Discussion
Loading...

#Tag

  • About
  • Code of conduct
  • Privacy
  • Users
  • Instances
  • About Bonfire
Donald Roy
@djr2024@mastodon.social  ·  activity timestamp yesterday

@ChrisMayLA6 In my view the first stage would be use a right of 'self-funders' to request local authorities to act for them to get rid of the existing 'wo-tier' market for social care. This would cost public money upfront but would generate almost immediately around £ 2 Billion p.a. savings in the #nhs due to a very large reduction in 'stranded' patients ( with any luck this might get logged by the #officeforbudgetresponsibility ). So no immediate loss of capacity.

Donald Roy
@djr2024@mastodon.social replied  ·  activity timestamp yesterday

@ChrisMayLA6 Once the public sector - through local authorities - has become a monopsony buyer of social care then it could then exercise a degree of preference for non-profit or even 'in house' provision , leading ultimately to a national care service that was publicly provided as well as publicly funded. However a great deal of lobbying can be expected against this. Some of this may well come from inside #labour - through consultancies linked to #burnham 's opponents.

  • Copy link
  • Flag this comment
  • Block
Emeritus Prof. Christopher May
@ChrisMayLA6@mastodon.me.uk  ·  activity timestamp 3 days ago

@rmblaber1956 @HarriettMB @junesim63

Its a good Q. and one for which I have no answer, other than 'follow the (lack of) money'... allied with actions speak louder than words.

Richard Michael Blaber
@rmblaber1956@mastodon.social replied  ·  activity timestamp 2 days ago

@ChrisMayLA6 @HarriettMB @junesim63 But there ISN'T a "lack of money" - that is a #myth. The idea that the #cost of #socialsecurity is "spiralling out of control" is a #lie. One expects it from the #Tories, but to get the same thing from #Labour is absolutely disgraceful.

  • Copy link
  • Flag this comment
  • Block
Emeritus Prof. Christopher May
@ChrisMayLA6@mastodon.me.uk  ·  activity timestamp last week

@rmblaber1956 @openDemocracy @ZackPolanski

Well, OK, I can see what you're saying; but as its unlikely (even) the Burnham administration is going to adopt much of the GPEW agenda, so I'm not sure that they would be 'self-centred, self-serving bastards' to want to see the Labour Party get itself into the position where the GPEW would be able to push further (much further) into proximity to (or even actual) Government....

Richard Michael Blaber
@rmblaber1956@mastodon.social replied  ·  activity timestamp 6 days ago

@ChrisMayLA6 @openDemocracy @ZackPolanski The #LabourParty is clearly not going to adopt very much, if any, of the #Green #agenda, & their failure to do so will only encourage #progressives to vote #Green. It's not about @thegreenparty entering #Government, as such (except as part of a #coalition), but of #Labour being excluded from Government by its own folly.

  • Copy link
  • Flag this comment
  • Block
Log in

CoreSignal social

A minimalist social node dedicated to high-fidelity exchange and digital autonomy. CoreSignal strips away the noise of the modern web to provide a clean, functional space for meaningful connection within the Fediverse

CoreSignal social: About · Code of conduct · Privacy · Users · Instances
CoreSignal social · 1.0.0-rc.3.6 no JS en
Automatic federation enabled
  • Explore
  • About
  • Members
  • Code of Conduct
Home
Login