Forget the polls for once - just do the right thing

We need a Beveridge-style response from the coalition to help deal with care for Britain's looming c

By Olly Grender Published 27 June 2011 15:33

Months ago, I was asked about the political implications of the Dilnot review into care in old age for the government. My instincts were that enough tough policy issues - tuition fees, structural deficit, pensions in the public sector - had already been brought out of the long grass by the coalition.My fear, however, was that this issue was too controversial and that it should probably stay in the long grass. This is an instinct it would appear I share with George Osborne, according to the Observer yesterday. If the reports are true, both of us are right for political reasons but wrong for policy reasons.

With the number of centenarians projected to rise from 11,000 in 2008 to 80,000 in 2033, this is a debate that ran out of time well before the last general election. Whatever Andrew Cooper's private polling in Number 10 says, this is a moment when there is a moral obligation for all politicians to find agreement, not a time to worry about the headlines.

By definition, this is a public policy issue that will not go away. It is an issue that needs, if anything, a Beveridge-style response that combines realistic policies now, with changes that will have far reaching impact. It is a policy issue that needs to meet the demographic challenges which will hit as the baby boomers begin to retire and more costs for social care are borne by fewer working taxpayers.

What is almost unique about this problem is that the vast majority of charities, voluntary sector and private sector in this area are all begging for reform and minded to be supportive of the Dilnot conclusions. Above all they are united in their view that any delay is unsustainable.

Sadly the front page of the Observer gave us a clue about the dangers of how this issue will play out.

They could have headlined their story in several ways:

"Andrew Dilnot on verge of historic (Beveridge-style) breakthough on funding of care in old age"

"Top charities write to Prime Minister demanding support for new scheme to fund old age"

"Labour announces they are willing to work with Coalition Government to resolve old age funding"

Instead their headline was "Middle class face £35,000 bill to help pay for care in their old age".In other words, quite understandably, they thought: let's sell papers not let's improve policy. Headlines like this will cause George Osborne and David Cameron to panic, they will fear that it heralds a "death tax" approach to old age care. It will fail to recognise that the middle classes already pay with no limit; that the cost of care in old age has already risen to an average of £50,000; that almost one in five who need residential care after the age of 65 face a bill of more than £100,000.

Add to that the debate about local authority social care funding that Age UK has kicked off today and we start to see an all too obvious repeat of the fury caused by the health reforms.

But this is different. Funding of care for older people has been kicked into the long grass by successive governments, even in 1997 with an overwhelming majority Tony Blair's attempts to resolve this failed.

If the media wish to take a view, it should be to make it a duty for politicians to work together to solve this. The alternative is grim. The number of people forced to sell their homes to fund residential care the number will be far higher. One in four people will continue to believe that Government will provide for their old age - when even under the present system the state offers help with care costs to people in England only if they have savings and assets of less than £23,250. Hardly anyone uses any kind of saving system to prepare for their old age, and if they do there is no certainty about the likely costs they will face.

If Number 10 return this issue to the long grass they will be disappointed: the grass burnt to the ground some time ago. There is no hiding place from this critical issue. Therefore this is a moment to shred the polls, and decide what you believe in, Beveridge didn't need opinion polls, on this occasion neither does David Cameron.

Tags: Social Care

More from Olly Grender

View the discussion thread.

16 comments

Mon, 2011-06-27 19:14 — matthew fox (not verified)

This article is classic buyer's remorse.

The issue could have been sorted in 2010, but Cameron thought it was clever to attack Labour instead.

Ed Miliband is keen to sort the issue of social care, Clegg and Cameron not so.

Mon, 2011-06-27 20:24 — mike cobley (not verified)

Quote - "... fix time limits for ALL benefit claimants of job seekers, ESAs, Housing benefit etc- you can only claim a maximum of eg 2 years housing benefit in your lifetime, after which the State will not help you. You will then have to pay your bills yourself, and if you cant or wont then tough..."

Tough?? Er, you might wanna think that one through. Most communities across the country wouldn't be too pleased about the sight of penniless parents and children living on the streets, scrounging from bins etc. I don't think you can justify compassion for one section of the public by inflicting cruelty on another.

Wed, 2011-06-29 13:34 — mcquade

Gerry is a deeply confused person. There is help, if only he will seek it.

Wed, 2011-06-29 13:45 — PeteyMcPeterson

It is interesting, gerry, that in a debate about substandard care for the vulnerable (which you initially seem to agree needs improving), your response is not "lets improve it for hard working people", but "let's remove it from people who don't work".

Is it bad that people who have worked all their lives can't afford decent health care in retirement? Yes.

Is it bad that people with no money and no way of generating money are cared for when they are incapable of caring for themselves by those with the means to help?
No

I don't understand your argument.

Anyway, if, as you seem to think, some of these people are thieves and swindlers and exist only to con money from decent, hardworking folk, what do you think will happen if you stop their benefits?

Tue, 2011-06-28 10:48 — gerry (not verified)

Mike - as Danny Alexander has said, we must make tough choices, but seriously...why should the rest of us subsidise elderly care for those who have never worked, or worked very little, hence contributed virtually nothing to the country and its tax-pot? It just is not fair!

Those who cant or want pay their bills should then be made to rely on voluntary charities, not the State, and if they dont want charity then they must get work...

its ridiculous that someone who has been on, say, 20 years of housing benefit, 15 years on JSA/ESA/IB, 16 years of child benefit, plus free education and health..total cost, a conservative £3.5 millions, should then get free elder social care..whilst someone who has always contributed by NI, income tax, council tax should then be forced to pay for their care...

Liberalism - or as the coalition have claimed "muscular" liberalism - must be about self-reliance, and individual responsibility!

Thu, 2011-06-30 18:14 — gerry (not verified)

Petey - I was arguing that you wont get cross party support for funding social elder care equably until you deal with the clear unfairnesses I detailed.

It still is a fact, no matter how you cut it, that if you have never worked, worked very little, and hence never saved, or saved very little, and never paid much or any tax/NI...why should you also get free social care when you are old?

And this is the key disincentive - why should you save for your retirement when the system rewards you for NOT saving a penny...?

It is in fact at the heart of the debate!

And yes - compulsion to force people off benefits and into work is also at the heart of the debate too: if you dont address it, then how on earth can you stop thousands and thousands of people working the system so that they take everything out (Benefits, health care, social care) and nothing/little in (Tax/NI/council tax)?

Tue, 2011-06-28 14:45 — Suzanne (not verified)

Gerry,
are you serious? You think that's a solution? Just wonder why the New astatesman appeals to you?

Tue, 2011-06-28 19:22 — Freeman2

gerry writes, 'Social care for the elderly is a disgrace: if you have worked all yuor life, saved and been careful, then you are brutally punished by paying through the nose for the costs of your care...

'If you have never worked, or worked very little, and have never saved or have relied on the State for much of your life, then you are rewarded still further by not having to pay a penny for your care in old age!'

I suppose it hasn't entered your Daily Mail mind that most people in this country have worked hard all their lives, been low paid, and have been unable to save for anything further than next Christmas. The average annual wage is about £25,000 - which means half of workers get less than that.

Tue, 2011-06-28 20:12 — gerry (not verified)

Suzanne - I am a long term NS reader, and Freeman, have never read the Daily Mail (or Daily Sieg Heil I call it) in my life!

As a progressive kind of person, I want social justice, and it shocks me that you both think it OK that people who have never contributed much in tax/NI etc should get free social care when they are old, but that hardworking people, working or middle class, who have paid 30-40 years of NI/tax and been thrifty enough to save for their retirement, should be forced to pay for that care, sometimes at the cost of their own home?

It is plain unfair, and until this horrific culture of welfare dependency is broken forever, then we will never get cross party agreement on equably funding elder social care!

Tue, 2011-06-28 20:42 — thinkov

I don't normally read you cos I think you're deluded about the possibility of philanthropy from this lot

Welfare dependency can only come from full employment and well paid jobs
at the levels that benefits are they're more like

crime incentives

Thu, 2011-06-30 22:54 — PeteyMcPeterson

Why get free social care? Bacause otherwise hundreds of thousands of people would die prematurely, many of them in squalid conditions and/or terrible agony.

The daily mail writes extensively about thives and scroungers capable of work but preferring to claim benefits. But the overwhelming majority of people in this scenario are not thieves, they are people like you and me who have never had the skills/opportunity/know-how to save for a cushy retirement. I have worked in the benefits system and the overriding impression I got is that the system is not infallible. Any move to tighten things up and start restrictiong benefits will overwhelmingly affect those who are incapable of finding work anyway. The TINY minority who are working the system will find a way around the roadblocks. Let's face it, civil servants arent hard to outwit if you set your mind to it, especially when you only see them five minutes a fortnight.

And in what naiieve world are you living if you think that forcing people off benefits will mean they they immediately go out and find productive, reasonably well paid, economy boosting private sector jobs? Maybe 5% will. A hell of a lot of people will start selling crack, selling their bodies, or selling things they've stolen from your garden shed. The rest, I guess, will have to curl up and die.

I'm a tax payer, I'd rather not pay any tax, truth be told. But given the choice I would much, much rather see my taxes going to help people with no money and no prospect of caring for themselves, than going to people who have the means to help themselves. Every. Single. Time.

Keep in mind the fact that this argument is not about evil benefit claimants. It is about the goverment screwing people out of their pensions. That is no one's fault but the government. Unless the luch lady at your local primary school is also an MP or CEO of a large company, you can stop blaming public sector workers for shitty private sector pensions.

Jackass

Fri, 2011-07-01 08:54 — gerry (not verified)

Oh Petey - no need to resort to silly insults at the end, this is the NS and you are meant to be able to debate, argue, without descending to jibes - a sure sign of a weak argument.

As a taxpayer too i dont want elder social care going on those working the system, and sooner or later, we are going to have to face up to this - all you really are saying is that you have decided its OK for this to happen. But I havent!

Mon, 2011-06-27 16:10 — Willp

Quite right - we do need to fund care for the elderly, and hedge funds and property companies cannot be trusted to do the job.
"Beveridge didn't need opinion polls", but Cameron/Clegg/Blair belive in nothing else (apart from free markets in everything).

Mon, 2011-06-27 16:31 — Dave C (not verified)

It's going to be interesting to see how the Tories handle this.

When Labour looked at social care, one of the options was a compulsory fee of up to £20,000. The Tories characterised this as a 'death tax'. You may remember the poster: http://politicaladvertising.co.uk/2010/02/10/r-i-p-off-labour-death-tax/

They came up with an inadequate proposal of an optional £8,000 fee. So Dilnot's proposals appear to be even 'worse' than the option they derided.

Mon, 2011-06-27 16:54 — gerry (not verified)

Social care for the elderly is a disgrace: if you have worked all yuor life, saved and been careful, then you are brutally punished by paying through the nose for the costs of your care...

If you have never worked, or worked very little, and have never saved or have relied on the State for much of your life, then you are rewarded still further by not having to pay a penny for your care in old age!

You are right, it is obscene and unjust: one way to equalise matters (and build a consensus for funding elder social care) would be to fix time limits for ALL benefit claimants of job seekers, ESAs, Housing benefit etc- you can only claim a maximum of eg 2 years housing benefit in your lifetime, after which the State will not help you. You will then have to pay your bills yourself, and if you cant or wont then tough...

At the other end, I do think we should consider a National Care Service with basic social care packages offered to all, but enhanced and subsidized packages offered to those who have done the right thing and saved for their retirement... a rewards/responsibilities approach is what is clearly needed, and one which could garner huge cross party support.

Cost/how to pay for it...that is what we should be discussing...