Stolen shamelessly from this morning's Politico email update. Nice summary of some of the challenges with the proposals, and a reminder of why the last few PMs haven't touched this issue with a barge poll. Well, perhaps unfair on May, who did try and do something on this issue and look what happened there! --- 6 SOCIAL CARE PROBLEMS: By Playbook’s count there are six main problems that the architects of the social care policy will have to grapple with over the days, weeks and years ahead. It is hard to escape the feeling that while Downing Street may be delighted to have got through the week as best they could have hoped, many of these could come back to bite them before the next election. 1 — It’s not enough: After policy wonks and the care sector had time to look at the details, criticism of the policy — which was initially muted on Tuesday — is now starting to mount. Nadra Ahmed of the National Care Association is on the front page of the Guardian warning: “This is a recovery plan for the NHS and that is very obvious. The funding pot being talked about for social care is not sufficient to even address the issues of today.” Ministers will have to rebut claims in the Mail from analysts LaingBuisson that just 5 percent of elderly people will actually benefit from the policy, because it would take three years in a care home or six years of home care to meet the cap. The average person dies within two years of entering a care home, the Mail’s Dan Martin notes. 2 — Still have to sell your home: Labour leader Keir Starmer zeroed in on the next major problem at prime minister’s questions yesterday. The Tories have long talked about reforming social care to stop people having to sell their homes to pay for it. With the cap for how much an individual will have to pay set at £86,000 — not far off three times the Dilnot recommendation — as Starmer asked: “Where does the prime minister think they’re going to get that £86,000 without selling their home?” There was no real answer. 3 — Two-year delay: The fact that the cap doesn’t come into effect until October 2023 means it won’t apply to those entering the care system next year, so at the moment their fate is completely up in the air as councils plea for more money. The Times’ Chris Smyth quotes Age U.K.’s Caroline Abrahams: “This lack of any immediate funding for councils is one of the yawning gaps in the government’s plans.” He also says there are concerns the Treasury will slash council budgets to make up the initial gap. Former Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt warns the plans fall “well short” of what’s needed immediately. 4 — Never-ending backlog: For the first three years the new money is focused on clearing the NHS coronavirus backlog, yet there are serious doubts that can be done on that timeline and fears more money will still be needed for the health service, potentially putting the social care funding under threat. Chris Smyth reports that new NHS chief exec Amanda Pritchard refused to sign off a commitment to treating 30 percent more patients by 2024-25. Instead, the government had to announce only a 10 percent increase by 2023-24. 5 — Tax bomb: The decision to target all workers rather than the wealthy has major political and economic repercussions. The Telegraph’s Harry Yorke reports a graduate on more than £27,250 will pay a marginal tax rate of 42.25 percent. Graduates on more than £50,000 will pay an effective tax rate of 52.25 percent. Johnson told Tory MPs “we must never forget … we are the party of low taxation” at the 1922 committee of backbenchers yesterday. In the real world, the Resolution Foundation’s Torsten Bell says “low-tax Conservatism is dead.” The Federation of Small Businesses meanwhile warns the jobs tax hike will cause unemployment to rise by 50,000. 6 — Poll jitters: No. 10 strategists believe the public back them for making a tough decision, but in truth the polls are all over the place. Opinium yesterday found 45 percent now oppose the NI rise, versus 33 percent supporting, suggesting the government may have got it wrong. Alternatively, JL Partners in the Mail this morning finds 43 percent support the plan, with 41 percent opposing. Half of over-45s back the policy, with 35 percent opposing. Blimey: If you want to gauge the anger some Tories are feeling, read today’s Allister Heath column in the Telegraph. He writes furiously: “Shame on Boris Johnson, and shame on the Conservative Party. They have disgraced themselves, lied to their voters, repudiated their principles and treated millions of their supporters with utter contempt … This is a seminal moment in British politics, one that could turn out to be as toxic, as poisonous and as destructive as the ERM crisis, the Iraq dossier or the bank bailouts … The National Insurance increase is not merely an unforgivable manifesto broken promise: it symbolises the party’s repudiation of the conservative and classical liberal world view, its rejection of Burke, Locke, Hayek, Friedman and Oakeshott. This Government is no longer Thatcherite, or even conservative: it is Blue Labour.” What would Maggie do? A differing view is proffered by former Tory Chancellor Norman Lamont in the Mail today. In something of a coup for the PM, he writes: “Extraordinary times call for difficult decisions — and it is just such a decision that has been taken by Boris Johnson. Indeed, I believe that it is one that as radical a prime minister as Margaret Thatcher would in the end have supported. She used to say that sound finance and cutting borrowing came first — before tax cuts.” Someone has to be wrong: Over in No. 10, the view is that “Blue Labour” might actually be quite popular with voters. There was delight among senior Tories that Labour voted against their plan last night, with an ally of the PM joyously telling the FT’s George Parker, Jim Pickard and Laura Hughes: “They have actually voted against a tax rise to fund the NHS.” So-called blue wall Tory MPs under threat of losing their seats to Labour or the Lib Dems, such as Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab, tweeted out punchy Tory HQ graphics blasting the opposition parties for having “voted against our £36 billion plan to fund the NHS and social care.” No policy zone: It’s a reminder that it’s not been a particularly brilliant week for Starmer either. The Guardian’s Jess Elgot and Heather Stewart reveal there is private frustration among some Labour MPs that Starmer did not produce an alternative to Johnson’s plans, with two shadow Cabinet sources blaming the leader and Shadow Health Secretary Jon Ashworth. “It is understood there was no detailed discussion of how to respond to Johnson’s social care proposals at Monday’s three-hour shadow cabinet meeting,” Elgot and Stewart report. Playbook also hears from one Labour MP that failing to present an alternative, such as an explicit wealth tax, was a “rookie mistake that will lose the Gogglebox vote.”
Starmer must come up with an alternative proposal, or at least the outline of one, urgently. Burnham has one.
What were we saying the other day about people being manipulated into steering their upset and rage at the NHS etc….
I don't know the full ins and outs of social care but i think the state should pay for social care if the person cannot afford it (individual, this burden shouldn't fall onto a next of kin unless it's a spouse but only taken at the end). What i do agree with though as controversial as it might be is that if someone has to go into social care and they have assets like a house then i don't see why the government shouldn't claw back the cost against the house. Why should the state allow wealth to reside with a family to inherit whilst the taxpayer fund the old person in a care home? This way, housing stock can go back to the market. Either you take the effort to care for your own parents (understandable that this cannot always happen, mental illness for one) or they get sent off to a care home. I understand this will probably affect disproportionately the middle class as the super rich a) will be able to afford social care and b) will probably pass on their assets through things like trusts. The real issue through all this is providing affordable housing which is the big travesty
Isn’t his your 10% levy on all estates, which is a regressive tax, and adding more to income and inheritance taxes? I read an article with him slagging off previous governments for their failure to act on this issue wasn’t he once Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, and he couldn’t get his plan through a Labour administration?
Yes, he wanted to create an NHS-style National Care Service, which I would agree with. Andy Burnham – 2010 Speech on the National Care Service – UKPOL.CO.UK That speech was shortly before the 2010 election, so he didn't get much of a chance to take it further. The 'death tax' is one of his proposals, along with increases to income and capital gains taxes, plus some kind of wealth tax. All a bit vague, I suppose, but he's certainly right in saying that Labour must put forward counter-proposals to Johnson's plan. All we will hear from the Tories is that Labour voted against more funding for the NHS and social care. They have to say what they would do instead.
They certainly should put forward alternatives, as should every other opposition party. Even better there should be a cross party approach to the future of health and social care in this country, with the hope of depoliticising it. Fat chance, I know. There is no magic bullet for this, and repeated failures to address it in previous governments has made the problem even bigger, and then compounded by the impact of austerity and iced with COVID, which future generations are going to be paying for forever.
absoutely, you are totally right in that labour needs some proposals and policies rather than just saying bad tories
please log in to view this image Sangita Myska @BBCSangita · 11h Would a 100% inheritance tax lead to a fairer society? Interested in your thoughts... #NationalInsurance#Tax
just how sick are you lot One in 10 people in England now on NHS waiting list, figures show https://t.co/QVJRgajfnl?amp=1
please log in to view this image Shrodingers Borderline Semi Normal @JeremyCordite · Sep 9 Want free social care when you're older? Get one of these. please log in to view this image
Stop funding Trident Have a one off tax on the Uber rich Decriminalise and profit from recreational drugs Social care and NHS problems solved Easy this government thing
please log in to view this image BBC Scotland News @BBCScotlandNews · 1h People in Scotland will need proof they have been fully vaccinated before they can enter nightclubs and many large events from 1 October. The vaccine passport plan was formally approved by Holyrood after the SNP and Greens voted in favour. TinaBob Retweeted please log in to view this image Little Bee please log in to view this image please log in to view this image @La_Abejita_2 · 2h My son at Uni, who manages to put a positive spin on everything, said this when the idea of vax passes for nightclubs was first thrown out there "it means illegal raves will come back & I always wanted to be part of that 90s scene" please log in to view this image please log in to view this image please log in to view this image
please log in to view this image Politics For All @PoliticsForAlI · 5h please log in to view this image | NEW: All new homes and offices will have electric car chargers in a new law, the government has announced Via @thetimes
Fantastic that this country is so welcoming and able to give people of all races the opportunities that they have. Hardly the cesspit of hate that certain factions of the liberal left like to say it is
