The Conservative Party

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).

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.


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.

 
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?

Surestart


Drug and alcohol

 
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?

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.

 
Last edited:
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.


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.


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.
 
I fully agree with your opening statement.

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

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 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)?

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.

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.

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.
 

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

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.