less and cut the deficit. Should we do that?
If I was in charge I'd pay them more, sure. But people wouldn't put me in charge.
Nor will they vote for someone else who says we are going to increase taxes by £10-15bn for pay rises for social care, on top of the £8bn extra we need to find to maintain the current inadequate system by 2032 because of our demographics.
You are living in a fantasy world here.
Bollocks.
It is not remotely a fantasy world to say that paying more than minimum wage is a potential solution.
Yes money will have to be found. The Government found billions to give to Junior Doctors when they wanted to. The Government finds billions to boost the pension by triple lock.
To only pay minimum wage is a political choice, not an economic necessity.
Regardless that does not make me against it happening. I might vote for your party that stood on that platform. I would also lay them on Betfair though.......
If it doesn't happen it is a choice, not a necessity.
There is no economic reason why doctors need a 22% pay rise while care staff need minimum wage.
Your excusing of political choices by implying they're necessary is just sad. If you know its wrong, then say so, no excuses.
Lots of things are wrong, life is unfair and politics more so. I have said it is wrong. I also say I don't know how to fix it, and whereas you think it is easy to fix and just a matter of choice, I think that is simplistic and doesn't take into account the constraints of modern political reality.
There aren't constraints, there are just choices.
You can choose to pay Doctors a 22% pay rise while keeping care staff on minimum wage, or you can make another choice.
You can choose to triple lock welfare while keeping care staff on minimum wage, or you can make another choice.
If care staff were unionised and striking and the Government gave them a 22% pay rise you'd be saying well done for dealing with it, not saying "this is impossible".
The Government makes choices every year. Don't blame economics, economics are not to blame for the decisions politicians choose to make.
I think if Boris stood in a by-election as Tory candidate he'd lose big wherever it was, so he'd have to sneak into a seat at a general election instead.
Even more unpopular, although what plenty of other countries do, and what we did before, how about children look after their elderly parents?
That's a bit of a myth.
There was never an age when children looked after so many people with dementia.
In the olden days most people who are now in care homes would not be getting looked after by their children (many of whom have been through hell looking after their parents before they ended up in the home) . . . they'd be dead.
Even more unpopular, although what plenty of other countries do, and what we did before, how about children look after their elderly parents?
It is part of the solution but not all of it, and shouldn't be an automatic expectation. Some people want to be looked after by their families towards end of life. Others can think of nothing worse.
Personally, like Shakespeare, I call it "the jakes"
Thou whoreson zed! thou unnecessary letter! My lord, if you will give me leave, I will tread this unbolted villain into mortar, and daub the walls of a jakes with him
Thunderbox.
Thunderbox is pretty good, I've used it on adventurous camping trips where you had to build you own thunderbox
In my experience the higher up the social ladder, the less euphemistic one gets, until you reach
"Excuse me, your Grace, where's the shitter"
Heaven knows what His Holiness calls it...
Latrina for a private loo, foricae for the public ones, in ancient Rome, or the quite brilliant lavatorium - which is (maybe !) where Conservatives try to clean their reputation .
Foricae sounds like a place to catch a disease.
At school they were called a “Fo” for short and “Foricas” in full. Took quite a few years to stop reflexively asking where the Fo is etc.
Posh school I assume. My (semi-posh) school almost universally called them bogs. Sadly that seems to have slipped out of common usage. A 1980s/90s term.
Bog goes back to the 1780s not the 1980s, according to Copilot.
Even more unpopular, although what plenty of other countries do, and what we did before, how about children look after their elderly parents?
That's a bit of a myth.
There was never an age when children looked after so many people with dementia.
In the olden days most people who are now in care homes would not be getting looked after by their children (many of whom have been through hell looking after their parents before they ended up in the home) . . . they'd be dead.
I think if Boris stood in a by-election as Tory candidate he'd lose big wherever it was, so he'd have to sneak into a seat at a general election instead.
Well if he wants to get into parliament again there's no better chance likely than Central Suffolk and North Ipswich. He could perhaps run as an Independent - the Brexit game again. Maybe Burnham would run against him.
I think there's very little likelihood of any of the above.
I'm always surprised more people don't look after their parents at home. Strikes me as one of the real downsides of an increase in double wage earning families...
He is the most unapologetically pro-immigration PM we've ever had in my lifetime.
Unlike David Cameron pledging immigration in the tens of thousands, or Blair saying only thousands would come, Boris told anyone who would listen that he was pro-immigration.
Even more unpopular, although what plenty of other countries do, and what we did before, how about children look after their elderly parents?
That's a bit of a myth.
There was never an age when children looked after so many people with dementia.
In the olden days most people who are now in care homes would not be getting looked after by their children (many of whom have been through hell looking after their parents before they ended up in the home) . . . they'd be dead.
It's not a myth. That's how old people are looked after in Bulgaria, like what my mother in law did with her mother. Who had multiple health issues. With a visitor to help her once a day - she did it morning and night before leaving for work and after coming home.
It's just not the culture here. And quite frankly we don't want to do it.
The tramps in London seem different this week. They suddenly resemble the San Fransico zombies. Made me wonder if fentanyl finally found its way here
I passed two destitute people the other day. Both had these scrawled signs - a testament to their pain and suffering. That the two forlorn messages were identical (just the same photocopy) seemed not to worry them.
He is the most unapologetically pro-immigration PM we've ever had in my lifetime.
Unlike David Cameron pledging immigration in the tens of thousands, or Blair saying only thousands would come, Boris told anyone who would listen that he was pro-immigration.
Many didn't listen though.
Terrible as Boris was in many ways, he was blooming good at making people think he was on their side when he really wasn't.
Thought experiment. Suppose he had stayed PM for longer, long enough for the Boriswave to visibly break. What would he have said/done to blag his way out of it?
The political answer to the triple lock is to announce a date now, sufficiently far in the future (I.e. 10-15 years time) when it will move to become a double lock for any new pensioners from that point.
Just have to suck up the extra cost in the interim, I guess.
Even more unpopular, although what plenty of other countries do, and what we did before, how about children look after their elderly parents?
That's a bit of a myth.
There was never an age when children looked after so many people with dementia.
In the olden days most people who are now in care homes would not be getting looked after by their children (many of whom have been through hell looking after their parents before they ended up in the home) . . . they'd be dead.
It's not a myth. That's how old people are looked after in Bulgaria, like what my mother in law did with her mother. Who had multiple health issues. With a visitor to help her once a day - she did it morning and night before leaving for work and after coming home.
It's just not the culture here. And quite frankly we don't want to do it.
It is a myth.
The demands for care for people with dementia in their 90s is an order of magnitude different to "old" people in their 60s.
Bulgaria has a life expectancy a decade less than the UK.
0.3% of Bulgaria is over 90. 0.9% of Britain is over 90.
The bulk of people in the UK who are in care homes, their Bulgarian equivalents aren't being looked after at home, they're dead already.
Even more unpopular, although what plenty of other countries do, and what we did before, how about children look after their elderly parents?
That's a bit of a myth.
There was never an age when children looked after so many people with dementia.
In the olden days most people who are now in care homes would not be getting looked after by their children (many of whom have been through hell looking after their parents before they ended up in the home) . . . they'd be dead.
It's not a myth. That's how old people are looked after in Bulgaria, like what my mother in law did with her mother. Who had multiple health issues. With a visitor to help her once a day - she did it morning and night before leaving for work and after coming home.
It's just not the culture here. And quite frankly we don't want to do it.
It is a myth.
The demands for care for people with dementia in their 90s is an order of magnitude different to "old" people in their 60s.
Bulgaria has a life expectancy a decade less than the UK.
0.3% of Bulgaria is over 90. 0.9% of Britain is over 90.
The bulk of people in the UK who are in care homes, their Bulgarian equivalents aren't being looked after at home, they're dead already.
Don't tell me my personal experience is a myth, you mindless tedious bore.
Even more unpopular, although what plenty of other countries do, and what we did before, how about children look after their elderly parents?
That's a bit of a myth.
There was never an age when children looked after so many people with dementia.
In the olden days most people who are now in care homes would not be getting looked after by their children (many of whom have been through hell looking after their parents before they ended up in the home) . . . they'd be dead.
It's not a myth. That's how old people are looked after in Bulgaria, like what my mother in law did with her mother. Who had multiple health issues. With a visitor to help her once a day - she did it morning and night before leaving for work and after coming home.
It's just not the culture here. And quite frankly we don't want to do it.
It is a myth.
The demands for care for people with dementia in their 90s is an order of magnitude different to "old" people in their 60s.
Bulgaria has a life expectancy a decade less than the UK.
0.3% of Bulgaria is over 90. 0.9% of Britain is over 90.
The bulk of people in the UK who are in care homes, their Bulgarian equivalents aren't being looked after at home, they're dead already.
Shit like this reminds me why I don't bother engaging with 99% of your posts.
Even more unpopular, although what plenty of other countries do, and what we did before, how about children look after their elderly parents?
That's a bit of a myth.
There was never an age when children looked after so many people with dementia.
In the olden days most people who are now in care homes would not be getting looked after by their children (many of whom have been through hell looking after their parents before they ended up in the home) . . . they'd be dead.
It's not a myth. That's how old people are looked after in Bulgaria, like what my mother in law did with her mother. Who had multiple health issues. With a visitor to help her once a day - she did it morning and night before leaving for work and after coming home.
It's just not the culture here. And quite frankly we don't want to do it.
Multi-generational households. Women not working. It's pretty simple.
The idea there were no old people is a bit of a myth too. A large chunk of lower life expectancy was death in childhood. If you made it to age 50 in the middle of the 19th century, you could expect to make 70.
Hard for me to believe Bring Back Boris is still a thing. The Conservatives eventually came round to the view that he wasn't fit to be PM. He never was, even when they were keenest on his voter appeal in the first place. Nostalgia for his voter appeal doesn't mean anything has changed.
Weightwatchers USA has filed for bankruptcy, allegedly because of the popularity of fat-loss jabs. But don't worry, the UK version is still going strong.
It is day two of outrage over Keir Starmer’s speech launching the government’s immigration white paper.
Sadiq Khan, the Labour mayor of London, said the “island of strangers” phrase was “not the sort of words I would use”, while Eluned Morgan, Labour first minister of Wales, said: “I will not be drawn into a debate where people are using divisive language when it comes to immigration.”
Public opinion, on the other hand, has remained stoically unmoved. YouGov asked: “In a speech yesterday Keir Starmer said that without fair immigration rules ‘we risk becoming an island of strangers, not a nation that walks forward together’. Which of the following comes closest to your view...
“I agree with the sentiment, and take no issue with the language”: 41 per cent
“I agree with the sentiment, but don’t think the language was appropriate”: 12 per cent
“I disagree with the sentiment, but take no issue with the language”: 9 per cent
“I disagree with the sentiment, and don't think the language was appropriate”: 18 per cent
While 20 per cent said they didn’t know.
More worryingly for Starmer, only 20 per cent said they thought the new policies would reduce immigration; 41 per cent said they would make no difference; and 9 per cent said they would increase it (30 per cent didn’t know or hadn’t heard of the policies).
Even more unpopular, although what plenty of other countries do, and what we did before, how about children look after their elderly parents?
That's a bit of a myth.
There was never an age when children looked after so many people with dementia.
In the olden days most people who are now in care homes would not be getting looked after by their children (many of whom have been through hell looking after their parents before they ended up in the home) . . . they'd be dead.
It's not a myth. That's how old people are looked after in Bulgaria, like what my mother in law did with her mother. Who had multiple health issues. With a visitor to help her once a day - she did it morning and night before leaving for work and after coming home.
It's just not the culture here. And quite frankly we don't want to do it.
Multi-generational households. Women not working. It's pretty simple.
The idea there were no old people is a bit of a myth too. A large chunk of lower life expectancy was death in childhood. If you made it to age 50 in the middle of the 19th century, you could expect to make 70.
Let's get even more controversial: how much of our GDP do we want to spend keeping elderly people alive who have dementia, and aren't aware of themselves or their families anymore, who perhaps rarely visit them?
I'm not asking this to be nasty, and I recognise it's an uncomfortable question, but it's one worth reflecting on because from the perspective of the public purse it's one I struggle to justify against other priorities.
Even more unpopular, although what plenty of other countries do, and what we did before, how about children look after their elderly parents?
That's a bit of a myth.
There was never an age when children looked after so many people with dementia.
In the olden days most people who are now in care homes would not be getting looked after by their children (many of whom have been through hell looking after their parents before they ended up in the home) . . . they'd be dead.
It's not a myth. That's how old people are looked after in Bulgaria, like what my mother in law did with her mother. Who had multiple health issues. With a visitor to help her once a day - she did it morning and night before leaving for work and after coming home.
It's just not the culture here. And quite frankly we don't want to do it.
It is a myth.
The demands for care for people with dementia in their 90s is an order of magnitude different to "old" people in their 60s.
Bulgaria has a life expectancy a decade less than the UK.
0.3% of Bulgaria is over 90. 0.9% of Britain is over 90.
The bulk of people in the UK who are in care homes, their Bulgarian equivalents aren't being looked after at home, they're dead already.
Don't tell me my personal experience is a myth, you mindless tedious bore.
Nuffence.
I never said your personal experience is. Your personal experience is your own. I have no insight into your experience and would not care to comment on how good or bad it was, or whether others have it better or worse. Its not my place to do that.
But it is a myth that we "used to" as a nation look after at home the elderly who are now in homes. But it is a myth that Bulgaria is looking after the elderly who are now in homes here.
Most of those who are in homes today are gone far beyond the state people used to routinely look after at home. Most of those who are in homes today are gone far beyond the state people look after at home in other nations today.
In the olden day, and in nations like Bulgaria today, people were dead before their conditions were as bad as people who need round-the-clock care do today.
I'm always surprised more people don't look after their parents at home. Strikes me as one of the real downsides of an increase in double wage earning families...
I don't look after my father at home for a few reasons
a) I would not be able to work if I did. This would lead me to a life of penury till I die and I don't see why I should sacrifice my life for his
b) I actually would kill him within a week or two, even before the dementia the longest I could tolerate him was about 2 days
c) The guy is pretty much a stranger to me through his choice
It is day two of outrage over Keir Starmer’s speech launching the government’s immigration white paper.
Sadiq Khan, the Labour mayor of London, said the “island of strangers” phrase was “not the sort of words I would use”, while Eluned Morgan, Labour first minister of Wales, said: “I will not be drawn into a debate where people are using divisive language when it comes to immigration.”
Public opinion, on the other hand, has remained stoically unmoved. YouGov asked: “In a speech yesterday Keir Starmer said that without fair immigration rules ‘we risk becoming an island of strangers, not a nation that walks forward together’. Which of the following comes closest to your view...
“I agree with the sentiment, and take no issue with the language”: 41 per cent
“I agree with the sentiment, but don’t think the language was appropriate”: 12 per cent
“I disagree with the sentiment, but take no issue with the language”: 9 per cent
“I disagree with the sentiment, and don't think the language was appropriate”: 18 per cent
While 20 per cent said they didn’t know.
More worryingly for Starmer, only 20 per cent said they thought the new policies would reduce immigration; 41 per cent said they would make no difference; and 9 per cent said they would increase it (30 per cent didn’t know or hadn’t heard of the policies).
That’s not more worryingly for Starmer, he’ll exceed expectations given the fall already baked in.
Even more unpopular, although what plenty of other countries do, and what we did before, how about children look after their elderly parents?
That's a bit of a myth.
There was never an age when children looked after so many people with dementia.
In the olden days most people who are now in care homes would not be getting looked after by their children (many of whom have been through hell looking after their parents before they ended up in the home) . . . they'd be dead.
It's not a myth. That's how old people are looked after in Bulgaria, like what my mother in law did with her mother. Who had multiple health issues. With a visitor to help her once a day - she did it morning and night before leaving for work and after coming home.
It's just not the culture here. And quite frankly we don't want to do it.
Multi-generational households. Women not working. It's pretty simple.
The idea there were no old people is a bit of a myth too. A large chunk of lower life expectancy was death in childhood. If you made it to age 50 in the middle of the 19th century, you could expect to make 70.
Let's get even more controversial: how much of our GDP do we want to spend keeping elderly people alive who have dementia, and aren't aware of themselves or their families anymore, who perhaps rarely visit them?
I'm not asking this to be nasty, and I recognise it's an uncomfortable question, but it's one worth reflecting on because from the perspective of the public purse it's one I struggle to justify against other priorities.
Are you advocating euthanasia? The assisted dying bill swerves this requiring mental capacity and less than 6 month life expectancy.
Even more unpopular, although what plenty of other countries do, and what we did before, how about children look after their elderly parents?
That's a bit of a myth.
There was never an age when children looked after so many people with dementia.
In the olden days most people who are now in care homes would not be getting looked after by their children (many of whom have been through hell looking after their parents before they ended up in the home) . . . they'd be dead.
It's not a myth. That's how old people are looked after in Bulgaria, like what my mother in law did with her mother. Who had multiple health issues. With a visitor to help her once a day - she did it morning and night before leaving for work and after coming home.
It's just not the culture here. And quite frankly we don't want to do it.
Multi-generational households. Women not working. It's pretty simple.
The idea there were no old people is a bit of a myth too. A large chunk of lower life expectancy was death in childhood. If you made it to age 50 in the middle of the 19th century, you could expect to make 70.
Let's get even more controversial: how much of our GDP do we want to spend keeping elderly people alive who have dementia, and aren't aware of themselves or their families anymore, who perhaps rarely visit them?
I'm not asking this to be nasty, and I recognise it's an uncomfortable question, but it's one worth reflecting on because from the perspective of the public purse it's one I struggle to justify against other priorities.
On this I agree with you 100%.
I would rather choose assisted dying than end up in a home unable to recognise anyone or control my bladder or bowels.
Hopefully the assisted dying bill goes through, and gets liberalised like it has in Canada so people have that choice in the future. Forcing people to stay alive, against their wishes, is not a kindness.
Even more unpopular, although what plenty of other countries do, and what we did before, how about children look after their elderly parents?
That's a bit of a myth.
There was never an age when children looked after so many people with dementia.
In the olden days most people who are now in care homes would not be getting looked after by their children (many of whom have been through hell looking after their parents before they ended up in the home) . . . they'd be dead.
It's not a myth. That's how old people are looked after in Bulgaria, like what my mother in law did with her mother. Who had multiple health issues. With a visitor to help her once a day - she did it morning and night before leaving for work and after coming home.
It's just not the culture here. And quite frankly we don't want to do it.
Multi-generational households. Women not working. It's pretty simple.
The idea there were no old people is a bit of a myth too. A large chunk of lower life expectancy was death in childhood. If you made it to age 50 in the middle of the 19th century, you could expect to make 70.
Let's get even more controversial: how much of our GDP do we want to spend keeping elderly people alive who have dementia, and aren't aware of themselves or their families anymore, who perhaps rarely visit them?
I'm not asking this to be nasty, and I recognise it's an uncomfortable question, but it's one worth reflecting on because from the perspective of the public purse it's one I struggle to justify against other priorities.
On this I agree with you 100%.
I would rather choose assisted dying than end up in a home unable to recognise anyone or control my bladder or bowels.
Hopefully the assisted dying bill goes through, and gets liberalised like it has in Canada so people have that choice in the future. Forcing people to stay alive, against their wishes, is not a kindness.
I’m more of a rage against the dying of the light sort of person, but I suppose that might change if and when I do get to the advanced stages of decline.
Even more unpopular, although what plenty of other countries do, and what we did before, how about children look after their elderly parents?
That's a bit of a myth.
There was never an age when children looked after so many people with dementia.
In the olden days most people who are now in care homes would not be getting looked after by their children (many of whom have been through hell looking after their parents before they ended up in the home) . . . they'd be dead.
It's not a myth. That's how old people are looked after in Bulgaria, like what my mother in law did with her mother. Who had multiple health issues. With a visitor to help her once a day - she did it morning and night before leaving for work and after coming home.
It's just not the culture here. And quite frankly we don't want to do it.
Multi-generational households. Women not working. It's pretty simple.
The idea there were no old people is a bit of a myth too. A large chunk of lower life expectancy was death in childhood. If you made it to age 50 in the middle of the 19th century, you could expect to make 70.
Let's get even more controversial: how much of our GDP do we want to spend keeping elderly people alive who have dementia, and aren't aware of themselves or their families anymore, who perhaps rarely visit them?
I'm not asking this to be nasty, and I recognise it's an uncomfortable question, but it's one worth reflecting on because from the perspective of the public purse it's one I struggle to justify against other priorities.
On this I agree with you 100%.
I would rather choose assisted dying than end up in a home unable to recognise anyone or control my bladder or bowels.
Hopefully the assisted dying bill goes through, and gets liberalised like it has in Canada so people have that choice in the future. Forcing people to stay alive, against their wishes, is not a kindness.
To deal with the demented though it would have to be done without there consent
Even more unpopular, although what plenty of other countries do, and what we did before, how about children look after their elderly parents?
That's a bit of a myth.
There was never an age when children looked after so many people with dementia.
In the olden days most people who are now in care homes would not be getting looked after by their children (many of whom have been through hell looking after their parents before they ended up in the home) . . . they'd be dead.
It's not a myth. That's how old people are looked after in Bulgaria, like what my mother in law did with her mother. Who had multiple health issues. With a visitor to help her once a day - she did it morning and night before leaving for work and after coming home.
It's just not the culture here. And quite frankly we don't want to do it.
Multi-generational households. Women not working. It's pretty simple.
The idea there were no old people is a bit of a myth too. A large chunk of lower life expectancy was death in childhood. If you made it to age 50 in the middle of the 19th century, you could expect to make 70.
Let's get even more controversial: how much of our GDP do we want to spend keeping elderly people alive who have dementia, and aren't aware of themselves or their families anymore, who perhaps rarely visit them?
I'm not asking this to be nasty, and I recognise it's an uncomfortable question, but it's one worth reflecting on because from the perspective of the public purse it's one I struggle to justify against other priorities.
I think the difficulty here is that we sacrifice a very large chunk of our GDP on it already via care from relatives. The discussions about inactivity reminded me of this - just look at the millions of working age people providing sometimes 24/7 care for their friends and family.
And it's not just old people. My council spends an extraordinary amount of cash on young people with severe learning difficulties, the example, and one of my councillors pointed out it would much, much worse were it not for the outstanding commitment of their parents, some of whom are in their 80s themselves.
In the round, it's probably better value for money to do it on a communal basis, simply from a carer ratio and housing perspective. I guess I'm arguing for a massive expansion in public spending on care, which isn't my instinct at all but...
It is day two of outrage over Keir Starmer’s speech launching the government’s immigration white paper.
Sadiq Khan, the Labour mayor of London, said the “island of strangers” phrase was “not the sort of words I would use”, while Eluned Morgan, Labour first minister of Wales, said: “I will not be drawn into a debate where people are using divisive language when it comes to immigration.”
Public opinion, on the other hand, has remained stoically unmoved. YouGov asked: “In a speech yesterday Keir Starmer said that without fair immigration rules ‘we risk becoming an island of strangers, not a nation that walks forward together’. Which of the following comes closest to your view...
“I agree with the sentiment, and take no issue with the language”: 41 per cent
“I agree with the sentiment, but don’t think the language was appropriate”: 12 per cent
“I disagree with the sentiment, but take no issue with the language”: 9 per cent
“I disagree with the sentiment, and don't think the language was appropriate”: 18 per cent
While 20 per cent said they didn’t know.
More worryingly for Starmer, only 20 per cent said they thought the new policies would reduce immigration; 41 per cent said they would make no difference; and 9 per cent said they would increase it (30 per cent didn’t know or hadn’t heard of the policies).
That’s not more worryingly for Starmer, he’ll exceed expectations given the fall already baked in.
If you don't follow politics closely it is a bit of a head scratcher. Boris and the Brexit gang turbo charging net migration followed by remain pinup Starmer slashing it.
Even more unpopular, although what plenty of other countries do, and what we did before, how about children look after their elderly parents?
That's a bit of a myth.
There was never an age when children looked after so many people with dementia.
In the olden days most people who are now in care homes would not be getting looked after by their children (many of whom have been through hell looking after their parents before they ended up in the home) . . . they'd be dead.
It's not a myth. That's how old people are looked after in Bulgaria, like what my mother in law did with her mother. Who had multiple health issues. With a visitor to help her once a day - she did it morning and night before leaving for work and after coming home.
It's just not the culture here. And quite frankly we don't want to do it.
Multi-generational households. Women not working. It's pretty simple.
The idea there were no old people is a bit of a myth too. A large chunk of lower life expectancy was death in childhood. If you made it to age 50 in the middle of the 19th century, you could expect to make 70.
Let's get even more controversial: how much of our GDP do we want to spend keeping elderly people alive who have dementia, and aren't aware of themselves or their families anymore, who perhaps rarely visit them?
I'm not asking this to be nasty, and I recognise it's an uncomfortable question, but it's one worth reflecting on because from the perspective of the public purse it's one I struggle to justify against other priorities.
Are you advocating euthanasia? The assisted dying bill swerves this requiring mental capacity and less than 6 month life expectancy.
Regarding care at home, you can't leave someone with dementia alone once they've reached a certain stage and being woken up throughout the night day after day isn't feasible when people have jobs or school.
Even more unpopular, although what plenty of other countries do, and what we did before, how about children look after their elderly parents?
That's a bit of a myth.
There was never an age when children looked after so many people with dementia.
In the olden days most people who are now in care homes would not be getting looked after by their children (many of whom have been through hell looking after their parents before they ended up in the home) . . . they'd be dead.
It's not a myth. That's how old people are looked after in Bulgaria, like what my mother in law did with her mother. Who had multiple health issues. With a visitor to help her once a day - she did it morning and night before leaving for work and after coming home.
It's just not the culture here. And quite frankly we don't want to do it.
Multi-generational households. Women not working. It's pretty simple.
The idea there were no old people is a bit of a myth too. A large chunk of lower life expectancy was death in childhood. If you made it to age 50 in the middle of the 19th century, you could expect to make 70.
Let's get even more controversial: how much of our GDP do we want to spend keeping elderly people alive who have dementia, and aren't aware of themselves or their families anymore, who perhaps rarely visit them?
I'm not asking this to be nasty, and I recognise it's an uncomfortable question, but it's one worth reflecting on because from the perspective of the public purse it's one I struggle to justify against other priorities.
On this I agree with you 100%.
I would rather choose assisted dying than end up in a home unable to recognise anyone or control my bladder or bowels.
Hopefully the assisted dying bill goes through, and gets liberalised like it has in Canada so people have that choice in the future. Forcing people to stay alive, against their wishes, is not a kindness.
To deal with the demented though it would have to be done without there consent
Or done in the earlier stages when people know they're declining and can see the writing on the wall.
I would abolish the 6 month requirement. Just have people be of sound mind and making sure they're certain.
There is a window of opportunity between diagnosis and when people are too far gone that people should be able to make that choice of their own free will, if they wish to do so. If they don't, that choice should be respected to.
Even more unpopular, although what plenty of other countries do, and what we did before, how about children look after their elderly parents?
That's a bit of a myth.
There was never an age when children looked after so many people with dementia.
In the olden days most people who are now in care homes would not be getting looked after by their children (many of whom have been through hell looking after their parents before they ended up in the home) . . . they'd be dead.
It's not a myth. That's how old people are looked after in Bulgaria, like what my mother in law did with her mother. Who had multiple health issues. With a visitor to help her once a day - she did it morning and night before leaving for work and after coming home.
It's just not the culture here. And quite frankly we don't want to do it.
Multi-generational households. Women not working. It's pretty simple.
The idea there were no old people is a bit of a myth too. A large chunk of lower life expectancy was death in childhood. If you made it to age 50 in the middle of the 19th century, you could expect to make 70.
Let's get even more controversial: how much of our GDP do we want to spend keeping elderly people alive who have dementia, and aren't aware of themselves or their families anymore, who perhaps rarely visit them?
I'm not asking this to be nasty, and I recognise it's an uncomfortable question, but it's one worth reflecting on because from the perspective of the public purse it's one I struggle to justify against other priorities.
Are you advocating euthanasia? The assisted dying bill swerves this requiring mental capacity and less than 6 month life expectancy.
Regarding care at home, you can't leave someone with dementia alone once they've reached a certain stage and being woken up throughout the night day after day isn't feasible when people have jobs or school.
Anyone that thinks homecare is viable once a certain point is passed is deluded. However even 50 years ago most would rarely get to that point being carried of with things like pneumonia
Even more unpopular, although what plenty of other countries do, and what we did before, how about children look after their elderly parents?
That's a bit of a myth.
There was never an age when children looked after so many people with dementia.
In the olden days most people who are now in care homes would not be getting looked after by their children (many of whom have been through hell looking after their parents before they ended up in the home) . . . they'd be dead.
It's not a myth. That's how old people are looked after in Bulgaria, like what my mother in law did with her mother. Who had multiple health issues. With a visitor to help her once a day - she did it morning and night before leaving for work and after coming home.
It's just not the culture here. And quite frankly we don't want to do it.
Multi-generational households. Women not working. It's pretty simple.
The idea there were no old people is a bit of a myth too. A large chunk of lower life expectancy was death in childhood. If you made it to age 50 in the middle of the 19th century, you could expect to make 70.
Let's get even more controversial: how much of our GDP do we want to spend keeping elderly people alive who have dementia, and aren't aware of themselves or their families anymore, who perhaps rarely visit them?
I'm not asking this to be nasty, and I recognise it's an uncomfortable question, but it's one worth reflecting on because from the perspective of the public purse it's one I struggle to justify against other priorities.
I'd be interested to know whether it would be possible to drop or reduce routine medication for elderly people such as you describe without causing them discomfort. It seems to me there may well be a needless striving to keep alive. I'm elderly myself and, in that situation, whilst I wouldn't want to opt for medically assisted dying, equally I wouldn't want to be medicated beyond being comfortable just to keep me alive.
Even more unpopular, although what plenty of other countries do, and what we did before, how about children look after their elderly parents?
That's a bit of a myth.
There was never an age when children looked after so many people with dementia.
In the olden days most people who are now in care homes would not be getting looked after by their children (many of whom have been through hell looking after their parents before they ended up in the home) . . . they'd be dead.
It's not a myth. That's how old people are looked after in Bulgaria, like what my mother in law did with her mother. Who had multiple health issues. With a visitor to help her once a day - she did it morning and night before leaving for work and after coming home.
It's just not the culture here. And quite frankly we don't want to do it.
Multi-generational households. Women not working. It's pretty simple.
The idea there were no old people is a bit of a myth too. A large chunk of lower life expectancy was death in childhood. If you made it to age 50 in the middle of the 19th century, you could expect to make 70.
Let's get even more controversial: how much of our GDP do we want to spend keeping elderly people alive who have dementia, and aren't aware of themselves or their families anymore, who perhaps rarely visit them?
I'm not asking this to be nasty, and I recognise it's an uncomfortable question, but it's one worth reflecting on because from the perspective of the public purse it's one I struggle to justify against other priorities.
Are you advocating euthanasia? The assisted dying bill swerves this requiring mental capacity and less than 6 month life expectancy.
I haven't a clue. The ethics are horrendous every way I turn.
But, we accept "turning off the life support machine" for those with no prospect of recovery and this for me feels like a shade of grey to that.
I'm always surprised more people don't look after their parents at home. Strikes me as one of the real downsides of an increase in double wage earning families...
I don't look after my father at home for a few reasons
a) I would not be able to work if I did. This would lead me to a life of penury till I die and I don't see why I should sacrifice my life for his
b) I actually would kill him within a week or two, even before the dementia the longest I could tolerate him was about 2 days
c) The guy is pretty much a stranger to me through his choice
Even more unpopular, although what plenty of other countries do, and what we did before, how about children look after their elderly parents?
That's a bit of a myth.
There was never an age when children looked after so many people with dementia.
In the olden days most people who are now in care homes would not be getting looked after by their children (many of whom have been through hell looking after their parents before they ended up in the home) . . . they'd be dead.
It's not a myth. That's how old people are looked after in Bulgaria, like what my mother in law did with her mother. Who had multiple health issues. With a visitor to help her once a day - she did it morning and night before leaving for work and after coming home.
It's just not the culture here. And quite frankly we don't want to do it.
Multi-generational households. Women not working. It's pretty simple.
The idea there were no old people is a bit of a myth too. A large chunk of lower life expectancy was death in childhood. If you made it to age 50 in the middle of the 19th century, you could expect to make 70.
Let's get even more controversial: how much of our GDP do we want to spend keeping elderly people alive who have dementia, and aren't aware of themselves or their families anymore, who perhaps rarely visit them?
I'm not asking this to be nasty, and I recognise it's an uncomfortable question, but it's one worth reflecting on because from the perspective of the public purse it's one I struggle to justify against other priorities.
On this I agree with you 100%.
I would rather choose assisted dying than end up in a home unable to recognise anyone or control my bladder or bowels.
Hopefully the assisted dying bill goes through, and gets liberalised like it has in Canada so people have that choice in the future. Forcing people to stay alive, against their wishes, is not a kindness.
To deal with the demented though it would have to be done without there consent
Or done in the earlier stages when people know they're declining and can see the writing on the wall.
I would abolish the 6 month requirement. Just have people be of sound mind and making sure they're certain.
There is a window of opportunity between diagnosis and when people are too far gone that people should be able to make that choice of their own free will, if they wish to do so. If they don't, that choice should be respected to.
Doesn't sound like you have dealt with dementia frankly, my father refused to believe and still does there is any issue. From talking to plenty of other people in similar situations it seems more unusual for people to admit the dementia in the early days when they could make the decision and still be compis mentis
I'm always surprised more people don't look after their parents at home. Strikes me as one of the real downsides of an increase in double wage earning families...
I don't look after my father at home for a few reasons
a) I would not be able to work if I did. This would lead me to a life of penury till I die and I don't see why I should sacrifice my life for his
b) I actually would kill him within a week or two, even before the dementia the longest I could tolerate him was about 2 days
c) The guy is pretty much a stranger to me through his choice
At least you're honest.
Shrugs I have lived 58 years in that time if you added up the time he chose to spend with me I suspect we would still be under 6 months
Even more unpopular, although what plenty of other countries do, and what we did before, how about children look after their elderly parents?
That's a bit of a myth.
There was never an age when children looked after so many people with dementia.
In the olden days most people who are now in care homes would not be getting looked after by their children (many of whom have been through hell looking after their parents before they ended up in the home) . . . they'd be dead.
It's not a myth. That's how old people are looked after in Bulgaria, like what my mother in law did with her mother. Who had multiple health issues. With a visitor to help her once a day - she did it morning and night before leaving for work and after coming home.
It's just not the culture here. And quite frankly we don't want to do it.
Multi-generational households. Women not working. It's pretty simple.
The idea there were no old people is a bit of a myth too. A large chunk of lower life expectancy was death in childhood. If you made it to age 50 in the middle of the 19th century, you could expect to make 70.
Let's get even more controversial: how much of our GDP do we want to spend keeping elderly people alive who have dementia, and aren't aware of themselves or their families anymore, who perhaps rarely visit them?
I'm not asking this to be nasty, and I recognise it's an uncomfortable question, but it's one worth reflecting on because from the perspective of the public purse it's one I struggle to justify against other priorities.
On this I agree with you 100%.
I would rather choose assisted dying than end up in a home unable to recognise anyone or control my bladder or bowels.
Hopefully the assisted dying bill goes through, and gets liberalised like it has in Canada so people have that choice in the future. Forcing people to stay alive, against their wishes, is not a kindness.
To deal with the demented though it would have to be done without there consent
Or done in the earlier stages when people know they're declining and can see the writing on the wall.
I would abolish the 6 month requirement. Just have people be of sound mind and making sure they're certain.
There is a window of opportunity between diagnosis and when people are too far gone that people should be able to make that choice of their own free will, if they wish to do so. If they don't, that choice should be respected to.
Doesn't sound like you have dealt with dementia frankly, my father refused to believe and still does there is any issue. From talking to plenty of other people in similar situations it seems more unusual for people to admit the dementia in the early days when they could make the decision and still be compis mentis
I have.
Not everyone accepts the diagnosis, not everyone believes, and not everyone is even diagnosed until its too late.
However many people do know in the 'earlier' stages and know what is going to happen to them, and know that there is no cure and no avoiding it.
Those who are of sound mind who know what is happening to them and wish to say "thanks and good night" with dignity should be able to do so.
Won't be a solution for everyone, but could be for some people and they should have the right to say goodbye to this world at a time and place and manner of their choosing.
Even more unpopular, although what plenty of other countries do, and what we did before, how about children look after their elderly parents?
That's a bit of a myth.
There was never an age when children looked after so many people with dementia.
In the olden days most people who are now in care homes would not be getting looked after by their children (many of whom have been through hell looking after their parents before they ended up in the home) . . . they'd be dead.
It's not a myth. That's how old people are looked after in Bulgaria, like what my mother in law did with her mother. Who had multiple health issues. With a visitor to help her once a day - she did it morning and night before leaving for work and after coming home.
It's just not the culture here. And quite frankly we don't want to do it.
The idea there were no old people is a bit of a myth too. A large chunk of lower life expectancy was death in childhood. If you made it to age 50 in the middle of the 19th century, you could expect to make 70.
Yes, it's an oddly pervasive myth that one. Doesn't mean that the level and extent of support that would now be needed to look after the very very old is not more extreme, and possibly not as managable (90 year olds being looked after by 70 year olds looked after by 50 year olds?), but old folks would not have been quite as rare as imagined.
Weightwatchers USA has filed for bankruptcy, allegedly because of the popularity of fat-loss jabs. But don't worry, the UK version is still going strong.
Next to the betting shop was a beauty salon, and very successful it was. Then it lost all its customers and closed down.
The owners had put a sign in the window advertising a Weightwatchers class. It turned out, unsurprisingly to the betting shop regulars but apparently a great shock to the salon owners, that aspirational women paying vast sums to be tanned for their skiing holidays and beach-ready for summer really did not want to be brought down to earth by going to the same place as common fat people. It is why Harrods does not price-match with Aldi.
Even more unpopular, although what plenty of other countries do, and what we did before, how about children look after their elderly parents?
That's a bit of a myth.
There was never an age when children looked after so many people with dementia.
In the olden days most people who are now in care homes would not be getting looked after by their children (many of whom have been through hell looking after their parents before they ended up in the home) . . . they'd be dead.
It's not a myth. That's how old people are looked after in Bulgaria, like what my mother in law did with her mother. Who had multiple health issues. With a visitor to help her once a day - she did it morning and night before leaving for work and after coming home.
It's just not the culture here. And quite frankly we don't want to do it.
The idea there were no old people is a bit of a myth too. A large chunk of lower life expectancy was death in childhood. If you made it to age 50 in the middle of the 19th century, you could expect to make 70.
Yes, it's an oddly pervasive myth that one. Doesn't mean that the level and extent of support that would now be needed to look after the very very old is not more extreme, and possibly not as managable (90 year olds being looked after by 70 year olds looked after by 50 year olds?), but old folks would not have been quite as rare as imagined.
Your definition of old may vary though.
Old at 70 and old at 90 are two very different kettles of fish.
A Conservative MP has been charged with sexual assault following incidents at the Groucho Club in London.
Frank Ferguson, the head of the CPS Special Crime and Counter Terrorism Division, said: “Following a review of the evidence provided by the Metropolitan Police Service, we have authorised two counts of sexual assault against Patrick Spencer MP.”
Spencer is the MP for Central Suffolk & North Ipswich.
“The charges follow two alleged incidents involving two separate women at the Groucho Club in central London in August 2023.
Mr Spencer, 37, will appear at Westminster magistrates’ court on
An independent councillor in Chester-le-Street has defected to Reform, less than two weeks after being re-elected. Paul Sexton has sat on Durham County Council since 2017."
Jesus Christ, this is truly desperate stuff. "Not" jokes.
It really sums up the pitiful state of the Conservative operation.
Very efficient amendment from Reform, to be sure.
I feel like the Conservatives are still stuck between wanting to attack the upstart party trying to kill them, and trying to buddy up to them instead, and so a lot of the time either do nothing, or do something lame instead.
I think a political betting discussion might be needed. There's not really been one for ages.
So in the great tradition, although really rather letting it down...
** Betting Post **
Next LD leader. Oppose Daisy Cooper to be next LD leader - currently 1.57. Unfortunately my confidence suggests pennies rather than pound for this bet.
** End Betting Post **
Where are the LDs going to find their next leader? Davey is just some sort of sodden log with a chalked on smiley face. Daisy Cooper is actually less inspiring.
The LDs will clearly have a next leader at some point, so there really may be 1000/1 winners out there.
Even more unpopular, although what plenty of other countries do, and what we did before, how about children look after their elderly parents?
That's a bit of a myth.
There was never an age when children looked after so many people with dementia.
In the olden days most people who are now in care homes would not be getting looked after by their children (many of whom have been through hell looking after their parents before they ended up in the home) . . . they'd be dead.
It's not a myth. That's how old people are looked after in Bulgaria, like what my mother in law did with her mother. Who had multiple health issues. With a visitor to help her once a day - she did it morning and night before leaving for work and after coming home.
It's just not the culture here. And quite frankly we don't want to do it.
The idea there were no old people is a bit of a myth too. A large chunk of lower life expectancy was death in childhood. If you made it to age 50 in the middle of the 19th century, you could expect to make 70.
Yes, it's an oddly pervasive myth that one. Doesn't mean that the level and extent of support that would now be needed to look after the very very old is not more extreme, and possibly not as managable (90 year olds being looked after by 70 year olds looked after by 50 year olds?), but old folks would not have been quite as rare as imagined.
Your definition of old may vary though.
Old at 70 and old at 90 are two very different kettles of fish.
Change can come very rapidly at those ages as well. Some 70 years are in tremendous shape (some 90 year olds too, for their age, but far fewer of course).
Even more unpopular, although what plenty of other countries do, and what we did before, how about children look after their elderly parents?
That's a bit of a myth.
There was never an age when children looked after so many people with dementia.
In the olden days most people who are now in care homes would not be getting looked after by their children (many of whom have been through hell looking after their parents before they ended up in the home) . . . they'd be dead.
It's not a myth. That's how old people are looked after in Bulgaria, like what my mother in law did with her mother. Who had multiple health issues. With a visitor to help her once a day - she did it morning and night before leaving for work and after coming home.
It's just not the culture here. And quite frankly we don't want to do it.
Multi-generational households. Women not working. It's pretty simple.
The idea there were no old people is a bit of a myth too. A large chunk of lower life expectancy was death in childhood. If you made it to age 50 in the middle of the 19th century, you could expect to make 70.
Let's get even more controversial: how much of our GDP do we want to spend keeping elderly people alive who have dementia, and aren't aware of themselves or their families anymore, who perhaps rarely visit them?
I'm not asking this to be nasty, and I recognise it's an uncomfortable question, but it's one worth reflecting on because from the perspective of the public purse it's one I struggle to justify against other priorities.
Are you advocating euthanasia? The assisted dying bill swerves this requiring mental capacity and less than 6 month life expectancy.
I haven't a clue. The ethics are horrendous every way I turn.
But, we accept "turning off the life support machine" for those with no prospect of recovery and this for me feels like a shade of grey to that.
To cheer you up, age-adjusted rates of dementia are dropping quite fast across high-income countries, possibly linked to a fall in smoking rates (lots of alternative theories).
Comments
But there are a lot of people who want him to be right (they voted for him), and they want the things he says to be true. Cognitive dissonance is a very powerful force.
Spoiler Alert...
Gorgeous afternoon here in downtown East London with a refreshing breeze off the river but three months of this and we'll be fighting the Great Water War of 2025 - perhaps Starmer will, pace Callaghan, appoint a Drought Minister who will bring three months of relentless rain.
This week and early next will see the AGMs of Councils who had elections on May 1st. It will be fascinating to see how the new Reform majority councils in places like Kent, Derbyshire and Durham will begin to transact business - what will be the relationships with officers for example?
Then we have those authorities with no overall control where the horsetrading has been and probably still is continuing, Who will end up running Cornwall, Wiltshire and Northumberland to name but three?
Cornwall's AGM is a week away on the afternoon of the 20th - Reform are already claiming "the other parties" are trying to put together an administration without them. They probably have the numbers to do so but the 16 Independents don't always function as a single group.
Wiltshire's future administration also seems to hang on what the seven Independents will decide. The Wiltshire AGM is next Tuesday morning.
My wife started at the home just before Covid and has studying online at home in her own time and recently got a place at Uni so will be leaving the care home to start a professional course from September, she'd only ever stay on minimum wage (or a few pence above it) otherwise.
She cares passionately about what she does. However I hear too many horror stories about people who do not care.
She sat with someone who was on end of life, until they passed away the other day. She was livid and asked to replace the person who was sat with them when she arrived as they were just sat there scrolling on their phone.
From what she says you get some staff who are passionate and will do anything as they truly care, like her, and many who spend more time on their phone than doing anything else. And the passionate people tend to move on as she will be doing in September.
Though what do you expect when you only offer minimum wage and no progression.
Here in Ashfield District, Reform have 3 Councillors - one each defected from Labour, the Conservatives and the Ashfield Independents (who up until 2015 were mainly Lib Dems). That was all in 2024, so not linked to the new elections this time at County level. We have district elections in 2026.
Previously, Ash Ind would be the default destination, but the as yet unresolved legal questions around Zadrozny are perhaps a deterrent.
https://x.com/onestpress/status/1922286351090639141
It is embarrassing, tedious, and frankly good for me catching up in our garden with my dearest
Two Oldies hanging together in our garden away from the mayhem
It's all about what priorities you make.
The Government could find the money to pay doctors and nurses more, but care staff need to be minimum wage and there's no possible path to paying them more? Don't be silly.
By that logic we could cut minimum wage and pay them less and cut the deficit. Should we do that?
Trump: "We're doing what a lot of smart people would do, and we're not necessarily being politically correct. You saw what we did yesterday in healthcare. We've cut our healthcare by 50 to 90 percent."
That is how Trump overcame the media challenging him first time round. He co-opted his critics' term, fake news.
Foricae sounds like a place to catch a disease.
Dave thought it was best for the country for there not to be a messy ousting of another Tory PM over Europe.
🚨 BREAKING: In a surreal and frankly humiliating moment, Donald Trump just fell asleep during his own briefing in Saudi Arabia.
This isn’t jet lag — it’s a walking security risk with a nap schedule.
The man who calls himself “sharp as ever” couldn’t even stay conscious.
https://x.com/allenanalysis/status/1922288837188837728
Nor will they vote for someone else who says we are going to increase taxes by £10-15bn for pay rises for social care, on top of the £8bn extra we need to find to maintain the current inadequate system by 2032 because of our demographics.
You are living in a fantasy world here.
It is not remotely a fantasy world to say that paying more than minimum wage is a potential solution.
Yes money will have to be found. The Government found billions to give to Junior Doctors when they wanted to. The Government finds billions to boost the pension by triple lock.
To only pay minimum wage is a political choice, not an economic necessity.
She eventually realises death is better.
There is no economic reason why doctors need a 22% pay rise while care staff need minimum wage.
Your excusing of political choices by implying they're necessary is just sad. If you know its wrong, then say so, no excuses.
You can choose to pay Doctors a 22% pay rise while keeping care staff on minimum wage, or you can make another choice.
You can choose to triple lock welfare while keeping care staff on minimum wage, or you can make another choice.
If care staff were unionised and striking and the Government gave them a 22% pay rise you'd be saying well done for dealing with it, not saying "this is impossible".
The Government makes choices every year. Don't blame economics, economics are not to blame for the decisions politicians choose to make.
Remember what Truman said. "The buck stops here".
There was never an age when children looked after so many people with dementia.
In the olden days most people who are now in care homes would not be getting looked after by their children (many of whom have been through hell looking after their parents before they ended up in the home) . . . they'd be dead.
Oxford Dictionary gives us:-
"Boris Johnson: Migration is 'fantastic' for the economy"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-40745807
I think there's very little likelihood of any of the above.
He is the most unapologetically pro-immigration PM we've ever had in my lifetime.
Unlike David Cameron pledging immigration in the tens of thousands, or Blair saying only thousands would come, Boris told anyone who would listen that he was pro-immigration.
Many didn't listen though.
It's just not the culture here. And quite frankly we don't want to do it.
The zombies have plagued Manchester for years.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-45098990.amp
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-england-manchester-39200637
Thought experiment. Suppose he had stayed PM for longer, long enough for the Boriswave to visibly break. What would he have said/done to blag his way out of it?
Just have to suck up the extra cost in the interim, I guess.
The demands for care for people with dementia in their 90s is an order of magnitude different to "old" people in their 60s.
Bulgaria has a life expectancy a decade less than the UK.
0.3% of Bulgaria is over 90.
0.9% of Britain is over 90.
The bulk of people in the UK who are in care homes, their Bulgarian equivalents aren't being looked after at home, they're dead already.
But Mr. Google tells me it's dated.
Nuffence.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/live/c77n7v4z7ext
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/live/c1k4wnmxzk7t
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/cwyw59p25qlo
The idea there were no old people is a bit of a myth too. A large chunk of lower life expectancy was death in childhood. If you made it to age 50 in the middle of the 19th century, you could expect to make 70.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cyvqv247gd7o
It is day two of outrage over Keir Starmer’s speech launching the government’s immigration white paper.
Sadiq Khan, the Labour mayor of London, said the “island of strangers” phrase was “not the sort of words I would use”, while Eluned Morgan, Labour first minister of Wales, said: “I will not be drawn into a debate where people are using divisive language when it comes to immigration.”
Public opinion, on the other hand, has remained stoically unmoved. YouGov asked: “In a speech yesterday Keir Starmer said that without fair immigration rules ‘we risk becoming an island of strangers, not a nation that walks forward together’. Which of the following comes closest to your view...
“I agree with the sentiment, and take no issue with the language”: 41 per cent
“I agree with the sentiment, but don’t think the language was appropriate”: 12 per cent
“I disagree with the sentiment, but take no issue with the language”: 9 per cent
“I disagree with the sentiment, and don't think the language was appropriate”: 18 per cent
While 20 per cent said they didn’t know.
More worryingly for Starmer, only 20 per cent said they thought the new policies would reduce immigration; 41 per cent said they would make no difference; and 9 per cent said they would increase it (30 per cent didn’t know or hadn’t heard of the policies).
I'm not asking this to be nasty, and I recognise it's an uncomfortable question, but it's one worth reflecting on because from the perspective of the public purse it's one I struggle to justify against other priorities.
In restaurants I tend to go with and enquiry as to the lavatories, then nearly always have to just go with a follow up of 'toilets'.
But it is a myth that we "used to" as a nation look after at home the elderly who are now in homes.
But it is a myth that Bulgaria is looking after the elderly who are now in homes here.
Most of those who are in homes today are gone far beyond the state people used to routinely look after at home.
Most of those who are in homes today are gone far beyond the state people look after at home in other nations today.
In the olden day, and in nations like Bulgaria today, people were dead before their conditions were as bad as people who need round-the-clock care do today.
a) I would not be able to work if I did. This would lead me to a life of penury till I die and I don't see why I should sacrifice my life for his
b) I actually would kill him within a week or two, even before the dementia the longest I could tolerate him was about 2 days
c) The guy is pretty much a stranger to me through his choice
The assisted dying bill swerves this requiring mental capacity and less than 6 month life expectancy.
I would rather choose assisted dying than end up in a home unable to recognise anyone or control my bladder or bowels.
Hopefully the assisted dying bill goes through, and gets liberalised like it has in Canada so people have that choice in the future. Forcing people to stay alive, against their wishes, is not a kindness.
And it's not just old people. My council spends an extraordinary amount of cash on young people with severe learning difficulties, the example, and one of my councillors pointed out it would much, much worse were it not for the outstanding commitment of their parents, some of whom are in their 80s themselves.
In the round, it's probably better value for money to do it on a communal basis, simply from a carer ratio and housing perspective. I guess I'm arguing for a massive expansion in public spending on care, which isn't my instinct at all but...
I would abolish the 6 month requirement. Just have people be of sound mind and making sure they're certain.
There is a window of opportunity between diagnosis and when people are too far gone that people should be able to make that choice of their own free will, if they wish to do so. If they don't, that choice should be respected to.
I mean, he could be the answer to, 'who's the most useless drunken plonker ever to be PM?'
Or, 'who was the most stupid liar ever to be PM?'
Or, 'who was the only American ever to be PM?'
I suppose technically a case could be made that the answer is Alex Johnson not Boris Johnson, but still...
But, we accept "turning off the life support machine" for those with no prospect of recovery and this for me feels like a shade of grey to that.
It really sums up the pitiful state of the Conservative operation.
Not everyone accepts the diagnosis, not everyone believes, and not everyone is even diagnosed until its too late.
However many people do know in the 'earlier' stages and know what is going to happen to them, and know that there is no cure and no avoiding it.
Those who are of sound mind who know what is happening to them and wish to say "thanks and good night" with dignity should be able to do so.
Won't be a solution for everyone, but could be for some people and they should have the right to say goodbye to this world at a time and place and manner of their choosing.
The owners had put a sign in the window advertising a Weightwatchers class. It turned out, unsurprisingly to the betting shop regulars but apparently a great shock to the salon owners, that aspirational women paying vast sums to be tanned for their skiing holidays and beach-ready for summer really did not want to be brought down to earth by going to the same place as common fat people. It is why Harrods does not price-match with Aldi.
Old at 70 and old at 90 are two very different kettles of fish.
"@JoshuaFNichol
An independent councillor in Chester-le-Street has defected to Reform, less than two weeks after being re-elected. Paul Sexton has sat on Durham County Council since 2017."
https://x.com/JoshuaFNichol/status/1922335050743316866
I feel like the Conservatives are still stuck between wanting to attack the upstart party trying to kill them, and trying to buddy up to them instead, and so a lot of the time either do nothing, or do something lame instead.
So in the great tradition, although really rather letting it down...
** Betting Post **
Next LD leader. Oppose Daisy Cooper to be next LD leader - currently 1.57. Unfortunately my confidence suggests pennies rather than pound for this bet.
** End Betting Post **
Where are the LDs going to find their next leader? Davey is just some sort of sodden log with a chalked on smiley face. Daisy Cooper is actually less inspiring.
The LDs will clearly have a next leader at some point, so there really may be 1000/1 winners out there.
I can't find a bet. Can you?