The Left's way forward

How about this?
www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jul/25/jeremy-hunt-backlash-axing-elderly-care-cap-policy?CMP=fb_gu

I think I have learnt that manifesto ideas do not necessarily turn into actions.
I take each party's manifesto ideas with somewhat a pinch of salt.

The health secretary, Jeremy Hunt, faces a growing backlash after quietly shelving a key Tory manifesto commitment to cap care costs for the elderly, as experts claimed that the policy fiasco has cost taxpayers up to £100m.

Hunt has announced that the plan to limit care bills from next year to £72,000 for the over-65s and for younger adults with disabilities has been delayed until 2020 – despite the fact it was trumpeted by the Conservatives in the runup to the general election.

While Hunt insisted that his department was still fully committed to the policy – which ministers had claimed would prevent old people having to sell their homes to pay care bills – most experts believe that it has, effectively, been abandoned.

The announcement – and the manner in which it was made in a written statement to the House of Lords on a day the Commons was not sitting – has infuriated the Tory MP and chair of the House of Commons health select committee Sarah Wollaston, who has asked Hunt to explain his about-turn by this Thursday at the latest.

She has also told him, in a strongly worded letter, that he will be grilled before her committee in September about how and why plans contained in legislation that went through parliament before the election had been put off so abruptly, with so many questions left hanging in the air.

Wollaston told the Observer: “At the heart of this are the very serious unanswered questions for those families who are facing catastrophic care costs who thought this issue had been resolved.

“This was a key part of the Care Act legislation in the last parliament. It is very disappointing that it has been shelved.”

In her letter to Hunt last week, Wollaston said it was “regrettable” that the decision had been made on a day the Commons was not sitting, and the day after a major speech by the secretary of state in which he had made no mention of the change.

Wollaston, who is a GP, has also asked the health secretary to clarify what ministers intend to do to address the longstanding situation that people who pay for their own care are also subsidising those whose costs are inadequately met by local authorities.

Experts say huge sums of public money have been wasted on fees for employing the top advertising agency Saatchi & Saatchi to promote the policy, the development of IT systems to run it, and the cost of running public consultations.

James Lloyd, director of the Strategic Society Centre thinktank, said: “I would estimate the ‘capped cost’ reforms have cost the taxpayer between £50m-£100m to date.

“This is a lot of money at a time that councils are cutting support packages for the most vulnerable members of their communities. And it is a lot of money when the problems associated with the reforms were readily apparent back in July 2011.

“Up and down England, 152 local authorities have been training frontline staff and managers in relation to the reforms and developing IT systems.”

The Department of Health confirmed that Saatchi & Saatchi had been used, and that the company had had to amend its promotion material to reflect the changes in policy.

Richard Humphries, assistant director of The King’s Fund, an independent health policy charity, said: “Postponement to the end of this parliament makes it almost certain that these reforms will not happen. In effect they have been abandoned, not postponed.”

Brian Tabor, co-founder of Carematters, a financial advice firm that specialises in issues for older people, said that his firm had had a “significant increase” in calls since the care-cap announcement on 17 July.

“People had been thinking, ‘They are going to cap my fees, I don’t need to worry’,” he said. “Now people with an ageing parent in care are suddenly concerned, thinking ‘How am I going to manage that extra cost?’”

In their election manifesto the Tories specifically said that they had introduced a cap on care costs, adding that “no one will have to sell their home to pay for care”.

Liz Kendall MP, shadow care minister, said: “This is a shameful broken promise from David Cameron, and devastating news for older people and their families who have been trying to plan for the future. Not only have the Tories failed to tackle the crisis in social care, David Cameron is now going back on the already watered-down proposals to protect people from catastrophic costs of care at the end of their lives.

“As we clearly saw in the budget, this is a government that gives with one hand and takes with another. While they found the money to pay for an inheritance tax cut for the most well-off, they are rowing back on their manifesto promise to cap the care costs for the many.

“The Tories owe people an apology for this latest failure to sort out social care.”

•This article was amended on Sunday 26 July. An earlier version wrongly suggested that Sarah Wollaston was arguing that the Tory proposals would lead to people who pay for their own care subsidising others whose care costs had previously been met by local authorities. This was amended to more accurately reflect Wollaston’s view that this “subsidy” is a current and
longstanding situation that ministers need to address.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

More news

...for those who don't read links. Can people please justify this uturn for me .

Is this what the Left's way forward is? Complaining that the current government isn't doing what it said it would?

Surely a u turn on something which was such a major part of their campaign and which gave so many peace of mind - the cap on care costs - is a serious betrayal of trust, whilst accepting not all promises are carried out something as important as this can't be shrugged off

Tegan A good idea to copy and paste, but I do find it a little disheartening that some posters who want to comment don't seem to be bothered to click on a link to get more information about the issue concerned.

'Hunt has announced that the plan to limit care bills from next year to £72,000 for the over-65s and for younger adults with disabilities has been delayed until 2020 – despite the fact it was trumpeted by the Conservatives in the runup to the general election'
I'm sorry; I don't understand. I must be very very stupid. They said they would do something; they are not doing it. It is going to affect a lot of people and a lot of people would have voted for them on this one issue alone. It was blatant lie and I'm disgusted by it. And, y'know what, I'm disgusted by people who support them for doing so.

Can somebody please explain this to me --- when they made this so called 'promise' Cameron said nobody would need to sell their home to pay for care costs --how can people without 75k in the bank pay and still keep their house. Everyone's home would come in a different value bracket - are those with a million pound home but little money in the blank still to get the same deal (which now will not come to fruition by the looks of it so the question is really academic!). Have I missed something?

Bez, I wondered about that too. As far as I could see there was an amount they had to leave in the estate of the person in care - in the £20 thousands I think and now there is an amount above which they cannot go. This means those with hugely more than the £72,000 in their home will be able to leave a great deal and those with less than this will be able to leave nothing. I could only assume I had got this completely wrong as little was said at the time.

Ana Is this what the Left's way forward is? Complaining that the current government isn't doing what it said it would? I certainly feel that we should be looking at how much the LP is challenging such things. One of the things that they will be judged by, in my opinion, is whether they actually oppose on the things that those who would vote for them would want them to oppose.

Do you think it means that the home will be just be sold after the person dies - I dare say some form of interest would be added.

Yes, I agree Gracesgran, but this thread seems likely to be taken over by grievances with the government rather than concentrating on what the Left should be doing to recover its way.

Nellie; true, but I've not been able to get onto links lately [still can't sometimes] so thought I would make it easier for people if they were having the same problem.I've also found a way of getting onto links that I previously couldn't read and this was one of them, so I've learned something today. The S.O. having read the article said he assumes that, as it was 'legislation' it wasn't just a promise in the manifesto but legally binding [but we're not sure if that's correct].
'She has also told him, in a strongly worded letter, that he will be grilled before her committee in September about how and why plans contained in l'egislation' that went through parliament before the election had been put off so abruptly, with so many questions left hanging in the air' [that's the bit we were unsure about]. I must point out that I would be just as angry if any of the parites had gone back on their word on an issue such as this.

I hadn't noticed that it had gone any more in that direction than it has in other wanderings Ana. Do you think it's a problem?

"Experts say huge sums of public money have been wasted on fees for employing the top advertising agency Saatchi & Saatchi to promote the policy, the development of IT systems to run it, and the cost of running public consultations.

James Lloyd, director of the Strategic Society Centre thinktank, said: “I would estimate the ‘capped cost’ reforms have cost the taxpayer between £50m-£100m to date."

So it wasn't just a promise, they had gone to some lengths with it.

Bez I think that's probably what was meant, although hoping to give the impression that the value of the home need not be used for care fees.

And as to "the Labour Party" , how much do they want to be like the twisting, devious, deceitful bunch that we have now?

And what are the Labour party's plans to address spiralling care costs for the elderly and disabled?

Goodness only knows Jane10, waffle I suspect!! Having said that, as a supporter of the present government, I am deeply disappointed and view this blatant act of dishonesty with anger and disbelief! I understand that local authorities have said that they simply cannot afford this election promise until ?!! Surely this should have been ascertained before the election, and this promise never made. This leads me to sadly conclude that this was a blatant piece of electioneering and truly shameful. I have written to my MP to say as much and await his reply?!!!!

The younger people are too B****y young to remember the difficulties caused by the more extreme political attitudes, (on both sides) of about 30ysr ago.

If you forget the past you are condemned to repeat it. Been there done that.
This sort of new brooms, new ideas affect alomst all our institutions, education, social work, etc etc.

And what are the Labour party's plans to address spiralling care costs for the elderly and disabled?

I don't know if you have noticed Niggly but the Labour Party are not in power and there in no up and coming election. We have, as a country, only just given the Cons the opportunity to sort out these issues and presumably the small percentage of voters - less than a quarter of all voters - who have inflicted them on us truly believe they were going to do what they said. Surely that is what we should be questioning. I wonder just how long the Tory government and it's adherents will want to go on blaming Labour. They are now in the sixth year of doing what they feel to be right and if people are beginning to see it coming apart at the seams my feeling is "you ain't seen nothing yet".

Going forward I am sure we will start to hear the policies the LP, under it's new leader, are putting forward. Surely that will be the time to ask such questions.

But it's the same with every new generation Nelliemoser, there must be much which happened before you were born that you judge as unjust or you believe was for the good

Sorry - that should have been addressed to Jane10.

It says on here that it was proposed.
www.ageuk.org.uk/home-and-care/care-homes/social-care-funding-changes/care-cap-and-means-test-changes/

I think it was around the time of the Liberal tuition fees, and other things in everyones' manifestos, or it could have been the election before, that I realised that no mnaifesto was written in stone.

Maybe they used to stick to them more than they do now?

I have to agree with you Anniebach. Not only that but I have a feeling the young are not very happy with what the older generation have done with their knowledge of the past and who can blame them.

Did anyone the "Reflections" programme with Peter Hennessy interviewing Clare Short - most enlightening.

At the end he asked if she could have any change put into law now (not quite how he phrased it) what would it be she said it would be PR so that we had a pluralistic left in Parliament. As this would probably mean a pluralistic right with some parties siding for some bills with right or left I couldn't agree more.