The Conservative Party

metalblue said:
No, kids being in care is a shit thing. But it’s better that than neglected or worse, dead, kids. Where is the evidence to support that funding cuts has increased the need for children to be in care? It may be out there but it just seems rather tenuous. I’ve read there is a deft of foster carers but has their funding been cut? I thought the problem was a lack of those willing to do the role.

The question about cycle is a good one. I don’t know. Kids need role models and I suspect for the people that work in care homes it’s hard to give them the attention they need however hard they work. Now if someone said to me care homes are failing due to a funding crisis I’d not question it (well I might check now but that cause and effect makes sense).
Click to expand...

Putting kids in care should always be the last resort. I'm sure you agree with me about that. Sometimes their parents aren't evil or bad they were just struggling with issues which they can overcome with support from substance abuse or mental health support services.

Here is another issue. If we deem these women aren't capable of raising children then it is more cruel not to sterilise them. Or maybe we should offer them help and support to work through their issues and for example pull them away from repeated relationships with abusive men.

Redirect Notice

www.google.com

Full disclosure here, I'm not an expert in this field but I did work in a department that commissioned services and part of my job was to redact personal information from children's profiles, it meant I read their life story and I would have known if their parents had been in care themselves. I also know about some of the ad-hoc services councils commissioned (temporary accommodation e.g. budget hotels, caravans, holiday lets with support workers on minimum wage).

Do you think sometimes the care system is capable of doing more harm than good? Taking someone away from their birth family will be emotionally unsettling, even if their parents are feckless and neglectful. And then going from placement to placement. When that is the only option, we have to accept that but sometimes it isn't.

Most residential children's homes are run by private companies motivated by generating profits. They have no incentive to improve the quality of their care if it cuts into those profits or they aren't able to rip-off local authorities even more.

Private Foster care agencies owned by private equity firms.

Redirect Notice

www.google.com
 
metalblue said:
What service cuts have been made that increased the need for kids to go into care? I mean intuitively less money in system = less social workers = less vulnerable kids being spotted by the system = less kids in care. So what children services have been cut and how has that increased the number of people unable or unwilling to look after their own kids?
Click to expand...

Surestart

Redirect Notice

www.google.com

Drug and alcohol

Redirect Notice

www.google.com
 
metalblue said:
What service cuts have been made that increased the need for kids to go into care? I mean intuitively less money in system = less social workers = less vulnerable kids being spotted by the system = less kids in care. So what children services have been cut and how has that increased the number of people unable or unwilling to look after their own kids?
Click to expand...

That is thinking about it in a linear way.

If you take everything in the round it makes perfect sense.

“Providing help and support to children and families early is the only way to reduce demand for high-end statutory services and health and social care in the long run; not doing so is a false economy and, fundamentally, is not in children and young people’s best interests.”

Statutory services haven't been cut, they are ring-fenced. The trouble is that non-statutory support services have been cut, it is the natural result of councils struggling to manage their budget.

Redirect Notice

www.google.com
 
Last edited:
Fode N The Hole said:
Putting kids in care should always be the last resort. I'm sure you agree with me about that. Sometimes their parents aren't evil or bad they were just struggling with issues which they can overcome with support from substance abuse or mental health support services.

Here is another issue. If we deem these women aren't capable of raising children then it is more cruel not to sterilise them. Or maybe we should offer them help and support to work through their issues and for example pull them away from repeated relationships with abusive men.

Redirect Notice

www.google.com

Full disclosure here, I'm not an expert in this field but I did work in a department that commissioned services and part of my job was to redact personal information from children's profiles, it meant I read their life story and I would have known if their parents had been in care themselves. I also know about some of the ad-hoc services councils commissioned (temporary accommodation e.g. budget hotels, caravans, holiday lets with support workers on minimum wage).

Do you think sometimes the care system is capable of doing more harm than good? Taking someone away from their birth family will be emotionally unsettling, even if their parents are feckless and neglectful. And then going from placement to placement. When that is the only option, we have to accept that but sometimes it isn't.

Most residential children's homes are run by private companies motivated by generating profits. They have no incentive to improve the quality of their care if it cuts into those profits or they aren't able to rip-off local authorities even more.

Private Foster care agencies owned by private equity firms.

Redirect Notice

www.google.com
Click to expand...

I fully agree with your opening statement.

Regarding sterilisation of women, absolutely not. Mental health, addiction, etc aren’t irreversible- sterilisation is.

The care system can do far more harm than good - without any hard evidence, and perhaps unfairly, I have in the past been of the opinion social service overly interfere with families that are easy targets - a bit dysfunctional perhaps but not a danger and the kids end up in the system unnecessarily whereas they avoid the real problem cases because of the hostilities they face from the parent(s). I would always favour children staying with their parents obviously where it is safe to do so. And that is in the majority of cases.

I’m trying to unpick what a government can do to keep kids out of care homes - ie what funding cuts have caused this because that’s the crux of the original post - uncaring Tory bastards oversee more kids going into care type of thing. If it really is a simple case of money then a compelling case can be made to fund the preventative services.

I read the link to surestart - there was no connection I could see between those centres and kids being in care. The drug deaths, yes I can see that connection - parent struggles/or worse and kids go into care. But if we say that most kids are in care due to abuse or neglect - is it all about money and if so where should it be put (and I appreciate it’ll be holistic so not a single answer)? In cold terms an extra 25k kids in care is about £5bn a year to the tax payer plus the ongoing costs once they reach adulthood. Obviously the mental and emotional impacts are impossible to put a price on. Oh and care homes should be state run, but with the numbers being chucked at it you can see why private firms want a bit of the action.
 
Think another u turn will be coming soon with the health and social care vote tonight.

At this rate, Johnson won’t make it til the next election, which I wouldn’t be surprised if it was the plan all along. Rebrand again and get the next incarnation in that can pretend they didn’t really support the previous regime and the cycle continues.
 
metalblue said:
I fully agree with your opening statement.

Regarding sterilisation of women, absolutely not. Mental health, addiction, etc aren’t irreversible- sterilisation is.
Click to expand...

PTSD from trauma can be irreversible, some will lack the insight to change. The woman in the article Leah has come to own conclusion that she doesn't want to have more children, but what do you do for the mothers who have 8-10 children only to have them all removed?

Sometimes there childhood trauma can be exacerbated by other conditions such as learning disabilities, they will never develop insight.

As I said, in those instances it is crueler not to sterilise them and prevent them churning out children (who may be be born with conditions like foetal alcohol syndrome). This wouldn't have to be forced (it could be incentivised) and could use temporary methods such as IUDs.

It’s a false dichotomy to say that women have a right to bear a child but their personal characteristics or historical behaviour means they have no right to raise it. That only means she becomes an involuntary surrogate.

It is unpalatable to say this but the direct consequences of doing it is less emotionally damaging than taking away multiple children and letting them live with false hope.

It’s not going to happen, it is considered a crime against humanity but on this single issue, in consequentialist terms it may the better option.

metalblue said:
The care system can do far more harm than good - without any hard evidence, and perhaps unfairly, I have in the past been of the opinion social service overly interfere with families that are easy targets - a bit dysfunctional perhaps but not a danger and the kids end up in the system unnecessarily whereas they avoid the real problem cases because of the hostilities they face from the parent(s). I would always favour children staying with their parents obviously where it is safe to do so. And that is in the majority of cases.
Click to expand...
metalblue said:
I’m trying to unpick what a government can do to keep kids out of care homes - ie what funding cuts have caused this because that’s the crux of the original post - uncaring Tory bastards oversee more kids going into care type of thing. If it really is a simple case of money then a compelling case can be made to fund the preventative services.

I read the link to surestart - there was no connection I could see between those centres and kids being in care. The drug deaths, yes I can see that connection - parent struggles/or worse and kids go into care. But if we say that most kids are in care due to abuse or neglect - is it all about money and if so where should it be put (and I appreciate it’ll be holistic so not a single answer)?
Click to expand...

The article stated surestart centres encouraged better parenting, among numerous other benefits. The Welsh government is about to extend free school meals in primary schools to all pupils and England can't even maintain services at pre-2010 levels? Disgraceful

There is no arguable case to support cutting children's centres. Austerity was just a ruse to carry out class warfare to the benefit of the wealthy, which makes it all the more repugnant.

It doesn't have to be uncaring tory bastards, just lack of foresight, and cognitive dissonance that self-serving policies (tax cuts, policies that overly favour landlords and wealthy asset holders) won't do damage to the most vulnerable in society.

We know there will have been people who have had their lives drastically affected by cuts in services. We can never know the true impact of these changes.

metalblue said:
In cold terms an extra 25k kids in care is about £5bn a year to the tax payer plus the ongoing costs once they reach adulthood. Obviously the mental and emotional impacts are impossible to put a price on. Oh and care homes should be state run, but with the numbers being chucked at it you can see why private firms want a bit of the action.
Click to expand...

I agree you can't put a price on it. It's shameful that so many of the adult prison population (25%) were in the care of the local authority as children. How many of the extra 20-30,000 in care each year will spend time inside?
 
Johnson was never fit to hold any high office. Making him PM is a sick joke.

He's had the gullible fooled for a while but it's impossible for him to keep up the charade.

To quote A. Lincoln, you can fool some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time.

Time for Johnson is running out and that is a very good thing for this country.
 
dave_blue12 said:
Johnson was never fit to hold any high office. Making him PM is a sick joke.

He's had the gullible fooled for a while but it's impossible for him to keep up the charade.

To quote A. Lincoln, you can fool some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time.

Time for Johnson is running out and that is a very good thing for this country.
Click to expand...
I watched Johnson last week on the BBC Parliament channel when he was being interviewed by the cross party select committee on standards.

I'm no tory, but I was genuinely shocked by his performance. He is clearly well out of his depth as a politician, let alone being Prime Minister. It is well known he doesn't do detail, but it was a real eyeopener just how little grasp he had on any of the matters that were raised.

The committee members knew more than he did, he was obviously uncomfortable, rocking back and forth in his chair, and he didn't offer anything other than 'Yes, you are quite correct about *******, and it's something we're going to look into'.

No plan, no thought, no ideas, nothing.

I'm not Johnson bashing here for the sake of it, far from it, but it isn't right when members of an all party committee are suggesting what the Prime Minister should be doing. He hasn't got a clue what's going on, just a small grasp of the basics that is astounding considering he is supposed to be running the country, and his reaction when confronted about some lies he told was pure indignation followed by a shrug of the shoulders.

He is totally unfit for office, and that came out in spade loads.
 
metalblue said:
So you think kids should be left in homes where they are abused or neglected then? Or perhaps left to fend for themselves if their parent(s) get poorly or die? What a weird thing to try and turn into a negative.
Click to expand...


1000 Surestart centres shut.
Youth Clubs no longer exist
900 libraries shut
Mental Health services slashed
Social services slashed
School playing fields sold off

and once again the Tories are trying to solve a problem that they created.
 
dave_blue12 said:
Johnson was never fit to hold any high office. Making him PM is a sick joke.

He's had the gullible fooled for a while but it's impossible for him to keep up the charade.

To quote A. Lincoln, you can fool some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time.

Time for Johnson is running out and that is a very good thing for this country.
Click to expand...
I did laugh this morning after seeing the breakfast news. I wonder how he'll be compared to his hero Winston in the future.

Churchill:
“What is the use of living, if it be not to strive for noble causes and to make this muddled world a better place for those who will live in it after we are gone?”

“We shall not fail or falter. We shall not weaken or tire. Neither the sudden shock of battle nor the long-drawn trials of vigilance and exertion will wear us down. Give us the tools and we will finish the job.”

Johnson:
"Peppa Pig World. Now that's my kind of place."
 
Citizen of Legoland said:
I did laugh this morning after seeing the breakfast news. I wonder how he'll be compared to his hero Winston in the future.

Churchill:
“What is the use of living, if it be not to strive for noble causes and to make this muddled world a better place for those who will live in it after we are gone?”

“We shall not fail or falter. We shall not weaken or tire. Neither the sudden shock of battle nor the long-drawn trials of vigilance and exertion will wear us down. Give us the tools and we will finish the job.”

Johnson:
"Peppa Pig World. Now that's my kind of place."
Click to expand...
Yeah, but we're not talking about his social care betrayal. Poor families being taxed more and losing the home to pay for parental care so that rich families can keep their family home.
 
Vic said:
Yeah, but we're not talking about his social care betrayal. Poor families being taxed more and losing the home to pay for parental care so that rich families can keep their family home.
Click to expand...

No, we are talking about whether the prime minister is fit to hold the office that he does, which is possibly a far more important discussion even than the social care betrayal, hugely important though that is
 
Fode N The Hole said:
PTSD from trauma can be irreversible, some will lack the insight to change. The woman in the article Leah has come to own conclusion that she doesn't want to have more children, but what do you do for the mothers who have 8-10 children only to have them all removed?

Sometimes there childhood trauma can be exacerbated by other conditions such as learning disabilities, they will never develop insight.

As I said, in those instances it is crueler not to sterilise them and prevent them churning out children (who may be be born with conditions like foetal alcohol syndrome). This wouldn't have to be forced (it could be incentivised) and could use temporary methods such as IUDs.

It’s a false dichotomy to say that women have a right to bear a child but their personal characteristics or historical behaviour means they have no right to raise it. That only means she becomes an involuntary surrogate.

It is unpalatable to say this but the direct consequences of doing it is less emotionally damaging than taking away multiple children and letting them live with false hope.

It’s not going to happen, it is considered a crime against humanity but on this single issue, in consequentialist terms it may the better option.




The article stated surestart centres encouraged better parenting, among numerous other benefits. The Welsh government is about to extend free school meals in primary schools to all pupils and England can't even maintain services at pre-2010 levels? Disgraceful

There is no arguable case to support cutting children's centres. Austerity was just a ruse to carry out class warfare to the benefit of the wealthy, which makes it all the more repugnant.

It doesn't have to be uncaring tory bastards, just lack of foresight, and cognitive dissonance that self-serving policies (tax cuts, policies that overly favour landlords and wealthy asset holders) won't do damage to the most vulnerable in society.

We know there will have been people who have had their lives drastically affected by cuts in services. We can never know the true impact of these changes.



I agree you can't put a price on it. It's shameful that so many of the adult prison population (25%) were in the care of the local authority as children. How many of the extra 20-30,000 in care each year will spend time inside?
Click to expand...

I do get the dichotomy you highlight, it’s an interesting morale and ethical question. I would always err to favour the rights of the individual to select what is best for them rather than the state where they have capacity - or may reasonably be expected to regain capacity. Where they lack capacity on something as fundamental as the right to bare children I would want the courts to approve the “best interest” decision of professionals just to act as a check and balance to the process. But if the woman wanted children even if there was no hope of her retaining them and she understood (had capacity) and accepted the impacts of that it’s not for me or anyone else to deny her that. And yes, however much it may impact the child or mother - otherwise we end up going down a slippery slope that won’t be a big leap to society deciding to terminate severely disabled kids based on quality of life.

I’ve done a bit more digging into the numbers around this topic. In England there are around 67 kids per 10,000 in care (including foster care), in Wales that 109 per 10,000 (163% higher than England) and in Scotland it is 139 per 10,000 (207% higher than England). Why the disparity? Wales has Flying Start which was aimed to fill the hole that the reduction in sure start funding brought about but the number of kids in care in Wales has stubbornly increased. Scotland has seen a marginal reduction from just shy of 160 per 10,000 since 2012 so what social policies have they implemented since then - certainly they have gone hard on preventative measures on substance abuse since then, a possible link? It may be that funding for social services has declined meaning that they lack the capability to intervene in the family setting and so place children in the care system more precautionary than in the past? But that still doesn’t explain away the massive disparity between England, Wales and Scotland.

I do agree with you on your lack of foresight comment, sadly these unintended consequences are often ignored for fear of holding their hands up and saying we weren’t wrong in itself to do this, but we didn’t appreciate it would do that therefore we got it wrong. And until you get a change of government who are able to right the wrongs of previous governments they remain a problem.
 
NPBlue said:
I watched Johnson last week on the BBC Parliament channel when he was being interviewed by the cross party select committee on standards.

I'm no tory, but I was genuinely shocked by his performance. He is clearly well out of his depth as a politician, let alone being Prime Minister. It is well known he doesn't do detail, but it was a real eyeopener just how little grasp he had on any of the matters that were raised.

The committee members knew more than he did, he was obviously uncomfortable, rocking back and forth in his chair, and he didn't offer anything other than 'Yes, you are quite correct about *******, and it's something we're going to look into'.

No plan, no thought, no ideas, nothing.

I'm not Johnson bashing here for the sake of it, far from it, but it isn't right when members of an all party committee are suggesting what the Prime Minister should be doing. He hasn't got a clue what's going on, just a small grasp of the basics that is astounding considering he is supposed to be running the country, and his reaction when confronted about some lies he told was pure indignation followed by a shrug of the shoulders.

He is totally unfit for office, and that came out in spade loads.
Click to expand...

I think this is a fair assessment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top