So Just Where Has The Money Set Aside For Social Care Gone?

Greyduster

If they are as good as our council is at wasting millions on vanity projects that die a death because no-one has thought them through properly, then there’s no hope.

I thought I'd posted on this thread previously but it can't have posted.

I do agree, Greyduster, that LAs are not the most savvy when it comes to managing their finances.

One would think the income would largely be spent on the public services for which they are responsible, with a contingency fund set up for emergencies in a safe haven.

Instead, they invest money in areas which prove to be dodgy or do not do research into what investments are safe. Remember the Icelandic banks scandal? Local Authorities lost £millions although I believe compensation was paid.
Our CC invested £millions in commercial properties just a few years ago but then found it could not rent them out and they are worth less than they paid for them.

Their incompetence is wasting money that is needed for essential public services.

(Don't even mention their wonderful new headquarters.)

David49

It comes down to the fact that LA spending is grossly
underfunded, they have legal obligations, in many cases not fulfilled, they have been robbing other budgets to keep going as best they can.

At the end of the day if we want social care to be funded adequately WE are going to have to pay more, either directly through Council Tax or indirectly through national taxation.

Exactly. People want the impossible - they don't want to pay more tax, but they want more spending on things that benefit them. If the government put up taxes they will 'bleat', but they also 'bleat' when there are spending cuts.

Grantanow

The Buffoon never had a social care plan, oven ready or not. The Tories underfunded public services including local Councils so it's not surprising several are effectively bankrupt including Tory controlled ones. It's going to take years to put right and it's the poor and old who will continue to suffer. Thank you Tories and good riddance.

Why do Labourites always have to use childish or offensive language in a discussion?

I am certain Conservative voters could find equally nasty words to describe Starmer but wouldn’t lower themselves to Labour levels.

It comes down to the fact that LA spending is grossly
underfunded, they have legal obligations, in many cases not fulfilled, they have been robbing other budgets to keep going as best they can.

At the end of the day if we want social care to be funded adequately WE are going to have to pay more, either directly through Council Tax or indirectly through national taxation.

November 17 2022

As widely trailed, Hunt used his autumn statement today to announce a two-year delay to the adult social care charging reforms, including the £86,000 cap on care costs, which are now due to come into force in October 2025, beyond the next election.

However, instead of retaining the funding allocated for the reforms in the Treasury, Hunt said it would still go to councils, with £1.3bn available in 2023-24 and £1.9bn in 2024-25 to spend on adults’ and children’s social care.

www.communitycare.co.uk/2022/11/17/hunt-announces-two-year-care-cap-delay-to-allow-councils-to-deliver-200000-extra-care-packages/

Read that carefully - spent on adults' and childrens' social care.

The county council here budgets over 2.7 million per day to provide these services in 2024/25 - 2.2 million for adults and 500k for children.

The previous government knew that the care cap scheme was going to be difficult to fund and implement which is arguably why they postponed it to beyond the election so it would become the problem of the next government. Labour have now scrapped it altogther so we shall have to wait and see what social care reforms they come up with.

Most people I've spoken to didn't understand how the cap was going to work anyway. They didn't understand that it wasn't retrospective - costs before the introduction date wouldn't count. They didn't understand that is was only going to cover "the care" element of overall costs. Specifically, the cap wasn't going to cover the cost of residential accommodation, food and ancilliary charges.

Can you tell us exactly which councils you are talking about, OP, how much money in total they had available, and what they have spent it on? Then it will be clear.

Are they "bleating" after overspending on unnecessary things - luxury official cars for all councillors, free booze at council meetings, private jets to fact-finding missions to exotic places, fur-lined loo seats in the executive washroom, laptops with solid gold cases?

Or are they pointing out that their social care budgets are already stretched between "austerity" from above cutting what they receive and the increasing needs and expenses of those they care for?

If people needing care can't contribute more than £X each for it, then there is only £X from each of them to spend on looking after them for their lifetime. The extra will have to come from somewhere - the only place is from what had already been committed to something else.

mae13

Iam64

What Whitewave said.
Plus have you read or understood anything about austerity over the last 14 years

Whoops! I've trod on a Daily Mail readers' feelings......

If you knew how stupid that remark is you’d be embarrassed.

mae13

Iam64

What Whitewave said.
Plus have you read or understood anything about austerity over the last 14 years

Whoops! I've trod on a Daily Mail readers' feelings......

You haven’t. Iam64 knows what she is talking about.

Do you understand about the requirement for Local Authorities to meet their statutory obligations?

You lost me at ‘bleating’, OP.

La la might mean la la land. That’s the meaning where I come from. Just a speculation, may be wrong.

Iam64

What Whitewave said.
Plus have you read or understood anything about austerity over the last 14 years

Whoops! I've trod on a Daily Mail readers' feelings......

maddyone

I didn’t realise that any money was set aside for social care. I’m not surprised it’s been spent if it was set aside.

At one point when the NHS was reeling, again, really needed funding from the bottom up, and there were 165k social care vacancies, Sunak said that Social Care would be getting £500m, within a fortnight it had halved!

Horrid story yesterday about some carers who came over on the Government Sponsorship Scheme. They had actually paid around £20,000 to the 'recruiter' (may have been the employing company?) to get the forms so that they could come over - the company that employs them as part of the scheme have to give them a guaranteed 29 hours per week, yet these hours were more like 3 - 15; they were unable to pay their bills to live and also had to pay back debt from where they got that original £20k. Bet there are a few companies that have cottoned on to that scam., fortunately not the one I use, I have checked!

" Why is money set aside for elderly, disabled and vulnerable not ring-fenced? Or is this a deliberate policy - because respect for these groups is less than zilch?"

I quite agree Mae13 and this lack of respect for elderly and disabled people seems to be commonplace these days. What happened to striving for a compassionate and inclusive society!
I agree with whoever said that a society can be judged by how it treats its most vulnerable members.

Just a little reminder, money doesn't grow on trees. Everything has to be paid for out of our pockets, through taxation of us personally, companies, services and a host of other ways, but at the end of the day, sooner or later it coes out of our pockets.

You cannot look at one area of need , 'care, 'schools', 'universities' unless you see it in the context of what every other sector needs. I am in agreement, Care needs more money, but what sector are you going to take it from - whatabout the people suffering in poor schools, for example.

I am all in favour of lots of money for every needy government sector.

But remember today it was announced that the level of debt this country owes is 99.5% of GDP. The highest level since 1962, when we were still paying off huge WW2 debts.

And the sector that has absolute precedence over everything is paying the interest on our loans.

He was also going to make the country healthy again after he realised his obesity had caused covid complications. From what I’ve seen of him recently he isn’t sticking to his diet. I can’t believe that people were happy for him to be representing us on the worlds stage.

The Buffoon never had a social care plan, oven ready or not. The Tories underfunded public services including local Councils so it's not surprising several are effectively bankrupt including Tory controlled ones. It's going to take years to put right and it's the poor and old who will continue to suffer. Thank you Tories and good riddance.

Mr Johnson stood outside number 10 smiling, repeating he had an oven ready plan for social care. Lies

Rekarie

To do with the amount of cash you get to keep if in a care home. I think it's about 23 at the moment, approximately anyway.

Was this not one of Boris's ideas? I recall thinking that it was not likely to happen

It was going to be increased to £80,000 I believe? Part of a Conservative manifesto that almost tempted me to vote for them but was never implemented? ( I’m going from memory so could be wrong).

To do with the amount of cash you get to keep if in a care home. I think it's about 23 at the moment, approximately anyway.

Was this not one of Boris's ideas? I recall thinking that it was not likely to happen

gulligranny

Well of course now that we have a La-La-Labour government, "all things shall be well, all things shall be well, and all manner of things shall be well". So no worries.

What on earth does “la la” mean?

OP, did your source give clear examples of what it was referring to? It’s the demands and expectations on LAs that are bottomless, and the funds to meet them very shallow.

Well of course now that we have a La-La-Labour government, "all things shall be well, all things shall be well, and all manner of things shall be well". So no worries.

Sometime LA money has to be spent in a particular way, by a specific time or it goes back to central government.
For example there may be money to improve open spaces, so new park benches are bought. Meanwhile the school needs to be painted. The first lot of money can’t be spent on the latter.
A simplified example.

If they are as good as our council is at wasting millions on vanity projects that die a death because no-one has thought them through properly, then there’s no hope.

I didn’t realise that any money was set aside for social care. I’m not surprised it’s been spent if it was set aside.