Morning Call: pick of the papers

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

1. George Osborne's strivers have a shock in store (Guardian)

The £10bn of extra welfare cuts will hit the strivers the Tories are courting as much as the targeted 'shirkers', says Gavin Kelly.

2. Andrew Mitchell must step down (Daily Telegraph)

The Chief Whip is a walking, talking embodiment of everything with which David Cameron would least like his party to be associated, says a Telegraph leader.

3. The harmful myth of the balanced budget (Financial Times)

Critics of austerity sell themselves short by merely calling for a deceleration in deficit reduction, says Samuel Brittan.

4. The US is buzzing, but it’s a Wasp-free zone (Times) (£)

In 1992 all four presidential candidates were White Anglo-Saxon Protestants, notes Ben Macintyre. That’s four more than this year.

5. Integration? The opposite is true in Jeremy Hunt's NHS (Guardian)

The latest healthcare buzzword means nothing, but growing privatisation is reported to be fragmenting services, writes Polly Toynbee.

6. What Doctors Don’t Tell You: There is something very wrong with our libel laws (Independent)

Our libel law protects the rich and the powerful, writes Simon Singh. It's time for a 21st century re-think.

7. Cameron’s toffs must convince the plebs they’re on their side (Daily Telegraph)

The Andrew Mitchell affair hides the fact that it is the Conservatives who are fighting class inequality, argues Fraser Nelson.

8. High-stakes choices for China’s leaders (Financial Times)

Changes at the top will shape the international order for decades, writes Philip Stephens.

9. Grubby deal that will harm British politics (Daily Mail)

The Prime Minister should think long and hard before allowing 16 and 17-year-olds to vote on Scottish independence, argues a Daily Mail editorial.

10. Gove's centralism is not so much socialist as Soviet (Guardian)

Instead of modernising, British schools stick with the same culture that saw a Nobel winner humiliated in class, writes Simon Jenkins.

 

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