|
|
Post by Merseymike on Apr 19, 2020 11:31:06 GMT
Yes. In the same way that there is, despite the odd demonstration of superficial difference, a broad consensus now between our political parties.
The Government went down this path as they perceived they didn't want to challenge public fear. As an opposition I see no obvious reason why they should challenge that consensus.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 19, 2020 12:15:26 GMT
You are seriously arguing that Conservatives would have supported Annelsie Dodds paying 80% salaries to staff on furlough if the tories are more likely to vote to pay people 80% of their wages when theyre in government than if they were in opposition I clearly need to start voting tory |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Apr 19, 2020 12:22:52 GMT
Now this might mean we had PM Corbyn, but for Labour to have won an election, it is more likely to mean that Labour had a rational human being as its leader. Maybe Corbyn fell under a bus and Starmer got elected, maybe Maybot held on and called another of her elections. Either way, Labour is in government, Brexit either is or isn't, that's not really the point. Just as in our Universe, nobody cares during a CoViD pandemic. Chancellor Annelise Dodds reveals a package of measures identical by the coincidence of inter-dimensional mechanics to those applied by Chancellor Sunak, but less sexily. PM Starmer announces identical lockdown measures to PM Johnson in our Universe The killer question is this. Would the loyal opposition support this package and these measures. Probably not as much they do for their own side. The Conservatives MPs like me would be a very vocal opposition and causing a lot of opposition whilst the supine top end of the party would be shuffling their feet and wondering how to react as indeed Labour are now. If this was a Labour Government and I was a Conservative MP I would be all over them 'like a rash' and on the media attempting to undermine their policies, calling into question every error, sowing disquiet, urging people to keeping working TO SAVE JOBS, SAVE THE NATION AND TO SAVE LIVES. There would be a proper Opposition if Merseymike and I we in parliament instead of the gormless wuss frit pillocks. We are letting our nation be fucked up and ruined by a bunch of shit-scared school girls. Makes one ashamed to be British. |
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Apr 19, 2020 12:33:20 GMT
You are seriously arguing that Conservatives would have supported Annelsie Dodds paying 80% salaries to staff on furlough Yes, because it appears to be What The Public Want. |
|
|
|
Post by Defenestrated Fipplebox on Apr 19, 2020 12:43:55 GMT
Does this assume Corbyn as PM? If so, no there would not be cross party support there is now. Under a different Labour leader maybe there would be similar cross party support as under the current governement.
|
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Apr 19, 2020 14:34:34 GMT
You are seriously arguing that Conservatives would have supported Annelsie Dodds paying 80% salaries to staff on furlough if the tories are more likely to vote to pay people 80% of their wages when theyre in government than if they were in opposition I clearly need to start voting tory You are behind the curve. A third of your supporters have already twigged. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 19, 2020 15:27:22 GMT
if the tories are more likely to vote to pay people 80% of their wages when theyre in government than if they were in opposition I clearly need to start voting tory You are behind the curve. A third of your supporters have already twigged. If people are voting tory because their more left wing in government than in opposition that gives me hope |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 19, 2020 16:54:32 GMT
People vote Tory because they do not believe the lies your party tell about them. They know its lies because the Conservatives have been office for a decade and have never cut spending in the NHS. But it's now gone beyond that. People vote Conservative because they can't vote Labour because they know you tell lies. You have no credibility. Let's look at what happened with Corbyn from a slightly different angle. It's frustrating to people who consider themselves "sensible Labour" that they keep missing out on government by giving away silly own goals, the most obvious of which is the election of Corbyn. What you don't get is that scoring own goals are not tragic misfortunes. It is inherent in being Labour. You always overplay your hand, its never enough to decry the competence of the Conservatives, you have to malign their intentions, claim they hate the poor, have a secret plan to sell off the NHS, are in the pocket of their rich friends. The validity of any argument about competence gets lost, and you gets exposed on a front you cant win on. As we now see there is no great ideological difference between moderate Labour and moderate Conservative. The difference is that Conservatives are honest centrist triers, of varying levels of competence, Labour are tribal bigots. You would honestly have rather have had Corbyn in Number 10 than Johnson or May. it's not a lie though. I've seen first hand the cuts to support hours in nhs services. I am tribal but I'm not a bigot. I don't support the Tories but not because i hate them. Yes I'd always prefer a Labour government over a Conservative one and you might consider that stupid and tribal. I can live with you thinking that. I dont know you and you dont know me. You dont know the people who i support and how many support hours that they have had cut. I don't expect you to understand why these experiences would drive me to vote Labour so I don't mind if you want to believe these things |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 19, 2020 17:13:34 GMT
The fact that some sectors of services in some localities have been cut does not alter the fact that every Conservative government in history has increased spending on health care, in real terms. How can this be? Because your initial demand was for improvements in pay and conditions, not for more services to be provided to more clients. we invoice for the hours we deliver, if we are commissioned to deliver 1064 hours then we have to deliver that. These hours are determined by the amount of hours a client needs |
|
|
|
Post by 🏴☠️ Neath West 🏴☠️ on Apr 19, 2020 21:59:01 GMT
Would the loyal opposition support this package and these measures. What a deliciously naughty question. You and I would probably be thoroughly enjoying the antics of Peter Bone, Sir Christopher Chope, Philip Davies, and other such members of the awkward squad. Probably Jacob Rees-Mogg too, if he weren't reclining on a front bench. In a way it's very heartening that once all this is over, our heroes (the bastards!) are the loyalist core of the winning team. |
|
|
|
Post by curiousliberal on Apr 20, 2020 1:17:29 GMT
It would depend on how the Conservatives lost and the post-election post-mortems the party was presented with (in addition to how willing it was to accept these).
If the LD vote share was significantly higher (perhaps enough to swing the election according to the 'if you add party X and party Y votes up' narrative), I think the Conservative Party would elect someone less Euroskeptic than BoJo and pivot to oppose socialism. To Tories in opposition, socialism is when the government does stuff, so they'd call for a middle ground by supporting the measures in spirit but asking for cuts to a fair few on the basis that they were particularly wasteful. More international cooperation would be promoted and most criticism would be levied by treating the crisis as a failure of national leadership, assuming that Corbyn pursued the foreign policy he promised with all the diplomatic skill he used within his own party. Emphasis on how more cost-efficient measures could have been deployed would be mostly (but not completely) avoided at first, and leaned into after the crisis' end.
If the LD vote share remained low and the Tories were defeated by a stronger Labour Party (potentially with BxP playing spoiler), they would not pivot much on Brexit but would instead be spooked deeper into moderation on other social and economic issues, and would go on to elect a leader who was believed to have a 'working class' aesthetic (with a decent chance of said leader also being BAME or female; certain columnists would have pushed the inevitable 'She didn't lose to Corbyn!' talking point). The measures would be supported without protest here and now, with limited room for revisionism in the months after the virus itself became less relevant than the economic impact.
The third scenario would involve BxP doing almost as well as the Conservative Party and the LDs doing badly (with very clear water between the LDs and BxP in terms of support levels). I'd guess the Tories would shift towards Trumpian tactics in this case (and follow his lead for the rest of the electoral cycle, for all the good that would do them). They would oppose the majority of measures on the basis that these helped the "undeserving".
I consider the second scenario to be the most likely without significant changes to the parties' positions prior to the dissolution of parliament, and have voted accordingly in the poll.
|
|
|
|
Post by Defenestrated Fipplebox on Apr 20, 2020 6:45:34 GMT
The fact that some sectors of services in some localities have been cut does not alter the fact that every Conservative government in history has increased spending on health care, in real terms. How can this be? Because your initial demand was for improvements in pay and conditions, not for more services to be provided to more clients. we invoice for the hours we deliver, if we are commissioned to deliver 1064 hours then we have to deliver that. These hours are determined by the amount of hours a client needs
That statement in my opinion is often the biggest lie in any care when people are at home, because the forms used to assess need are rigid and regularly misassess need. Need is usually under assessed rather than overassessed, thats the nature of the forms and the beast. Good carers often struggle to fit in the allocated tasks in the time allocated to them. Hours in reality are often not allocated to people to meet their full care needs; care tasks are actually squeezed into time to fit whatever budgets made available for that person.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 20, 2020 7:04:51 GMT
we invoice for the hours we deliver, if we are commissioned to deliver 1064 hours then we have to deliver that. These hours are determined by the amount of hours a client needs
That statement in my opinion is often the biggest lie in any care when people are at home, because the forms used to assess need are rigid and regularly misassess need. Need is usually under assessed rather than overassessed, thats the nature of the forms and the beast. Good carers often struggle to fit in the allocated tasks in the time allocated to them. Hours in reality are often not allocated to people to meet their full care needs; care tasks are actually squeezed into time to fit whatever budgets made available for that person.
this is true but what I was trying to explain was what we were paid was based on needs assessment |
|
|
|
Post by Defenestrated Fipplebox on Apr 20, 2020 7:53:45 GMT
That statement in my opinion is often the biggest lie in any care when people are at home, because the forms used to assess need are rigid and regularly misassess need. Need is usually under assessed rather than overassessed, thats the nature of the forms and the beast. Good carers often struggle to fit in the allocated tasks in the time allocated to them. Hours in reality are often not allocated to people to meet their full care needs; care tasks are actually squeezed into time to fit whatever budgets made available for that person.
this is true but what I was trying to explain was what we were paid was based on needs assessment
I understood what you were on about, which is why I made it a general statement rather than saying you were lieing.
|
|
|
|
Post by Defenestrated Fipplebox on Apr 20, 2020 9:46:14 GMT
To contribute to thread drift, how do you propose that society meets the needs of providing everyone with the level of ongoing care that was once only afforded to the Dowager Baroness of Tweedledum? Not only in financial terms but also in Human resources terms? When the number of cared-for exceeds the number of carers in Full Time Equivalent how do you deliver care?
Families will have to do more and for longer, as they did in the past.
|
|
|
|
Post by Defenestrated Fipplebox on Apr 20, 2020 10:09:50 GMT
I agree with that? How do you incentivise that? Carrot or stick?
That is the difficult question.
Subsidised Care will have to be rationed to a higher level of need, at a nationally agreed level. The richer can choose to spend their savings etc before this on care homes if they choose to, but no subsidy. Everyone else family working with friends and neighbours will have to sort it. Initially I'd probably go for carrot, decent carers allowance not very low income reliant etc; but if needed stick including prosecution if you leave close family to rot in squallor. (I realisesome interesting family disputes could end up in court with this.) |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 20, 2020 10:39:01 GMT
This is nowt new, since about 2017 one of our services have been running between 1 to 3 full timers down. We have to deliver the hours otherwise they will be cut so we have to get agency if we can't cover but it's expensive and our service directors don't like it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Defenestrated Fipplebox on Apr 20, 2020 11:59:57 GMT
The bottom line however is that if you are not willing to let people live out their twilight years in poverty, loneliness, isolation and destitution, then they have you over a barrel because at the margins, their family are. There are people who have made no provision, either financial or in human capital, who have no family, friends or neighbours who care. Your wish is that their failure to make provision should have no consequence. The state should simply provide it. In which case, why should I make provision? I don't need to. And even if I have made provision, I have supportive daughters, friends, a pension plan, a home, ....why should I sell my home to pay for care you are giving free to people who made no provision? So we are back to demanding free care, of a high standard, for everyone, by staff who you demand should be well paid. And there is neither enough money or people to deliver that. Your insistence on a cradle to grave welfare state is undeliverable.
If they can cope in squallor, yes we will probably have to let them, at all ages.
The question is if people can't cope, what then?
No easy answer.
Personally I think the where to spend question is much wider, it has go right into the NHS spend. We need to ask questions there also.
Should we pay if you've injured yourself over exercising? Should we pay if you're illness is due to lifestyle? Should we pay because you were born in the wrong body? Should we pay if you are injured in a brawl? etc
|
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Apr 20, 2020 16:05:14 GMT
To contribute to thread drift, how do you propose that society meets the needs of providing everyone with the level of ongoing care that was once only afforded to the Dowager Baroness of Tweedledum? Not only in financial terms but also in Human resources terms? When the number of cared-for exceeds the number of carers in Full Time Equivalent how do you deliver care? Families will have to do more and for longer, as they did in the past.
No, we will have to stop spending money on free drugs to keep people alive without being able to lengthen quality of life. Increasing life for people who will permanently 'need care' of the sort we are now talking about needing is only financially viable if: 1. people pay for it themselves, or 2. we pay taxes to cover the cost. Families will not 'have to' do anything, though no doubt some will turn on the guilt to try and make them. They won't, though. I would vote for any party which proposed legalising of voluntary euthanasia. I fully intend to take advantage of that and have ensured I have the money to do so if necessary. |
|
|
|
Post by Defenestrated Fipplebox on Apr 20, 2020 16:41:10 GMT
Families will have to do more and for longer, as they did in the past.
No, we will have to stop spending money on free drugs to keep people alive without being able to lengthen quality of life. Increasing life for people who will permanently 'need care' of the sort we are now talking about needing is only financially viable if: 1. people pay for it themselves, or 2. we pay taxes to cover the cost. Families will not 'have to' do anything, though no doubt some will turn on the guilt to try and make them. They won't, though. I would vote for any party which proposed legalising of voluntary euthanasia. I fully intend to take advantage of that and have ensured I have the money to do so if necessary.
I agree with more or less all you say there.
We need to stop funding operations via the NHS just to keep people alive. about financial viability, points 1 & 2 you make are totally right. Regarding 'have to' I would hope it would become more the norm that people 'would do' as have to is almost impossible to acheive. Voluntary Euthanasia, with the correct safeguards, Yes.
|
|
