[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/phpbb/session.php on line 585: sizeof(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/phpbb/session.php on line 641: sizeof(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable
Social Care FUNDING : GREEN Or RED HERRING PAPER ? Various Schemes And Utter Madness : All Together In This Thread - Page 2 - Carers UK Forum

Social Care FUNDING : GREEN Or RED HERRING PAPER ? Various Schemes And Utter Madness : All Together In This Thread

Share information, support and advice on all aspects of caring.
179 posts
Classic Catch 22 in this morning's Guardian ... to charge or not to charge ? ... that is NOT the right question ... that is the dilemma ?

https://www.theguardian.com/society/201 ... and-unfair

Social care funding plans branded costly and unfair.

Proposals for older people in England almost as costly as making all care free, say critics.

The government’s plans for reforming social care in England – at the heart of a planned green paper – have been criticised as costly and unfair in a report on the future of funding care for older people.

The report from two highly respected thinktanks, the Kings Fund and the Health Foundation, finds that the idea of increasing the number of people paying for care, and how much they pay, put forward in the Tory manifesto last year, would be almost as costly as making all care free.

The proposals, based for the first time on putting housing assets into the means test for people needing personal care at home as well as those in residential care, puts a floor of £100,000 on assets.

After a disastrous weekend of negative publicity following the plan’s unveiling, a cap on the total amount paid for care needs was proposed. For their report, the thinktanks have set it at £75,000.

“It catches a lot of people who are not paying now for the support they get at home,” Anita Charlesworth of the Health Foundation said. “It is even more complex than the current system and it’s only a very slight improvement in terms of the cash it raises.”

Jeremy Hunt, the health secretary who is now also responsible for social care, put this so-called “cap and floor” approach at the heart of his thinking when he set out the principles that would underlie his green paper earlier this year.

Wednesday’s report joins a long list that predicts the need for a huge rise in spending to meet the needs of an ageing population.

Even to maintain the current system, which steadily squeezes the criteria for eligibility for support in order to keep it affordable, faces a £1.5bn shortfall by 2020. If standards and availability were raised to the level the coalition government inherited in 2010, an extra £8bn would have to be found.

The cap and floor system would need an extra £5bn over the same period, while providing free personal care would cost an extra £7bn. Free personal care has been introduced in Scotland, where it is very popular. But one of the main justifications for such a policy, that it would ease the pressure on the health service by helping people stay at home, has not been fully realised.

While there is some support for a hypothecated tax, according to a detailed study of public attitudes to funding social care done for the report, focus groups also understood that in an economic downturn it might not raise enough income.

Most of those questioned agreed that responsibility for care costs should be shared. But there was widespread hostility, regardless of age or home ownership, to taxing housing wealth.

The report’s authors conclude that very few people understand how social care funding works, and many assume it will be free.

They also find that the government is not trusted to deliver on its promises for quality as well as availability. They suggest the government does not even have enough trust to be believed when it tries to explain the scale of the problem.

Charlesworth concludes: “Everyone agrees that the social care system is not fit for purpose. But finding reforms that balance good quality care for those who need it with the funding needed to provide it is incredibly challenging.”

A health department spokesperson indicated on Tuesday that the summer deadline for the green paper might not be met.

In essence , a half time summary from the armchair pundits !

Time to grasp our hymn sheets and recite together ?


( Cancer ... NHS ... free / dementia ... social care ... NOT free ).

That , at least , will be as step in the right direction ... with the destination a mere 10 miles away ???
A view from a Welsh perspective :

https://nation.cymru/2018/why-im-callin ... for-wales/

Why I’m calling for the establishment of a National Care Service for Wales ... Dr. Dai Lloyd AM

Mahatma Gandhi is reported to have said that ‘The measure of a civilization is how it treats its weakest members’, and this is something that I have strongly supported throughout my political life.

Historically, there has been a natural, in-built, tendency in Wales to do just that. Be it through co-operatives, mutuals, trade unions – we have a proud tradition in terms of supporting and looking out for each other.

Strong socialist values have underpinned the very fabric of our communities and we can be rightly proud that institutions such as the NHS have their roots here in Wales.

So, as we make our way through the 21st century, where is Wales now? And more importantly, where do we want Wales to be in years to come?

When I think of the Wales of the future, I think of one where our most vulnerable citizens are cared for and supported in a way which meets their needs.

We have a ageing elderly population, many of whom need social care interventions to support them in their daily lives. The reality in Wales in 2018 is that they are often being failed.

With Social Services having been devolved since the advent of the National Assembly, there is no-one else to blame here and it is clear that we need to up our game.

The Association of Directors of Social Services Cymru in their 2018 – 2021 Strategy state categorically that ‘Social Care needs to be both a higher political and funding priority for Welsh Government’.

We have also heard of countless examples from Age Cymru where they highlight how the current social care system is failing elderly residents across Wales.

There is a failure to assess and address the needs of families and carers, a failure to deliver additional social care capacity, and a failure to integrate health and social care.

I am often struck by some of the truly desperate stories of individuals from across Wales who are simply not receiving the level of social care that they need.

We have local authorities regularly failing to fulfil their statutory duties, and third sector organisations having to fight the corner of our most vulnerable.[/b]

It is simply not acceptable, and as a society, it should shame us.

We have known for many years that an ageing population will bring additional pressures – pressures to ensure that older people are cared for, supported, valued and enjoy life – that they feel part of a community, and are not lonely or isolated.

Yet despite the well-known projections; despite the well-known staffing pressures within the sector; despite the well-known need for additional funding to support the sector, the Welsh Government is failing to respond.

So, what has gone wrong? What has the Labour Party missed?


The key issue with the Labour Welsh Government, to my mind, is the lack of a clear, long-term vision for Social Care.

They have been too busy managing the short-term pressures, as opposed to creating a clear national vision for the future.

As the Directors of Social Services have pointed out, the sector needs to be given a higher status, and this is why I propose the establishment of a National Care Service for Wales, along similar lines to the National Health Service in Wales.

Social Care now finds itself in a very similar position that the health service found itself prior to the establishment of the NHS.

During the 1930’s and 40’s the provision of health services was not universal, with patients generally having to pay for their care from private providers, while some were fortunate to receive free care from charities – clear parallels with the current provision of Social Care.

It changed for the Health Service due to political will. The same needs to happen with social care.

For far too long, Social Care has been seen as the poor relation in the Health and Social Care field, but the work that the service delivers is vital in terms of protection, prevention and rehabilitation to our most vulnerable groups.

It needs to be given parity of esteem, and parity in terms of political and organisational status.

We need national direction in terms of Social Care, and the issue of staffing is key to that, and I believe that the Welsh Government need to provide far more direct leadership.

The sector has a massive issue in terms of recruitment and retention, and it is vitally important that we increase the standing of care workers – recognising and rewarding the valuable work that they do – and paid a living wage.

I would want to see a National Pay Model which will show staff clearly that they are valued, and that we appreciate the key work that they do – similar to the model which exists within healthcare.

That fair pay model needs to link clearly to a ‘National Recruitment Campaign’, and a ‘National Social Services Workforce Plan’ which will deliver the workforce numbers needed to provide the services that people need and deserve.

When we look at international examples, we find that Wales has fallen behind in so many ways, and the Welsh Government needs to be looking widely at what we can learn from others.

In Scotland, the elderly receive free personal care, and as well as introducing this in Wales we should also look to abolish care charges for dementia patients.

Dementia is a disease of the brain, so why on earth should sufferers be treated differently to those of any other medical disease? It is simply not fair, and it needs to be addressed.

Wales as a nation is developing. The advent of devolution means that we have the ability to do things differently.

Anyone of us could have the misfortune of needing social care as we head into our later years.

To my mind, we need to share the risks, and set out a long-term goal of delivering social care to those that need it, free at the point of delivery, funded by general taxation.

Devolution in action, and true to Welsh values.

Said doctor speaks for the WHOLE UK , me thinks ???
Plenty of coverage in today's media of two think tanks recommendation for an increase in tax , to cover both the NHS and social care ... the Guardian won :

https://www.theguardian.com/society/201 ... oat-report

NHS needs £2,000 in tax from every household to stay afloat – report.

Higher taxation is only way to address demands on buckling health service, thinktanks say.

British households will need to pay an extra £2,000 a year in tax to help the NHS cope with the demands of an ageing population, according to a new report that highlights the unprecedented financial pressures on the health system.

Two thinktanks – the Institute for Fiscal Studies and the Health Foundation – have said there can be no alternative to higher taxation if there are to be even modest improvements to care over the next 15 years, adding that demands on the health service will continue to rise.

The report said the NHS has been struggling to cope after the toughest financial constraints in its 70-year history had been imposed on the service. Costs were bound to increase due to demographic change, an increase in chronic illnesses and bigger bills for staff and drugs.

Niall Dickson, chief executive of the NHS Confederation, which commissioned the report and represents 85% of NHS bodies, said: “This report is a wake-up call. And its message is simple – if we want good, effective and safe services, we will have to find the resources to pay for them.”

The research was published as the Spectator reported that Theresa May had decided to increase the NHS’s budget by 3% a year for each of the remaining four years of this parliament. It means that, by 2022, the health service would be getting the £350m a week extra that was promised on the side of the Brexit battlebus in 2016. The magazine’s cover story, on changed Conservative attitudes to NHS funding, stated that, in making her decision, May had overridden Philip Hammond’s concerns that such large sums would be difficult to afford.

All political parties accept that NHS funding will need to be increased over the coming years, but the IFS and Health Foundation report said the resources needed far outstripped any tax pledges already made.

It said even modest improvements to services and higher pay to recruit and retain staff would require health spending to grow by 4% a year over the next 15 years, with front-loaded increases of 5% a year for the next five years. Health spending would rise from 7.3% of GDP to 9.9% of GDP by 2033-34 – £56bn at today’s prices.

Household incomes are expected to rise by £8,500 between now and 2033-4, and under the report’s calculations, almost a quarter – £2,000 – of that would go on extra tax to pay for the NHS. A further 0.4% of GDP – around £300 per household – will be needed to pay for adult social care.

“The scale of what we face is not widely understood,” Dickson said. “Over the next 15 years in the UK, there will be four million more people over 65 and the prospect of a 40% increase in hospital admissions and further large increases in the number of people with numerous long-term conditions.

“It is now undeniable that the current system and funding levels are not sustainable. Without new ways of delivering services and sustained investment, NHS and care services will not cope, and we will face a decade of misery in which the old, the sick and the vulnerable will be let down.”

Paul Johnson, the director of IFS and an author of the report, said Britain was finally having to face up to one of the biggest choices in a generation.

“If we are to have a health and social care system which meets our needs and aspirations, we will have to pay a lot more for it over the next 15 years. This time we won’t be able to rely on cutting spending elsewhere – we will have to pay more in tax. But it is a choice: higher taxes and a health and social care system which meets our expectations and improves over time, or taxes at current levels and a more constrained health service delivering less than we have become accustomed to.”

The report said that over the past 70 years, spending on the NHS had been paid for by reduced spending on defence, housing and debt interest, but that none of those alternative sources of cash would be available in the future.

Instead, it said the money would have to be found from the three main sources of government revenue: income tax, VAT or national insurance. Putting a penny on all the main rates of income tax would raise £5bn, a penny on VAT would raise £6bn, and a penny on each of the main employee, self-employed and employer national insurance rates would raise £10bn.

Anita Charlesworth, the director of research and economics at the Health Foundation and an author of the report, said: “After eight years of austerity, the health service will need a sustained injection of funding just to get back on an even keel, let alone to modernise. The prime minister has committed to a long-term funding settlement for the NHS.”

Spending on the NHS needed to return to the 4% a year real-terms increases seen during its first six decades, Charlesworth added. Meaningful progress on waiting times, staffing shortages and mental health would need growth of around 5% a year for the next five years. “There are four million people on waiting lists. It is not a service where the problems can be hidden from people”, she said.

The report was welcomed by an all-party group of MPs. Dr Sarah Wollaston, the Conservative chair of the health and social care select committee, Norman Lamb, the Liberal Democrats former care minister, and Liz Kendall, the former shadow care minister, said: “As a cross-party group of MPs who have come together to campaign for a new settlement for the NHS and the care system, we wholeheartedly endorse this analysis.

“We call for the government to accept the case for meeting the ambitious scenario which would deliver a modernised NHS. It sets a benchmark against which to judge any announcements from the government about extra funding for the NHS and social care as we approach the 70th anniversary of this great institution.”

Nothing really new ... like a mortgage payment ... underpay for a time and it will eventually lead to problems in the future.

What is more interesting are the COMMENTS sections in many newpapers.

Quick scan ... hardly any agreeing that higher taxes are the answer ... many want re-organisation , especially in top heavy management , integration of services and staff and ... surprise surprise ... restrictions on usuage to those who have been in the UK longest.

Needless to add , prejudice against all and sundry is alive and kicking in some sections.

This one will run ... for more than a generation.


The Guardian's own take on this :

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... is-overdue

The Guardian view on tax and the NHS: honesty is overdue.


Politicians of all stripes have for too long avoided confronting hard truths about rising demand for health services and how to meet the cost.

There isn’t much about last year’s general election that Theresa May is in a hurry to revisit, least of all the plan to reform social care by a mechanism that came to be known as the “dementia tax”. The pitch was poor, but the concept deserved a fairer hearing. Outside the partisan frenzy of a campaign, it might have started a necessary conversation about long-term funding to meet the costs of an ageing population.

New research published today lays bare the challenge. A model developed by the Health Foundation, a charity, and the Institute for Fiscal Studies anticipates demand for spending on adult social care to rise by 3.9% a year over the next 15 years. Over the same period, the population over the age of 65 is expected to increase by 4.4 million; and the number over 85 by 1.3 million.

That demographic shift also increases the burden on the health service. NHS spending will have to increase by an average of 3.3% every year just to maintain services at current levels, with steep rises loaded in the short term to compensate for budget austerity since 2010.

The blunt conclusion: taxes must rise or services will suffer badly. Satisfying the projected increase in demand would require extra revenues of between £34bn and £56bn by 2034. That would mean a higher annual tax bill of £1,200-£2,000 per household.

The need for health-centred tax rises is echoed today in a separate proposal by a pair of peers and former health ministers – one Labour, one Conservative. Lord Darzi and Lord Prior, working with the Institute for Public Policy Research, suggest a penny rise in national insurance from 2019.

Such a levy would generate an additional £12bn a year by 2022 – part of a package of measures that would deliver more than £350m a week for the NHS.

That is the totemic figure advertised by the pro-leave campaign as a bounty to be recovered from EU budget contributions. It is obvious now that no such bounty exists. On the contrary, the Bank of England calculates the gap between the UK economy now and the more buoyant trajectory it was on before the referendum at £40bn – or £900 per household as a cost of Brexit uncertainty.

This puts the government in an invidious position. Money was promised for the NHS. Austerity has eliminated spare capacity without generating new revenue streams. Every independent analysis points to the need for tax rises but politicians of all stripes, fearing that candour on that point carries a political penalty, seek comfort in procrastination and delusion, of which the “Brexit dividend” is an especially preposterous manifestation.

If some good comes from the cynical, dishonest pledges of the leave campaign, it might be a definitive shattering of illusions about NHS funding. There are no shortcuts and no weekly magic bus deliveries of millions back from Brussels. It turns out that Mrs May was reaching for a fundamental truth in her dreadful election campaign: if we want decent services that care for us all, we must all be prepared to pay for them.

Well said !!!
Yet another ( Non ) Think Tank enters the arena ... to a chorus of boos ?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/heal ... 18171.html

Over 40s should pay new tax to fund creaking social care, MPs say.

Levy to pay for spiralling costs of care in old age should be paid by individuals and employers, MPs said.

The government should introduce a levy for over 40s, retirees, and employers to fund the spiralling care costs of the growing population of older people and those with disabilities, MPs have said.

A report from the Housing, Communities and Local Government and Health and Social Care Committees calls for a “social care premium” for England, to address social care costs which will soon become “unsustainable”.

The aim of the system would be to ensure the personal element of social care – such as washing, dressing and eating – is eventually available free at the point of delivery to everyone who needs it, although accommodation costs would continue to be means-tested.

In order to ensure fairness between generations, payments into the fund would start at the age of 40 and would be extended to those over 65, it said.

Social care was badly hit by government cuts to council budgets and stretched services are also heaping pressure on the NHS as there is not enough capacity to support people at home when they are well enough to leave hospital.

The sector will need “many billions of pounds” to simply keep pace with the growth in demand in the coming decade, the MPs said.

To address this the government should consider moving to a “social insurance system” with the additional funds raised to be specifically earmarked for key parts of home support and nursing care, they added.

The social care premium could either operate as an additional element of national insurance or through a separate mechanism, as happens in Germany, the report said.

The money raised should be held in an audited fund to reassure the public that it would be used solely for social care and not raided for other priorities.

“We heard strong support for the principle of earmarking contributions – it was felt that establishing a visible fund that is clearly, transparently and accountably linked to spending on social care is key to gaining public acceptance for this measure,” the report said.

The MPs said consideration should be given to setting a minimum earnings threshold, to protect those on low incomes, and to the inclusion of unearned income, such as pensions and investments, when it came to calculating an individual’s contribution level.

With an estimated funding gap of up to £2.5 billion in the next financial year alone, the report acknowledged that is unlikely to be affordable immediately, and said the first priority should be to extend free care to those whose needs are deemed to be “critical”.

In a further measure it called for an additional inheritance tax charge on estates valued above a certain threshold, as a way of “pooling of risk” to prevent those requiring long term care being faced with “catastrophic” costs.

After Theresa May‘s attempt to bring forward plans to reform social care funding at last year’s general election – branded the “dementia tax” by opponents and blamed for a disastrous loss of support for the Conservatives – the report emphasised the need for cross-party support for change.

Her government had pledged to publish its proposals for social care reforms this summer but it has now pushed its green paper into the autumn.

Dr Sarah Wollaston, the chair of the Health and Social Care Committee, said: “We can no longer delay finding a fair and sustainable settlement for social care. Doing nothing cannot be an option.

Clive Betts, the chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, said: “The social care system is in a critical condition and there is an urgent need for more funding both now and in the future to ensure people are properly looked after.

“Given the huge funding gulf, the Government should now take the opportunity to build both a political and public consensus around the need for a new social care premium to secure a fair and sustainable system in the long-term.

Chair of the Local Government Association's community wellbeing board, councillor Izzi Seccombe, said: “This report reflects the bold and radical decisions that need to be made if we are to solve the irrefutable crisis in funding adult social care.

Properly funding social care and prevention measures not only helps councils with overly-stretched budgets offer the vital support that older and disabled people need, it also helps to prevent crises and cost pressures in the NHS by reducing the numbers of people who are admitted to hospital.

Oh dear , another back of a fag packet solution ?

What's missing ?


Yet again , NOT A MENTION ... everyone out there takes our contribution for granted.

Nothing new in that , even our own supporting organisations take that view.

Nice to be asked occasionly , or even consulted in a democracy ???
Social care insurance schemes being proposed ... an additional NI type one ?

Consider this.

Introduced from 6 April 2021 ... start of that tax year.

As of now , deductions from wage packets as per NI contributions.

But , when will ANY benefit be seen ???

Millions still not contributing ... elderly / unemployed / family carers / even low wage earners if limit before paying is too high.

Not immediate , still millions needing social care and ... no monies paid in to the new scheme ... to be ring fenced , so we are told.

Logically , a generation needed ?

In the interim , same system ... millions unable to afford social care.

Might be the future but ... few reading this will live long enough to see it in action ???

Many , however , might witness the total meltdown ... starting with a few LAs declaring themselves insolvent.

LGPS Pension deficit at £35bn - much lower than predicted.

20 March 2017

That's good news , a mere £ 35 BILLION for the taxpayers to pick up ... next ?
Picked up through Twitter ( Thanks for the off forum prompt ! ).

Carers UK are said to be in favour of the last report on this thread :

Over 40s should pay new tax to fund creaking social care, MPs say.

Levy to pay for spiralling costs of care in old age should be paid by individuals and employers, MPs said.

Perhaps they will think again ... and draw the same conclusion as the previous post on this thread ?

The tens of millions who will see NO benefit until the Scheme kicks in / starts paying out ... 25 years + ... and no raising of the pension age before then ... same system as now ???

The 1 in 4 now ... how will they pay the premiums ... nominal social care is already provided despite no monetary contribution.

Disabled at birth ? How will they contribute ? Can a family carer pay premiums under the New Scheme , and then transfer the benefits to their newly born disabled child ?

Premiums staircased ? The more you pay , the more you get back ??? ... GOLD / SILVER / BRONZE / BASEMENT services ???

In essence , a similar system will emerge ... based on the ability to pay !!![/b]






If any reader wants to know how the funding of social care works in other countries , the BIBLE is a 60 page Kings Fund report , in .pdf format , produced in 2014 :

https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/sites/defa ... ntries.pdf

Australia / France / Germany / Ireland / Japan / Netherlands / South Korea / Sweden / USA

Not read yet but ... from past researches , Ireland will be my favourite for the best system ... USA to be the worst.

Bear in mind that even this is 5 years old ... figures therein will have changed ... UK wise , benefit system NOT as supportive even from 5 years ago ... disproportionate rise in support services costs allied with a freeze / below inflation rate rise in the level of benefits / allowances / disappearance of some under Unversal Credit.

In essence . all systems seem to be segregated ... like the NHS and social care over 'ere ... leading to a whole zoo of various measures / benefits / allowances and ... resulting madness.
Tory Councils now join the feeding frenzy ... later edition of today's Guardian :

https://www.theguardian.com/society/201 ... ocial-care

Tory councils join demand for tax increases to fund social care services.

Vast majority of local authorities in England say taxation is the only viable solution to funding crisis

Conservative councils across Britain are demanding new tax increases to rescue social care, in the latest sign of the funding crisis in public services.

An astonishing nine in every 10 local authorities say that taxation must now be part of the solution in securing the viability of adult social care, according to a comprehensive survey of council leaders and senior figures responsible for care.

Concerns have been growing as a result of another delay to government proposals on resolving the crisis and complaints that pledged funding for care has been diverted to the NHS.

Leaders and adult social care cabinet members in all 152 councils providing social care in England were surveyed by the Local Government Association (LGA), with 79 responding, including 36 Tory councils. The LGA found that 89% of councils backed national taxation. In the first survey of its kind by the body, almost all of those asked (96%) said they believe there is a major national funding problem in adult social care.

While local authorities have been allowed to increase council tax to help bridge the gap, the LGA has repeatedly warned that such small increases cannot be expected to cover the projected shortfall as England’s population ages and demand for services increases. More than two-thirds of councils (70%) said that increasing council tax further should not be part of the solution.

The survey comes ahead of the LGA’s annual conference in Birmingham next week, when councils are expected to make another public plea for action. Jeremy Hunt, the health secretary, revealed earlier this month that government proposals on adult social care had been delayed until the autumn. In response, the LGA will publish its own blueprint for resolving the issue.

The Commons housing, communities and local government committee and the health and social care committee have also called for a levy to be paid by those aged over 40, retirees, and employers to fund a social care “black hole” that stands at £2.5bn in the next financial year. The MPs warned that the current system is “not fit to respond to the demographic trends of the future”.

A study in Wales previously suggested that an age-related income tax increase of between 1% and 3% should be used to fund elderly social care. It could mean people in their 50s would pay four times more than those in their 20s. The report was commissioned by the Welsh government.

Seccombe, the Tory leader of Warwickshire county council and chair of the LGA’s community wellbeing board, said: “Our surveys show beyond doubt that the overwhelming majority of both our national politicians, and the people they represent, will settle for nothing less than additional funding from government to help solve the social care funding crisis.

“Properly funding social care and prevention services not only helps councils with overstretched budgets to protect care services for the benefit of those requiring them, it also helps to prevent further crises in the NHS and saves the health service a fortune by keeping people safe and well in their own homes, reducing the number of hospital admissions.

“All options should be on the table to solve the funding crisis and enable councils to meet growing demand with high-quality and safe services that help people live their lives. The longer we wait for long-term reforms, the more likely we are to see an unresolvable year-round problem in A&E.”

For once , I agree with the Tory councillors !

An increase in taxation IS needed.

How ?

That's a different question ... from GENERAL taxation has always been my choice stretching back a decade to CarerWatch days.


Recombining the NHS and social care ?

Very little so far ... beyond a vague proposal coming out of the Labour Party.

Still . more will follow as and when the journalists publish their articles.
Snippet from an article in this morning's Independent which changes the emphasis , a little , from yesterday's article from the Guardian posted already :

More than half of all council leaders in England want income tax to be increased to solve the social care crisis, according to a new survey.

Research by the Local Government Association (LGA) found that 58 per cent of leaders back the measure as a way of relieving the strain on services.

The poll also revealed that most oppose further rises in council tax and want the shortfall in funding to be filled by the UK government.

A separate study found that 87 per cent of the public want the government to allocate more cash to councils to ease pressures in the sector.

At last , the pound coin has dropped ???

INCOME tax ... not COUNCIL tax.

The 1 in 4 can breathe a little easier this morning ... just a little , mind !
Well ... Jeremy didn't last long ?

Matt Hancock is the new brat on the block.

TheyWorkForYou form book :

https://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/24773 ... st_suffolk

" She sells seashells " amongst other 3 word alliterative phrases commonly used in speeches !


Interest in horses / horse racing ?

A racing certainty he'll fall at the first on social care ???

Speech from 2012 worth recording ... on the funding aspect :

One day, Mr Deputy Speaker, you, like me, God willing, will grow old. I want to concentrate on the UK’s care system for the elderly. We have heard much today about benefits and changes to Remploy, but I want to focus a bit more on something that was touched on earlier—the need to provide social care for our elderly and for those with permanent and long-term disabilities, and the urgent need for reform.

I am motivated in this by thinking not only of my own growing old—I hope—and of all those in this Chamber, but family experience and my experience of supporting a friend of my age who, at the age of 28, sadly had a stroke and is now confined to a wheelchair and has to live with permanent care.

Supporting him, and starting a trust to support him, gave me the personal experience of trying to navigate the care system for those with permanent disabilities, and it brought into sharp relief the difficulties that that brings to many people who support disabled people, whether they are of what would otherwise be working age or in old age.

The Dilnot commission has been the most important step forward in this area for many years. Criticisms of inaction can be levelled not only at the previous Government but at previous Governments. This is an area where cross-party support and a lack of political tension is necessary.

Over the past decade, 200,000 people have sold their homes to pay for their care. Yet more people, who did not have assets, have had to survive with substandard care. BUPA has estimated that in a decade, there will be a shortfall of 100,000 care home places unless action is taken.

In the same period that spending on the NHS has risen by about £25 billion, spending on social care for the elderly has risen by only £43 million. Given that 400,000 elderly people are in care homes and that more than £7 billion was announced for this area in the spending review, we need to ensure that Government support is focused and that financial support is brought in from wherever possible to strengthen this crucial sector.

I pay tribute to the work that the Minister has done to bring forward proposals and ensure that we are moving in the right direction. The introduction of carers breaks is a welcome step forward. I warmly welcome the linking of social care and health care budgets in the Health and Social Care Act 2012, which will tie together what have too often been disparate functions.

It is clear that there is also a need for reform in self-funding. There must be support for vulnerable elderly people who do not have access, but we must also ensure that those who do have access do not have to lose their home to pay for their care. The problem is the lack of an insurance market.

We can insure all sorts of things in life. The moustache of Mervyn Hughes, the great cricketer, was once insured for £200,000. Kylie Minogue’s rear was insured for $5 million, Heidi Klum’s legs for $2 million and Cristiano Ronaldo’s legs for €100 million. However, I cannot take out insurance for the possibility that I will have to spend many years in social care. Nobody in this country can insure against the small chance that they will need very expensive care in their old age.

The problem is the uncertainty over the cost. For many of us, there will be no care costs at all. For most of us, the costs will be relatively small. For a small proportion of people, however, there will be very high and uncertain costs. There is a role for Government in ensuring that the market works in tackling the uncertainty. There is uncertainty over not only what the cost will be, but who will be hit with the cost.

That brings me to the final point about why this matter is so important. This is not only a practical problem, but a problem of values. Those who save hard and work hard for their whole life feel that they are penalised by a care system that takes away what they have worked for.

Those who put money aside and save for their retirement look for a something-for-something system in which people get out according to what they put in. We must look after our most vulnerable and end the scandal of people being forced to sell their homes to pay for their care. I hope that we will come forward soon with serious proposals to take this injustice away.

Wasn't the Minister then ... we shall see ... seashells ???

Hancock's Half Hour revived ?

Won't be a patch on the original !

The original was funny !


Perhaps the infamous Galton and Simpson will come out of retirement to write his speeches ???
179 posts