Spending and the case for social care

The government is currently looking into how we provide and pay for social care.

Today we have a mixed scheme. The general principle behind it is if someone needs meals and housing, these are  normal costs they should pay for out of their incomes and pensions. If someone needs medical treatment or a stay in hospital, this is something that comes free under the NHS guarantee.

If someone needs help at home with everyday activities then they have to pay. If they are on a low income with few assets then the state pays. The value of their home is not taken into account when working out if they can afford the home care.  If someone has to go into a care home then they have to pay if they have income and assets. The state pays when the assets have largely gone. The  value of their former home is part of their assets for this purpose, and they have to sell their former home to pay for the care home. Of course if they have  a partner that still needs to live in their own home this does not apply.

Some think this is unfair, as it means if an elderly person needs to go into a home they lose their home and its value if the fees so require. Conversely if an elderly person can stay in their own property, they keep the asset and get more help with the care costs if on a low income.

I do  not think we should change this general approach. It would be too dear to offer people free care home provision so they can leave their former home to their children, whilst it would be too tough to demand people living in their own homes to have to pay a levy on the price of their home. No political party has come up with a popular way of making this fairer and easier. Some have suggested taking some of the value of the home for the person continuing to live in it, by way of an additional death tax, whilst putting some cap on the amount of the  value of the former home someone needs to spend on care home fees. I would be interested in views on it,  but still think it too difficult to sell the idea of what will be called a new death tax over and above IHT.

I want some additional money to increase the quality and quantity of social care, for people of all ages and disabilities. Better care is a good in its own right, where many of us are happy to make a contribution through taxation. It will also reduce more strain on the NHS by getting people back home more quickly after hospital treatment.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.


  1. Mark B
    Posted July 25, 2018 at 5:19 am | Permalink

    Good morning

    The government is currently looking into how we provide and pay for social care.

    So the idea of importing vast numbers of people to pay for our old hasn’t quite worked out then ?

    People do not have to sell their homes, they can live with relatives or, in a care home and rent their homes out. This would help to pay for their care and, help towards solving the MASS IMMIGRATION crisis, sorry I mean the housing crisis, that government policy has inflicted upon us.

    It seems to me that those who inhabit the Palace of Westminster need to sing the nursery rhyme of the Old Lady who swallowed s fly. Her solution to the problem was simple. Think of something that will get rid of the initial problem even if it makes her life worse.

    • Anonymous
      Posted July 25, 2018 at 6:49 am | Permalink

      Migrants get old too, you know.

      • Anonymous
        Posted July 25, 2018 at 6:50 am | Permalink

        You’d think the NHS would be in tip top condition with all those doctors making it over the Med.

        • Hope
          Posted July 25, 2018 at 2:38 pm | Permalink

          Well I feel better just donated to crowd funding Darren Grimes against the Electoral Commission.

          I would advocate Priti Patel ask for crowd funding for her campaign to get the electorial commission to investigate Remain campaigns.

          How do extremely political activists become a member of an alleged independent body! Do they forget their views from when they were MPs and the like?

          I read with interest Irish minister saying May will capitulate to more EU demands to get a deal and will succeed as she will scare the people witless to do so! Perhaps this explains project fear being ramped up at the moment, calls for second referendums, food and medicine to be stocked piled, Hammond deliberately slowing the economy etc. even the turn coat Raab appeared to go along with it! Best he sticks with making the tea for Robbins!

          • getahead
            Posted July 25, 2018 at 6:21 pm | Permalink

            Hey me also.

          • Hope
            Posted July 25, 2018 at 8:20 pm | Permalink

            Apparently we are to receive weekly scare stories from May about leaving the EU without a deal.

            It worth asking why was Lord Haw-haw hung,do,his,chit chat,against the country if May is allowed to continue with her lies, treachery, underhand behaviour and propaganda today for stock piling food and medicine?

            I would trust Kim Philby to act and negotiate in the national interest any day of the week and twice on Sunday to May.

        • Iain Gill
          Posted July 25, 2018 at 4:40 pm | Permalink

          You would think NHS charging 3 quid an hour to park…

      • L Jones
        Posted July 25, 2018 at 3:25 pm | Permalink

        And they also die eventually, as do we all. In the 19th century cremation became necessary because of the lack of room in graveyards, and this has become the norm, especially now that suitable land is becoming scarcer.

        But some philosophies, sects or religions don’t allow cremation. So what happens then to all the people who want to be buried instead? Does this come under the heading ”social care”?

        • Dennis Zoff
          Posted July 25, 2018 at 4:56 pm | Permalink

          L Jones

          Is it a myth we do not have sufficient land at our disposal?

          How land is used in the UK

          1. Farmland 56.7%
          2. Natural 34.9%
          3. Built on 5.9%
          4. Green urban 2.1%

          Not counting Crown land?

          Source: Corine Land Cover inventory

          • L Jones
            Posted July 25, 2018 at 9:42 pm | Permalink

            Good. So which portion should we reserve for the extra burial grounds then?

    • JimS
      Posted July 25, 2018 at 6:56 am | Permalink

      So the idea of importing vast numbers of people to pay for our old hasn’t quite worked out then ?

      We abort 200,000 babies each year and then import 200,000 adults to replace them. That means that the need for transport and health care are brought forward by twenty years or so. Another government Ponzi scheme where we borrow to pay the debt of our previous borrowing, then borrow again to pay that debt.

      • Lifelogic
        Posted July 25, 2018 at 3:30 pm | Permalink

        People who work and pay for their own children are often deterred from having any more while people whose children live off the taxes of others on benefits (often the taxes of these former people) can have as many children as they want it would seem. I do not blame these people much they are behaving rationally given the system the politicians have put in place.

        The lets all be feckless system and live of others system. But then they run out of others!

    • L Jones
      Posted July 25, 2018 at 8:22 am | Permalink

      Therefore we need to add another to the list:

      SOCIAL CARE CRISIS + NHS crisis + transport crisis + education crisis + housing crisis + policing crisis + water crisis = POPULATION CRISIS

    • Adam
      Posted July 25, 2018 at 8:42 am | Permalink

      Mark B:

      We don’t need to import. We can find suitable existing people to pay.

      Misc ideas to transform bad into goodness:

      1. Generate NHS money by confiscating violent offenders’ assets on sentence.
      2. Sentence criminals to complete 6 months unpaid work in ‘NHS factories’ before being considered for release.
      3. Save on prison costs by sentencing non-violent offenders to wear a distinctive L-plate uniform in public at all times, with 1 year in jail for not doing so.
      4. Refurbish unused prisons into high-quality care homes.
      5. Add 10% Violence-Added Tax to violent offenders’ HMRC bills for 6 years.

    • Hope
      Posted July 25, 2018 at 8:46 am | Permalink

      Tory party made several promises over social care and have broken all of them in the last eight years. Your leader is underhand lacks integrity and you cannot beleive a word she says May tried to introduce her Demetia tax at the last election and then falsely said nothing had changed when the polls plummeted against her.

      There is no trust in May ad therefore much debate about any Tory policy has become redeundant. Who in the it right mind would beleive or trust any proposed policy made by May? Yesterday Raab was promoting his paper to join the EU under the heading withdraw bill!

      The paper made it quite clear May wants the European Commuites Act to apply again, ECJ to rule, EU allowed to take billions at intervals and sums to suite it! Freedom of movement also continues. Raab said in parliament that paper kept faith with the referendum! This is clearly not true. He needs to be held to account. Again, I do not know why any Tory MP did not challenge him when he made this clearly false remark.
      It strikes me a Raab has let his ambition overrule his intellect, values and conviction.

    • Stephen Priest
      Posted July 25, 2018 at 8:54 am | Permalink

      It works like this in the minds of so many politicians.

      Two semi-detached houses.

      In each one lives two families who live on similar incomes.

      House 1: the family live within their means, never get into debt, save for the future.

      House 2: the family live beyond their means, always get into debt, never save for the future.

      The family from House 1 are penalised by politicians.

      The family from House 2 are helped by politicians.

      • Nig l
        Posted July 25, 2018 at 11:19 am | Permalink

        Too cynical, there are many deserving people who have never had much and need a life raft of support. However now the politicians have found another way to cane the prudent, namely force down the cost for local authority placements resulting, according to a report today, in the rest paying an additional 10k a year.

        There is also the problem that once in and paying, Care Homes know the resident is not going to leave and ramp up their charges and what does this wonderful government do about these? Precisely!

      • Adam
        Posted July 25, 2018 at 12:26 pm | Permalink

        An accurate description, Stephen Priest, yet politicians repeatedly fail to remedy their idiocy.

      • Martyn G
        Posted July 25, 2018 at 1:34 pm | Permalink

        There’s a bit more to this, because those in house 1 who need to go into a care whom are overcharged to the tune of £10k p.a. to subsidise those in same home from house 2, simply because local councils will not pay the full rate and someone has to pick up the tab. Death duties in another form but paid for whilst still breathing…..

        • Lifelogic
          Posted July 25, 2018 at 3:33 pm | Permalink

          Indeed yet another back door tax. The highest taxes for well over 40 years and still we have generally appalling public services.

  2. Lifelogic
    Posted July 25, 2018 at 5:24 am | Permalink

    The quality of state care can be truly appalling as I know from personal experience. Encourage more people to make living wills and legalise euthanasia, this is surely sensible. Many people would not want to be kept alive once the quality of lives became so poor. Why should they be obliged to by law (and the people with various daft “belief” systems)? They can make their own decisions but should not order others to do the same as them.

    So May is to take person charge of Brexit. That sounds like even more of a disaster than the last election where she threw away her majority with her vote for me and I will kick you in the teeth socialist manifesto. When can we have a real Tory as PM? We have had essentially daft, dishonest socialists since Mrs Thatcher and even she made some huge errors, failed to address the NHS, signed away rights to the EU and even allowed John Major to take us in to the ERM as Chancellor and replace her. All without so much a Maths “O” level!

    • alan jutson
      Posted July 25, 2018 at 6:25 am | Permalink


      Mrs May is in charge of Brexit in name only, the real power has been given to Oily Robbins, which is even more of a worry given neither of them have any real commercial experience.

      Its like putting them both in the England cricket team against the Aussies as opening batsmen, they know what to do, as they have read the autobiography of a past England Captain.

      Problem is they think they will get a good deal, when they have not got a clue what is a bad one.
      Utter Madness.

      • Lifelogic
        Posted July 25, 2018 at 3:37 pm | Permalink

        It will be a disaster can someone replace this wrong on every issue women and do so without getting the even more wrong Corbyn. Even if he was once right on one thing (the EU) for most of his years. Until he changed his mind on that so he is wrong on everything too now just like May.

      • Turboterrier.
        Posted July 25, 2018 at 5:03 pm | Permalink

        alan jutson

        Utter Madness.

        Totally in full agreement with that Alan.

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted July 25, 2018 at 6:36 am | Permalink

      “Chairman May” to you, Lifelogic, and in the national interest but with the greatest reluctance she has been compelled to take direct control of Brexit into her own hands through the criminal incompetence of those she had entrusted with the task who did not fully understand that Brexit meant Bre, only half of Brexit. Remember, comrade, what they forgot, that half a Brexit is better than no Brexit at all.

      • Mitchel
        Posted July 25, 2018 at 2:12 pm | Permalink

        The Great Helmsperson!Are we not blessed?!

        • Pragmatist
          Posted July 28, 2018 at 9:17 am | Permalink

          The word is Helmsman. There is no such thing as a Helmsperson…the abstract conveys people who are helpers to the Helmsman, assistants, deck swabbers. Oh, you may be right after all

      • Lifelogic
        Posted July 25, 2018 at 3:39 pm | Permalink

        Her agenda seems to be worse than remain. It is miles from 1/2 a Brexit.
        Brexit clearly means sweet F.A. to Theresa May. Plus she is wrong on everything else she touches too.

        • Iain Gill
          Posted July 25, 2018 at 5:50 pm | Permalink

          Yep reducing police stops has caused knife crime to rise clearly a may decision from her time as home secretary, out of control immigration while promising to reduce it is also directly her

    • Anonymous
      Posted July 25, 2018 at 6:43 am | Permalink

      My experience is that children do, in fact, do their duty as far as elderly parents go but that the palliative stage now goes on a lot longer than it used to. One friend has just spent three years with a father suffering chronic dementia – numerous bouts of pneumonia in that time.

      This was after a good ten years of what we would call normal family care.

      A career ruined, full duty to parent and state done and yet no inheritance left.

      I want euthanasia. I do not want to ruin my children’s lives.

      • Lifelogic
        Posted July 25, 2018 at 3:43 pm | Permalink

        Many now live miles away. A friend of mine has two daughters both qualified as doctors in the UK and both duly left one is in Australia and the other in New Zealand. Not easy to care from that distance. But even 100 miles away when you have a full time job and several children is hard. Anyway many thing that is why they pay such huge taxes and the state should do cover it!

      • Iain Gill
        Posted July 25, 2018 at 4:44 pm | Permalink

        We were told to get on our bikes and move for work, sadly leaving parents too far away to help

    • Dave Andrews
      Posted July 25, 2018 at 7:47 am | Permalink

      Euthanasia is a violation of humanity.

      On the other hand, society needs to visit the question of whether there is value in medical intervention, for the very young and very old, to extend poor quality of life.
      Perhaps we all need to learn that we must let some people go.

      Agree with you on the PM. Having just appointed Raab, does she already feel he’s not approaching the task with sufficient appeasement?

      • miami.mode
        Posted July 25, 2018 at 3:30 pm | Permalink

        DA. Mrs May gave Dominic Raab DExEU and then immediately decked him.

        • alan jutson
          Posted July 25, 2018 at 8:24 pm | Permalink


          Only a weak person would have took it in the first place knowing what the score was with Davis outlining the picture before he resigned.

          As soon as staff were taken away and given to Robbins in the first week it was underlined yet again, now he is just a bag carrier after two weeks in the job, with even more of his staff gone.

          What sort of management authority has Raab got left, absolutely Zero,

      • Timaction
        Posted July 25, 2018 at 7:04 pm | Permalink

        It has all been choreographed and in connivance with the msm! Anyone who votes legacies gets…………….EU and shafted. Hopefully enough good men and women are true to finally see the light. Her timing was impeccable, selling out the DEEU at the 11th hour and 55th minute and now we’ll have the propaganda in set up speeches, patsy audiences, like Shameron during the recess. Oh and project fear 190! We live in a dictatorship, democracy has broken and the coup De tat was a success………..until the next election…….then goodbye Tory’s as no one will ever trust them again! Raaab, Fox, Leadsom, Gove etc should hang their heads in shame for taking the May shilling!

    • Bob
      Posted July 25, 2018 at 7:57 am | Permalink


      “So May is to take person charge of Brexit.”

      It’s a power grab by the EU, as I said previously, she is not working for Britain, she works for the EU. Once you grasp that unpalatable fact, her actions begin to make sense. Brussels has no compunction about replacing uncooperative national leaders with their own technocrats.

      • Turboterrier.
        Posted July 25, 2018 at 5:09 pm | Permalink


        she is not working for Britain, she works for the EU.

        Half the nation agree with you if not more. How the elected politicians put up with all of this is beyond comprehension.

    • Ed Mahony
      Posted July 25, 2018 at 10:24 am | Permalink


      ‘legalise euthanasia’

      I think euthanasia is morally evil and indefensible. If people want to sadly take their life, themselves, that’s their moral choice (although I’d encourage more support of the Samaritans and other bodies that help people seriously suicidal).

      Euthanasia, legalised would lead to all kinds of abuses. I know 99% of Conservatives a 100 years ago would be abhorred by euthanasia. Rightly so.
      As they would be by abortion, gay marriage, the break down of family life, adults throwing acid into children’s faces, knife-crime, and so on.

      We need to get back to traditional morals and spiritual life (and make the most of the physical world we have as well – even if people do or do not believe in the Divine).


      • Peter VAN LEEUWEN
        Posted July 25, 2018 at 2:17 pm | Permalink

        @Ed Mahony:
        As lifelong members of the Dutch Association for voluntary euthanasia (NVVE), this is only one of several reasons we’re very relieved to have chosen for the Netherlands in stead of Britain, some forty years ago. I don’t see your connection to spirituality, I know very spiritual people who have chosen for euthanasia.

        • Ed Mahony
          Posted July 25, 2018 at 6:34 pm | Permalink


          I love Holland and the Dutch. One of my oldest and best friends is Dutch, and his wedding in Amsterdam, perhaps the best I ever went to. I love your arts, your history, and so on. Again, I love Holland and the Dutch (but best of all England and the English!).

          BUT so glad we in the UK aren’t so liberal over things like euthanasia. I really am. Because I think it’s a major black spot on your great country.


        • Fedupsoutherner
          Posted July 25, 2018 at 9:52 pm | Permalink

          PVL. This is the first time I have agreed with your post. What right does anyone else have go make you endure a long and painful death. It is inhumane in this day and age. I hope I go quickly.

          • Ed Mahony
            Posted July 26, 2018 at 7:36 am | Permalink


            And I know I stand in good company with Conservatives from over 100 years ago (even if I don’t stand in good company with some here).

            Whether that be my opposition to gay marriage (which the Tories unbelievably introduced), I going on about work ethic over greed (Boris Johnson preached about ‘greed’ at Tory Conference few years ago), With Privilege Comes Responsibility (some / many would think me quaint for saying that), and so on.

            Everything I say on this site is pure traditional Conservatism – the sort of Conservatism that heroes of mine such as Edmund Burke, Samuel Johnson, Jane Austen, and others would have followed.

        • Ed Mahony
          Posted July 27, 2018 at 11:32 am | Permalink

          All I meant was that the more we embrace the spiritual, the more we’re able to withstand the suffering of the physical. That’s my experience to a degree, at least.

          Certainly, there are some people who say their physical suffering is exacerbated by the feeling of being trapped in what they perceive as a (physical-world) gold-fish bowl, with nothing in sight, no spiritual hope or comfort, except physical suffering.

      • Know-Dice
        Posted July 25, 2018 at 2:44 pm | Permalink

        Ed, euthanasia is a very tricky topic 🙁

        My mother spent 5 very traumatic years in a nursing home and on many occasions, when lucid, expressed the desire to be left to die.

        We generally don’t have the choice of how and when we die, but certainly it is something that should be discussed and not just on religious grounds.

        • Ed Mahony
          Posted July 25, 2018 at 6:38 pm | Permalink


          I am very, very careful what I say to people, face-to-face. But on a website like this, where a fellow a Conservative in the comments is supporting euthanasia, and I don’t want to take up Mr Redwood’s time, then I have to be a bit more black-and-white.

          Although there are many religious people anti euthanasia, lots of agnostics and atheists are anti euthanasia for their own moral reasons as well, whether from moral philosophy or just instinctively or both.


      • Anonymous
        Posted July 25, 2018 at 3:12 pm | Permalink

        You do realise modern medicine extends the death throes, don’t you ? Akin to repeated waterboarding in many cases.

        • L Jones
          Posted July 25, 2018 at 9:54 pm | Permalink

          Well said, Anonymous. Dr Redwood saw fit to reject my previous comment on this (his prerogative, of course) but it always seems to me that people sound smug when they get on their high horse and tell others than euthanasia is just not on.
          Have they ever been close to a person in extremis? Or imagined how they would cope?
          Sorry, Dr R – just had to try again.

        • Ed Mahony
          Posted July 25, 2018 at 11:07 pm | Permalink


          ‘Akin to repeated waterboarding in many cases’

          – Medically, the case for euthanasia is weakening as science produces more and better ways of treating pain, including pain of the terminally ill and dying.

      • margaret howard
        Posted July 26, 2018 at 3:55 pm | Permalink

        Ed Mahony

        “I know 99% of Conservatives a 100 years ago would be abhorred by euthanasia”

        I’m sure they would. Just as we today are horrified that they were ‘seeding the empire’ by sending unfortunate youngsters into the colonies to be abused and exploited.

        That unfortunate ‘unmarried mothers’ were ostracised and forced to give up their babies.

        Children were beaten by mad teachers

        People lived in absolute poverty with little state help etc etc – the list is endless.

        Thanks to all the people who fought hard to make today’s life possible

        • Ed Mahony
          Posted July 27, 2018 at 11:27 am | Permalink

          Fair enough. However, how do you know those types of Conservatives, that you refer to in your comment, wouldn’t be supporting euthanasia today as opposed to protecting those who might be made vulnerable by euthanasia – like lots of old, sick and disabled people.

          There are lots of old, sick and disabled people who are genuinely concerned about euthanasia, and how it can make them more vulnerable to the abuse and manipulation of others. These people need to be defended. It’s not just about defending the spirit of the Hippocratic Oath. And as I said, treatment to relieve the suffering of the dying and terminally ill is improving all the time.

        • Ed Mahony
          Posted July 27, 2018 at 12:51 pm | Permalink

          Moreover, I also referred to the type of Conservatives in the past who were my heroes: Edmund Burke, Samuel Johnson and Jane Austen. They were all devout traditional Christians – and so opposed, no doubt, to all the bad things you mention in your list that happened back then. And I have no doubt would be opposed to euthanasia as well.

    • Ed Mahony
      Posted July 25, 2018 at 10:33 am | Permalink


      ‘Why should they be obliged to by law (and the people with various daft “belief” systems)?’

      You talk about Cambridge University, but Sir Isaac Newton was a devout Christian, spending much time in prayer. Was he ‘daft’ as well? (Or devout traditional Christians such as Edmund Burke, Samuel Johnson, Jane Austen, Michael Faraday, Handel, James Maxwell, and many others).

      How can you suggest anyone is ‘daft’ for believing in the Divine? I mean can you give us a logical reason how stuff (spacetime) came into existence from absolutely nothing (unless you argue space time has existed eternally?). Why do people say they experience something they can only describe as Divine when they experience unconditional love, or the beauty in Mozart or gazing at the beauty in nature, or how come we have the free will to escape the pre-determined laws of physical world on the one hand, and the chaotic nature of the world on the other?

      I don’t know how you can be so sure about what is really real and what isn’t?


      • Al
        Posted July 25, 2018 at 12:49 pm | Permalink

        “I think euthanasia is morally evil and indefensible.”

        I am afraid I think that keeping someone alive against their wishes when they are terminally ill, have no hope of recovery, and are in constant pain because after a certain point pallative care and pain relief simply does not work is similarly morally indefensible.

        • Ed Mahony
          Posted July 25, 2018 at 3:24 pm | Permalink

          The long-standing Hippocratic Oath makes it morally unjustifiable to take part in the willing death of another human being. Especially as palliative care is getting more and more efficient.

          Plus, there’s no guarantee that ALL people who ask for euthanasia would think the same at a later time. People CAN make mistakes and regret decisions (too late if they’re dead). More importantly, it would make vulnerable people even more vulnerable.

          So yes, suffering is evil. But the greater evil, surely, is to willingly take part in the death of another for the reasons above.

          • Fedupsoutherner
            Posted July 25, 2018 at 9:56 pm | Permalink

            Ed. They are not going to regret it if they are dead. My brother in law died in a most abhorrent fashion. He begged to die. It was terrible for my sister to watch him in so much pain. Death was a release for them both. It should have come sooner and more mercifully.

          • Ed Mahony
            Posted July 26, 2018 at 7:22 am | Permalink


            But the difference between Conservative ethics and Social Liberal ethics is that Conservatives argue which is the greater of two evils: the suffering of death itself in general or where one person can deliberately end the life of another AND where that power can be abused. I don’t deny it’s really difficult and that, in face-to-face with others, one has to be REALLY careful what one says.

            But it is Conservatives who should be defending the traditional Hippocratic Oath, You Can Only Kill In Self Defence, and the most vulnerable in society including the old and ill – vulnerable from the abuse of systems and individuals within those systems, including some (although a minority in society overall) unscrupulous family members.

            I’d argue, I’m just defending what is a basic Conservative value throughout history.


        • L Jones
          Posted July 25, 2018 at 3:33 pm | Permalink

          Agreed, Al. Those people who advocate the equivalent of ”soldiering on” despite appalling suffering, have had it easy themselves thus far, I’d guess.

      • Lifelogic
        Posted July 25, 2018 at 3:59 pm | Permalink

        Sir Isaac Newton was a devout Christian, spending much time in prayer. Was he ‘daft’ as well?

        Well ‘misguided’ on that issue, but in those days people had far less information and understanding and could perhaps be excused for assuming their must have been a grand designer God. Did his prayer come true one wonders & did he experiment on this issue? Think what he might have achieved had he has use the prayer time on more productive areas?

        He does however seem to have been egotistical, devious, vindictive, and generally rather unpleasant. Certainly the records and Steven Hawking’s seems to believe this.

        • Richard1
          Posted July 25, 2018 at 6:19 pm | Permalink

          He was however a believer in capitalism, albeit an unsuccessful practitioner through the south Sea bubble. Nor did he countenance such deceptions as massive QE during his stewardship of the Royal Mint.

      • margaret howard
        Posted July 26, 2018 at 3:58 pm | Permalink

        “I mean can you give us a logical reason how stuff (spacetime) came into existence from absolutely nothing”

        So how did your god come into existence from absolutely nothing?

      • Stred
        Posted July 27, 2018 at 6:40 am | Permalink

        Vicar’s daughter Theresa May worships in Church ever Sunday and deceives every other day. QED.

  3. Richard1
    Posted July 25, 2018 at 5:37 am | Permalink

    How many £bns for each of these 4 spending increases? We save perhaps £12bn net by leaving the EU but Mrs May has already given 3 years+ of that back to the EU as a leaving present (& this seems to be agreed before everything is agreed). We still have a budget deficit of £30bn, so debt is still rising (I just got an email from brandon lewis claiming debt is falling), the NHS is getting £20bn extra with no conditions, most of which surely will go on higher wages. We are 9 years into a growth period and the average recession comes round every 12 years. And we have the highest tax take as a % of GDP for 40 years. Does this all stack up? When can we cut taxes as we are now warned by wall st banks we must if we are to stay competitive as we Exit the EU single market and in the US Mr Trump cuts taxes and de-regulates?

    • Ian wragg
      Posted July 25, 2018 at 7:51 am | Permalink

      Not only has she given 3 years contribution for nothing she is now manoeuvre to pay our net contribution in perpetuity to belong to EU institutions.
      She says that the withdrawal agreement is 80% complete which means she only has 20% more to concede and the betrayal will be complete.

      • Jagman84
        Posted July 25, 2018 at 11:53 am | Permalink

        I am always puzzled by this need for an agreement to leave. Why are we like a child asking to leave the dinner table? This subservience must be brought to an end. However, Theresa May is certainly not the one who has the resolve to do so. She really is a child of the EU!

  4. Fedupsoutherner
    Posted July 25, 2018 at 6:04 am | Permalink

    How about spending less on foreign aid and instead look after our own elderly who have after all paid for their care through taxation and NI? Or we could try Andy’s way and just leave pensioners to rot.

    There will always be the feckless out there that pay nothing in but get everything paid for. That’s life. Other than a specific insurance scheme that we all pay in for I don’t know the answer. The money paid in could be used for those that need care and we take pot luck whether that would be us or not.

  5. alan jutson
    Posted July 25, 2018 at 6:14 am | Permalink

    Many problems arise because there is not set definition about what medical care means.

    Just a few examples.

    If you are doubly incontinent, cannot feed yourself or medicate yourself properly due to disability, lack of strength or have sight problems.
    If you are suffering pain are immobile and need regular turning to try and avoid bed sores.

    Clearly given the above you may be better looked after in a nursing home than at home, but who works out what percentage.
    If you remain at home, would this be regarded as medical treatment and free of charge.

    Probably many people are not aware of the continuing care rules, where all treatment is free, but the rules are different in each Primary Care area WHY !

    If we have a National Heath Service, should not the rules be clear and the same in all area’s.

    • Iain Gill
      Posted July 25, 2018 at 7:42 am | Permalink

      Yes the insurance terms and conditions should be written down and it should be clear when you get a payout.

      Individuals should be choosing how to spend their payouts.

      Ccg’s the unreformed pct’s should not be delivering radically different Carrington different areas, any difference should be a result of individual choice not CCG fashions and bias.

    • a-tracy
      Posted July 25, 2018 at 8:42 am | Permalink

      Alan, i think rules are different in primary care areas because of local housing circumstances, for example in the North a house purchased for £3000 in 1970 is worth around £110,000 now in London or the Southeast how much would this same 3 bed semi with windows replaced and the same level of decoration be, around £500,000 maybe? So the taxman has more gain to go at to fund the care in the South than the North through pure location gain via Governments prioritising the development and spending of infrastructure around London.

      • alan jutson
        Posted July 25, 2018 at 11:23 am | Permalink


        I take your point about house prices in different area’s, but we are talking about a “National Health Care System” not inheritance values.

        Why should treatment options be different, why should treatment be given different labels, and be listed differently, in different parts of the Country, why a post code lottery for treatment or for which department treatment and care is assigned to.

        The problem is the rules on treatment, availability, and what comprises medical treatment, social care, or simple humanitarian need, are very confused and blurred.

        Until we have settled the rules, how can you plan anything, either as a Government, a Local Authority, or an individual.

        The rates we have all paid or pay for a National Health Service are the same nationwide, so why should treatment, care or help be different ?

        • a-tracy
          Posted July 25, 2018 at 3:07 pm | Permalink

          I’m just repeating what I’ve had explained to me alan not disagreeing with you, it is also much more difficult for people that haven’t retired on fixed benefit and final salary pensions and don’t know how much of their savings to hold on to and for how long.

          However, I was told the care costs were taken out of the gain of your property with the lowest point ceiling of £150,000 nationwide when it was in May’s manifesto and cost her the election.

          I appreciate care homes cost more down South because of higher wages and property costs, but the inheritors of the property have the ability to provide care themselves and save on care home fees, or hire private sector carers to look after their parents and not pay some of the ridiculous £750 per week care costs! My parents cared for my Nana and we all helped at weekends because she was terrified of going into a home from her Council house. The money’s running out to do everything needed in social care, the kids can’t afford to pay anymore with their 9% graduate tax on top of the sky-high council taxes and income taxes now, the best of social care has already been spent and the money wasn’t invested for the future it was spent on a generation that hadn’t put away for 42 years which has spiralled into the pyramid situation we now face. It’s all going to come crashing down around our ears unless everyone gets real about what social care can cover from the premiums we pay.

          I would think some new thinking is required and there are plenty of people living on benefits that could live in communities providing care for their free accommodation in Council housing villages, where people up and downsize properties according to their need. If an elderly person frees up a 3 bed council property then there is a saving for the state, if a single parent with several children then get use of said larger property they owe the community redress and no-one should ever have got something for nothing, if they were busier during school hours perhaps we wouldn’t have so much depression, smoking, drinking, and more children being born into this state of affairs, I’m dreading old age or incapacity when you read people like Andy’s regular jibes it’s going to get ugly which is why I think the government are trying to get some of the enormous property gains back from individual families.

          • alan jutson
            Posted July 26, 2018 at 8:38 am | Permalink

            The big problem with social care is the complexity of the rules as a whole, and the different rules in different areas.

            I also have some experience of the above after having both of my parents needing care, with Mum in a care home for five years, and both of my wife parents needing support and eventually Hospice care

            I do not wish to get into a long winded explanation, but believe me, if you want any form of satisfaction from the system, you have to get fully clued up, and be confident in your arguments, which takes a huge amount of investigative time and effort.
            You can contest medical assessments, you can argue their own system rules, against the very same system they try to impose.

            It is surprising how many so called professionals do not know exactly the rules of the system they try to inflict on others, and are totally ignorant of the finer details.

            Unfortunately it takes a huge amount of time to get clued up, and the frustration is immense.

            One thing I certainly learned, is never take for granted what you are told is the case, as very often they are trying to do what is best for them, not for you, the customer/patient.

            The second thing that having Power of Attorney helps.

            Should we have to do the above to get a fair outcome, absolutely not, but that is the way it is at the moment.

            Ps the cost of a care home here in the South East is approx £1,200 per week or more if you have to pay yourself.

  6. Dave Andrews
    Posted July 25, 2018 at 6:17 am | Permalink

    The answer is INSURANCE.

    I’m pleased to report that in the latter years of my working life, I have no conditions that spell long term care. How long this will be the case I don’t know, or whether ultimately I shall require a short or long care home stay. Do I keep a little by, or build up a massive horde I may never need?

    What I would like to do is take out an insurance that pays in the event I have to go into a care home. However, my IFA reports that no such policies exist any more, and my own research confirms that.

    This is a matter that government should take up with the insurance companies. It needs provision in place for people who genuinely have no means to afford the premiums.

    Oh and please abolish IPT. A tax introduced by the socialist Ken Clarke I seem to remember.

    • Newmania
      Posted July 25, 2018 at 7:31 am | Permalink

      Agreed – Insurance is a social good in every conceivable way and yet it is taxed punitively . Some of the things the state does well are really forms of insurance , for example , when you are young you are taxed at a high rate and get very little back.
      When you have children you use a lot of free service and do very nicely out of the state . My young friends sometimes say to me” Why should I pay for your children? ”

      I say ..”You are paying for yours, but I do know the feeling , believe me “

      • Richard1
        Posted July 25, 2018 at 12:08 pm | Permalink

        No doubt you will have seen & agreed with John Nelson’s letter in the FT yesterday asserting that the insurance industry (inter alia) & Lloyds will be hugely negatively impacted by Brexit. This seemed to relate to authorisations to operate in different jurisdictions. But why would these authorisations not novate to the UK like other trade arrangements & also are there really no potential benefits from being out of the EU regulatory ambit in insurance – we have heard enough complaints from the Industry about the direction of regulation after all?! It would be interesting to hear more detail on this.

      • Lifelogic
        Posted July 25, 2018 at 4:14 pm | Permalink

        Insurance can be a good in making people behave more sensibly, allowing them to judge risks and provide for themselves. For example if very fat people had to pay more insurance for medical cover then they might slim down.

        But a lot of insurance is, to put it bluntly rather a complete rip off, even before the 12% IPT on top. If you insure you are paying in far more than you are, on average, likely to claim. You have to pay for all the companies staff, premises, claims processors, lawyers plus all the fraudulent claims too.

        My approach is to insure only the big risks (like a property burning down or a huge liability claim). I take large excesses on policies and self insure in general for smaller risks. Good to insure perhaps where you know you are a higher than average risk for some reason but do not have to legally declare it!

        It is always irritating and time consuming making a claim anyway and often you end up feeling you are being cheated a bit too or being put though too much hassle by them.

    • Lifelogic
      Posted July 25, 2018 at 4:03 pm | Permalink

      And recently put up by 20% to 12% by “tax cutter” and lets make everyone feckless Hammond!

    • acorn
      Posted July 25, 2018 at 4:44 pm | Permalink

      One in three of us will end up in a care home. On average we will be there for two and a half years and it will cost circa £80,000 in total. more old buggers who keep living longer, gives a risk profile for an Insurance Company that is far far to … risky, so they don’t sell them anymore.

      You can use your pensions or an “equity release” plan, to buy an “impaired life annuity”.

  7. Andy
    Posted July 25, 2018 at 6:27 am | Permalink

    Make people pay for their own old age care. Most of those getting care today are a massive drain on the system. They are taking out far more than they ever paid in. They retired at 65 – on a good plated final salary scheme – when it was presumed average life expectancy would be early 70s. It’s now 80 and is rising. These people are living a decade or more long than the system ever charged them for. And it is the most expensive decade of their lives – many having complex health and care needs.

    They are – without doubt – the biggest drain on the state. Most of my taxes go, in some way, to fund them. It can not go on. There are too many old people and too few young people to support them.

    What we need is a compulsory insurance scheme specifically to pay for old age care for future generations. You are required to pay a % of earnings into it – and you can choose your future level of coverage. The explosion in the number of pensioners is by far the biggest challenge facing society. They demand everything and contribute comparatively little. Our politicians are not brave enough to take on the blue rinse brigade even though the
    Sensible ones know they need to.

    • alan jutson
      Posted July 25, 2018 at 11:26 am | Permalink


      Who funded those who got treated in 1948 when the scheme was first started, it has always been those who work pay for those who do not.

      Same as the State Pension.

      Same for unemployment benefit.

      Its pay as you go there is no fund.

    • Edward2
      Posted July 25, 2018 at 12:27 pm | Permalink

      I could rewrite your post swopping “old people” for “young people”and the same logic would apply.
      Why should I pay taxes to help families with their children get free education get free NHS treatments, their young parents get tax credits and housing benefits.
      PS And Andy, you are also in the demographic change of slightly more old people.

      • fedupsoutherner
        Posted July 25, 2018 at 5:15 pm | Permalink

        Absolutely spot on Edward 2. We pensioners never had all the freebies that young parents get today. You didn’t even get what was known as family allowance for the first child when I was born. Our parents struggled to bring up families on one wage. No free child care and no tax credits etc. I don’t remember my parents going out and getting drunk either and expecting A&E to step in. As usual Andy, you forget it won’t be long before you are old.

      • Andy
        Posted July 25, 2018 at 8:17 pm | Permalink

        Young people have not had their whole lives to save up for things. Personally I would slash all payments and benefits to old people – and invest in the young instead. For too long the elderly have had it too easy.

        And I am saving for my own retirement and my own care, thanks very much. I fully intend to keep working well into my 70s. And if I need to sell off one of my homes to pay for my care I will.

        • Edward2
          Posted July 25, 2018 at 9:15 pm | Permalink

          You make my point for me andy
          The old folk you hate have paid loads of tax and NI
          They worked long hours, week after week, year after year and were promised a state pension, small though it is.
          Now they are receiving that promised pension.
          In addition many have decided to forgo other things and paid into another private pension.
          They are no burden to you
          A decent society looks after those that need help.
          One day that person will be you.

        • Fedupsoutherner
          Posted July 25, 2018 at 10:03 pm | Permalink

          Andy, can I suggest you sell off one of your houses to make life easier for your children now. You go on about the elderly being too well off but now it transpires you are one of those fortunate enough to own more than one house. Not so bad being younger after all then.

        • libertarian
          Posted July 26, 2018 at 8:16 pm | Permalink


          Post after post just shows how detached you are from the real world

          If you only earned the average salary of £26,500 throughout your 35-year working life. Even with our unprecedentedly low annuities rate, the £430,000 you hand over in NICs would give you an index-linked pension of £14,750 a year. Instead, you get a state pension of £8,094. And if you pay more in NICs, or if you work (as most of us do) longer than 35 years, that figure doesn’t get any higher. The directors of a private pension provider that offered such a return would find themselves in jail.

          • Andy
            Posted July 27, 2018 at 12:13 pm | Permalink

            Not sure how you do your sums. But if you earn £26,500 per year you currently pay £2,169 a year National Insurance. It would take you 198 years to hand over the £430,000 year you claim. I know many of you are stuck in the last century but still…

            You get £8,094 a year from the state (ie me) just for being old? Outrageous. And this is before we start on the TV licence, bus passes, winter fuel payments – B&Q discounts and other perks of being old. Conservatives are very keen not to spend money on anyone – except themselves. And they should need it least.

          • Edward2
            Posted July 27, 2018 at 4:04 pm | Permalink

            You show little knowledge of pension funds and how they take small monthly contributions and turn them into decent sized pension pots after decades.
            The State pension require the individual worker over 30 years of full contributions.
            It isn’t you paying for it.
            Are you sure you run a business?
            You seem lost on the basics.

          • a-tracy
            Posted July 29, 2018 at 6:37 pm | Permalink

            Andy, you’re not including the Employers NI.

  8. Iain Gill
    Posted July 25, 2018 at 6:30 am | Permalink

    It should be a conservative principal to give individuals more control over their own life. In social care I don’t mind the state being the insurer, taking premium via tax, and paying out in times of need. But I want individuals to choose how and where any payouts get spent. I don’t want the state owning or running providers of care, or rationing after it’s too late for the individual to make alternative arrangements.
    Same for health, same for housing, same for schools.
    Hand real and decisive power to individuals and away from the state.

  9. Peter Wood
    Posted July 25, 2018 at 6:40 am | Permalink

    Off Topic – apologies:

    We are informed that Mr. Barnier finds the Chequers Plan is unacceptable; yet the PM continues her merry journey around the country to try to sell it to us. Is there nobody let in government who has any common sense?
    Dr. Redwood, I was all for giving the PM a chance, but she has proved to be incompetent AND duplicitous. Please send in your letter and lets get a PM worthy of the title who will carryout the instructions of the electorate.

    • Iain Gill
      Posted July 25, 2018 at 11:39 am | Permalink

      no there is no common sense at the top of any of the main political parties.

      the way political candidates are selected and the system discourages decent people has lots to do with it.

    • Turboterrier.
      Posted July 25, 2018 at 6:01 pm | Permalink

      Peter Wood

      Is there nobody let in government who has any common sense?

      You can count the number on about one hand. The way the party selects candidates is seriously being bought into question with what is being allowed at the moment. Totally unbelievable.

  10. Anonymous
    Posted July 25, 2018 at 6:47 am | Permalink

    My personal experience is that children do their duty as far as elderly parents go. They do not expect state help.

    What they do not expect, however, is that when the awful day comes and they are forced to put Mum in a home (often after years of family care) that they are charged double to fund a state resident in the same home.

    Socialism by the back door.

    Pay this out of general taxation – have the guts to do socialism by the front door, you Tories.

    • Iain Gill
      Posted July 25, 2018 at 11:40 am | Permalink

      yes john is advocating the worst of all worlds.

      discouraging enterprise and self sufficiency and doing the right thing.

      and handing ever more power away from individuals and to unaccountable state mandarins.

  11. sm
    Posted July 25, 2018 at 7:06 am | Permalink

    1. There will never be a totally ‘fair’ system, so it’s best to work for one that is clear, efficient and simple for all parties to implement.

    2. If you own your own home and can no longer live in it safely when alone, I see no reason why it should not be considered part of your assets which are assessed if you need to enter a nursing home for the rest of your life (and if no-one else is living there). I do not think other people’s children should be taxed so that mine can inherit more.

    3. Not everyone has relatives/friends who live nearby and can help when old age or illness strikes – society is going to have to learn to anticipate the problems of increased longevity. I have seen too many people whom I love and respect cling on to their properties because of understandable memories and familiarity, and then regret that they didn’t make sensible provision for the difficult times ahead while they were still physically and perhaps mentally able to.

    4. The Welfare State should be there for emergencies and short-term assistance and advice – it should not exist to relieve each individual (of reasonable mental and physical health) of responsibility for every aspect of his/her life.

  12. JoolsB
    Posted July 25, 2018 at 7:16 am | Permalink

    Here we go again John. Social care is devolved so you are only talking about ENGLAND so why not say it? May’s proposed dementia tax will only affect ENGLAND’s elderly, just as £9,250 tuition fees only affects England’s young and prescription and hospital parking charges only affect England’s sick. Personal care for the elderly is entirely free in Scotland, so why not England?

    How come England, the only net contributor to the UK coffers, is being hammered time and time again by this anti-English Tory Government. Blatant discrimination at it’s worst!!

    • a-tracy
      Posted July 25, 2018 at 3:14 pm | Permalink

      Yes, JoolsB quite correct, socialist Scotland is spending around £250 per person in prescriptions (they even prescribe paracetamol!).
      However, if you are an English Graduate working in Scotland you actually do get hit by their slightly higher taxes as well as paying your graduate tax at 9% that your fellow Scottish workers don’t pay in the same disUnited-Kingdom. Personally, I think there should be a cap on taxes in the pay bands so that English kids don’t suffer unfair disadvantage because when the Scottish Grads come to work in England they get a more advantageous tax rate than they would in Scotland.

  13. DUNCAN
    Posted July 25, 2018 at 7:25 am | Permalink

    How can I put this without offending the author. Let me think. The vast majority of Tories do not care about more spending plans to appease the electorate. We want the treacherous May deposed and we want the UK out of the EU

    Your continued support for May as our leader is a travesty and an hypocrisy.

    You want to see the UK returned to a sovereign, independent state and yet in complete contradiction to this you support a PM who is determined to prevent this from happening

    More spending? You’re beginning to sound like a Labour politician

    It’s shameful to see my party behave in such a cowardly manner.

    Betray the nation and Labour will achieve power and all your fancy, uncosted spending plans will turn to dust

    • The Prangwizard
      Posted July 25, 2018 at 2:22 pm | Permalink

      Deserves another ‘well said’. I too am appalled that Mr Redwood continues to support May who I’d like to think would get the treason act treatment. I can think of quicker ones though.

      He needs to remember he will be judged by the company he keeps.

  14. Iain Gill
    Posted July 25, 2018 at 7:35 am | Permalink

    Taking people’s houses from them to pay for old age care puts completely the wrong incentives in the system.

    We should be giving incentives to save and look after yourself and your own family.

    The policy you advocate encourages people to spend and waste, make no provision for themselves or their family, and creates a more subservient citizenry dependant far more on the state.

    And yes my dad built his own house for himself, his wife, and his kids, not to pay for the feckless or mass immigration. Why should his modern equivalents bother.

    • a-tracy
      Posted July 25, 2018 at 3:16 pm | Permalink

      They won’t bother Iain and they aren’t bothering which will cause a massive problem when they retire and can no longer afford their private rental housing, the State will have to pick up the cost and boom.

  15. agricola
    Posted July 25, 2018 at 7:37 am | Permalink

    Old age is a physical and mental disability in some cases. If such is not a disease then tell me what is. Social care should be just another branch of the NHS as the two are inextricably linked. Under one competent management they could be so much better in operation. No more bed blocking for instance. Terminal care should be left to the various trusts because they do a very good job already, but with greater financial support from government.

  16. MickN
    Posted July 25, 2018 at 7:48 am | Permalink

    Is there any relevance to the news that the unelected remainer Mr Robins in now in effect our negotiator with the EU being crept out on the last day before the recess?
    Are we to assume that Mr Brady is unable to receive letters unless the House is sitting?
    There is nothing being done to quell the stench that is being created by this government on a daily basis.

  17. Newmania
    Posted July 25, 2018 at 7:54 am | Permalink

    Can I just return to the education thread. The government has just handed out a bung to the public sector unions to keep them quiet while it battles the Brexit problems of its own creation.
    This is typical of the way Nationalist States work ( or rather don’t work) . Anyhoo….. teachers claim there is a problem with recruitment , here is the answer

    Stop the pensions
    Pay the market worth of the pension into the salary and make contributions optional
    This doubles the headline salary of every teacher
    The see how easy it is to recruit
    Allow the market to drive down rewards to natural level
    Free funds for education
    Attain social justice with private sector tax payers funding the whole thing

    Why not?

    • a-tracy
      Posted July 25, 2018 at 3:17 pm | Permalink

      It might attract more males into teaching if there were opportunities to work more weeks instead of taking all the summer holidays off increasing their gross wage for the extra work.

  18. John Probert
    Posted July 25, 2018 at 8:12 am | Permalink

    I think your correct a little bit of support goes a long long way when your vulnerable
    It will relieve pressure on the NHS in many ways and keep people at home for longer.

  19. Rien Huizer
    Posted July 25, 2018 at 8:17 am | Permalink

    It is a very difficult set of issues. This is where the unintended consequences of well intended policies converge. A typical case for a decision by “jury” (politics) rather than by “judges” (technocratic experts. Too many normative problems for efficient solutions. One thing would help, if all care (medical and social) were costed transparently and open to competitive provision, with very strict regulation and enforcement of course. Private sector actors are better at doing unpopular things.. My own vision on this is that given the potentially unlimited demand for this, it must be either priced properly (and where politically necessary, subsidized individually) or rationed. A conservative would generally not be in favour of rationing.

  20. ChrisK
    Posted July 25, 2018 at 8:21 am | Permalink

    My home is left in my will to my son, who has a life-long mental health issue and may have periods in his life when he cannot work and keep a roof over his head. I concern myself with his welfare first and foremost, for that period after I have died and he is without living-family support. The government needs to rid the country of all the non-paying health tourists, and stop handing out benefits and free housing to the hordes of unskilled layabouts that we are now infested with. There’s the problem. Start spending money on behalf of the REAL British people instead of the imports.
    I am fortunate in having good health in my sixties; I don’t envisage ever needing long-term care…some kind of insurance would be useful, as Dave Andrews suggests, then it’s down to whether the individual picks up with it or not. Many years ago, the family took care of its own elderly; many still do, but modern life can make it excruciatingly difficult. Maybe it’s our modern lifestyle that needs changing, not inflicting more taxation.

  21. Nicholas Murphy
    Posted July 25, 2018 at 8:23 am | Permalink

    I can’t remember the last time that a family member of mine had to go into care – and none show signs of needing it, thank God. (Yes, a stroke would skew things.) A mandatory insurance scheme would seem to be the best way forward.

  22. Original Richard
    Posted July 25, 2018 at 8:27 am | Permalink

    “If someone has to go into a care home then they have to pay if they have income and assets. The state pays when the assets have largely gone.”

    We already have non-contributory health and welfare systems which are accessible to all EU citizens free of charge as the EU demands that all EU citizens are treated equally.

    Is this also extended to social care, such as going into a care home ?

  23. Denis Cooper
    Posted July 25, 2018 at 8:31 am | Permalink

    Fraction of UK economy exported over the Irish land border: 0.1%
    Fraction of UK economy to be kept under EU control so that the Irish are spared the trouble of checking that o.1% of UK GDP at the border: 20%
    Correct level of trust in the Tories over anything to do with the EU: Zero

  24. Edward
    Posted July 25, 2018 at 8:40 am | Permalink

    Similar to what Dave Andrews suggest. Insurance.

    Every person should be obliged to take out insurance for their care (and health) and if they can not afford it the taxpayer/government to pay the relevant premiums. And insurance companies must be obliged to provide cover regardless of age or history of the policyholder. The premiums to be flexible to encourage competition with relevant and fair capping.

    This will, after relevant transition arrangements such as a reduction in NI, generate a flexible and dynamic provision for health and care that is responsive to actual need and, in my opinion, will lead to higher quality outcomes.

    Plenty of successful examples of such schemes come to mind – Germany, Netherlands, NZ, Australia, Sweden to name a handful.

    But sadly no MP or political party will dare touch this or go anywhere near this due to the taboos that have built up over decades.

  25. Iain Gill
    Posted July 25, 2018 at 8:53 am | Permalink

    “It would be too dear to offer people free care home provision so they can leave their former home to their children” is simply wrong, and based on short term simplistic spreadsheets.

    If you take into account the long term incentives it puts into the system, discouraging people from working, discouraging people from saving, discouraging people from “doing the right thing”, then it leads to lots less productive work in society and a lot more people deciding to not bother fending for themselves and instead letting the state take the strain. When these real world people dynamics are added to the system then the current and similar approaches are far more expensive than they look.

  26. ale bro
    Posted July 25, 2018 at 9:05 am | Permalink

    I don’t have a lot of sympathy for the position that relieves a rich person of the obligation to liquidate a million pound asset to pay for their own care just because they have a relative living in a second bedroom.

  27. Tad Davison
    Posted July 25, 2018 at 9:22 am | Permalink

    To pay for social care, first, we need a good economy. The one we have is not doing badly, but it could do better. To do better, we need to trade freely with the rest of the world, and that means removing those things which inhibit trade. Tying ourselves to the mast of a sinking ship is not going to help the UK long-term.

    Open Europe reports this morning that Junker is to have a meeting with Donald Trump on trade:

    ‘Trump commented on the meeting, “The European Union is coming to Washington tomorrow to negotiate a deal on Trade. I have an idea for them. Both the US and the EU drop all Tariffs, Barriers and Subsidies! That would finally be called Free Market and Fair Trade! Hope they do it, we are ready — but they won’t!”

    Meanwhile, European Commissioner for Agriculture Phil Hogan yesterday said that the EU must respond to the US by “bullying them back,” adding, “If the European Union, with its 500 million people stand together … we will ultimately show President Trump the error of his ways.” Hogan made the case for a “firm and consistent line” to “put this man back in his place…because otherwise, he will continue.”

    I think this demonstrates the difference between a dynamic government that likes the idea of free trade, and a protectionist backwards monolith that is destined to die as did the dinosaur. And rather than hobble the British economy, leaving the EU could ultimately prove to be the only way to pay for those services we hold dear.

    Tad Davison


    • Mitchel
      Posted July 25, 2018 at 2:29 pm | Permalink

      M Macron tells us he has now read “the Art of the Deal” and is going to use it back at Trump!

      (Remember that awkward photoshoot with their wives on the White House lawn during the Macron state visit a few months ago-that sapling they planted was removed a few days later…hahahaha!)

  28. Phil Gilbert
    Posted July 25, 2018 at 9:51 am | Permalink

    I have always thought it an anomaly that as a relatively well off pensioner I pay no national insurance. My tax bill is therefore less than a younger person on the same income, yet my demands on the NHS and need for care are almost certainly greater. It would be interesting to know what charging NI on all incomes would raise and if it could be sold to the electorate as a form of insurance against the possible need for expensive care late in life.

  29. Denis Cooper
    Posted July 25, 2018 at 10:08 am | Permalink

    More madness here:


    “Contingency plans are being drawn up to prevent lorries being stopped at the border as they make their way into the UK from Europe.

    There are growing fears that more onerous border controls after Brexit could result in huge queues and potential gridlock at ports such as Dover and Felixstowe.

    Under the plans – seen by Sky News – vehicles would be checked at an “approved location” in Europe and then waved through the UK border. They would then have to go to an “approved inland location” in the UK, away from the port of entry, to be checked again.”

    Once again, why? Why on earth should the UK government decide to start double checking trucks which it would not even be checking once at the moment? What will change about those trucks and their contents when we leave the EU? Note, when WE leave the EU, not the other EU member states which will be staying in the EU and staying subject to EU law just as they are now, nothing will change for them in that regard, so why should we suddenly start to suspect what they will be sending over when we are not suspecting it now?

    If we had a government which did more than pretend to believe in Brexit then it would not be allowing anybody, whether inside or outside the official apparatus, to spread this kind of nonsense without any challenge.

  30. Pravda
    Posted July 25, 2018 at 10:25 am | Permalink

    It is said Juncker had severe back pain leading to staggering and being supported physically, side back and front by EU leaders when he recently met Trump.He is going to see Trump again in Washington soon. We all of course welcome his bottle in doing so.

  31. Derek Henry
    Posted July 25, 2018 at 10:29 am | Permalink

    Labour spent £400 billion on the NHS and Social care between 1997 -2007

    Taxes didn’t go up all that happened was in 2002 Brown put national insurnce up by 1%.

    Inflation did not go up the whole time infact inflation fell over that period.

    So why was that ?

    Because we no longer have to dig up gold to spend even though it is becoming quite clear every day you lot think we still do. Taxes control inflation they fund nothing and the reason taxes did not go up was inflation fell.

    Only complete idiots who think we are still on the gold standard and use fixed exchnage rates think their taxes will have to rise to fund social care.

    • Edward2
      Posted July 25, 2018 at 12:29 pm | Permalink

      And in 2008 we had a crash.

      • graham1946
        Posted July 25, 2018 at 5:53 pm | Permalink

        That wasn’t government policy, it was greedy merchant banks selling worthless ‘securities’ to the gullible.

      • Derek Henry
        Posted July 25, 2018 at 7:01 pm | Permalink

        Not because of that Edward

        It was an earthquake casued by Wall Street.

        • Edward2
          Posted July 25, 2018 at 9:17 pm | Permalink

          And overspending by governments.
          Running a big deficit at the top of the trade cycle.

    • a-tracy
      Posted July 25, 2018 at 3:20 pm | Permalink

      Derek Brown put up NI by 2%, 1% employee, 1% employer.
      There has also been a large NI increase (renamed workplace pension contribution) of 5% moving up each year, 3% employee, 2% employer. Without any compunction on the self-employed to pay 5% in to this compulsory insurance for old age savings scheme!

      • Derek Henry
        Posted July 25, 2018 at 7:00 pm | Permalink

        2% collected £10 billion that does not go in some HUGE shed on the isle of Wight for future use.

        Taxes destroy broad money because when you pay them they go into the commercial banks reserve accounts held at the BOE.

        From there they are swapped for gilts. So that the commercial banks can balance their reserves to zero overnight and the BOE can hit its overnight interest rate.

        Taxes fund nothing they take our spending power away that helps to control inflation.

        The time has come to be honest about it and say we don’t need to tax the rich in order for the monopoly issuer of the £ to spend.

        It’s crazy the monopoly issuer of the £ gives you the £’s so you can pay your taxes. They spend first and collect taxes later.

        It is impossible to do a reserve drain without doing a reserve add in the first place.

        • a-tracy
          Posted July 26, 2018 at 11:57 am | Permalink

          So what is the National Debt? Does this not exist then? If we do not need to tax to fund social care why do the Government tell us they are borrowing money on our behalf to cover their expenditure?

          I read the other day that Venezuela was printing huge amounts of extra money and by doing so would push their inflation to catastrophic proportions.

          To fund the public sector we need to pay the salaries of the employees, they want money to spend and not all of it stays here in the UK, especially as much of what we buy now does not originate here.

  32. ferdinand
    Posted July 25, 2018 at 10:39 am | Permalink

    Old age attends us in different forms as does our physical condition throughout life. The NHS is an insurance scheme to protect us from the costs arising from treatment. It would be logical to include later care on this basis. If the costs of ultimate care were actuarily assessed we could arrive at a national Insurance figure to include it. If this was was by lifelong – not employment long – monthly payments, deductible during employment, and paid directly on retirement, the issue would be resolved. I would suspect that it would not be long before the insurance industry would issue policies to cover post employment payments with a strictly controlled opt out arrangement.

    • Iain Gill
      Posted July 25, 2018 at 12:52 pm | Permalink

      Only if people who move abroad remain entitled to cover proportional to the years they paid in here, and what do you propose to do with those moving to this country late in life…

  33. Prigger
    Posted July 25, 2018 at 10:41 am | Permalink

    There are people and I know one of them very well who persuaded their parent who was mentally infirm to give or sell them their home one way or another prior to the parent being taken from their home for medical reasons.
    Theft from the parent and theft from we tax-payers . I have seen many cases of it locally…sometimes in addition as a tax dodge.
    Private property destroys our soul as someone once said. Great of our government in confiscating the life-long earned wealth of the honest.

  34. DUNCAN
    Posted July 25, 2018 at 10:42 am | Permalink

    Instead of writing this socialist nonsense wouldn’t it be wiser to begin exposing the disgraceful bias of the Remain public institutions like :


    and of course the abuse by your leader of British democracy

    or is spending debt financed taxpayer cash more important?

    • Original Richard
      Posted July 25, 2018 at 2:11 pm | Permalink

      It’s feeling as if we only have the appearance of a democracy in the UK and if we do anything that is not approved by the EU then the EU’s representatives in the UK over-ride the PM and the government and take control, such as appears to be happening with our attempt to leave.

      • Gary C
        Posted July 25, 2018 at 6:00 pm | Permalink

        Democracy, I’m not sure such a thing exists anymore.

        What honestly is the point of voting anymore?

        This government is proof positive the electorate is nothing more than cannon fodder. . . . . . Expendable!

        • Original Richard
          Posted July 27, 2018 at 9:41 am | Permalink

          You must continue to vote.

          Not voting is just what the EU and its UK collaborators want.

  35. Prigger
    Posted July 25, 2018 at 10:46 am | Permalink

    PS The “someone once said” is thought by leftie-liberals an extreme right-winger.It was Solzhenitsyn.

    • Mitchel
      Posted July 25, 2018 at 2:43 pm | Permalink

      BBC interview with A Solzhenitsyn,June 1976:

      “In actual fact,our Russian experience is vitally important for the West,because by some chance of history we have trodden the path the West is taking seventy or eighty years before the West.And now it is with a rather strange sensation that we look at what is happening to you when so many social phenomena are repeating what happened in Russia before it’s collapse.Our experience of life is of vital importance to the West,but I am not convinced that you are capable of assimilating it without having gone through it right to the end yourselves.

      The question is not how the Soviet Union will find a way out of totalitarianism,but how the West will be able to avoid the same fate.”

      • Prigger
        Posted July 25, 2018 at 5:58 pm | Permalink


  36. Eh?
    Posted July 25, 2018 at 11:33 am | Permalink

    Paying for our old people by the government should be thought of as future overseas aid…as soon they will no longer live here.

  37. Iain Gill
    Posted July 25, 2018 at 11:36 am | Permalink

    I wonder how all the people who have recently had their haemorrhoid or trigger finger operations binned top down by the government will feel with your new-found largess to spend their taxes.
    Especially those who have been offered operations repeatedly by the NHS but have been carrying on patiently in the hope things stabilise and don’t get worse, only to find now that things are totally intolerable the NHS is no longer prepared to fund their operations.
    I am sure these “salt of the earth” types will be very impressed with your keenness to sell their houses later in life. I am sure they will support the foreign “aid” largess. I am sure they will by happy with the obvious waste in the NHS in front of them that they see every time they interact with it.
    Back in the real world there is a desperate need for a proper Conservative party to rescue us from this big state failing services no matter how much money you throw at them place we now find ourselves in.

    • Iain Gill
      Posted July 25, 2018 at 4:26 pm | Permalink

      And I note newly diagnosed patients are being told treatment is not necessary, flying in the face of the entire rest of the developed world. What happened to the consultants duty of candor? Seems they are being ordered not to tell patients they are being short changed and could do a hell of a lot better going abroad or private.

      Stinks doesn’t it.

  38. Derek Henry
    Posted July 25, 2018 at 11:40 am | Permalink


    What does Russia look like after the western world sanctioned them and sanctions are 1000 times worse than tariffs.

    Unemployment rate 4.7%

    Inflation rate 2.3%

    interest rate 7.25%

    Debt to GDP 12.6%

    GDP growth rate 0.85%

    Stock market


    The Russian Rouble since the Western world imposed sanctions on Russia


    It doesn’t add up does it ?

    Project fear straight out of the Scottish independence play book that have weak minded I love propaganda on my TV set crowd scared of their own shadow.

    • Mitchel
      Posted July 25, 2018 at 3:13 pm | Permalink

      Yes.If you want to know anything about Russia do your own research,do NOT rely on the Anglo-American mainstream media(the English language Asian press is much,much better).

      An existential struggle is underway between the globalists and the Eurasianist bloc led by Russia.(Well,Russia is indestructible-it’s more an existential crisis for the globalist west!)

      • Prigger
        Posted July 25, 2018 at 6:10 pm | Permalink

        I used to read the press you speak of. Not recently. I found after a few political articles over months I could guess their perception of events in advance. I find this with all national and international media. It saves thinking.
        It is true what you say about Russia. Take for instance the football. Western journalists were very surprised by bright sunshine and high temperatures.Amazing!!! 🙂

    • Edward2
      Posted July 25, 2018 at 3:40 pm | Permalink

      So can we deduce from your data that the effect on the UK from leaving the EU will have an equally minimal effect on our economy just like Russia?

      • Derek Henry
        Posted July 25, 2018 at 7:04 pm | Permalink

        Yes of course

        We will thrive outside of the EU.

        • margaret howard
          Posted July 25, 2018 at 9:53 pm | Permalink

          Makes you wonder why we begged to be allowed to join what has become the wealthiest, largest trading bloc in the world.

          You obviously don’t know what Britain was like. It was known as ‘The sick man of Europe’ and had to go cap in hand to the IMF to be bailed out financially. After membership it has become the 5th richest economy in the world (since Brexit alas already reduced to 7th place) with most of its trade in Europe.

          Reply It went to the IMF after we joined the EEC and when the EEC was doing maximum damage to our manufacturing industry

          • hefner
            Posted July 26, 2018 at 6:39 am | Permalink

            Reply to reply: says he who was linked then part of Governments which were only too happy to have most of our industries privatised, seemingly without thinking that once privatised they might have their activities sent to countries with cheaper workforce and/or be bought by non-British owned companies. When are you going to accept your part of responsibility in what happened?

          • Mitchel
            Posted July 26, 2018 at 9:31 am | Permalink

            Dear Margaret,us slipping in the GDP league table is nothing to do with anticipation of Brexit;it reflects the strong growth of India,which I believe has also overtaken France very recently.It was inevitably going to happen, in or out of the EU.We and France will continue to slip in coming years.

          • Edward2
            Posted July 26, 2018 at 11:28 am | Permalink

            Europe was always large and it was wealthy before the EU was invented.
            The EU is declining with a falling share of world trade low growth and high levels of unemployment.
            I was in favour of the Common Market.
            It’s aims were free trade,no tariffs, low levels of regulations and an ambition to get full employment for all.
            The EU has failed in all those aims.
            Its current centralised protectionist attitudes makes me realise the decline will continue.
            Reform is badly needed but the EU will not reform.

          • a-tracy
            Posted July 26, 2018 at 11:54 am | Permalink

            “Reply It went to the IMF after we joined the EEC and when the EEC was doing maximum damage to our manufacturing industry”

            and by the sounds of what is on the news last night our milk industry, our pharmaceutical industry (to such an extent that we were told last night by C4 news we only supply 20% of our own needs importing the rest from Europe (who won’t be supplying us quickly after Brexit apparently) why on earth was such a thing allowed to happen and why was it kept so quiet?

            I knew about the milk because I know lots of people that lost their jobs through it, the explosion in the plastic waste of large milk bottles imported as watered down semi-skimmed tasteless milk so it lasts longer, destroying our recycled glass bottles, local milk delivery service, farms and dairies.

            But I didn’t know we’d imported 80% our life-saving drugs and only the EU supply the insulin people need to survive as one lady told us on the news program last night, just disgusting. Why did we ever export this?

          • margaret howard
            Posted July 26, 2018 at 4:07 pm | Permalink


            IMF 1976 –

            The year before we had joined a trading bloc not a debt financer. The common market had already pumped in 25% of its regional development funds to stabilise Britain, its highest ever figure

          • libertarian
            Posted July 26, 2018 at 8:26 pm | Permalink

            margaret Howard

            Nice little rewrite of history there

            Before joining the EEC we were the worlds 3rd largest economy

            We were bailed out by the IMF AFTER we had joined the EEC

            I’ve told you twice now, the official figures show that USA and China are bigger trading blocks than the EU

            The EU themselves admit that 90% of future growth will happen outside the EU

            Currently according to the Dept for international trade

            82% of trade in the UK is internal within the UK

            18% of our trade is exports

            44% of those exports go to the EU ( just 9% of trade 11% of GDP)

            56% of our exports go outside the EU

            We are STILL the 5th largest economy


            Tell me again about this wonderful trading block

          • Original Richard
            Posted July 27, 2018 at 9:51 am | Permalink

            We went into the Common Market to try to stop the Germans making another attempt to take over Europe.

            Recently published official papers have shown this to be the case.

            See the BBC program “Europe – Them or Us”

      • Rien Huizer
        Posted July 26, 2018 at 9:28 am | Permalink

        The figures quoted by Henry may be true or not. Fact is that in prior years (after the sanctions and during an oil price slump, the Russian PPP (purchasing parity) GDP/capita fell from USD 15K in 2013 to 9K in 2015… (World Bank numbers). Easy to thrive after that, for a while. Nevertheless, the Russian authorities followed IMF style policies, maintained monetary stability (no political opposition to speak of, relatively easy), oil prices helped and now the economy is slowly moving toward its long term growth path.

  39. Narrow shoulders
    Posted July 25, 2018 at 12:21 pm | Permalink

    The general principle behind it is if someone needs meals and housing, these are normal costs they should pay for out of their incomes and pensions.

    This is true but only to the level that they would have to pay for meals and housing if they were not sick. So they should be charged for the cost of the food not for the preparation and service, nor should they have to cover hotel rates for their room in a care home just the price of renting or paying the mortgage and bills. The carehome’s profit element should really be covered by the government as it arises from the person getting sick.

    This what national insurance is supposed to be for. To look after us when we need it.

    Hypothecate that tax (NI EEs and ERs) and use it for NHS and state pensions. If it is not enough, increase it or streamline.

    • a-tracy
      Posted July 25, 2018 at 3:23 pm | Permalink

      Hypothecate that tax (NI EEs and ERs)
      be careful what you wish for, it’s been started for PAYE workers with NEST pensions which is extra National Insurance contribution renamed, what is this money being invested in? No guaranteed return, no earlier retrieval date, actually I wonder if you can get at your workplace pension if you say are diagnosed with an inoperable illness at 60?

      • Narrow Shoulders
        Posted July 25, 2018 at 6:28 pm | Permalink

        NI should be reduced for those in the Workplace pension scheme by the amount they pay in.

        For the middle aged the returns will be a pittance for the young the state pension will be phased out in favour of the workplace pension.

        Hypothecating NI for pensions and health (including social care) would concentrate minds.

        • a-tracy
          Posted July 27, 2018 at 9:37 am | Permalink

          What happens to self-employed people that don’t award themselves workplace pensions with an 8% contribution, do the rest of us end up picking up the cost of their workplace pension in later life with pension credits like we give everyone that didn’t pay for themselves now?

          I don’t think it does concentrate minds though. No-one asks what the massive amounts of money going into Workplace Pensions are being invested in? No-one has the time or inclination to go through the small print on this compulsory extra tax. What happens if someone screws up like Sir Fred the Shred with our compulsory investments, he gets away with it and walks away with a nice fancy pension and the rest of us suffer for a decade and more.

          When I read the electoral commission punished a young man with a £20,000 fine yet our government allowed people who screwed up in other areas to just walk away, including all those in hospitals like Staffordshire, how can they justify this, did the executives at Staffordshire NHS get a £20,000 personal fine – no and that was for a much more serious offence. I would say the same if it were a remain team worker that got personally punished.

  40. Denis Cooper
    Posted July 25, 2018 at 1:00 pm | Permalink

    Some time ago Country A and Country B agreed that as they were both operating to the same acceptable and legally enforced standards their respective businesses could trade with each other without any of those old-fashioned and tiresome official checks on the quality of the goods being traded across their mutual border.

    (That is, unless there was a tip-off that somebody was breaking those agreed rules, and maybe with a few random samples checked just to keep everybody on their toes.)

    But now Country A has announced that in future it may no longer operate on that agreed “common rule book” that it has being sharing with Country B, it may make changes and operate on its own rule book. Country B is not going to make any changes.

    Question: Which country should most seriously consider whether it will need to reinstate checks on the imported goods as they cross the border?

    Well, it’s obvious, isn’t it; even though Country B is not going to ignore or dilute or in any way change its existing standards, nothing will change in that regard, the government of Country A should immediately order that there must be not just single, but double, checks on goods from B which it was previously not bothering to check at all.


    “… vehicles would be checked at an “approved location” in Europe and then waved through the UK border. They would then have to go to an “approved inland location” in the UK, away from the port of entry, to be checked again.”

  41. Sir Joe Soap
    Posted July 25, 2018 at 1:02 pm | Permalink

    Well I see we have a US President with balls as he approaches Juncker to remove all tariffs. He’s probably taking it as a personal challenge to show May up to be Mrs Timid and no leader.

    • Rien Huizer
      Posted July 26, 2018 at 9:30 am | Permalink

      And subsidies. See how well that will play in the Mid-West..

  42. Geoff not Hoon
    Posted July 25, 2018 at 1:50 pm | Permalink

    The oft used words of bed blocking are in part often caused by hospitals waiting to be told such and such a care home or nursing home has a bed available. I have personal experience right now of someone ‘waiting’ 9 weeks in hospital until a care home place can be found. The case is far from unique and is I guess happening all across the UK. The Social Services staff, employed by our County Council not the NHS, tell of reducing budgets against an ever increasing number of clients. Is it small wonder the system is falling apart before our very eyes Mr.Redwood.

    • alan jutson
      Posted July 25, 2018 at 4:16 pm | Permalink


      Absolutely agree, so many in hospital who should not be there.

      Remember the old convalescent homes where people went to help them recover before they were sent home, that system released the more expensive hospital beds for new patients.

      Remember old peoples wards in local Cottage Hospitals, that system also released the more expensive hospital beds for new patients.

      In their wisdom these lower cost units were scrapped years ago, perhaps it is about time to learn the lessons of the past yet again.

      • Chris
        Posted July 25, 2018 at 7:12 pm | Permalink

        Hit the nail on the head, aj, with cottage hospitals and convalescent homes. (If the terms offend the nutty PC brigade perhaps they can come up with some suitable euphemisms. However, that does not disguise the glaring need for these facilities). Who was the foolish individual who decided to do away with these facilities?

  43. Nigel Seymour
    Posted July 25, 2018 at 3:37 pm | Permalink

    My Mum is 90 this year and is still paying tax. Why don’t they come up with a scheme whereby her contributions go directly into a personal fund? If it comes to it then I’ll sell my house and either survive on the streets or buy a nice caravan…

    For the past several years you have been posting the same old thing John and jack get’s done. If you don’t have any money then the state will always pay your bills. Cold comfort for people that have never claimed a benefit or allowance in their lives and have to use their personal wealth to fund themselves and others. Perhaps that is what real collective responsibility is all about and not the lies that chequers served up!

    p.s will we ever hear from DD/BJ ever again I wonder? You might well do from Nigel Farage… I pray for the day! (and a bit of rain of course)

    • Derek Henry
      Posted July 25, 2018 at 7:19 pm | Permalink

      Fantastic that your Mum is 90 what a life.

      Where does your Mum get the £’s from that allows her to pay her taxes at 90 ?

      Once you figure that out as it is written on every note then you’ll realise the taxes don’t fund the care. The taxes take your Mum’s spending power away thus helps with inflation.

      • Nigel Seymour
        Posted July 26, 2018 at 8:18 am | Permalink

        Ever heard of private pensions?

  44. Helen Smith
    Posted July 25, 2018 at 4:21 pm | Permalink

    An important subject Mr Redwood but much more important to many on here is May continuing in the role of PM. When oh when is the Tory party going to get rid of her.

    • Anonymous
      Posted July 25, 2018 at 8:57 pm | Permalink

      Prepare for Corbyn.

    • Nigel Seymour
      Posted July 26, 2018 at 8:26 am | Permalink

      Helen, they won’t and probably can’t. It wouldn’t make a whole lot of difference anyway because it’s too late in the Brexit cycle. Brexit leavers can continue to lobby JR and their mp’s and sign up to UKIP to get the message across. Good piece in the spectator last edition ‘remainers will win’

  45. margaret howard
    Posted July 25, 2018 at 4:50 pm | Permalink

    BBC 25/07/2018

    “MoD forgot to declare cash for Jordanian Armed forces”

    Defence Secretary Gavin Williamson said £13.3m was given to the Jordanian armed force between 2015 and 2017 that had previously not been declared to Parliament.

    The money was given as a grant for equipment and infrastructure – including armoured vehicles, IT, accommodation and buildings.

    The defence secretary said steps had been taken “to ensure than an oversight such as this does not occur again”.

    Good thing I don’t ‘misspend’ my income in such a way or my family would be living in a cave.

  46. Addanc Monster
    Posted July 25, 2018 at 6:11 pm | Permalink

    How about:
    #1 Lose the foreign aid budget; £14 billion.
    #2 Lose HS2; £50+ billion.
    #3 Lose a lot of Qangos; of the order of £250 billion.

    The upshot is that the Government gets more than enough money, it just needs to spend it properly.

  47. The Big Ear
    Posted July 25, 2018 at 6:23 pm | Permalink

    I hear Labour is speeding along allegedly by proxy

  48. Chris
    Posted July 25, 2018 at 7:17 pm | Permalink

    Off topic, but Mr Redwood do you really approve of our PM apparently scaremongering about stockpiling food and blood? She is beyond disgraceful in my view.

  49. DUNCAN
    Posted July 25, 2018 at 7:29 pm | Permalink

    How bad does it have to get John before Tory MPs realise that May represents an existential threat to the party?

    We’re behind in the polls to a bunch of Marxist, anti-semitic extremists fgs.

    Come on fella, do the decent thing and depose this anti-Tory that’s infected our party with her lefty, immoral tat

    we want decency, honest and morality back in British politics not slight of hand, lies and outright treachery against her own party, the British people and dignity

    • Fedupsoutherner
      Posted July 25, 2018 at 10:19 pm | Permalink

      Hear, hear Duncan. Very well said. We will never get another chance to vote on leaving the EU. We have been shafted big time. Democracy doesn’t exist and politicians wonder why people don’t bother to vote and don’t trust politicians. May is the biggest deceiver of modern times. Shame on her and those that are letting her get away with it.

  50. Lear's Fool
    Posted July 25, 2018 at 10:49 pm | Permalink

    Children with adequate means should be legally responsible for funding the care of their parents. It is atrocious that an old person requiring tens of thousands of pounds of care is funded by the state, even if their children are fund managers in the City earning millions. We make parents legally responsible for defraying the reasonable costs of bringing up their children (such as paying for their accommodation, food and clothing). We make spouses legally responsible for paying maintenance. Why shouldn’t we then extend this to children of parents requiring care in old age?
    The state should only fund the care of persons without any means at all or without any children who can pay for their care.

    • Iain Gill
      Posted July 26, 2018 at 9:17 am | Permalink

      Not if they have children of their own, especially if they are old and likely to retire before children finish education.

      Indeed the grandparents house is often targeted at the funding gap between parents retiring and their kids finishing education, which means the government stealing the grandparents house just pushes another group into poverty and dependence on state handouts.

    • Bridge of Sighs
      Posted July 26, 2018 at 10:09 pm | Permalink

      “We make spouses legally responsible for paying maintenance.” Why?

  51. DaveK
    Posted July 25, 2018 at 11:31 pm | Permalink
  52. Lindsay McDougall
    Posted July 26, 2018 at 1:02 am | Permalink

    There would be less need to spend money on both health and social care if we didn’t live so long. So why worship at the altar of longevity?

  53. Richard Taylor
    Posted July 26, 2018 at 6:42 am | Permalink

    I’m not satisfied that under the current system some with relatively modest asset value can have that stripped if they are unfortunate enough to need care.

    I would prefer universal care, funded by a new lower band of inheritance tax, starting at say £50k at 10% up to the current threshold.

    Currently liable estates would pay a little more. Many new ones would contribute without destroying anyone’s asset value.

    That would take a little more of all estates currently liable but a modest sum off many estates below the current threshold without wiping out anyone.

  54. Mike Wilson
    Posted July 26, 2018 at 12:01 pm | Permalink

    I already pay plenty of taxes, thanks. Add up income tax, national insurance, VAT, council tax, duties on fuel, car tax, tax on insurance policy premiums, tax on savings interest, stamp duty and a host of other random taxes – and it adds up to a huge chunk of my income going to the government.

    Tax the corporates who move profits abroad. It can’t be that tricky … ‘if you earn it here, you pay tax here – before remitting profits abroad’. A one line law. Why don’t you do it?

    Tax wealth. No-one needs a billion pounds. Take 990 million off them as wealth tax and start providing proper care.

    • Edward2
      Posted July 27, 2018 at 7:21 am | Permalink

      For every action there is a reaction.
      Say you were the Chancellor and I am a billionaire currently living and paying tax in the UK
      You decide to tax me at 99%
      I would be off on the next airplane to somewhere else before you got my money.

  • About John Redwood

    John Redwood won a free place at Kent College, Canterbury, and graduated from Magdalen College Oxford. He is a Distinguished fellow of All Souls, Oxford. A businessman by background, he has set up an investment management business, was both executive and non executive chairman of a quoted industrial PLC, and chaired a manufacturing company with factories in Birmingham, Chicago, India and China. He is the MP for Wokingham, first elected in 1987.

  • John’s Books

  • Email Alerts

    You can sign up to receive John's blog posts by e-mail by entering your e-mail address in the box below.

    Enter your email address:

    Delivered by FeedBurner

    The e-mail service is powered by Google's FeedBurner service. Your information is not shared.

  • Map of Visitors

    Locations of visitors to this page