Just been listening to Andy Burnham on care ......

Party lines (or Shared Service) were just a legacy of a growing demand for telephones. They were used to reduce costs on line plant and later exchange equipment and until the technology was developed to have separate lines.

In the early 1970s the 1+1 Carrier System (WB 900) was introduced. This allowed two customers to share a line in complete secrecy from one another. The Carrier system used a higher frequency for one party so they could not hear each other and each phone only rang if their line was called.

System X and System Y digital telephone exchanges were introduced in the UK during the late 1970s and early 1980s which did not require Shared Service.

Privatisation plans for BT were not announced until 1982 so party lines were nothing to do with politics and political parties but all to do with technology development and capacity.

How can (for example) prioritising clean water over shareholder profits, an equal care system that isn’t unfairly mean-tested and an electoral system that should ensure that all parties are fairly represented bad things?

JuBut

He's a liar, underhand, a cheat and a thief!!! Wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw him!!!

Is he?

I genuinely believe that utilities should not been owned by private entities, most especially foreign private companies.

Unions have far less power now and no all of them actually fund the LP.

Why is it some people cannot bear to admit that political party of choice might make mistakes.

Blair made plenty.

The last Tory 14 years of governance was a disaster in many ways.

Give AB a chance, it’s well overdue our utility companies were brought to task.

Care, at both senior pension level and in every other aspect needs huge reviews and change.

Graphite

How can (for example) prioritising clean water over shareholder profits, an equal care system that isn’t unfairly mean-tested and an electoral system that should ensure that all parties are fairly represented bad things?

It cannot!

It needs doing.

Thank goodness a PM talking hard core politics, the nitty gritty that others have carefully skirted round. It will be hard and not always popular but am hoping he can go he distance because this country needs

Whoops posted prematurely.
Following on ‘this country needs a radical shake up in order to deal with real issues and not those rooted in populism.

Brilliant speech.

Nothing can happen overnight

But I agree with the policies and loved it when he referred to turning around the damage that Thatcher had done.

"No such things as society" she said, privatising all

If run right I believe in caring hands on social organisation to get out needs,

that curbs gross wealth when it just causes the gap between those who have and those who have not to grow wider

👍

JenniRen

The seventies were a terrible time with the strikes, but I don't think Andy Burnham wants to turn the clock back to then, nor is he looking at that time with rose-tinted spectacles. It sounds as if he wants to put right what is not working at present but, if it is working, to keep the status quo. He wants public services to work for the public, not to line the pockets of millionaires and overseas companies.

Exactly. He doesn't want to go backwards, but to regain what we lost under Thatcher.

There is never going to be a far way of paying for care, either increase taxation and give care free for all that " Need" it

Or

Accept, that a threshold for savings is set and the rest comes from value of your property as it does now.

Either way the highest earners or highest wealth pay more either through more tax or property value, I doubt change would satisfy all.

The principle of those with the most, pay the most. Which seems fair. The problem is though is that they don’t.

At present those at the bottom will loose everything that they strived for their whole lives. That is certainly not fair.

Those who castigate Labour for all ills might remember that for 75 of the last hundred years we have had Conservative governments, so 75% of the wrongs should lay at their door, not Labour.

He wants to fund it by removing the triple lock from 2030.

Which won’t be enough to fund it.

But, as ever, it’s style over substance with him.

silverlining48

Those who castigate Labour for all ills might remember that for 75 of the last hundred years we have had Conservative governments, so 75% of the wrongs should lay at their door, not Labour.

Don’t confuse the ignorant with facts. Show some pity 😥

I have often thought we should return the SEN qualification and use if in the training if carers. This would give them a career path and make the job more attractive.

I would like to know how many people currently enter residential care when their needs could realistically have been managed at home if the right support had been available.

DiamondLily

He wants to fund it by removing the triple lock from 2030.

Which won’t be enough to fund it.

But, as ever, it’s style over substance with him.

Would you like to back your last comment with some facts?

Whitewavemark2

The principle of those with the most, pay the most. Which seems fair. The problem is though is that they don’t.

At present those at the bottom will loose everything that they strived for their whole lives. That is certainly not fair.

I know that you are talking about social care, but I would apply your principle more widely and reword it to, ‘those who take the most etc’. Because the wealthy are those who have taken the most of the money issued into the economy and used it to enrich themselves at the expense of everyone else and not particularly productively.

FriedGreenTomatoes2

Maybe it’s just me as so many of you are in thrall to Labour.
I’m just not.

Me neither. Back to the mess of the 70’s.

Your point seems to be a totally different one to Whitewave's Maizie. Why can't she argue here own?

Whitewave, I wonder if the only fair way is national insurance - in the same way we pay for the NHS?

here her!

I can understand why Reform voters dislike Burnham. At the moment he is very much out charisma-ing Farage, for the first time there’s a showman in charge, and that must be very galling.

Meandrogrog

FriedGreenTomatoes2

Maybe it’s just me as so many of you are in thrall to Labour.
I’m just not.

Me neither. Back to the mess of the 70’s.

Only as much as others are "in thrall" to attacking those who don't want the sort of transactional society the extremes of the right seem to be wishing on us.

The problem seems to be your perceived view of the Overton Window rather than reality. In other words I feel you think more people think as you do than is actually and factually true.

DaisyAnneReturns

Your point seems to be a totally different one to Whitewave's Maizie. Why can't she argue here own?

Whitewave, I wonder if the only fair way is national insurance - in the same way we pay for the NHS?

It isn’t different at all. It just modifies the wording of her ‘principle’ to emphasise that ‘those who have most’ actually have it because they have taken most of the money issued into the economy.

And surely most people know that National Insurance doesn’t pay for the NHS and never has done?

The triple lock has been under threat for some time.
I am not a Labour voter but I listened to Andy Burnham's speech. He is a much better orator than Sir Keir Starmer and is full of enthusiasm about tackling some thorny issues, one of them being social care.
I think it is high time that the State pension was means tested. I have friends who are very well off having downsized and with private pensions who see the State pension as pin money. Handy for Christmas presents and holidays. Others, like me, rely solely on a State pension.
Means testing seems a sensible way forward and would free up a substantial amount of money to kick start social care reform.

MaizieD

DaisyAnneReturns

Your point seems to be a totally different one to Whitewave's Maizie. Why can't she argue here own?

Whitewave, I wonder if the only fair way is national insurance - in the same way we pay for the NHS?

It isn’t different at all. It just modifies the wording of her ‘principle’ to emphasise that ‘those who have most’ actually have it because they have taken most of the money issued into the economy.

And surely most people know that National Insurance doesn’t pay for the NHS and never has done?

So how do you stop successful businessmen such as Lord Sugar from taking most? Why do you want to?