Shameful

[Two_Sheds]

I thought our elder generation was a HIGH PRIORITY to this government.

these " carers" we employed because they are cheap

Saving money is what's important to this gov't

[Two_Sheds]

no British people are prepared to train to do jobs like this

Nonsense. We have "carers" parking outside our house every day (there's sheltered housing over the road), they're all women, white British. I don't see many men going into care ~ it doesn't seem like an attractive career option for the chaps. Perhaps because it's low paid? Hard, thankless work?

I used to know a very infirm old lady who was fairly wealthy but refused to pay for good care. She really wasn't able to cope, but refused to leave her (increasingly ramshackle) large house to move somewhere more suitable. That's a different argument.

Her carers were the usual: private firm (in it to make money, after all it's a business). To make more profit, the care firm had the staffing cut to the bone: they had only 10 mins to "do" each client, which involved a wash or a toilet, and preparing a meal. If the client was being troublesome or couldn't get out of bed, that was the 10 mins gone.

The carers were on min.wage but also had to pay their own transport costs, and were sent to visit clients all over the city ~ no effort was made to organise the rotas into a system where one carer covered one area: the firm didn't care, they weren't paying the petrol.

Of course the care firm had a high turnover of staff but there's always someone more desperate for a job.

It's nothing to do with British people being too grand to care: it's down to economics. Rent & living costs are high in the UK: if you aren't earning enough to cover your costs, you don't take the job.
If you're a foreigner over here for a year, you can put up with living 3 (or more) adults to a room, and earn more in a month than you could in your home country (E. Europe).

[Hilary B]

All the arguments about low pay etc are perfectly valid, BUT, money doesn't magically appear from nowhere. Everything has to be paid for by someone, somehow, and if it is government funded, that means the taxpayer.
You try getting elected on a manifesto to put 2p on income tax to pay for better care for the vulnerable in society and see where it gets you. Everyone wants these things paid for, but everyone wants 'them' to pay for it. There is also a limit on how hard you can tax 'the better off' before they go find somewhere that doesn't, taking their economic skills with them, and no-one has yet invented a formula for taxing those whose money doesn't keep the economy turning, without also taxing (to deterrent level) those who use their wealth to prime the economic pump.

[Potstubsdustbins]

SWMBO works in a council for people with dementia. There is a mix of sex's and ethnicity and no one is uncaring at the home. The residents (or is it service user's this year) are well cared for but even here they suffer with a staff shortage especially at night when there are just two carers on to cover the entire home.

I own personal opinion is that yes we need to save money on the public finance's but we need to prioritize better how the available money is spent.

When the report about the abuse hit the screen SWMBO's first question was 'how can it be an isolated incident when they have sacked five staff'.

Colin