The Left's way forward

Anniebach

I am not 'crowing' about how much wealth I may or may not have.

The discussion was about the funding of care and what the government was or is not doing. I stated a fact that I am in a position of owning a home which I expect to pay for my care if required. I am not as you feel trying to mock anybody and everybody who does not own their own home.

Tablet stopped typing . Should read.

The partisan politics of blaming this government or another government is a waste of time as none of them will/can/have done anything other than make promises they all have broken.

Eloethan

Of course I do not think people who have very few assets are in that position because 'they p----d' their money up the wall'.

However there are some who have and I don't have my head so stuck in the sand that I don't believe they exist. I DID NOT SUGGEST that 'everybody' who has little capital has only themselves to blame , that is how you wish to interpret my post.

I will add this as I accept my post needs clarification for some posters:-

There are many who through no fault of their own have assets below the £14.250 threshold and I believe it is right and fair the state provide for their care.

I indeed have family who are in that position but they have worked as hard as I, looked after their money to the best of their ability and provided for themselves as best as they could but were never in a position to own their own home or save a lot of money.

I find that whilst I believe that if I have nobody to look after me then I expect to pay for my care but I do so to maintain the state is able to provide for those who are simply less able than myself to pay for their care due to having no assets. I do so willingly but I do find myself in conflict with my opinion when I see some people who have never attempted to look after themselves and basically ' p----d their money up a wall' expecting the state to provide for their care when they never bothered themselves.

My main point was NO party has an earthly chance of affording free residential places or capping care home fees for the whole population , it's a myth . The partisan politics that blame this government or that government

Well said Eloethan . I cannot was widowed young and couldn't work full time with a 5 and 7 year old, as they grew older I did but only for a short time because I then had to care for my parents for years , they were nursed at home by me. I do not own a house or even a car and I didn't p against the wall or in the gutter . Pity some who have now reached a retirement age in comfort did less crowing about how they worked for what they now have and expressed gratitude that life enabled them to work for their comfort in old age and less condemnation of those of us who were not as fortunate

But we don't have to follow other countries - not a European directive - I always thought it was David and Nick ensuring their wages for five years!!!

Some other countries do this Bez, I think it is do with giving the feeling of stability.

How/why did the fixed term parliaments get the go ahead after Cameron started his first stint asPM? For many years we had the system where five years was the maximum term a govt could stay in power and normally it would be a little bit shorter unless they lost a major vote in which case an election was called - kept everyone on their toes - all the fun has gone out of it now and I find it depressing to know that we have to suffer five years of whichever Govt is in power at the time however bad they are.

I thought at the time that the cap for funding age related healthcare was too good to be true, but like POGS I believe that if our estate/ savings is needed to take care of us, then so be it, and I am not even a Labour voter. Let alone a Socialist, what happened to ' all property is theft'. Ironic certainly.

POGS Do you honestly think that all the people who have very few assets are in that position because they "pissed their money up a wall"? Conversely, do you think that all those people who own their own houses (perhaps worth several millions) and have substantial capital are in that position because they have worked harder and been more "sensible" than anyone else?

There may well be people who have behaved irresponsibly - whether rich or poor - and who would subsequently be unable to finance their own care should it become necessary. However, to suggest that everyone who has little capital has only themselves to blame is, I think, most unfair.

I'm sure there are many of us on gransnet who have worked hard and paid a mortgage and who find themselves in quite a comfortable position in their later years - I include myself and my husband in that category. However, I think that is not entirely due to our own efforts but to a number of other factors - including being able to easily find reasonably paid employment directly after leaving education, more availability of housing, etc. etc.

I think that the current position re funding of home care is chaotic and unfair and needs proper examination in order to try and reach a solution that does not only impact upon those unfortunate enough to require care. But I don't think maligning people whose care costs are borne by the state because they have few assets is helpful.

I think Cameron's advisors cleverly manipulated the public to believe that Labour was responsible for the financial woes of the UK. Ed did nothing to argue against it. Nothing to do with banks across the pond. I think Gordon Brown was responsible for deregulation of banks and Maggie Thatcher for doing away with exchange controls, leading to mass money laundering by big companies and criminals. My favourite MP was Robin Cook. Wish he was still here. Roger and Boris would make a great team.

Sadly what is in manifestos and promises are usually broken .

It is not the domain of any one party!

In 1997 a fresh young Tony Blair made pledges saying " I don't want our children brought up in a country where the only way pensioners can get long term care is by selling their homes". Labour never changed a damned thing until they lost power in 2010. Talk is cheap and they all do it .

Since 1948 local authorities have been able to require people to pay for residential care. Projected figure show in 2005 345.000 people were in care by 2041 825.000 will be in care, almost a 300% increase in places required. It is an unsustainable position for any government to give total free care or cap fees in my opinion and it would be better if the truth was told by all parties in that the government will never be able to find the funding.

Individuals with assets over £23.250, including the value of property have to fund their own care. Social recipients with less that £14.250 have 'ALL' their care paid for by Social Services, if I have my facts correctly.

One could say a good socialist view that the poorest in society are indeed cared for by the State certainly happens.

I don't like the thought that I have worked hard, been sensible with my spending , as opposed to someone who p----d their money up a wall , has to pay if I need residential care. Yet I find it ironic that I as a small C Conservative feel it is my duty to pay for my care if my family do not have the ability to look after me yet some socialists don't agree with that view. Irony maybe.

Labour did once propose a compulsory £20.000 levy on peoples estates which was called 'the death tax'. The conservatives proposed a 'voluntary' one off payment of £8.000 from pensioners on retirement in return for free residential care, critised as being insufficient funding.

I refer back to my point it is unsustainable and all parties would be wise not get into the 'Talk is Cheap' syndrome and look foolish when they are brought to task over what they promise.

... and to get back to what the LP are going to do going forward. I agree about the press Eloethan and wonder if it isn't time for the LP to fund a media source - once they have sorted out the leadership of course.

Sorry missed out "in him in the commons"
petition.parliament.uk/petitions/104334

Thanks for the comprehensive list Eleothan I think many people forget the legacy of the left. If we have to discuss the actions of this government and Jeremy Hunt can we also look at his attacks upon the NHS workers and the idea that they are not working at weekends. It is far more serious than any tinkering with care policies and is in fact an attempt to destabilise the NHS. Significantly a petition to debate a vote of no confidence in the commons has received enough votes to achieve its aims
Sign up here
petition.parliament.uk/petitions/104334

GG this thread is called 'the lefts way forward '. It is not unreasonable to ask what the left would do.

I think that would put it in the "it is not unreasonable to ask any question at any time" category. What I was pointing out that, and only in my opinion of course, it is pretty pointless and untimely to ask what the LP would do when we have a new period of government - by another party not the LP- that has only just started. The LP have no way of putting any policies into action but the Conservatives do. But don't let that stop you asking.

Many people take what they believe about the left from our almost exclusively right wing newspapers. Labour needs to counter the argument that their policies have been largely detrimental to our society and refer back to their historical record to demonstrate its commitment to social justice.

Around the time of the First World War, 90% of housing was privately rented and it was only those on the left who campaigned to prevent opportunist landlords from increasing rents. This eventually forced the government to pass legislation which fixed war time rents.

The first Labour government passed the Wheatley Housing Act which set in motion a building programme for 500,000 homes for rent to low income families.

In 1929 the Old Age Pensions Act offered various groups who had previously been excluded, including widows, the right to a pension.

Labour was instrumental, quite often through their representation on local authorities for:

Improvements in health care
Provision of maternity clinics
Free milk and meals for school children
Higher levels of poor relief
Construction of clinics, houses and municipal baths
Provision of playgrounds and parks

Poor houses were broken up and children, the blind, the old and expectant mothers were provided for separately instead of being consigned to pauper institutions.

In the 1960's Labour:

Decriminalised homosexuality and abortion
Modernised the divorce laws
Abolished capital punishment
Introduced race relations legislation
linked pensions to earning
Introduced industrial injury benefits
Set up the Open University

Blair has, justifiably in my opinion, fallen out of favour with many people on the left and on the right but he and his government did preside over:

Introduction of a minimum wage
Increases in pupil funding
Reduction in class sizes
Increases in nurses' pay
Free eye tests for older people
Free nursery places for 4 year old and Sure Start Centres
Pension credits
Educational Maintenance Allowance
Reduction in waiting times for hospital treatment

There have been problems throughout the years and arguments between the left and right of the Labour Party but, despite this, substantial improvements have been made. Throughout the years, most of these progressive initiatives - designed to make life better for the majority of the population - have, at least initially, been opposed by the Conservative Party and those on the right.

GG this thread is called 'the lefts way forward '. It is not unreasonable to ask what the left would do.

Thank you Gracesgran, when a gal I learned of the great British empire and it sickened me , I am sure generations before thought it was for the good . When my grandson was at university we often had his fellow students to stay for short breaks, I learned much from them,

Anniebach I do think a there has been a very high degree of political and social change in the previous century. Particuarly since the end of WW2 and this started after WW1.

Our society will never go back to many of the attitudes that exisited certainly up to the begining of the welfare state,

I think it was in the 1960s when these changes in attittudes, deference to authority etc, really changed.
I am certain society will not go back to those attitudes.
Where we will go in 20 yrs etc who knows. I will probably be ready to bow out by then. If I can still move enough to bow.

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.

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.

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?

Sorry - that should have been addressed to Jane10.

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