I hope the left can out data them somehow.
Requires lots of money.
How our 1990s funder/provider 'market' approach does not work for disability support services is touched on in this story about Donella Knox's murder of her autistic daughter Ruby:
Butcher said that even though Knox was allocated respite care she couldn't take it as there were no qualified carers in her region.
Allocating a number of hours does not make a suitable provider magically appear, except in libertarian fantasies.
An earlier story reports some testimony at her trial:
Medical professionals denied that the system had painted Donella into a corner. They said that 252 days a year of respite care was made available to her - a higher allocation than anyone else on their books. She could also choose the carer. Health records show Donella was getting "regular and sufficient" breaks away from Ruby.
One support worker told the court Donella had rejected residential respite options and was a person who "dwelt on the past".
This is a disturbing and complex situation. Somebody might want to do a separate post about it?
they seem to operate under an "alternative law" and "alternative rules" to justify their "alternative interpretation"
Sounds like that Ministry in general. I've witnessed their lawyers claiming that their organisation is not bound by a standard legal duty of care to a patient because their requirement to be efficient with public funds overrides it. Oh how our QC laughed at that one.
Wow. Thanks, Simon.
The incompetence of the police
Have they ever successfully prosecuted anyone under the Electoral Act? Seem to wimp out every time I've seen.
CCGs [the UK equivalent of NZ's NASC agencies] were setting limits on how much they were prepared to pay for supporting people in their homes compared to an “alternative option”, which is usually a care home. They were willing to pay between 10% and 40% above the care home option, which will often not be enough to keep someone in their own home.
That sounds awfully familiar already.
that poll didn't mention ACT or the Conservatives
May simply not have had any supporters in the sample.
which is true I wonder?
It is safe to assume whatever Chump says is a lie - eg: we mutually cancelled the meeting.