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

DaisyAnneReturns

Meandrogrog

FriedGreenTomatoes2

Maybe it’s just me as so many of you are in thrall to Labour.
I’m just not.

Me neither. Back to the mess of the 70’s.

Only as much as others are "in thrall" to attacking those who don't want the sort of transactional society the extremes of the right seem to be wishing on us.

The problem seems to be your perceived view of the Overton Window rather than reality. In other words I feel you think more people think as you do than is actually and factually true.

Society has always, always been transactional, as any history scholar will tell you.

It could be that you may perceive the same, that more people think like you do than they actually do, just maybe not on GN.

mabon2

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

But now that he is PM, with a large majority, gives him more power. I applaud what he is trying to do.

MaizieD

DaisyAnneReturns

Your point seems to be a totally different one to Whitewave's Maizie. Why can't she argue here own?

Whitewave, I wonder if the only fair way is national insurance - in the same way we pay for the NHS?

It isn’t different at all. It just modifies the wording of her ‘principle’ to emphasise that ‘those who have most’ actually have it because they have taken most of the money issued into the economy.

And surely most people know that National Insurance doesn’t pay for the NHS and never has done?

Okay.

Primrose53

All care costs a lot. An elderly lady I know is paying £42 an hour via an agency for 1hr morning and 1hr evening. Her money was disappearing fast. She is very independent and as sharp as a needle and tries to do as much as she can herself. Last time I visited her she had given the agency a month’s notice and was arranging for somebody local to help her for £20-£25 an hour.

Make sure she's insured - employers liability if the local carer isn't self-employed, or via the carer's business insurance if she is self-employed. Not sure on the details, but if carer hurts her back in your home & there's no insurance it could be expensive.

Society has always, always been transactional, as any history scholar will tell you.

It could be that you may perceive the same, that more people think like you do than they actually do, just maybe not on GN. (Meandrogrog Wed 30-Sept-26 08:20:44)

I don't think people do think like me. I only have to read GN to see how few of my age group care about fact based logic.

"Society has always been transactional” doesn't really answer my point. I'm distinguishing between the existence of exchange in society - which is obviously ancient - and the extent to which basic social goods and social security are mediated through markets rather than collectively provided.

Separately, I would refer you to documented changes in democratic institutions and performance. Personally I prefer a socially democratic society to a transactional one.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=kpBo_Ay1d38

valdali

Primrose53

All care costs a lot. An elderly lady I know is paying £42 an hour via an agency for 1hr morning and 1hr evening. Her money was disappearing fast. She is very independent and as sharp as a needle and tries to do as much as she can herself. Last time I visited her she had given the agency a month’s notice and was arranging for somebody local to help her for £20-£25 an hour.

Make sure she's insured - employers liability if the local carer isn't self-employed, or via the carer's business insurance if she is self-employed. Not sure on the details, but if carer hurts her back in your home & there's no insurance it could be expensive.

I hope she is getting Attendance Allowance.

DiamondLily

He wants to fund it by removing the triple lock from 2030.

Which won’t be enough to fund it.

But, as ever, it’s style over substance with him.

It’s a good start.

DiamondLily

He wants to fund it by removing the triple lock from 2030.

Which won’t be enough to fund it.

But, as ever, it’s style over substance with him.

You seem to be missing the broader point that everyone in society should share the cost of the care of the elderly and vulnerable just as we do the cost of other public services.

We do now to a certain extent though out council tax

Everyone includes state pensioners. Any savings made by the ending of triple lock won’t cover the cost of universal care funding. It’s a contribution.

If the triple lock was ended from 6 April 2027 and all elements of the SP were only uprated by CPI (estimated 3.1% compared to wage growth 3.9%) the most anyone would lose would be £1.93 a week, £1.54 after basic rate tax. It’s 22p a day. It wouldn’t buy you banana.

Most wouldn't lose that much as relatively few receive full nSP on which that calculation is based. SERPS/SSP/Protected Payments are only uprated by CPI anyway.

Burnham has said there would still be a link with wages from 2030 but we don’t have the detail on that. I expect it will be something to do with keeping the SP at a certain percentage of median wages.

We must wait until next year when Baroness Casey makes her report on the how a new care system will work and how it will be funded.

I am not, nor have ever been, a Labour supporter but I do admire Andy Burnham's enthusiasm regarding care. I don't feel able to criticise him for his ideals and I don't think we have enough detail to determine whether this is workable or not. Only time will tell but I can't help thinking that just the massive cost of this will doom it to failure. I really hope I am wrong.

I do think successful businessmen who have gambled their money to start a business should be allowed to enjoy their returns. There are many things they have to contribute to on the way with lots of legal requirements which cost them.

However, once you get into the realms of extreme wealth, it isn't acceptable that the rules for them, particularly with the Inland Revenue, seem to differ from the rest of us. I think the likes of Musk, Bezo, etc are obscene.

How about instead of harping on about the 1970s we look at the years 1945 to 1951 and the political and social changes that followed on from the Attlee government, changes that mean we still have the NHS - just about - free prescriptions for certain groups - it used to be everyone, and social housing - though that is now dwindling.
We also had nationalised utilities and transport.
It wasn’t the 1970s that damaged this country irrevocably but the Thatcher years, when deregulation, privatisation, and the decimation of the primary and secondary sectors which led to generational unemployment in large parts of this country, and getting rid of the Keynesian economic model, has now made it nigh on impossible to get out of the quagmire she left as her legacy for generations to come.
The end of the 1970s was a blip in history, Thatcher was a national disaster.
The only government that ever bettered this country was Attlee’s.

Basgetti

DiamondLily

He wants to fund it by removing the triple lock from 2030.

Which won’t be enough to fund it.

But, as ever, it’s style over substance with him.

It’s a good start.

‘ Which won’t be enough to fund it’? Fund what, exactly?

Now I don’t know what the proposals for reform are, but I’m looking online at people equating ‘social care’ with residential care in a care home, and inferring that that will be free for everyone.
In Scotland we have free ‘personal care’, and I’m imagining that’s what will be being proposed in the rest of the country. At present in Scotland people can be discharged from hospital with a free ‘care package’, usually provided by carers who come into the person’s home up to four times a day. As far as I know, in residential homes, the cost is divided into personal care costs and accommodation costs, and it is the personal care element which is covered by the government.

The never-implemented £86,000 care cap scheme was predicated on a notional sum (in 2021) of £200 a week for daily living expenses to cover accommodation, food and other costs. Only the care element would have counted towards the cap.

It’s my understanding that those currently receiving funded care do contribute towards their daily living expenses but must be allowed to keep a minimum amount of income in England £31.80.

Graphic from Turn2Us.

In Burnham’s speech yesterday he said:

Free at the point of use and no care charges paid out of your basic state pension.

That would suggest people would still be expected to pay for daily living expenses.

So much research with relevant conclusions has already been done in various settings, particularly in adult social care, but I accept Louise Casey is needed to review, investigate, pull it all together.
What is blindingly obvious is that Thatcher’s ideology that private always gives better value than public is wrong. Area social work teams worked alongside in house home care, home help and daily hot meals delivered mid day. Older people were able to form relationships with the regular visitors. Social work teams would be contacted to visit and review Mrs Jones care package.

Fallingstar is imo spot on about Attlee’s government and Thatcher

icanhandthemback

I am not, nor have ever been, a Labour supporter but I do admire Andy Burnham's enthusiasm regarding care. I don't feel able to criticise him for his ideals and I don't think we have enough detail to determine whether this is workable or not. Only time will tell but I can't help thinking that just the massive cost of this will doom it to failure. I really hope I am wrong.

I do think successful businessmen who have gambled their money to start a business should be allowed to enjoy their returns. There are many things they have to contribute to on the way with lots of legal requirements which cost them.

However, once you get into the realms of extreme wealth, it isn't acceptable that the rules for them, particularly with the Inland Revenue, seem to differ from the rest of us. I think the likes of Musk, Bezo, etc are obscene.

I wouldn’t argue with any of that.
My own thinking is similar and furthermore I think the triple lock will be taken away for those of pension age but in the end the money saved may not be used for part funding social care at all, and that social care will once again prove too much of a hot potato to handle.
I really hope that I’m wrong on this.

icanhandthemback and Fallingstar - excellent, thoughtful, posts.

Thank you, Dickens.

As I understand this NCS covers personal care only.

The big part of care home fees is board and food. This will still need to be paid by the individual in care or their family.

I am happy to be corrected if I have got this wrong.

Just seen a Labour woman making a fool of herself by bawling her eyes out on the podium at the conference. Yvette Cooper had to come on and give her a hug and then push her away from the mic.

From between the sobs I think she said she was so emotional about AB’s speech and what he is going to do about the care system. BBC News.

Yes I saw that Primrose53 either she’s an over emotional sort or has gone through difficult times with an old relative in care.

While changing things regarding social care I would urge AB to bring back convalescent homes for all ages, but particularly for older hospital patients who just need some tlc and building up again before being sent home.

Oreo

Yes I saw that Primrose53 either she’s an over emotional sort or has gone through difficult times with an old relative in care.

She might be crying even more if he doesn’t keep his promises! 😉

Oreo

While changing things regarding social care I would urge AB to bring back convalescent homes for all ages, but particularly for older hospital patients who just need some tlc and building up again before being sent home.

I agree with this. We used to have one in my area. A friend in her 80s who fell and broke her arm spent six weeks there after being treated in hospital.
If that facility had not been available she would have been bed blocking in hospital for that time.

icanhandthemback

I am not, nor have ever been, a Labour supporter but I do admire Andy Burnham's enthusiasm regarding care. I don't feel able to criticise him for his ideals and I don't think we have enough detail to determine whether this is workable or not. Only time will tell but I can't help thinking that just the massive cost of this will doom it to failure. I really hope I am wrong.

I do think successful businessmen who have gambled their money to start a business should be allowed to enjoy their returns. There are many things they have to contribute to on the way with lots of legal requirements which cost them.

However, once you get into the realms of extreme wealth, it isn't acceptable that the rules for them, particularly with the Inland Revenue, seem to differ from the rest of us. I think the likes of Musk, Bezo, etc are obscene.

Well said, a fair and pretty accurate view.

Well said Fallingstar & Iam64 the damage that woman did, breaking up communities, forever altering social cohesion, absolutely creating the dependency culture of today.

Where can you go? What can you do if the work you were proud to do is snatched away and replaced by nothing at all? Terrifying.

Not to mention the utter stupidity of the loss of all those contributions to the enconomy.

I'm not a fan of Andy Burnham but I'm not going to knock his efforts to try and fix it.

Oreo

While changing things regarding social care I would urge AB to bring back convalescent homes for all ages, but particularly for older hospital patients who just need some tlc and building up again before being sent home.

I think some of these have been replaced with what is called (in our own area anyhow) with “Residential Rehab” my DM was in one around 2011 when discharged from hospital following partial hip replacement.

Physios came in everyday and all single en suite rooms, and full board. Visiting allowed. My DM hated every single moment there, but then again she wouldn’t have gone into any kind of residential care and it gave her the extra two weeks needed before returning to her own home.