Morning Call: pick of the papers

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

1. The Tories keep swiping, but Ed Miliband is an elusive target (Daily Telegraph)

In the political hall of mirrors, Labour’s policies are becoming ever harder to attack, says Mary Riddell.

2. Austerity will give Tories an electoral edge (Financial Times)

Conservative spending cuts are decreasing the opposition’s client base, says Janan Ganesh.

3. The elastic middle has to be defined, once and for all (Guardian)

Politicians should be clear about who is really struggling, says Gaby Hinsliff. It's not those who have been forced to kick their Waitrose habits.

4. Obama is not to blame for Middle East anger (Financial Times)

The policies pursued by Obama mean that the US is much better positioned to deal with anti-American violence, writes Gideon Rachman.

5. Is this Britain's last coalition government? (Independent)

Coalition often works well at local level, writes Steve Richards. But several factors, including the electoral system, may limit how many national ones we get.

6. Parties must stop playing unhappy families (Times) (£)

A toxic combination of troubled history and flawed political genes is afflicting all sides at Westminster, writes Rachel Sylvester.

7. Overhauling exams: lessons in nostalgia (Guardian)

A lurch back to a world where a three-hour written paper is the be-all and end-all risks jettisoning advances in education, says a Guardian editorial.

8. China is flexing its muscles: time to worry (Independent)

It would be crazy if a bunch of five uninhabited rocks precipitated a military conflict between two of the world powers, says Dominic Lawson. That doesn't mean it won't happen.

9. The welfare state is broken – so what’s next? (Daily Telegraph)

To promote prudence and responsibility, we should return to mutual aid societies, argues Philip Johnston.

10. Liberal Democrats should beware a pact with Labour (Guardian)

Working for a future coalition with Labour is deeply dangerous for our identity as a Liberal party, writes Malcolm Bruce.

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