Lord Darzi

Discuss news stories and political issues that affect carers.
And your problem is?

Darzi was happy to buy off a few carers with a few extra quid to sign away their right to say no.

Personally if CUK agreed to that, I'd walk. The right to say no has to be non-negotiable. But if you want to, George, there's nothing to stop you - just keep me out of it. I value my rights.
dont understand a thing you are saying ..when did DARZI give carers cash to sign away their rights to say no ???

he has raised many issues that the likes of cares uk should have talked about, as i have said we should in the future have no one forced to become a carer and that will never ever happen, we have legislation via the human rights act which would i am sure prevent that kind of enforcement ..but what we have now is a complete farce many carers struggle on the lowest benefit payable and are compelled to work 35 hours per week for £58 he talks of rewarding carers with what could be a higher allowance he also says we should get help with employment & housing..and ongoing support ..his ideas are all about finding a cheap and way to provide social care for the eldery and i am sure you would agree care at home is what most elderly want and if the family can provide it then lets pay them for doing so...this could also enable those with assets to keep more of their hard earned cash /the home ..they will probably be able to delay the day the need residential social care by what could be years..which may be bad news for the care home industry ....

i dont have a problem with what he says but i do have a problem with the likes of carers uk who have just rejected his plans outright ..it`s good to talk
Darzi said carers 'must be told to help care for their elderly relatives rather than rely on the NHS' - yes? That means that their current right to say no would be withdrawn under Darzi's plans.

The "carrot" he offers is an increase in Carers Allowance.

If the effect of that is not more money (for a few) in return for signing away your rights, then please tell me what interpretation you place on it? Because the only other one I can put on it would not be acceptable on this forum, but has a Biblical reference.
You may feel that this would be an improvement because you don't believe in other ways of supporting people, but not everyone feels the way you do.

It's very simple, George. If we consider negotiating away our rights, we might as well order the chains and de-abolish slavery while we're at it. Because the effect will be the same - too many carers already feel that way and we should be making life better for them.

Mind you, the upside is that Darzi is no longer a minister and has little influence by comparison. I just hope the current government doesn't go for it.
I've missed something ..who is Lord Darzi? I've been a carer for 33 years, but no CA at the moment because now I care part time for two,not full time for one.
I agree with Charles47.I happen to care for my wife,we would not have it any other way.That is my/our choice.Compulsion,no matter what bribe was offerred should not be part of the equation.
I find it hard to believe that a carer is willing to sign away the rights of family members for money. I did not choose to care for money, I chose to care for love, money has never been part of that choice which is just as well as, unlike you George, I have never received Carers Allowance and, frankly, money would never be an incentive nor influence my choice, I am a wife and daughter first, not a carer, and certainly not an enslaved carer which is what this would make us.
i
as i have said we should in the future have no one forced to become a carer and that will never ever happen, we have legislation via the human rights act which would i am sure prevent that kind of enforcement ..
I would not be so sure of that, George, today's judgement in the case of Reilly and Wilson v DWP could make inclusion of the compulsory care of a relative as one of the conditions for entitlement to benefits for the unemployed all too easy to enforce.
Parsifal, that sounds ominous. Where can we find out more about this ruling please?