Just been listening to Andy Burnham on care ......

It must be so utterly dispiriting when you have good ideas and need a bit of time to finalise details to have the same cliches about ‘talking the talk’ trotted out.

He knows what he wants to do, and is determined to do it. It looks as though he knows how he wants to do it, whether that’s through inheritance tax or stopping the triple lock, but he’s also said he wants cross-party support if possible, and he doesn’t want to make promises he can’t keep, so he is waiting to get ‘t’s crossed and ‘i’s dotted before going public. He will know that there is a faction who hate the idea of paying for others, whether or not they have paid for themselves over the years, so if he leaks any ideas they will be shot down in flames, yet if he doesn’t he is accused of dishonesty.

Luckygirl
this is Thatchers legacy There it is in 4 words 😥
Take, take, take.
I remember the first time I was shocked at the financial abuse in care homes. It was about 2010. My SIL had sold 3 top of the range Audi’s over £100,000 each to my neighbours who had care homes. Small fry compared to the above. But they are probably in that bracket now.

I reported a Bupa care😡 home when looking for one to suit my mother in law. Because I had done some care work I knew to go and look behind the reception/ office.
What I saw was horrendous.
The reception was beautiful.
Then I asked to see where my mothers would be, activity facilities, lounge area.
What I walked into was: a large cold room. No comfortable furnishings. All seating was plastic. I saw a grown man with just an adult pad on.
Not one member of staff had a uniform on. I lost my shit with the manger.

NotSpaghetti
Maybe the swedes are happy with what they pay because they don’t see corruption, waste, incompetence, stupidity, couldn’t care less attitude because it’s only the tax payers money.
Obviously forgetting that it’s their money as well.
I could go on but that will suffice 😂

petra

NotSpaghetti
Maybe the swedes are happy with what they pay because they don’t see corruption, waste, incompetence, stupidity, couldn’t care less attitude because it’s only the tax payers money.
Obviously forgetting that it’s their money as well.
I could go on but that will suffice 😂

But if they were paid for from tax, and LA managed, there would be checks and balances to ensure that corruption, waste and stupidity were stamped out.

The Swedes I know really resent their high taxation to pay for good social services but put up with it for the greater good.
The mentality in the UK is different. We don't want to pay in taxes yet this attitude has resulted in the monetising of childcare and care homes to enable greed and profit to rule. So many see these areas to merely make money. Very bad imo but the result of poor Government investment in these areas.

Sarnia

Doodledog

I’ve read that scrapping the triple lock might be considered to pay for social care.

I would need to see the detail, but assuming it would be a simple trade-off and the money could be ring-fenced, I think I would get behind that. The only thing that might put me off is the knowledge that a future government (specifically Reform, but potentially Conservative too) might delight in its removal but take the money and re-privatise social care, so we would get the worst of both worlds.

With a guarantee (no idea how that would work), I think everyone being slightly worse off so that nobody is wiped out by the cost of care would be a good thing.

It’s much the same as the NHS principle - those lucky enough not to need it would pay a bit more, but everyone would have the security of knowing that if they needed it, help would be provided. Also, it wouldn’t put all the tax burden on working people for a change.

As a pensioner living existing solely on the old pension (pre-1950) I would not be happy to see the triple lock removed unless some other protection could be made for our meagre State pensions.

Meanwhile, many of those whose career path is benefits are on the gravy train. We pay out an eye-watering amount to many people who refuse to work and contribute nothing to the economy.

Let's trim that down and leave the pensions alone.

Sarnia - as a pensioner existing solely on the old state pension, are you not entitled to Pension Credit?

I would have thought that most people (unless part of a couple) in that catagory would be, and as long as Pension Credit is not abolished, I wouldnt have thought that those poorest pensioners would be any worse off if the triple lock was removed. It might even mean that more of those who currently just miss out on that benefit would become eligible.

NotSpaghetti

I think the NHS and Social Care need a cross-party agreement.

I believe he has said that this is what he has planned.

I actually meant an agreement developed across the parties.
Not really just that he'd talk to them.

Don't think that was clear.
Apologies

He didn't manage it when he was a minister.

Let’s hope that it actually happens.An increase in taxation,especially of the super rich would be a small price to pay.Social care has been swept under the carpet for years and is a pressing problem for most families.

Andy Burnham is a breath of fresh air. He has an understanding of people that a lot of other politicians don’t.
I know his ambitions are going to cost money but I would be happy to pay a little more in tax if he could achieve his goals, improving and making Social Care fairer, getting young people off benefits and into work and providing more apprenticeships.

But if they were paid for from tax, and LA managed, there would be checks and balances to ensure that corruption, waste and stupidity were stamped out. You are right - the service before was excellent with proper LA oversight on the spot. I was working in the service then.

*I actually meant an agreement developed across the parties.
Not really just that he'd talk to them.* - please tell me how he might achieve this agreement without talking to them (which he is doing); and how he might achieve an agreement in the matter of weeks since he has been PM?

He didn't manage it when he was a minister. - he didn't have the power then - now he has, thank goodness.

Posts on here are slipping into the party politics trap - let us hope the cross-party talks about this are attended by those who are willing to listen and compromise and who subscribe to the moral imperative to ensure that care for those in need is not dictated by those motivated by greed.

Luckygirl3 - I agree. If we want decent public services, whatever they may be, we have to be prepared to pay for them through taxation. I admit that welfare costs need attention but I am prepared to pay more in tax to fund better services. I am not a wealthy person, just a tax paying pensioner.

I am more than happy for my Mum to pay her accommodation and food costs herself. What I object to is that she doesn't get any financial help for the fact she is entirely unable to live on her own; she would literally die as she cannot move herself about, make food or drinks, dress herself, feed herself, use a toilet, etc. She gets a very small amount in the scheme of things to supervise her complicated medication regime and to ensure she doesn't have a hypo as she is an insulin dependent diabetic. She pays nearly £11000 per month for her care whilst her fellow residents pay nothing or a small contribution. She still has to pay for her toiletries, hair care, chiropody, and a whole host of other things. We don't expect her to have her living expenses paid for but we do expect more help than she is getting. Most of her limits are due to her dementia but the CHC will not fund her. If they did they would legally have to pay for everything not just the stuff she can't do because of her dementia. It's just a cock-eyed system that could be managed so much better.

He's a liar, underhand, a cheat and a thief!!! Wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw him!!!

Jockytaff

Luckygirl3 - I agree. If we want decent public services, whatever they may be, we have to be prepared to pay for them through taxation. I admit that welfare costs need attention but I am prepared to pay more in tax to fund better services. I am not a wealthy person, just a tax paying pensioner.

Me too. I don't object to paying a bit more tax - as long as huge companies and billionaires are brought into line and the tax loopholes that they exploit are closed.
Remember that after WW2, standard tax was 45% (!) with the very richest paying over 90% - this enabled the creation of the Welfare State, the NHS and huge house-building programmes.
I'm not suggesting anything like that - but surely something is wrong when companies like Google pay NO income tax - while those who benefit from them become billionaires..?

I listened to AB on the Laura K show and reluctantly admit to having been greatly impressed by him in spite of never having voted labour in my life. He very much appeared sincere, sensible and forthright. At long last a PM with a vision and a set of principles, reminded me somewhat of Maggie Thatcher in that respect.

It's just a cock-eyed system that could be managed so much better.

It is indeed and it is this unfairness that AB is proposing to tackle. Thank goodness that someone with some power is at last willing to take this on.

At long last a PM with a vision and a set of principles, reminded me somewhat of Maggie Thatcher in that respect.

Indeed so to the first part but would debate the second! MT's principles were based on greed and propping up the rich; AB's are based on fairness and compassion.

Putting his principles into action will not be easy - but he knows this and is courageous enough not to duck below the parapet.

I agree something needs done re social care. My mum in a nursing home and I had to sell her house and use all saving. Almost all gone now. Shocking. Mr Burnham will look at it after next election 4 years away if labour gets back in. Then it will be looked and then how many years till they get it through parliament That does absolutely nothing for people who are going through this now!!

Luckygirl3 I think that's a bit rude.

There's "talking to" and there's working things out in partnership with.
I said nothing about a timescale.
I think you sound a bit snippy today.
🤷‍♀️

The UK care system has gradually been destroyed by stealth.
Council run Day centres for elderly and people with physical and mental disabilities have been gradually closed to save money.
The irony is that Councils are now facing huge bills to provide the care that previously was provided in house. The promise of care within the community to replace these services has not materialised. I get so angry when I see disabled people out with 'carers' who have no interest in the people they are supposedly caring for.

NotSpaghetti

Luckygirl3 I think that's a bit rude.

There's "talking to" and there's working things out in partnership with.
I said nothing about a timescale.
I think you sound a bit snippy today.
🤷‍♀️

Sorry if I sound a bit snippy today ... dealing with a faecal impaction and a useless surgery! Frankly I feel snippy!
Apologies. Also for the too much information ...

For me the most impressive thing Burnham said is that the National Care Service should be free at the point of use and paid for from taxation. This is the most radical thing any leader of a major party has said about social care. No caps on this and that, but a system where we all contribute so that the unfortunate minority can receive decent compassionate care when they need it. The principle on which society as a whole should be run imo. Like many of you I saw first hand when caring for my mother the terrible stress and injustice the current system causes.