I can understand that knowing that the government is looking at pretty much everything to do with being a carer is a scary thought: it shows the level of trust the government has earnt over the years, I suppose.
But they are looking at the things that carers have said - and much of what carers have told the government is the same as you've mentioned, for example:
Recognition as a carer and protection of your pension.
Carers leave and flexible working (most carers who are working would prefer this to be more enforceable - the case that has recently gone to the European Court of Justice may force the government to do this). These are enshrined in law, and although they could in theory be repealed, they are not connected in any way to Carers Allowance. Carers working for more than the cutoff for Carers Allowance can also request carers leave and flexible working.
Abolishment of the overlapping benefit rule, at least for carers of pension age.
Some of your other points are a bit more of an issue, I suppose:
Personally I agree that if the government wants carers to get into the jobs market they should make it easier for those who want to work. One way would be to give carers on Carers Allowance similar concessions for further education to those available to the unemployed.
The community care grant system is weird and wide open to interpretation, but if you are in receipt of Income Support you are eligible to apply: I know of no condition demanding that the applicant is the house owner - other than for help with decorating or house repairs, maybe.
The direct payments question is interesting because it is certainly possible in law to be the paid carer even when you live in the same house - but only if you have a level of expertise that would be near-impossible to find elsewhere. Yet if you live next door you can be employed! It is a daft rule and needs to be sorted out, especially if the government is keen to see direct payments used more widely.
The only way to "force" someone to take help from outside is where they do not have the capacity to make the decision. This is extremely rare. Everyone has the right to choose, and it would be wrong to take away that choice: can you imagine the uproar? But choice goes both ways, and it is up to the carer to exercise their choices, too. Nobody should be forced into caring against their will and carers can choose not to provide care. It's a tough choice, but it is a valid and enforceable one.
Please remember that CUK, like any other charity, can have influence with government but cannot force the government to do anything it does not want to do, any more than anyone else can. The best we can hope for, at any time, is that CUK can make the government see sense. After all, there will be a general election within the next 2 years...and it seems that the government is keen to make social care a major part of its election strategy.