Memo to an incoming Prime Minister Social care

There is no easy answer to the complex problems of social care. Nor is there any cheap fix. One of the problems governments have found in proposing changes of policy is many people do not understand the current rules over social care especially for the elderly. Many families never find out, as their relatives die whilst still  living at home.

Many elderly pensioners continue to live in their own homes,paying for their accommodation and food out of their pension income and any accumulated savings. If their income falls too low then the state helps out with benefits. They qualify for free care from the NHS for all their medical needs. If they need assistance in their homes with everyday living they may qualify for free social services or they may need to pay for support.

If an elderly person needs to go into a home then the state pays if they have little or no capital, but the elderly person pays if they have money of their own. This includes selling their home which they  no longer need and using the proceeds for the care home which they now live in. If their home is still needed by their husband or wife then it does not have to be sold or taken into account. In a  care home they get full free NHA medical care  but have to pay for social care or claim it under the rules from the local authority. They of course pay for their board and lodging all the time they have the  cash.

Some people think this is unfair. They think social care – helping with shopping or dressing or whatever – should be free like health care for all. Some think it is unfair those who worked hard and saved more have to pay themselves and those who didn’t have free provision. Others argue that the elderly person no longer needs or can use their former homes as they are living in a care home for the rest of their life, so why shouldn’t that money be used to sustain their care and pay their food and accommodation bills?

It is clearly the case we all believe those in need of care and accommodation without money should be helped by the state. The issue is how many universal benefits should there  be. If more, which taxes will pay the bills? The social care tax put in by the outgoing PM and Chancellor will pay a small proportion of the total costs involved and is already dwarfed by the public cost of NHS treatment and care home costs for the elderly which the state meets.

141 Comments

  1. Mark B
    August 2, 2022

    Good morning.

    The State has taken over the role that was once the preserve of the family and made a right mess of things. It is now a lottery where those who have or contributed nothing get the most, whilst those who have worked and saved must first surrender all they have in order to receive the same thin gruel as the rest.

    I now have to pay for the care of people who I have no responsibility towards. How is that fair ? How is it fair that by subcontracting out other families responsibilities to private companies who, are paid by the State via taxation, thereby allowing those families to continue to work and earn money for themselves and so offset the cost to them and on to others ?

    Remember. Charity begins at home.

    Reply
    1. cuibono
      August 2, 2022

      +many
      Agree.
      One horrible mess.
      And an absolute hay making session for plausible rogues who would rob their old granny blind. All aided and abetted by the State …despite Powers of Attorney, solicitors and the useless like.

      Reply
      1. Hope
        August 3, 2022

        Mark,
        And we have to pay tax three times for the same thing! Taxation, NIC and Community Charge, yet the Tories still want more tax. Look at all new housing estates 76er Tory planning policy. All estates over 15 houses have to include social housing. Especially the urban ghetto towns they have created.

        Working striving people literally live next door to those who do not contribute and get their social housing for free, yet they end up in the same care home! The worker is forced to sell their home to pay for the same care home. Worse than Communism, that is the fake Tory party for you.

        Levelling down and getting kicked for doing the right thing. More mass immigration is the Tory answer and you will pay for it.

        Reply
    2. Lifelogic
      August 2, 2022

      Indeed.

      The state making a large mess of things as usual surely not:- Then again perhaps in energy, transport, virtual monopoly healthcare, housing, borders, criminal justice, defence procurement, the extended and pointless lockdowns, test and trace, smart meters, pandemic planning, net zero, employment laws, forcing ineffective and dangerous vaccines onto people and even children, the maternity, blood and many hospital scandals, the absurd tax and benefit system, the chocolate teapot & misdirected police, the attacks on landlords and tenants, attacks on the self employed- IR35, the joke Committee on Climate Change, Blair’s appalling wars, the expensive, slow and very inefficient multi-level legal system, border force, the many duff degrees with large student “debt” for a worthless certificate and graduation/gown photos. DVLA, Passport Office, fairly dire virtual monopoly state schooling, water and sewage provision, inefficient planning, social care, social services…have I missed anything out?

      We have the highest taxes for 70+ years and yet we get absolutely appalling public services. But to be fair the government can be quite efficient at the many ways of mugging motorists & at blocking the roads.

      Reply
      1. Martyn G
        August 2, 2022

        I’d put it more simply LL – nothing, absolutely nothing works any more in the public services and dozens of Quangos that rule our lives. The only thing that I know is still working is the DLVA computerised road fund licence renewal and that is only because it is entirely automated by computer.

        Reply
    3. majorfrustration
      August 2, 2022

      No charity stems from the Tax Payers

      Reply
    4. Berkshire Alan
      August 2, 2022

      Agreed Mark, the system is broken, different rules in different parts of the Country for Continuing care, differing fees for board and lodging in Care/Nursing homes, constant arguments about what is medical need, and what is Social Care, so no one has a clue as to the real cost breakdowns of Care Homes and Nursing Home fees.
      Just out of interest what is the difference between a Care Home and a Nursing Home ?
      Surely they clue is in the name, Nursing means medical care, but not according to the Government !

      Reply
      1. Berkshire Alan
        August 2, 2022

        Personal care given at home by family members would seem to be the best option at first thought, but as most who have done it will know, this often requires a huge amount of personal sacrifice by the career, and can lead to health problems, with medical and mental support being needed for the career, as well as possible financial help.
        The real unsung hero’s really are those millions of family members who have cared for others over the years, to their own financial disadvantage, and who get little help from Government or Local Authorities.
        The more simple and fairer solution would seem to be a Social fund that will pay for any care Home fees, that are required, which could then be be supplemented with the sacrifice of the Personal State Pension of those resident in Care homes.

        Reply
        1. Mark B
          August 3, 2022

          Agreed. As I did for my mother until she passed away.

          Reply
    5. X-Tory
      August 2, 2022

      I genuinely don’t understand why parents with property do not gift this to their children in plenty of time for these not to have to pay IHT, while retaining the usufruct. This would also avoid the government STEALING the property to pay social care costs, but allow the parent to continue living in their home for the rest of their life. If there is any oldie with children reading this perhaps you might explain why you haven’t done this.

      Reply
      1. Berkshire Alan.
        August 2, 2022

        X Tory
        Not an expert on the subject at all, but my understanding is :
        If you gift your house to your children and continue to live there rent free, then that is regarded as a “gift with reservation” by HMRC, and so not really a gift at all.
        It is only a gift if you pay your children the normal commercial rent for that property, on which they will pay tax.
        Happy to be corrected if my understanding is not correct.

        Reply
        1. Cheshire Girl
          August 2, 2022

          I think you are correct, but it needs clarification. And then there is the 7 year rule. What a nightmare it is, designed to be very hard to understand.

          Reply
        2. Know-Dice
          August 2, 2022

          That’s my understanding too 🙁

          Reply
        3. X-Tory
          August 2, 2022

          That’s interesting, thank you – I wasn’t aware of that. HMRC really are vile, interfering in private family arrangements. Though presumably you could do the gift as one legal agreement and have a separate, private, legal contract to reside there – if you didn’t trust your children to let you do so (although if they are that untrustworthy perhaps they don’t deserve the property in the first place!).

          Reply
          1. Hope
            August 3, 2022

            XT,
            Not HMRC, Tory govt. in power 12 years and could have changed inheritance tax if they wished (as promised). Instead increased number of tax inspectors to squeeze and target those workers of their choosing. Claiming to help strivers, and JAM as May called them, bit in reality getting HMRC to squeeze every penny from us. Highest taxation in 70 years does not happen over night. It took 12 years of Tory govt. with lies and deceit.

            NHS financial mismanagement, overseas aid could cure social care in one fell swoop. As,JR pointed out his govt gave NHS billions extra and then asked what they were doing with it!! Same for overseas aid, there was no specific problem that had to be solved/to target just a Tory MP virtue signalling at our expense!

            People need to wake up, you cannot trust the Tory party with economics. A matter of fact and record.

        4. Lifelogic
          August 2, 2022

          Correct but that is for IHT purposes only,, not sure how gifts work in relation to long term care costs. The popularity of equity release loans is also perhaps driven by this borrow them give the money away. The problem is old people are very often not that rational in their planning. Also many people need very little or not long term care anyway so actual needs are no known. Given the way care homes were turned into prisons with covid medical care was withheld and no visitors allowed one can well understand why few want to move to them.

          Reply
      2. SM
        August 2, 2022

        A cousin of mine wanted to do this with his mother’s little property – she got financial and legal advice which was vehemently against it.

        Reply
    6. Nottingham Lad Himself
      August 2, 2022

      No, the private sector has taken it over.

      Reply
      1. a-tracy
        August 3, 2022

        NLH, the public sector is never satisfied with their salary packages and wants more. It is unsustainable. They only ever talk about the lowest grades, not the full-time qualified grades from 5 and over that most 21-year-old graduates are on. They brought in cheaper eastern European labour until the none public sector UK workers started to get strangled with rising costs and dropping wages.

        Public sector workers seem not to appreciate their full sick pay from day 1 of illness, [sick cover for 60% of your income privately costs £80-£100 per month for a £24,000 earner, and it only kicks in after 28 days]. These should be itemised for those workers, if you want more money you can have this £x and just get SSP like the rest of the public.

        They don’t appreciate their extravagant holidays over 28 pa, plus duvet days, days paid to make them feel good paid for voluntary work. Want more gross pay, trade in your holidays over 28. Or appreciate how much that is worth when extra workers have to be employed to cover these days.

        Pensions that you can’t buy in the private sector, with pots that are allowed to go way over private sector worker pensions because they’re defined benefits and the cost of that pot isn’t calculated correctly. £100,000 pot with spousal transfer with a none smoker at 66 £4,500 pa. Tell them the true cost of that defined benefit, want more, then you can have £x today with a NEST pension.

        Free travel in the case of transport workers not just for themselves but also for their families. This is worth £x.

        Extravagant weekend and evening rates, the private sector employee is dying off because large foreign employers are subcontracting labour out without the NI costs, the holiday costs, the SSP, SMP, SPL. When everyone wants to work for the State we’ll be sunk, and you’ll be happy with Britain turning into the Eastern Europe that the people that lived there wanted to leave.

        Reply
    7. John Hatfield
      August 2, 2022

      Indeed Mark. My grandparents had eight childen, one of whom sadly did not survive the First World War. The remaining seven took it in turns to look after aged Grandad who out outlived Grandma. No welfare in those days.

      Reply
      1. John Hatfield
        August 2, 2022

        who had outlived

        Reply
  2. DOM
    August 2, 2022

    The State doesn’t pay for anything, it’s merely a conduit but that’s decades of Socialist brainwashing, even Tory MPs have fallen foul of collectivist indoctrination

    Is it any wonder the civil nation is bankrupt when we have people in power who tell the voter that you can walk into Tesco, fill up your trolley and walk out without paying

    ‘Free’ is the tool politicians use to maintain the status quo until the detritus hits the fan

    Reply
    1. cuibono
      August 2, 2022

      +many
      The rotten State has thieved and scammed via taxation to elevate those who would not help themselves at the huge expense of those who would.
      All about votes I dare say.
      Client State?

      Reply
  3. Bloke
    August 2, 2022

    It is fair that someone who has saved throughout their life pays for their own care when needed. The cost of that care is increased by the expense of others with nothing of value to contribute.

    What the Govt fails to solve is the unfairness of the lifelong thrifty person having to pay the costs of those who chose to live reckless lives on top.

    Numerous careless others spent wildly on wine, women, drugs and worse, producing children from many partners without caring for them, engaging in crime, and even incurring £50k in unpaid gambling debts yet gaining care free of charge for the rest of their lives. Are they YOUR equal?

    Reply
    1. Mark B
      August 3, 2022

      And that is the thing – They think they are our equals. They are not !

      Reply
  4. Clough
    August 2, 2022

    Sir John, today’s memo is clear and to the point and asks important questions. But if any incoming PM needed to read it because they didn’t know it all already, I’d be very worried indeed. If they do, perhaps they should have spent less time over the last year mouthing off about Russia and Ukraine, and more time on working on our problems in this country.

    Reply
    1. MWB
      August 2, 2022

      Politicians in this country love to act on the world stage and poke their nose into where they shouldn’t be poked. They think it makes them look so important.

      Reply
      1. Mark B
        August 3, 2022

        It serves as a useful distraction from the mess they have created and have no idea how to resolve.

        Reply
  5. Nigk
    August 2, 2022

    Yes a difficult subject but overall the system is a disgrace. Opaque, different rules from one authority to another, people having to fight for what are their rights, denial that Alzheimer’s is a disease so should fall under free care, eye watering costs and uncontrolled profiteering from Care Home owners, shortage of local authority places, high charges for ‘home help’, when that help runs around the house doing as little, as quickly as possible to get off to the next job and so it goes on.

    Politicians in denial, little/zero experience of the day to day effects that their pompous uttering and uninformed legislation, have.

    Our politicians waste egregious amounts of money annually, yet they can’t/won’t provide properly for the elderly who have contributed so much over their lives.

    Reply
    1. Michelle
      August 2, 2022

      You raise some good points.
      It is a difficult topic to get right and apply fairly.
      Some people do work hard all their lives and take care of their families. They’ve had little opportunity to save a great deal, don’t own their own home so nothing to bargain with. It isn’t right they should be viewed the same as those who have lived the party/consumerist lifestyle with no thought for later years.

      I worked in social care for a short while and saw first hand how some got everything and others nothing.
      The one’s who seemed to get the most always seemed to be those who had little to no intention of doing much to help themselves. They could have and then they wouldn’t have needed the help or at least not quite so much of it. Others found it very difficult to have you there helping them and seemed to believe they owed you an apology.

      Reply
  6. Cheshire Girl
    August 2, 2022

    I think all reasonable people will accept that care should be paid for, but its the cost that worries them.
    I live near London(St. Albans) and care home fees here are £1K to £2K a WEEK!! I don’t know how this can be justified.
    Another thing that rankles. People who live in care homes and pay for themselves, have to pay a higher charge to subsidise those in the home that can’t afford to pay. That is a terrible rip off, in my opinion.
    My Council Tax bill includes a Social Care levy, which has gone up again this year.
    We have people coming into this Country, who will have never paid into the system. What will happen to them? I know someone who is on benefits, and has been for years, because in their younger days, they didn’t try to get employment . They get full State Pension, plus Pension Credit, and will not have to pay for their care.
    I won’t go on….

    Reply
    1. Fedupsoutherner
      August 2, 2022

      Cheshire Girl. I agree with your post and those before. The elderly couple we bought our house from just kept remortgaging their house until they reached the age of 70 when a mortgage was refused. They obviously spent the money enjoying themselves because they sure as hell didn’t spend it on the house. They then made sure they had little in the bank and moved into a new bungalow where the taxpayer makes up the rent they can’t afford. Nice work.

      Reply
      1. Lifelogic
        August 2, 2022

        The system that pertains encourages exactly this type of behaviour. Financially rather rational given the daft system that the government retains.

        Reply
    2. Alfred T Mahan
      August 2, 2022

      It’s common to be astounded by the cost of residential care, but please bear in mind that you not only get the accommodation but all meals as well as a 24/7 staff team. At the minimum wage it costs at the very least £15 an hour to employ someone after NI, holidays, training time, and other overheads, and there are 168 hours in a week. Then there are the necessary managers, and so on. Even seven nights in a cheap hotel without food or any of the other frills will cost you several hundred pounds.

      I agree with you about the cross-subsidy point, though.

      Reply
    3. Mockbeggar
      August 2, 2022

      ‘You breaks your health to make your wealth.
      ‘You spends to wealth to keep your health.’

      I’m not sure that if I move into a care home, why I shouldn’t have to sell my house that I don’t need anymore in order to pay for it. The problem, as you say, Cheshire Girl is that Local Authorities certainly take advantage of fee payers to subsidise those people who haven’t bothered to make their wealth or save it. But that goes for every other kind of state benefit I suppose.

      I remember listening with increasing dismay to someone from the Citizens’ Advice Bureau explaining to a group of middle class people attending a Retirement Course how they could squeeze the maximum amount of benefit from the Govt. and Local Authorities for every conceivable situation even though most of them would be perfectly well able to look after themselves financially. The lecturer seemed to think that the Govt. was a bottomless well of cash to be there for the taking.

      Reply
  7. Nigl
    August 2, 2022

    And in other news we read Sir JRs dissection of Sunak and indeed the hustings seem to have exposed his superficially. This is the person that topped the poll of Tory MPs. What does it say about their judgement.

    And the talented (only in her mind) Ms Mordaunt demonstrated new levels of sycophancy even for politicians, as ever waiting to see who the most likely winner would be, before declaring , thus ensuring a job as a reward.

    Reply
    1. forthurst
      August 2, 2022

      Congratulations on falling for the concerted hatchet job performed on Penny Mordaunt. Have you noticed that the MPs are offering a choice between the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Foreign Secretary, in other words continuity government. Mordaunt was not a continuity candidate which would be perceived as a threat by the assemblage of talentless time-servers who have been getting us into wars, flooding the country with foreign invaders and trying to wreck the country economically through Net Zero whilst selling off the what is left of our industrial base. Continuity government means the death of the UK as a Northern European unitary state.

      Reply
  8. Mickey Taking
    August 2, 2022

    The most important issue to discuss here, which has been raised and ignored for decades, is the question of difference between those who lived more frugally – saving and often paying a mortgage to build value in a home, and those who didn’t – living at the limit of what their income could provide in rented homes usually long term council housing. So, given people who prepared for old age and hoped to leave their value earned to family, and those who didn’t take steps -indeed relying on the State, why do the former subsidise the latter. In our experience of a Care Home the subsidiser was only offered a room less comfortable than those cared for by the Local Authority.
    It was as if you shouldn’t have any money behind your old age, a sort of social penalty!

    Reply
    1. a-tracy
      August 2, 2022

      MT – people are wising up to this now. I know people that have sold their home and are living off the proceeds and now renting. I ask, “what will you do when the money runs out in six years time”,
      “live off the state for the first time like all the other scroungers I know have done”!
      I hope our loving State is preparing lots of 1-bed council apartments ready for this.

      Reply
      1. Mickey Taking
        August 3, 2022

        It isn’t, but local councils will meet the bill for housing provided by (rental) landlords!

        Reply
        1. a-tracy
          August 4, 2022

          Really? Even if it is a 3 bed for one person? I’m out of step, I thought they were mad to do this and lose their home security perhaps they’re right.

          Reply
  9. Donna
    August 2, 2022

    The problem is caused by Socialist Healthcare and the free-at-the point of use NHS. The original claim was that it would take care of us from the cradle to the grave. Now it will take care of us (after a fashion) from cradle to grave IF you have any of a multitude of life-threatening conditions but not if you have dementia.

    Free-at-the-point-of-use leads to irresponsibility and an assumption that, whatever you do with your own money, healthcare is free. I’m sure we all know people who “live for today” and spend all their money on non-essentials throughout their lives on the assumption that they will get “free” care ….. which they probably will. People who save and make provision for themselves are told they must use virtually all the assets they’ve acquired through their own effort and sense of responsibility.

    Those working are now required by law to pay into a pension scheme. If we had an insurance-based healthcare system, they could be required by law to pay into a fund intended to pay for/towards social care in later life. That would, at least, restrict the provision of “free” social care to those who are unemployed and exclude those who are working but don’t save a penny.

    The fact that people are living longer is, on the whole, a good thing as long as they remain reasonably healthy. The problem has arisen because so many are living very long lives and for the final few years require significant levels of care, usually due to dementia, which their own family can’t (or won’t) provide.

    We need to re-assess the provision of life-saving NHS treatments and in particular the amount of on-going medication which is keeping people alive long after they have any quality of life. You cannot beggar the younger generation in order to keep the extremely elderly breathing but capable of doing little else. We should be adopting the principle of:

    Thou shall not kill
    But need not strive
    Officiously
    To keep alive.

    PS The Government, using the Navy, Border Farce and RNLI gave a free ferry service to 3,700 criminal migrants in July ….. to be paid for by British taxpayers and no doubt here for life, leeching off us and in due course, shipping over their extended families. Why on earth should any of us bother to make provision for ourselves ….. we’d be better off ditching our passports and claiming asylum.

    Reply
    1. Know-Dice
      August 2, 2022

      Donna,
      Add to you PS.
      @ £40,000 per annum cost to the British tax payer 🙁

      Reply
    2. Wanderer
      August 2, 2022

      Excellent points, Donna. I like the suggestion of payment towards social care.

      The cost of it is exorbitant and I guess regulation has a lot to do with this, so that should be reviewed.

      Politicians would be fearful of suggesting we don’t have to keep alive (sometimes against their wishes) those with no quality of life. Look how the euthanasia debate has dragged on.

      With modern life having destroyed the prewar model of children looking after their parents during a normally rapid end-of-life decline, we’re currently rather stuck in a rut with state provision. However I do think more could and should be done to support the elderly to look after themselves, aided by their families or friends where possible. That could be in their own homes, or facilitate them to downsize.

      Reply
  10. turboterrier
    August 2, 2022

    Your post concentrates on the elderly but then there is the social care for the younger generations. One thing is certain we capitulated to another 600 invaders yesterday and still they keep coming putting greater demands on the system and not one of them has paid a penny into the paying pot. It makes our social care system totally unsustainable. Round them all up and put them on a ferry and send them back to French waters and beaches. When are the Do Gooders going to wake up and realise the consequences of their outrageous demands in keeping them here.

    Reply
    1. Donna
      August 2, 2022

      Well said. When there is no social cohesion, the case for a welfare state collapses. Mass immigration, particularly by criminal migrants, is going to have profound effects on social provision. You’d think the lefty “no borders” and Human Rights brigade who are encouraging this criminality would realise that the price of their refusal to see sense will, eventually, be no welfare state and quite possibly an extremist Government which WILL stop the influx.

      Reply
    2. Maylor
      August 2, 2022

      + 1

      Many of the elderly will have contributed to government finances over their lifetime and must now see their contributions being used to help people who have never paid a penny towards their keep and healthcare.

      How can this be fair ?

      Reply
      1. Margaretbj.
        August 2, 2022

        +++++me

        Reply
    3. Lifelogic
      August 2, 2022

      Indeed and it will just increase and increase if no action is taken as more and more realise just how easy it is. Then each one will bring their families over so perhaps six or so more for each arrival – and Border Force are not even recording their biometrics let alone screening them for security risks.

      Reply
    4. Michelle
      August 2, 2022

      The Do Gooders should register their intentions and wishes for open borders officially and then be taxed to cover the costs.
      All accommodation for those they wish to bring in should be as near to themselves as possible.
      If they’ve got huge gardens or a spare room that must be utilised to uphold their firm convictions.
      Any shortages in resources must also be taken up by themselves. So if they have children and there is a shortage of places at the local school their children must share that place on a rota system.

      Sit back and watch!!!

      Reply
    5. Shirley M
      August 2, 2022

      It sounds as though their identities are not even checked, as some reports say people who have been rejected for asylum and/or deported have returned to the UK. When are we going to toughen up and put LEGAL citizens ahead of the illegals. Ever???? The LEGAL citizens are getting pretty fed up of unlimited amounts of taxpayers money being thrown at illegals. Why does the government want people who queue jump genuine asylum seekers, have NO respect for UK law, and no respect for anything but the very best accommodation and care, all for free (to them), naturally. The electorate certainly don’t want them but the businesses wanting cheap labour get priority over the electorate, even though they have no vote! Are they donors to the party?

      Reply
  11. Sir Joe Soap
    August 2, 2022

    The whole caboodle only works in a closed system, where there is a tacit social agreement that folk are born, educated, work, pay tax, retire and die here, and the whole financial thing balances. When people are coming and going, with the emphasis on coming, it’s unsustainable. The arts and social science people will thrash and throw that it’s unfair and unconscionable but the engineers and scientists know the truth and say it.

    It can’t possibly work in the long run. You either keep a closed system or people pay for the goodies as theyr’e handed out.

    Reply
    1. Original Richard
      August 2, 2022

      SJS :

      Agreed, and explains why the communist fifth column in our Parliament, Civil Service, judiciary, quangos, educational establishment and all our public services and institutions are so keen on continued massive immigration as they know eventually it will bankrupt the country.

      Our Government even continues to invite into the country unidentified young men of fighting age with a free Channel collection service, free accommodation in 4 star hotels, free healthcare, £40/week pocket money and the freedom to roam the streets as they please.

      And then when they bring their families over they all benefit from free housing, healthcare, schooling, social benefits, pensions, infrastructure etc. without having paid a bean.

      Reply
    2. Lifelogic
      August 2, 2022

      +1.

      Reply
    3. Mark B
      August 3, 2022

      You cannot have a Social Care State and MASS IMMIGRATION. It is either one or the other.

      Reply
      1. a-tracy
        August 3, 2022

        I wonder why Yvette Cooper is never asked this question. How do we afford both? Which is going to give first?

        Never mind universal benefits, there should only be community benefits and anyone receiving them have to benefit the community they live in, the richer communities have to pay for employees to do their local clean-up and labour, I’d guess they don’t get the levels of litter and graffiti, gravel and grass growing out of every curb that poor areas have, dirty windows and half paths because they’re never cleaned up. We have centres near us that look like demolition sites with barb wiring all around them, weeds and litter and continual glass bottles smashed on the pavements, dog dirt, broken paving slabs, graffitti the whole thing needs a good spruce us. The people living on benefits should have to chip in their labour to clean it up.

        Reply
  12. Mickey Taking
    August 2, 2022

    Dave Penman, general secretary of the FDA union, said Ms Truss’s pledge to cut regional pay for civil servants was “astounding”, calling her plans “recycled failed policies”.
    Why should CS pay for grades and scales be exactly the same wherever you live and work?
    As an example in Scotland and Wales their pay is worth so much more than in England and particularly the South and South East where property and Council tax etc are so much more.
    If ever levelling up ought to be levelling down, it is in Scotland and Wales.

    Reply
    1. Peter Parsons
      August 2, 2022

      I’m sure it is a policy that will go down well in the Red Wall seats whose voters will be directly affected by Truss’ promise to level them down. Between that and her attempts to out-Johnson Johnson in being an asset for the Scottish independence movement, one does wonder if the UK will be jumping out of the frying pan into the fire.

      Reply
      1. Peter Parsons
        August 2, 2022

        Well, it seems that the policy was scrapped in the time it took for my post to get through moderation!

        Looks like, come September, PMQs is going to be Captain Hindsight vs Major U-Turn.

        Reply
        1. Mark B
          August 3, 2022

          Oh very good.

          +1

          Reply
      2. a-tracy
        August 3, 2022

        Peter, do you think it is quite correct to pay a teacher who lives in an area where an average 3 bedroom semi costs – £750 per month to rent the same as a teacher who lives in an area where a 2 bedroom flat costs £1500 per month to rent?

        What about local council workers where 2 bedroomed terraced houses cost £70,000, it is then in their interest to improve their local areas if they can get the value of rentals and houses up in their areas instead of leaving them to rot in red wall seats as they do now.

        I am from a red seat, live in a red seat, I could give you lots of good examples of where national pay controls aren’t sensible.

        Reply
        1. Peter Parsons
          August 3, 2022

          Yes I can. Thames Valley Police have a retention problem because they regularly lose officers to the Met because the Met offers higher salaries plus free travel to/from shifts. Truss’ now dropped policy would create this same issue all over the country, with people working in an area where they get the higher salary package while living in a neighbouring area with lower housing costs.

          Turning it around, in the private sector, my salary is based on the value I deliver to my company, not on where I live. Should the value of a teacher similarly based on what they deliver (childrens’ education), or should it be based on something else?

          I’d also ask whether, at a time where there are shortages of nurses and teachers, whether cutting their pay everywhere outside London (which is what Truss proposed) will help or hinder in filling those roles?

          If that is Truss’ understanding of how a market economy works, Lord help us all.

          Reply
          1. a-tracy
            August 4, 2022

            I read that Truss’ people never said they would CUT pay, as ever this would never float with the control the public sector has over their customers. Take what you’re given and don’t complain because nothing is going to get done anyway. Decades and decades of failure in red wall areas.

            In areas that are struggling to recruit (such as Thames Valley), how else would pay be increased rather than kept on national pay levels? You certainly don’t expect pay in Wales to rise to those levels in London, or do you?

            To deal with the shortage of nurses and teachers, she should train more Brits, if British schools don’t have spaces, she should buy places abroad and use the Turing scheme better for national needs on essential service training. More men should be trained (as they are in the Philipines), and over time could be achieved by running after-school and summer holiday clubs.

    2. Narrow Shoulders
      August 2, 2022

      The issue there though is that the Southern wages will increase not the other way around. and then eventually all the other regions pay will equalise again when the unions get their way.

      Good idea – terrible consequences.

      Reply
    3. Michelle
      August 2, 2022

      Good point.
      Problem is many in the Unions are not interested in what’s right and fair.
      It’s purely political.
      I’m sure there will be an ‘everybody out’ call should anyone try and shake up the Civil Service but it has to be done and the longer it’s put off the worse it will be.

      Godfrey Bloom has an excellent article asking whatever happened to the Unions.

      Reply
    4. Sir Joe Soap
      August 2, 2022

      Pretty straightforward idea.
      Now it’s been dropped.
      Disappointment #1 of many to come?
      Enter the arena Maybot 2.0 ?

      Reply
      1. a-tracy
        August 3, 2022

        SJS – the truth is they don’t need new ideas for this election, they were elected to get one job done well; they haven’t yet (perhaps if Boris was more firm with his ministers they would have given us what they are promising now) if the winner just concentrates primarily on that, that they are capable to Manage the Downing Street operation both internally and ministerially and then set up their ‘new’ ideas for their next re-election at the general election that should be enough.

        Reply
  13. Sea_Warrior
    August 2, 2022

    Our policy should have the objective of keeping as many of the old uns as possible in their own homes, cheaply supported by daily visits, rather than making excessive use of hugely-expensive residential care. My mother, pushing 90 when she died, was adamant that she wasn’t going into a home and got by with help from a gardener (every 2 weeks), hairdresser (weekly), cleaner (every 2 weeks) and ‘social-care’ (twice a week). And it’s the same with most of my other aunties. The one who should be in a residential home – paid for by the state, I think – is the one suffering from dementia.

    Reply
    1. William Long
      August 2, 2022

      I completely agree with your point about Dementia. It is a travesty of any kind of justice that the NHS class this as a ‘Condition’ rather than an ‘Illness’ and therefor will not pay for its treatment.

      Reply
  14. Wokinghamite
    August 2, 2022

    No mention here of the “catastrophic” effect on savings of having to pay for all the social care, or of the cap which the P.M. said was coming.

    Reply
    1. Ian Wragg
      August 2, 2022

      O/T a good article in todays Telegraph detailing how the ruling elites have destroyed our energy security at the altar of net zero.
      Tories in power for 12 years, cheered on the demolition of coal fired power stations, stopped issuing exploration licences for the North Sea, refused to sanction fracking and the extraction of coal from Cumbria.
      The Emperor really does have no clothes no the proverbial has hit the fan. You’ve nowhere to hide and own the whole sorry mess.
      The online don’t pay is gathering momentum, the poll tax will be like a Sunday afternoon picnic in comparison.

      Reply
      1. glen cullen
        August 2, 2022

        +1 indeed strange days ahead

        Reply
      2. a-tracy
        August 3, 2022

        Ian Wragg, and I wonder how all these people will cope when their supply is just cut off if they don’t pay?

        Reply
  15. formula57
    August 2, 2022

    If only Boris were still around, then, just like his idea about multi-generational mortgages, some notion of charging descendants for ancestors social care might be devised to spare the tax-payers.

    O/T The Exeter debate left me stunned at the accuracy of your “breath of fresh air” assessment of Liz. She might even be a fellow Redwoodista of mine, so on point was she with many past diary articles!

    Reply
    1. Dave Andrews
      August 2, 2022

      Haven’t the descendants inherited too much debt already from the ancestors?

      Reply
      1. Mickey Taking
        August 2, 2022

        We have been and still are, inheriting an absurd way to run most matters of Government.
        Whether Defence, energy, immigration, education, health, food production, taxation and industry – all are in dire need of a revolution.

        Reply
    2. No Longer Anonymous
      August 2, 2022

      Multi-generational mortgages will only ramp up house prices.

      My Dad was a tyrant. I would have hated to have been under his roof into adulthood.

      Reply
  16. Donna
    August 2, 2022

    Off topic. The Government has recently awarded a £70,000,000 contract for “Everything Net Zero” ….. to support the transition to Net Zero in the public sector.

    https://www.contractsfinder.service.gov.uk/notice/783fd5e3-50cd-49f6-b0cf-1cd48265fb33?origin=SearchResults&p=1

    So they have money to squander when they …. or rather the UN/WEF want them to.

    They have NEVER had a mandate for Net Zero. The electorate wasn’t offered a choice.

    Reply
    1. Shirley M
      August 2, 2022

      + many – the electorate won’t ever get a choice because the politicians (of all parties) know we will give the ‘wrong’ answer!
      This is NOT democracy. It is pretty much like EU membership was made by politicians without the electorates approval, and look at the mess, conflict and expense caused when democracy was finally established! Too many UK politicians are too proud (or too arrogant) to learn from their own mistakes.

      Reply
    2. Wanderer
      August 2, 2022

      What the heck is this money actually going to be used for? The mind boggles.

      Reply
    3. Christine
      August 2, 2022

      This is a disgraceful waste of money.

      Reply
    4. Stred
      August 2, 2022

      Even my bank is messaging that they are going ESG for green brownie points and are inviting customers to invest through it in green cobblers, while stopping investment in anything to keep bills down. I would close my accounts if it was not for the fact that they are all in it together. Sunak and his city slikers are driving this scam. When bills go up in October they will be pointing their fingers at the Russians despite the fact that the shortages started before sanctions.

      Reply
      1. R.Grange
        August 2, 2022

        Yes, Stred, for sure they will, and also despite the fact that it was Germany who stopped the Nordstream 2 gas pipeline last year, before the Ukraine war. Well, this winter they are going to be very cold and their factories will be on short time. That’s what happens when you put Greens in charge of the economy and foreign policy, as Scholz has done.

        Reply
    5. Kenneth
      August 2, 2022

      Absolutely. A democracy should serve the majority. Unfortunately that means the minority won’t always get what they want.

      A large minority with access to powerful media have called for “Net Zero” and similar schemes and they are being satisfied at the cost of the majority.

      This is plainly wrong and, if the Conservatives continue to ignore the majority, they will be voted out.

      Reply
    6. Michelle
      August 2, 2022

      They’ve never had a mandate for mass immigration but that doesn’t stop them.
      They don’t need a mandate for the net zero either by the looks of things.
      An elected dictatorship someone (can’t remember who) has coined what we have going on here.

      As you say, the government always seems to have plenty of money for their pet projects and of course to splash out abroad.

      Reply
    7. glen cullen
      August 2, 2022

      Thats a joke….right…its preposterous

      Reply
  17. Narrow Shoulders
    August 2, 2022

    Provided at no cost for all or provided at no cost for none – it should be universal or not exist. Much like child benefit

    Reply
    1. a-tracy
      August 3, 2022

      NS but child benefit isn’t provided for all, if Dad works and earns over £50,000 it gets clawed back from Mum even if she is working looking after her kids rather than in external work.

      Reply
      1. Narrow Shoulders
        August 3, 2022

        Sorry a-tracey I meant child benefit should be universal or non existent. It is after all just the tax free threshold paid for children

        Reply
  18. Geoffrey Berg
    August 2, 2022

    There is a social care version of Parkinson’s Law here-those in social care and accompanying costs expand to meet available capacity.When I was a Councillor in the late 1970s on Bury’s Social Services Committee the only social care homes in Bury were a very limited number of local authority and a few religious institution homes. Then in the 1980s the Department of Health and Social Security started funding places in privately run care homes and for a short time it became very profitable for private operators. The sector expanded massively, as did the number of people in care homes. So perhaps the answer is to limit the number of people getting public funding to live in care homes, restricting that (as long ago) to the most disabled people.

    Reply
    1. ukretired123
      August 2, 2022

      Philip Hammond thought his private sector experience in running care homes fitted him for high office – no way.

      Reply
  19. SM
    August 2, 2022

    State provision of health and social care, plus state pensions, were surely predicated by a worthy sense of community morality (eg the Beveridge Report). However, this was at a time when general life expectancy was far lower than today, and when medical science could not/did not keep alive those (from birth onwards) with either instantly fatal or deeply dangerous diseases.

    Today, there is a community morality that demands that everyone should be kept alive at all costs, both medical and long-term care – except there is an ominous silence over the exorbitant financial resources needed to fulfil this.

    I think what is needed is a universal discussion about this modern philosophy, one in which politicians of all stripes should perhaps (I’m not sure) keep clear of?

    Reply
  20. Dave Andrews
    August 2, 2022

    So I have a problem. Do I put aside a war chest in case I need long term care which I might never need, or do I take the risk, spend my money and not put anything by?
    What is needed is an insurance scheme, perhaps paid out of the 25% tax free allowance from a pension, that will pay out for care home costs should they ever be needed.
    If you relieve the state of the cost of universal long term care, that will put more money back in the pockets of the people, so they can contribute to charities who look after the unfortunate.

    Reply
    1. anon
      August 3, 2022

      Gov would take your money. Then charge savers again.

      It really wont matter soon as inflation removes value and demand destruction kills the economy. e.g Argentina, Turkey.

      All because they can print money for the chosen projects no-one voted for via direct democracy or close.

      You might be ok if your in the .1%

      Reply
    2. a-tracy
      August 3, 2022

      Dave, to me, the choice is:
      a) hold on to sufficient savings to pay for private care (or work for the civil service from an early age because we’ve all sussed out now that’s where the decent defined benefit pensions are still available) from a variety of people from mobile hairdressers, podiatrists, cleaners, gardeners, carers or private medical support.
      b) spend everything, sell up and rent and spend everything, then get everything free, maybe not the care home you’d like, maybe not the level of care you’d like but if you don’t look out for yourself, what are you expecting?

      Reply
  21. cuibono
    August 2, 2022

    Another way in which our (tremble with pride and awe) NHS has let us down.
    It used to have Geriatric Wards.
    And the old person did not pay…because they and their family were contributors to the Marxist system.
    Firms and Churches and various institutions provided long term care and convalescence and accommodation at reasonable cost or “free”.
    Decent pensions ( many now stolen) helped people to stay in their own homes.
    After a very brief interlude of Enlightenment the parasites are pushing us back into the Workhouse. ( Another of their great inventions to solve the problem of poverty…caused 100% by THEM!)

    Reply
  22. a-tracy
    August 2, 2022

    One way people can protect their parent’s inheritance is to care for them themselves and not rely on the State and hire someone a few hours per day. Our whole family shared the care of my Nan after her stroke and broken hip between her children and grandchildren; those without families will have saved up a lot more money to look after themselves as raising children costs a high proportion of a family’s wages.

    Reply
    1. Donna
      August 3, 2022

      That’s a nice idea.
      And in the 1950s/60s it might have applied to my grandparents and the extended family who all lived within 2 miles of each other in east London. Now the, far smaller, extended family is spread across southern England from Norfolk to Dorset.
      And the women, who did most of the caring are all either working or are themselves retired.
      Most families are the same.

      Reply
      1. a-tracy
        August 3, 2022

        Donna, a child living far away and working can sometimes afford to pay for a cleaner to go to their parents home, a gardner or persuade them to downsize and move into a retirement flat or bungalow. If they can’t care anymore should they expect a full inheritance and their parents to sit on savings and a big property to leave to them?

        Reply
  23. a-tracy
    August 2, 2022

    Social Care is out of control, people say there is not enough spent, yet it takes so much and is perceived to give so little and the government never defends the spending decisions.

    A council near me spends a quarter of a million pounds a week to get social needs children to school, over a million pounds per month! This spending is on top of their families getting mobility awards for their care!

    A woman was writing in the Guardian recently that she was cross if she worked more hours her benefits would reduce and they wanted to charge her an extra bedroom tax to persuade her to move into a smaller rented home now her children have gone off to university. The benefits were there to help to raise her children (both with autism), not to keep her for life. What is up with people that think they don’t have to provide for themselves, ever. She has care skills, probably another 20-25 years work life, there are a multitude of care job vacancies that she would be suitable for, she could have been training whilst her children were in college, we need to nip this in the bud sooner.

    Reply
  24. Cuibono
    August 2, 2022

    And now the NHS/State takes on the power of life and death.
    What does it matter to keep a life support on for a bit longer?
    Oh yes …MONEY.
    OK…let’s think of all the ways they squander it……

    Reply
  25. glen cullen
    August 2, 2022

    Fully integrate Social Care into the NHS and re-instate government/council run old peoples homes and where possible build old peoples home on the same site as hospitals, combining staff and resources

    Reply
  26. Christine
    August 2, 2022

    It doesn’t help that under the withdrawal agreement the UK is paying Carers Allowance, Attendance Allowance, and numerous other benefits to ex-pats and EU nationals who registered here, who are living in and paying their taxes to other EU countries. Plus the NHS through the S1 scheme pays for all their medical expenses once they reach, or their partner reaches retirement age. We also have abuse of the EHIC/GHIC system whereby EU nationals are claiming their medical expenses via the NHS.

    This Government continues to waste money. None seems to even care.

    Reply
  27. X-Tory
    August 2, 2022

    Sir John,

    Talking of growth, as you do in your Tweet today, if you do become an adviser to Liz Truss once she is elected as PM, I trust you will get her to devise a business taxation regime that will PROPERLY incentivise investment and growth. I know she will reverse Sunak’s planned increase in corporation tax, and that is a wise move, but it is not, and cannot be, the ONLY policy, as this would be like playing golf with just one club. Just allowing companies to make more profit is not sufficient – they must be encouraged to invest to grow their companies, or all the profit will be squandered on increased dividends given to foreign investors, which will be of ZERO benefit to the UK.

    The ONLY good thing Sunak did was introduce the super-deduction. But this needs to be expanded both in time (ie. it must NOT end next year as Sunak stupidly planned) and also in terms of what it covers. It needs to cover ALL plant and machinery AND ALSO BUILDINGS. This is crucial. We want to encourage companies to open NEW factories, and the building cost is the main consideration here. Let’s incentivise the building and equipping of new factories so that we encourage a wave of new industry in the UK.

    Finally, it is widely accepted that we need to encourage companies to increase their R&D investment, so the super-deduction should cover this too. Include ALL R&D in this tax incentive. I worry that Liz seems fixated on just corporation tax, where her policy is simply a no-change one – better than increasing this tax, certainly, but a very limited ambition it has to be said. She has not said a single word (that I have heard) about tax incentives for buildings, equipment and R&D. WHY NOT? Will you PLEASE get her to understand the importance of this and get her to announce and commit to a policy of maintaining and EXTENDING the super-deduction, both in time and in coverage? Thank you!

    Reply
  28. No Longer Anonymous
    August 2, 2022

    My brother and I have been carers for some seven years. Sadly my bother killed himself recently and caring for Mum was just one of the pressures he was under – the pressures under Covid lockdowns were intense.

    I have now taken it all on and Mum lives with me. I know the ropes as I was doing some of it already. This is limiting both socially and in career. Vast amounts of time off are spent chasing up medicines, appointments and ensuring she is stimulated.

    Care can go on for years – the NHS can keep a seriously ill and infirm person going for decades on cocktails of pills and this (bless her) is exactly what’s going on with Mum, now in her fourth decade of retirement.

    Snag is that she could still end up in a care home and the family inheritance drained down in a year – despite all our efforts.

    It’s very simplistic of people to say “If you want the inheritance you should look after your own parents.” Most of us do.

    The real injustice here is that fee paying care home residents subsidise those who don’t pay. Yet again it is often those who don’t make the effort get the best of the State.

    Reply
    1. Berkshire Alan
      August 2, 2022

      NLA
      Agree with the points you raise. I likewise was around and supported my mother for years until she had a series of strokes at 90 years old, she was not expected to survive, but did so in a bed ridden state, completely paralysed for a further 6 years, she never ever wanted to be dependent on help, but ended up in a local nursing home for 6 years, as she needed constant care which would have been absolutely impossible at home.
      I visited her 3 times a week for those 6 years, as I felt it my duty to do so, and it helped her struggle to try to come to terms with her condition, but without question it affected both my family and working life during that period.
      Full marks to all home careers who are, and have been, taken for granted by governments of all colours for decades.

      Reply
    2. a-tracy
      August 2, 2022

      Sorry to read this NLA. Are you not entitled to an attendance allowance or carers allowance to pay someone to come in a few hours each day whilst you’re at work? My FiL got meals on wheels, a carer twice per day, and mobility allowances later on in life. My Dad wants a British Dignitas; the thought of being incapacitated or a burden terrifies him.

      Reply
      1. No Longer Anonymous
        August 2, 2022

        a-tracy

        Thanks.

        She’s capable around the house but cannot get out unaccompanied. She uses sticks and must be pushed in a wheelchair. She is also incapable of running her own finances and affairs and is vulnerable to con merchants.

        I am not sure she is quite bad enough to warrant attendance allowance etc. Thus far I’ve been able to arrange appointments around my shifts but it is most annoying to have to chase things up over and over and over. 25 mg Morphine patches seem to be scarce at the moment.

        I took a day off recently for her to have some blood tests and the nurse was unable to find a suitable vein !!! They can only make two attempts, I believe and so another appointment has to be arranged.

        With the elderly it’s often the case that several attempts need to be made to get a health procedure done.

        Reply
        1. a-tracy
          August 3, 2022

          NLA yes I know this problem, my Aunty (no children) was a very independent lady and couldn’t drive, she had a taxi account with a local man who took her shopping, helped her carry her bags in, he took her to and from hospital appointments, some people really do work above and beyond their primary duty, he even brought coke (coal) in for her if she wasn’t feeling fit enough to carry it. Her cleaner would come in on days when she needed company, she paid privately for her cleaner. She sold her 3 bed semi in Manchester and moved into a one-bed flat in a retirement apartment with a care button system. The biggest problem with those sorts of places is the enormous management fees they charge to mainly hoover a corridor and redecorate every six years or so, and now they only have an on-call button system (not even live in carers as it was when it started – the management fees didn’t drop when they let go of the couple living in the complex that did that, it stopped something to do with having to pay them on-call for every hour if they lived on site).

          Reply
    3. Mark B
      August 3, 2022

      I too use to care for my mother and understand much of what you are experiencing. This is why I am so harsh with those scroungers and freeloaders, both born here and newcomers.

      You work hard, try to do all the right things – pay taxes, save and invest, and then you are expected use all that whilst others who did none of those things get lavished upon.

      Reply
  29. Kenneth
    August 2, 2022

    When the state steps in to provide social services, the family, friends and neighbours step out (they are made redundant).

    This makes for an uncaring society and creates unhappiness.

    Reply
  30. Rhoddas
    August 2, 2022

    Good morning, I often look abroad for best practice solutions as other countries have the same problems .. Here’s the recommended way from Ireland which looks perfect and likely affordable.

    This is an extract of letter from Anthony Coughlan, Spokesman, National Platform EU Research and Information Centre, Dublin, Republic of Ireland
    (Associate Professor Emeritus in Social Policy, Trinity College Dublin)

    British policy-makers may find it worthwhile examining how Ireland does this. Public financing of nursing home care for the elderly in the Republic has caused none of the controversy and problems here that it has done in Britain.

    Known as the “Fair Deal” scheme, it covers full-time care in Old Peoples’ Homes, public and private. The cost is covered by the elderly person or couple paying up to 80% of their current income towards that, plus 7.5% of their assets, which is usually a house, for a maximum of three years. This means a cap of 22.5% of assets in toto, but this is only payable following their deaths when those assets are realized. The scheme does not require people in social care to sell their homes while they are living, and their heirs will still receive over three-quarters of their family assets.

    This seems a much more sensible way of financing long-stay Nursing Home care for the elderly than raising National Insurance contributions for everyone. People who have assets as well as income use them to contribute to the cost of care, which seems intuitively fair to people, but only after their deaths and with a reasonable cap on the amount. There have never been significant objections to this scheme in Ireland.

    It may well be worth considering for the UK. Indeed as a mode of financing it could usefully be extended to cover home-care packages for the elderly as well.

    Reported on facts4u.org (source)

    Reply
    1. a-tracy
      August 2, 2022

      Interesting, how long has this been going on for?

      Reply
      1. Jamie
        August 2, 2022

        The Irish “fair deal scheme” started in October 2009 and has been going very well since with no complaints – the way it works can be checked on the HSE (health and safety executive) website

        Reply
        1. ukretired123
          August 2, 2022

          Inter country comparison of best practices are always extremely useful but hopefully not become a magnet for immigration either. Ireland has proved to be a test bed for some of the bigger UK changes in the past like VAT categories, but thankfully not the euro currency.

          Reply
    2. Mickey Taking
      August 2, 2022

      seems quite equitable – given the moral dilemma posed.

      Reply
      1. formula57
        August 2, 2022

        The Irish Scheme’s equitable quotient could be raised by requiring those who contribute not even the 22.5 per cent. of their assets (being without any) to sew mailbags and the like for the State.

        Reply
        1. Mickey Taking
          August 3, 2022

          perhaps the 80% contribution ought to be more like 95%?

          Reply
          1. Mickey Taking
            August 3, 2022

            — of the up to £20k they can keep anyway.

    3. anon
      August 3, 2022

      Useful ideas- a good question would be why they are not implemented here?
      Ireland, Scotland, others all have things to teach us. We used to learn and take the best ideas and use them.
      This means all areas, immigration, Health Social care, lease law.

      We have allowed ourselves to be incredibly badly governed for decades. We now have meaningless votes and i used to think voting with money power might help. Well money is just Fiat. They can print and spend more.

      Reply
  31. MWB
    August 2, 2022

    People who pay for themselves in a care home are charged a much higher amount than the ones that are council funded. Yet another government sanction swindle.

    Reply
  32. Cuibono
    August 2, 2022

    Grade inflation = not being able to tell the sheep from the goats.
    = administrative mayhem and chaos!

    Reply
  33. Mickey Taking
    August 2, 2022

    and now for something completely different…
    Almost 700 migrants crossed the English Channel in 14 small boats on Monday, a record for the year so far.
    The Ministry of Defence said 696 migrants made the crossing, topping the previous daily record of 651 in April.
    The French authorities stopped ONE boat at sea with 35 people on board.
    More than 17,000 people have arrived in the UK after navigating busy shipping lanes from France in small boats so far in 2022, according to Government figures.
    Last year, 28,526 people are known to have crossed in small boats – up from 8,404 in 2020.
    The government announced in April it plans to send some asylum seekers to Rwanda to claim asylum there instead. The first flight was cancelled minutes before take-off after legal rulings.

    Reply
    1. glen cullen
      August 2, 2022

      Our benefits are the pull factor across Europe
      In 2021 there where circa 2,000 undocumented immigrants in the Calais region…and yet ten fold that number have arrived on our shores
      Our Home Secretary should resign over this and Rwanda

      Reply
  34. DB
    August 2, 2022

    The state should not pay for social care if the person who needs it can meet the cost themselves. Also, the state should not pay for people’s childcare costs. People should not have children if they cannot afford to pay for them themselves. We are expecting the state to foot the bill for more and more things and it is unsustainable.

    Reply
    1. Berkshire Alan
      August 2, 2022

      DB
      What do you define as Social Care ?

      Reply
    2. Fedupsoutherner
      August 2, 2022

      Db. It’s not the state. It’s the taxpayer who foots the bill. It angers me when people who have no intention of ever working keep demanding more money. Same as multiple children. The clothes get passed down leaving the parents better off with the extra tax payers money they receive.

      Reply
      1. Cheshire Girl
        August 2, 2022

        And I am irritated when poverty, fuel or otherwise, is mentioned they cite ‘single Mothers’. On the Channel 4 news tonight, they were talking about soaring energy bills. As usual, it was ‘single Mother of 3’. I had no idea there were so many single Mothers.
        There must be many other single people who are affected by fuel poverty, but they rarely get a look in. Single Men, like my hard working,unmarried Son are at the bottom of the pile. They pay taxes towards other peoples benefits, child benefit, tax credits etc. without getting anything.
        I know thats life, but single people are important too.

        Reply
        1. Berkshire Alan
          August 3, 2022

          CG
          Indeed where are all of the fathers of these children, why are they allowed to get away without any form of contribution.
          The fathers should be the first call, not the last. !

          Reply
    3. MWB
      August 2, 2022

      Like Saint (sarcasm) Rashford bouncing the state into providing ‘free’ school meals for almost all children, even during the school holidays.

      Reply
  35. ChrisS
    August 2, 2022

    I for one deeply resent the fact that those who have spent all their money on holidays, drink etc are paid for by the rest of us who have been more sensible. There should be a minimum standard of care for those in that position while the rest of us enjoy a better quality of life while we have the money to contribute towards paying for it.

    The state cannot pay for long term care for everyone who needs it, just so they can leave the value of their home to their children. That would be unfair to younger taxpayers bringing up children of their own. The proceeds of the sale of a home must therefore be used to pay for care. The system is already too generous :
    We have one friend whose wife is sadly in need of care and he is living in their £1.2m home on his own. There has been no call on him to sign over up to half the value of the house to contribute to the cost of her care, instead, the taxpayer will pick up the bill and the wife’s share of the house will eventually go to their children.
    The state cannot afford to be so generous.

    Reply
    1. a-tracy
      August 3, 2022

      Chris, the irony is the government will take a fair share of that £1.2m when he dies anyway, The standard Inheritance Tax rate is 40%. It’s only charged on the part of your estate that’s above the threshold.
      So paying it sooner to cover his wife’s care now with a charge on the property or after he dies doesn’t matter anyway the exchequer will take their pound of flesh from this couple, but at least he would get to control how the money is spent if he does it now.

      Reply
  36. XY
    August 2, 2022

    A system that encourages people to have no money by the time they reach old age is flawed – encouraging people to live on other people’s money inevitably results in lots of people doing just that (as we can see from the enormous welfare bill).

    Probably the only way to have a system that works for all equally is to aim to support people living in their own home for as long as possible.

    This can be accompanied by the shared living arrangements that we’re seeing recently whereby a group of older people share accommodation and each contributes what they can still do, supported by carers (as minimally as possible).

    Reply
  37. Weathercock
    August 2, 2022

    So Girouette has now said ‘that the lady is for turning’.

    Reply
  38. Weathercock
    August 2, 2022

    Was Girouette going to cut the £84,144 that MPs get (among plenty of other bits & pieces, and even without considering their second jobs) if they were from outside London and the SouthEast?

    Reply The press release made clear no existing public sector employment contracts would be effected

    Reply
    1. hefner
      August 3, 2022

      Reply to reply: rewriting of ‘history’: James O’Brien, LBC, 03/08/2022 ‘JOB’s epic takedown of ‘useless, cowardly and dishonest’ Liz Truss’. available on YouTube.

      Reply
      1. Peter2
        August 4, 2022

        Predictably heffy is a fan of James O’Brien
        No surprise there.

        Reply
  39. Margaretbj.
    August 2, 2022

    I am Sick of people ramming old age down me.Funeral plans,age related Life insurance, social care, who is going to take a life times work from us in the form of our houses, whilst those monied continue to worry about inheritance tax.

    Reply
  40. ukretired123
    August 2, 2022

    In the immortal words of JFK “Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country”. Every child should be taught that.

    1.There needs to be a recognition of taxpayers contributions, their savings and their own positive self help paying for private health etc.
    2. The present social care costs are astronomical and are unsustainable.
    3. More incentives to keep fit and healthy should be proactively pursued like inexpensive Tai Chi, Yoga etc.
    4. While imperfect more use could be made of web based video calls to monitor the elderly but sadly all IT govt projects seem to end in disaster.
    5. Playing the system via fraud needs tightening.
    6. Disincentivise the default expectations of easy “benefits” – easier said than done.
    7. Help carers support groups – what happened to meals on wheels?
    8. Need an integrated community approach for early warning of problem cases esp with the upcoming heat or eat energy crisis.
    Those who worked in SME and self employed had to be more proactive than those who just rode on the employment bus as purely passengers and why the IR35 tax deterrent is key to getting folk to help themselves rather than expect the country who are unable to please everyone in old age sadly.

    Reply
  41. Iain gill
    August 2, 2022

    There have got to be incentives in the system to “do the right thing”, the system has increasingly encouraged people to do the wrong things. This is bad for all of us in the round.

    Reply
  42. Hamilcar Barca
    August 3, 2022

    Moving the recruitment and training of nurses from the wards to the ideologically chilled neo marxian seminar rooms, away from the Nightingale ‘science and art of nursing’, has virtually killed the profession and recruitment, despite now very good pay, is appalling. The third world is being stripped of staff, and indeed the Tory election manifesto claimed this as a great help and deliberate policy – not fixing our own recruitment and training method.

    The Francis Report tells it all, with the [superfluous] nursing professoriat fighting like cats to stop any return to the far better ward based system and keep their unneccessary and highly expensive elite institution going, a department of the Blob. The change back to the ward based system will mean the end of the politically correct control of training and the alienating chill factor for recruitment of ‘university’ entry – in the fact the old appprenticeship system embodied far higher standards of anatomy and physiology, delivered in blocks of teaching, by top consultants. Today’s syllabus is psycho dynamic woke pablum. Local women are alienated from the profession when they could make excellent caring nurses.

    The ‘chief nurse’, when asked by Rosie Cooper MP about continence care in the Commons Select Committee on Francis, said she did not know if it was in the syllabus: because there is now no syllabus, each ‘university’ dept of nursing makes up its own, as if a dept of English, with extremely light regulation.

    Why recruitment of doctors is collapsing is another disaster needing urgent attention at grass roots level. Recruiting, training and employing home grown doctors and nurses is, of course, the place to start in raising the NHS from the dead.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *