-
Welcome to Stafford Forum. Please or sign-up and start posting!
Own it
- Thread starter Tilly
- Start date
proactive
Enjoying a drop of red.
That won't be necessary if Long-Bailey, Thornbury or Burgon end up leading the Labour party.Some boundary changes could be in order too. Consolidation of territory gained.
Gramaisc
Forum O. G.
By my calculations, that was the 400,000th post on the ForumSome boundary changes could be in order too. Consolidation of territory gained.
This is what people fail to understand. The contracting out of services to private providers at astronomical cost to make minute savings on on-costs, at the expensive of quality. Baffling that people don’t see it. They get dazzled by branding.
Lucy
Well-Known Forumite
If a GP is paid £100k (I have no idea how much they are paid), and then suddenly a company takes over GP surgeries, they aren't going to have a pay cut. For the company to make a profit they'll be charging the government £120k for the same staff. I'm with you @bunique, I'm not sure what there is that people don't understand.
Or they make cuts elsewhere - less GPs, shorter opening hours making appointments more difficult to get, less practice nurses, less office staff, less investment in training and in equipment. Nobody wins except shareholders.
In parallel, the market is currently seeing an increase in investments in companies which run private children’s homes, anticipating the number of children in care will continue to grow under the current government. And all of that money (anything from £500 to £10,000 per week. WEEK. per child) goes straight into private hands instead of being invested in a) preventing children coming into care in the first place, b) supporting families so their children can return home, or c) providing in-house care placements which are usually of a higher standard and accountability.
proactive
Enjoying a drop of red.
I have an acquaintance who is starting up a children's home in another part of the country. Her interest in doing so is purely from a profit point of view. Poor kids...
And why not, it’s very, very lucrative. And no financial disincentive to just move “problematic” kids on, instead of trying to actually help them. Is it any wonder looked after children are the most vulnerable to being exploited both sexually and through county lines? It’s a national scandal and nobody cares because they’re predominantly from low income families who have no voice.
