Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Nigel Nicholson's avatar

I could argue that this is Labour dog-whistle politics.

The important thing should be the quality, safety and cost of care, not whether the owners pay themselves a dividend or a salary. Historically the Church and local authorities have a very bad record; and you acknowledge above that the change to not-for-profit requires additional funding.

With the grooming gang scandal still not being properly addressed, it would be informative to see an analysis of the ownership models of the children's homes involved.

Jacky Smith's avatar

Add to these concerns the fact that local authorities are already having to place children in illegal childrens homes, some of which are just plain dangerous.

When Thatcher started the "privatisation" trend, people in social care could see that profiteers would take over.

In one county I worked near, the best adult residential care was provided by organised crime as a means of money laundering.

Labour did nothing about the problem either - and here we are.

https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/stories/2026-01-16/new-report-reveals-shocking-prevalence-of-illegal-childrens-homes

9 more comments...

No posts

Ready for more?