Long-term social care reform unlikely before 2028
Discussion
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c791gyx2n50o
So the government has decided to kick the can down the road and not deal with this issue now. If the Proposals on the long-term funding of adult social care report comes out in 2028, are they going to expect us to vote them in again so they can implement some of the findings?
The uncomfortable truth is that we cannot afford to look after our old people, and even if we could afford it by raising taxes, we don't have the manpower to staff the areas required - not without mass immigration anyway.
Better just to stick our head in the sand once again.
So the government has decided to kick the can down the road and not deal with this issue now. If the Proposals on the long-term funding of adult social care report comes out in 2028, are they going to expect us to vote them in again so they can implement some of the findings?
The uncomfortable truth is that we cannot afford to look after our old people, and even if we could afford it by raising taxes, we don't have the manpower to staff the areas required - not without mass immigration anyway.
Better just to stick our head in the sand once again.
the solution, which they will come to, is they will force people with assets to liquidate those assets in order to pay for their own care via a quasi public / private system.
if they opened up care assistants as a 5 year visa route, along with NHS, and all the other low paid workers we need would go someway to reducing the cost.
if they opened up care assistants as a 5 year visa route, along with NHS, and all the other low paid workers we need would go someway to reducing the cost.
Picking bits out
If we want an economic underclass of bottom feeders, then by all means open the immigration flood gates. Like the phalanx of just eat people whizzing round on hacked electric bikes, I have no idea how that can afford to live in a first world country, and have yet to be convinced it's the type of growth/employment the country really needs to hold its place in the world economy.
Care workers have however been paid under the minimum wage for ages (time travelling not counted, obvious tasks like dressing or helping someone eat not counted in the contract so not paid).
Ultimately the market will provide something at a price where demand and supply meet (other conditions being favourable of course) so a solution would be to allow the market to find the price
(Incidentally councils now have a duty to ensure the care market is functioning in their area, but feck all power or funding to do anything about it. The latest employer ni increase for contracted care services is just yet another example of lack of joined up thinking in central government)
It would seem sensible to untangle the mess properly, but 3 years will see a lot of councils hit the wall when taking into account the utterly broken state of homelessness, below inflation funding increase and the increased profiteering (and demand) in children's social care and send.
My wife is a teacher and I am the same seniority as my dad was (head of service) and there's no way on earth I can get close to life savings in 6 figures approaching 7 when I retire. But my folks did, despite having multiple new cars (I've never had one) and plenty of foreign holidays although they were thrifty to be fair.
The issue for me is: what happens when the boomers have been bled dry? Their cash will have been funneled I to care company profits - who will be next? Will gen X be more or less healthy (less I suspect)
Expecting labour in opposition to fund a fully worked up proposal is unrealistic I'm afraid (imo), and that's before you consider the change in political direction over that time frame.
It's simple (to me) - voters don't want to hear the truth.
The social care reforms killed Theresa May's 2017 election (when she shed her majority). Even the debate on here in just 4 posts is showing the lack of depth the average person has to grapple with a problem like this.
In the 14 years since the Dilnot review, I think social media has made any sensible discourse virtually impossible. A stupid headline like "dementia tax" will just see voters and therefore politics s running scared, and then Elon will wade in with something ridiculous, and before you know it it's down to "sides" that hate each other.
I don't know the solution unfortunately.
I guess it is for the government to implement a well planned, expensive and unpopular policy for the good of the county/ future.
And will voters thank them for it? You can have two guesses but I suspect you'll only need one...
s1962a said:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c791gyx2n50o
The uncomfortable truth is that we cannot afford to look after our old people,
I would say it's more people don't want to fund it. It's just choices at the end of the day, and politicians just mirror what voters want. The Tories have form for ducking this issue - see the Dilnot review of 2012.The uncomfortable truth is that we cannot afford to look after our old people,
s1962a said:
and even if we could afford it by raising taxes, we don't have the manpower to staff the areas required - not without mass immigration anyway.
Yes, no, maybe. I don't personally know the answer, but I do recall there are a lot of people not currently in employment.If we want an economic underclass of bottom feeders, then by all means open the immigration flood gates. Like the phalanx of just eat people whizzing round on hacked electric bikes, I have no idea how that can afford to live in a first world country, and have yet to be convinced it's the type of growth/employment the country really needs to hold its place in the world economy.
Care workers have however been paid under the minimum wage for ages (time travelling not counted, obvious tasks like dressing or helping someone eat not counted in the contract so not paid).
Ultimately the market will provide something at a price where demand and supply meet (other conditions being favourable of course) so a solution would be to allow the market to find the price
(Incidentally councils now have a duty to ensure the care market is functioning in their area, but feck all power or funding to do anything about it. The latest employer ni increase for contracted care services is just yet another example of lack of joined up thinking in central government)
s1962a said:
Better just to stick our head in the sand once again.
Hasty or knee jerk legislation can be crippling. Anecdotally the Tory reforms of the NHS a few parliaments ago screwed it up pretty badly, and from a council perspective (my job) there are some perverse outcomes being churned out by the NHS because of the way funding is configured. NHS dentistry is another example.It would seem sensible to untangle the mess properly, but 3 years will see a lot of councils hit the wall when taking into account the utterly broken state of homelessness, below inflation funding increase and the increased profiteering (and demand) in children's social care and send.
z4RRSchris said:
The solution, which they will come to, is they will force people with assets to liquidate those assets in order to pay for their own care via a quasi public / private system.
Who should pay? Who can pay? "Boomers" with excess liquidity seems to be a not-to-be-repeated fluke, and they're now hitting that age where care is needed on a scale never before seen. I say that as someone with both parents in their late 70s sitting in a £1m+ house /savings from being a teacher and local government middle manager.My wife is a teacher and I am the same seniority as my dad was (head of service) and there's no way on earth I can get close to life savings in 6 figures approaching 7 when I retire. But my folks did, despite having multiple new cars (I've never had one) and plenty of foreign holidays although they were thrifty to be fair.
The issue for me is: what happens when the boomers have been bled dry? Their cash will have been funneled I to care company profits - who will be next? Will gen X be more or less healthy (less I suspect)
Murph7355 said:
Isn't this one of the things they had a plan for?
It's definitively another of the things that, if they were serious, they would have spent the last 14yrs developing a plan for.
Being fair, the opposition don't have the civil service to lean on. Like councils, the opposition is more an idea/ concept than someone that can carry out executive action. It's definitively another of the things that, if they were serious, they would have spent the last 14yrs developing a plan for.
Expecting labour in opposition to fund a fully worked up proposal is unrealistic I'm afraid (imo), and that's before you consider the change in political direction over that time frame.
Murph7355 said:
But as noted above, no political party is prepared to tell the truth about it.
This is the crux. Why won't they tell the truth?It's simple (to me) - voters don't want to hear the truth.
The social care reforms killed Theresa May's 2017 election (when she shed her majority). Even the debate on here in just 4 posts is showing the lack of depth the average person has to grapple with a problem like this.
In the 14 years since the Dilnot review, I think social media has made any sensible discourse virtually impossible. A stupid headline like "dementia tax" will just see voters and therefore politics s running scared, and then Elon will wade in with something ridiculous, and before you know it it's down to "sides" that hate each other.
I don't know the solution unfortunately.
I guess it is for the government to implement a well planned, expensive and unpopular policy for the good of the county/ future.
And will voters thank them for it? You can have two guesses but I suspect you'll only need one...
Ian Geary said:
Murph7355 said:
Isn't this one of the things they had a plan for?
It's definitively another of the things that, if they were serious, they would have spent the last 14yrs developing a plan for.
Being fair, the opposition don't have the civil service to lean on. Like councils, the opposition is more an idea/ concept than someone that can carry out executive action. It's definitively another of the things that, if they were serious, they would have spent the last 14yrs developing a plan for.
Expecting labour in opposition to fund a fully worked up proposal is unrealistic I'm afraid (imo), and that's before you consider the change in political direction over that time frame....
This doesn't have to be work done to the nth degree of detail, but direction and framework.
They could have talked to plenty of experts for not much money. And they could have spent the money of donors to progress it rather than spending it on shoes.
Like I said, if they were serious.
The problem is the whole political class is taking the piss now. None of them are serious. None of them have a clue. (Rearrange the order of those as desired).
We are now to wait 3yrs for a report. They must be starting from scratch. It's risible. And it also means nothing will actually get done until the next govt term (whoever that might be).
And no, the Tories didn't do any better with it....though I do think their plans at the start of their tenure were to get finances under control. Which was moving in the right direction, even if "we" didn't really like it.
It then took a turn as other committed policies took precedence....again, back to honesty. Maybe Labour should just come out with it and note it is not top of their pile...they broadly have I guess - solid governance, no cronyism and fixing black holes are their stated priorities...which is all going well too.
borcy said:
No gov seems to want to solve social care, i suspect they just reflect the wider population. No one wants to think about getting old and vulnerable, least of all how to pay for it all.
Some parallels with pensions and funding retirement I expect.When you're younger the amounts involved can be quite small but as you say most people just kick the can and think about it later.
I suspect the sums involved would be eye watering and as we see right now tax to fund things is always something everyone thinks other people should pay.
Oh and that's right now based on a lot cheap migrant labour.
Wait until you see the costs when it's highly paid British jobs for British workers.
its expensive, unregulated in terms of cost, has a cronic lack of staffing who are underpaid (perhaps)
its made cheaper in its current form
we keep people healthier and out of homes
more frontline Nurse / GP care in the community - 90% of s
t these old people go to Gp for doesnt need a GP.
the tax payer pays for it
or existing tax funds are diverted
or the patient pays
its made cheaper in its current form
we keep people healthier and out of homes
more frontline Nurse / GP care in the community - 90% of s
t these old people go to Gp for doesnt need a GP. the tax payer pays for it
or existing tax funds are diverted
or the patient pays
bhstewie said:
hstewie said:borcy said:
No gov seems to want to solve social care, i suspect they just reflect the wider population. No one wants to think about getting old and vulnerable, least of all how to pay for it all.
Some parallels with pensions and funding retirement I expect.When you're younger the amounts involved can be quite small but as you say most people just kick the can and think about it later.
I suspect the sums involved would be eye watering and as we see right now tax to fund things is always something everyone thinks other people should pay.
Oh and that's right now based on a lot cheap migrant labour.
Wait until you see the costs when it's highly paid British jobs for British workers.
They just hit the ground.
Do we have cross-party projects in the uk? (I genuinely don’t know). Ie why aren’t some topics taken out of the party political sphere and dealt with as national issues that aren’t affected by the electoral cycle? And all MPs work on it / have a quango or whatever set up that deals with it.
Do we have cross-party projects in the uk? (I genuinely don’t know). Ie why aren’t some topics taken out of the party political sphere and dealt with as national issues that aren’t affected by the electoral cycle? And all MPs work on it / have a quango or whatever set up that deals with it.
CoolHands said:
They just hit the ground.
Do we have cross-party projects in the uk? (I genuinely don’t know). Ie why aren’t some topics taken out of the party political sphere and dealt with as national issues that aren’t affected by the electoral cycle? And all MPs work on it / have a quango or whatever set up that deals with it.
Because it will cost. Big.Do we have cross-party projects in the uk? (I genuinely don’t know). Ie why aren’t some topics taken out of the party political sphere and dealt with as national issues that aren’t affected by the electoral cycle? And all MPs work on it / have a quango or whatever set up that deals with it.
It becomes political because sooner or later someone had to stand up and say your taxes will have to go up to pay for it and no party wants to do that and win the next election. Just look at the furore over the NI increase or putting VAT onto school fees. That is a drop in the ocean compared to what properly funding social care comes to which is why the can is continually kicked down the road.
At the moment we’re managing because of cheap (imported) labour and councils cutting back elsewhere to pay for adult social care and by letting councils take the flak for increased council tax rises to pay for it but that can only go so far and only last so long. We’re getting older as a nation and pressure on adult social care will only increase.
The old question is how much are you willing to pay in increased taxes to pay for it?
valiant said:
CoolHands said:
They just hit the ground.
Do we have cross-party projects in the uk? (I genuinely don’t know). Ie why aren’t some topics taken out of the party political sphere and dealt with as national issues that aren’t affected by the electoral cycle? And all MPs work on it / have a quango or whatever set up that deals with it.
Because it will cost. Big.Do we have cross-party projects in the uk? (I genuinely don’t know). Ie why aren’t some topics taken out of the party political sphere and dealt with as national issues that aren’t affected by the electoral cycle? And all MPs work on it / have a quango or whatever set up that deals with it.
It becomes political because sooner or later someone had to stand up and say your taxes will have to go up to pay for it and no party wants to do that and win the next election. Just look at the furore over the NI increase or putting VAT onto school fees. That is a drop in the ocean compared to what properly funding social care comes to which is why the can is continually kicked down the road.
At the moment we’re managing because of cheap (imported) labour and councils cutting back elsewhere to pay for adult social care and by letting councils take the flak for increased council tax rises to pay for it but that can only go so far and only last so long. We’re getting older as a nation and pressure on adult social care will only increase.
The old question is how much are you willing to pay in increased taxes to pay for it?
CoolHands said:
valiant said:
The old question is how much are you willing to pay in increased taxes to pay for it?
I will side-step that by saying first we should tax big biz like amazon / starbucks etc before worrying about what I pay 
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff