Labour turns its fire on social care cuts

Age UK warns that spending on social care will be cut by 8.4 per cent this year.

The issue of social care is threatening to become yet another headache for the coalition. Despite a pledge by ministers to provide more funding, a survey by Age UK has found that English councils are planning to cut spending on social care for pensioners by £610m this year, or 8.4 per cent. Average net spending on those who need care is set to fall from £2,548 to £2,335. At a time when there are 800,000 older people who need care but do not receive it, a figure that is set to increase to one million by 2014, any suggestion of cuts is toxic for a government.

The care services minister, Paul Burstow, has already responded by arguing that the charity's figures "simply don't add up", claiming that Age UK has factored in only 35 per cent of a £1bn cash transfer from the NHS. He said: "Age UK's research does not give the full picture and they have seriously underestimated the amount of additional support for social care and older people in particular."

But Labour has gone on the attack this morning, warning that this is yet another area in which the coalition is cutting "too far and too fast". The shadow care services minister, Emily Thornberry, said: "Labour warned from the start that the Tories' plans to slash council budgets would mean deep cuts to care services and would see the most vulnerable in our society suffer."

Ed Miliband, who forged close links with charities whilst minister for the third sector, has recently proved adept at using third parties to advance his cause at PMQs. Age UK, which was voted charity of the year by MPs and Lords just a month ago, has provided the Labour leader with yet more evidence to buttress his argument against the cuts.

In the meantime, the debate over the long-term future of social care gathers intensity. The Dilnot Commission is set to recommend that individuals pay between £35,000 and £50,000 towards the cost of their care before the state steps in. This will allow the threshold for means-tested care to be raised from £23,250 to £100,000, ensuring that far fewer need to sell assets such as their family home. After the Tories' cynical "death tax" poster destroyed early hopes of a cross-party consensus, Miliband has made a "genuine and open" offer to try to reach agreement once the commission reports. But George Osborne's threat to "strangle the proposals at birth" and the war of words over cuts means that consensus may prove elusive again.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Photo: Getty Images
Show Hide image

Why are boundary changes bad for Labour?

New boundaries, a smaller House of Commons and the shift to individual electoral registration all tilt the electoral battlefield further towards the Conservatives. Why?

The government has confirmed it will push ahead with plans to reduce the House of Commons to 600 seats from 650.  Why is that such bad news for the Labour Party? 

The damage is twofold. The switch to individual electoral registration will hurt Labour more than its rivals. . Constituency boundaries in Britain are drawn on registered electors, not by population - the average seat has around 70,000 voters but a population of 90,000, although there are significant variations within that. On the whole, at present, Labour MPs tend to have seats with fewer voters than their Conservative counterparts. These changes were halted by the Liberal Democrats in the coalition years but are now back on course.

The new, 600-member constituencies will all but eliminate those variations on mainland Britain, although the Isle of Wight, and the Scottish island constituencies will remain special cases. The net effect will be to reduce the number of Labour seats - and to make the remaining seats more marginal. (Of the 50 seats that would have been eradicated had the 2013 review taken place, 35 were held by Labour, including deputy leader Tom Watson's seat of West Bromwich East.)

Why will Labour seats become more marginal? For the most part, as seats expand, they will take on increasing numbers of suburban and rural voters, who tend to vote Conservative. The city of Leicester is a good example: currently the city sends three Labour MPs to Westminster, each with large majorities. Under boundary changes, all three could become more marginal as they take on more wards from the surrounding county. Liz Kendall's Leicester West seat is likely to have a particularly large influx of Tory voters, turning the seat - a Labour stronghold since 1945 - into a marginal. 

The pattern is fairly consistent throughout the United Kingdom - Labour safe seats either vanishing or becoming marginal or even Tory seats. On Merseyside, three seats - Frank Field's Birkenhead, a Labour seat since 1950, and two marginal Labour held seats, Wirral South and Wirral West - will become two: a safe Labour seat, and a safe Conservative seat on the Wirral. Lillian Greenwood, the Shadow Transport Secretary, would see her Nottingham seat take more of the Nottinghamshire countryside, becoming a Conservative-held marginal. 

The traffic - at least in the 2013 review - was not entirely one-way. Jane Ellison, the Tory MP for Battersea, would find herself fighting a seat with a notional Labour majority of just under 3,000, as opposed to her current majority of close to 8,000. 

But the net effect of the boundary review and the shrinking of the size of the House of Commons would be to the advantage of the Conservatives. If the 2015 election had been held using the 2013 boundaries, the Tories would have a majority of 22 – and Labour would have just 216 seats against 232 now.

It may be, however, that Labour dodges a bullet – because while the boundary changes would have given the Conservatives a bigger majority, they would have significantly fewer MPs – down to 311 from 330, a loss of 19 members of Parliament. Although the whips are attempting to steady the nerves of backbenchers about the potential loss of their seats, that the number of Conservative MPs who face involuntary retirement due to boundary changes is bigger than the party’s parliamentary majority may force a U-Turn.

That said, Labour’s relatively weak electoral showing may calm jittery Tory MPs. Two months into Ed Miliband’s leadership, Labour averaged 39 per cent in the polls. They got 31 per cent of the vote in 2015. Two months into Tony Blair’s leadership, Labour were on 53 per cent of the vote. They got 43 per cent of the vote. A month and a half into Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership, Labour is on 31 per cent of the vote.  A Blair-style drop of ten points would see the Tories net 388 seats under the new boundaries, with Labour on 131. A smaller Miliband-style drop would give the Conservatives 364, and leave Labour with 153 MPs.  

On Labour’s current trajectory, Tory MPs who lose out due to boundary changes may feel comfortable in their chances of picking up a seat elsewhere. 

Stephen Bush is editor of the Staggers, the New Statesman’s political blog. He usually writes about politics.