Morning Call: pick of the papers

The ten must-read comment pieces from this morning's papers.

1.  We're rewriting the nation's future. Here's how it looks... (The Independent)

Big projects, stamped with a Union Jack, were ecstatically embraced by public opinion, writes Mary Dejevsky.

2. The grades are down – well done to you all! (The Telegraph)

After decades of exam inflation, yesterday’s GCSE results herald a return to credibility, writes Anthony Seldon.

3.Celebrate Paralympians, but remember they needed state help to get there (Guardian)

As we celebrate these super-fit athletes, benefits for disabled people are being cut and views against them are hardening, writes Polly Toynbe.

4.The Lib Dems don't need a new leader. They need a point (The Independent)

Searching for cheap populist policies and silent on issues long held sacred, what do they stand for now? writes Ian Birrell.

5. How an extraordinary day spent with Tony Nicklinson changed my views on right-to-die (The Telegraph)

Visiting the severely disabled man with locked-in syndrome revealed the depth of his suffering, the seriousness of his intent and the extent to which he had explored every other avenue, writes Peter Stanford.

6. Time to put a stop to speculating on hunger (The Independent)

Even the slightest increase in prices may mean that people go hungry, writes The Independent.

7. Orwell should have his statue at the BBC (The Telegraph)

Far from considering him 'Left-wing’, we conservatives rather admire the writer, writes Daniel Hannan.

8. To Republicans, women are simply the sum of their parts (Guardian)

The GOP's adoption of an anti-abortion platform is further indication of a party that has no clue about reproductive life, writes Ana Marie Cox.

9. How food insecurity keeps the workforce cowed (Guardian)

The development of food banks in the UK marks a shift from welfare to the punitive management of poverty, writes Richard Seymour.

10. The real worry is how have we fallen so far behind the rest of the world (The Independent)

Our system is at best in the middle of the global pack and at worst it is slipping down it, writes Hamish McRae.

 

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Theresa May's U-Turn may have just traded one problem for another

The problems of the policy have been moved, not eradicated. 

That didn’t take long. Theresa May has U-Turned on her plan to make people personally liable for the costs of social care until they have just £100,000 worth of assets, including property, left.

As the average home is valued at £317,000, in practice, that meant that most property owners would have to remortgage their house in order to pay for the cost of their social care. That upwards of 75 per cent of baby boomers – the largest group in the UK, both in terms of raw numbers and their higher tendency to vote – own their homes made the proposal politically toxic.

(The political pain is more acute when you remember that, on the whole, the properties owned by the elderly are worth more than those owned by the young. Why? Because most first-time buyers purchase small flats and most retirees are in large family homes.)

The proposal would have meant that while people who in old age fall foul of long-term degenerative illnesses like Alzheimers would in practice face an inheritance tax threshold of £100,000, people who die suddenly would face one of £1m, ten times higher than that paid by those requiring longer-term care. Small wonder the proposal was swiftly dubbed a “dementia tax”.

The Conservatives are now proposing “an absolute limit on the amount people have to pay for their care costs”. The actual amount is TBD, and will be the subject of a consultation should the Tories win the election. May went further, laying out the following guarantees:

“We are proposing the right funding model for social care.  We will make sure nobody has to sell their family home to pay for care.  We will make sure there’s an absolute limit on what people need to pay. And you will never have to go below £100,000 of your savings, so you will always have something to pass on to your family.”

There are a couple of problems here. The proposed policy already had a cap of sorts –on the amount you were allowed to have left over from meeting your own care costs, ie, under £100,000. Although the system – effectively an inheritance tax by lottery – displeased practically everyone and spooked elderly voters, it was at least progressive, in that the lottery was paid by people with assets above £100,000.

Under the new proposal, the lottery remains in place – if you die quickly or don’t require expensive social care, you get to keep all your assets, large or small – but the losers are the poorest pensioners. (Put simply, if there is a cap on costs at £25,000, then people with assets below that in value will see them swallowed up, but people with assets above that value will have them protected.)  That is compounded still further if home-owners are allowed to retain their homes.

So it’s still a dementia tax – it’s just a regressive dementia tax.

It also means that the Conservatives have traded going into the election’s final weeks facing accusations that they will force people to sell their own homes for going into the election facing questions over what a “reasonable” cap on care costs is, and you don’t have to be very imaginative to see how that could cause them trouble.

They’ve U-Turned alright, but they may simply have swerved away from one collision into another.  

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. His daily briefing, Morning Call, provides a quick and essential guide to British politics.

0800 7318496