[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/phpbb/session.php on line 585: sizeof(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/phpbb/session.php on line 641: sizeof(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable
Statement from Carers UK - Page 2 - Carers UK Forum

Statement from Carers UK

Discuss news stories and political issues that affect carers.
How can the Labour party deny that they will not remove the D.L.A. or A.A. when it is there in black and white, if / when the D.L.A. or A.A is removed from the over 65`s they will receive the same level of cash support from the local authority via social services, those who have either D.L.A. or A.A. will not requier a care plan to be set in place, the Labour minister ANDY BURNHAM is playing with the lives of carers the disabled and their families
With the greatest respect, George, why defend the indefensible? It really is time for a change, nobody loves this system. If I were a politician I would have the bottle to stand up and say the obvious: "the Welfare State as it stands has failed the most vulnerable in our society - so lets make a better one that actually works!"
"the Welfare State as it stands has failed the most vulnerable in our society - so lets make a better one that actually works!"
I am curious Rob.As much as I agree with you about Welfare Reform being needed,I dont agree with the proposal about disability benefits for the over 65's being handed to LAs.
Whats your opinion?
I don't know about anyone else but while the Welfare State (as we used to call it) needs reforming so that it actually works, I don't see the current proposals to shift AA - and obviously DLA at some point if not immediately - as a reform of the Welfare State so much as robbing Peter to pay Paul. And there will certainly be more losers than winners through the application of eligibility criteria.

Reforms have to have a clarity of purpose and a genuine goal other than to save money or to shift it around the system. There's a human cost involved and whatever the faults of the Welfare State it at least had the purpose of reducing that cost. I don't see that here.
We've said it before but just to be clear, Carers Uk is against abolition of DLA and AA. We need a settlement about how care is going to be funded - it has to be sustainable.

Carers UK's campaigning has always taken the stance that we campaign for what is achievable, but keep in our sights what we are striving for. Much of the carers' legislation on the statute books now is not how we would have wished it. At one time the Cares Equal Opportunities Bill for instance had measures which would place a duty on health bodies to address carers' issues. We lost that provision, but we got carers placed on the equalities agenda which was an important step forward and something to build on - we now have the Equalities Bill before Parliament which will seek to put an end to discrimination against carers. Our previous Chief Executive, Baronness Pitkeathley described it as salami slices. The principle behind the Personal Care at Home Bill we see in that light.
This story continues to dominate media today

Westminster unites in anger over secret talks to reach care Bill deal
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/p ... 024158.ece
Everyone is missing the point the new national care serice if funded by the removal of A.A & D.L.A- those who lose their A,.A. or D.L.A. will receive the same level of cash support so the question is and always will be where is the funding coming from for every other person who wants help from the new national care service as those who have had their A.A. - D.L.A. removed will be entitled to the service provide by their benefits,therfore . only those in receipt of either A.A. or D.L.A will be entitled to use the new national care service unless those who lose their benefits do not get the same level of cash support from the service or extra funding is set in place from another source ....... like the tax payer....
The Lords still scrutinise legislation, don't they? And they can delay it too. So my guess is this will fall by the wayside anyway. I cant see much reason for us to waste perfectly good time debating something that is almost certainly going to fall at the first hurdle.
Put social care above party squabbles

signed by

Imelda Redmond, Carers UK

Stephen Burke, Counsel and Care

Emma Stone, Joseph Rowntree Foundation

Des Kelly, National Care Forum

Martin Green, English Community Care Association

Ruth Sutherland, Alzheimer’s Society

Michelle Mitchell, Age Concern and Help the Aged

Cara Brown, Resolution Foundation

Lynne Berry, WRVS

Simon Gillespie, MS Society

Ciaran Devane, Macmillan Cancer Support

Paul Woodward, Sue Ryder Care

Srabeni Sen, Contact A Family

Anne Roberts, Crossroads Care

Alex Fox, Princess Royal Trust for Carers

Sam Smethers, Grandparents Plus
Typical - two comments from people who don't know what caring is about.
I wonder where they're going to find all these 'specialist nurses' from? There are so many conditions which need specialist treatment and can't come under the term 'general'. Spinal injured paraplegics have differing needs to spinal injured tetraplegics (it's an entirely different world, even though spinal injury is the common denominator). Head injuries need differing care to say, stroke sufferers, or dementia sufferers etc etc. Just how are (ANY) Government bodies going to allocate 'specialist' care? How many school leavers decide to enter the specialist care career routes, how many do you know who say I want to train as a specialist in spinal care, or in dementia care, or in incontinence care and so on.
When hubby becomes older, does he come under the 'elderly' banner or the 'disabled' banner?