The trouble with today's social care report
Peter Hoskin 9:04am
Uncertainty reigns. Or at least when it comes to today's Dilnot Report into social care
it does. We largely know what measures will be contained within its pages: a higher threshhold for council-funded care, but a cap (of around
£35,000) on how much individuals ought to be liable for. What's less clear is how the government will respond. Far from welcoming the report wholeheartedly - as has been the recent form with
these things - there are signs that the government is set to resist some of its recommendations. Andrew Lansley spoke cagily of it yesterday, hinting that the cap was proving particularly difficult in Coalition Land.
George Osborne is said to have concerns at the
£2 billion cost of the cap, and at how that money will be raised. And a Downing Street source tells the Telegraph that, thanks to the costs of the matter, social care may be
tossed into the "medium length grass" for now.
As it happens, the political process seems to be geared for prevarication. Ed Miliband yesterday offered to enter into talks with the coalition on the Dilnot Report and its associated costs, in a bid to construct - once and for all - a longlife system that all parties can be satisfied with. And it seems that the Tories, in particular, are happy to oblige. For one, talks mean time, and more of it. And they also mean that the toxic responsibility of funding a new system, via tax hikes or spending cuts, falls on all the leaders' shoulders.
But there is certainly room for the situation to become more urgent, more angry. The Lib Dems regard the reform of social care as one of their defining issues, and are likely to push the Chancellor to stump up as much cash as necessary to fix what is currently a broken system. There will be some Tories who don't wish their side to be seen as the roadblocks to another reform. And then there's the persistent memory of what happened the last time the three parties tried to talk on this: a fug of argument, counterargument, self-jusification and evasion, which culminated in one of the most dispiriting episodes in the Tories' election campaign. With Osborne jostling for savings, and Miliband for attention, a repeat is certainly possible this time around.
Previous
strapworld
July 4th, 2011 9:20am Report this commentStop International Aid. Then you have the money to look after the elderly. Who comes first in the queue?
strapworld
July 4th, 2011 9:34am Report this commentEnd International Aid, that will pay for the elderly. Who is first in the queue?
Cameron's Nobel Prize will have to wait.
Justathought
July 4th, 2011 9:54am Report this comment@ Strapworld
We were told yesterday by the public service broadcaster for the Labour party (BBC) that taxpayers are paying £21 billion for housing benefit. Mostly for homes that ordinary working folk could not afford on an average wage. Surely that money would be better spent on care for the elderly?
Pramston
July 4th, 2011 10:23am Report this commentHa, a yearly cap of between £35-£50'000? Phew that will make a big difference to the majority I'm sure. Only the rich will really benefit from this, the poor will continue to have care paid for, the rich will have some limitations and the rest of us will continue to pay through the nose until all our assets are gone within a few years. This seems to do little more than protect inheritances for the wealthy, I'm surprised this Goverment aren't more receptive.
Gawain
July 4th, 2011 10:28am Report this commentOsborne has no problem finding a few billion for European bailouts, expensive university fee fudges, military adventures overseas, NHS u turns etc. He needs to tread very carefully on this one, most Tory voters are either looking over the cliff of funding old age care or have parents who are. This whole issue is a minefield, most people want to pass on the bulk of their home equity to their family but very few want to pay more tax to fund care.
Nickle
July 4th, 2011 11:08am Report this comment145 billion a year is the deficit.
What's 2 billion extra when you are going the same way as Greece?
strapworld
July 4th, 2011 11:20am Report this commentJustathought,
But, as the report from Eric Pickles' department pointed out, many people will lose their homes and it will still be upon the local councils and taxpayers to re-house them. If you want to see mass evictions which will cause civil unrest, so be it.
The savings from stopping international aid would be far more and ensure that our elderly are well cared for. At the moment many old people view 'care' homes in much the same way as my grandparents viewed the Workhouse.
I am sure there are some that would welcome a return to the workhouse. As long as it is not them.
Peter From Maidstone
July 4th, 2011 11:30am Report this commentstrapworld, people will not lose their homes. Either landlords who are milking the taxpayer will lower their rents, or those receiving very high levels of housing benefit will need to move to a cheaper area. In neither case will a person be homeless.
Maggie
July 4th, 2011 11:32am Report this commentI think we need a few statistics. I was under the impression that the vast majority of people will never need to go into a care home, certainly not on a long term basis. Most people either die at home or are transferred to a hospice or care home for the last few weeks of their lives.
It suits the insurance industry, and perhaps the Treasury, to give the impression that large amounts of money need to be saved, invested or raised through taxation to fund long-term care for millions of people but I don't think that's altogether true.
Fergus Pickering
July 4th, 2011 11:42am Report this commentGood Heavens, strapworld. You don't call that a thought, do you? And I suppose the parroting of 'Scrap International Aid' will do for the rest of you. Being old and foolish is pretty bad and governments can do nothing at all about it. Meanwhile I intend to work at my drinking and take up smoking properly. That should sort it.
Maggie
July 4th, 2011 1:09pm Report this commentstrapworld
It was a memo, not a report. It speculated that people "could" lose their homes. It did not say they "will" lose their homes.
Ed P
July 4th, 2011 3:45pm Report this commentI've been saving for my old-age needs all my working life. It's called National Insurance.
daniel maris
July 4th, 2011 11:17pm Report this commentThere should be a compulsory insurance scheme. We have compulsory insurance for the very obvious potential calamities involved in driving. We should have compulsory insurance for the very obvious potential calamities of old age.
Mike
July 5th, 2011 9:07am Report this commentTax hikes may well be reasonable for those benefiting from the care system but it does look very much like another pick at the cherry from government. We used to believe we paid into a system (NI) that covered us from birth to grave but alas that was gradually eroded by successive governments and now the goal posts are being reset to charge again for care homes by taxing us further.
However, what about the hundreds of thousands of ex-pats who pay tax on their pensions but will not benefit from care homes living in France or Spain.
Is the government proposing setting up care homes abroad ? I doubt it !
Is the government proposing to exclude us from tax hikes ? Not a hope in hell !
For tax paying ex-pats this is nothing more than blatant robbery to charge us more tax but deny us any benefit. As it is, successive governments have engineered legal ways out of paying certain benefits to pensioners living in the EU which those in the UK receive despite ALL of us paying the taxes.
If this goes forward, its another callous and shabby trick against the most vulnerable who are already suffering from the parlous state of the pound.
cuffleyburgers
July 5th, 2011 12:48pm Report this commentDon't much care for the tone of what we here on the radio about this stuff - I'm not sure the taxpayer should be picking up the tab for people who own their own houses and then pass them on to their children.
The state should step in to ensure that people don't end up on the street and get a decent level of care - period.
That strikes me as a civilized and just thing. But not to protect the estates of middle class baby boomers who have already done well enough with free university education, full pensions and a lower retirement age than is now the case.
The parameters of the debate seem to be set firmly in state socialism territory.
Back to top