Maria Hutchings under fire again as doctors protest over state school comments

Eight doctors criticise the Conservative Eastleigh by-election candidate after she claimed it would be "impossible" for her son to become a surgeon if he went to state school.

With parliament in recess, even more attention will be concentrated on the Eastleigh by-election in the last full week of campaigning. All Conservative MPs have been instructed to make at least three visits to the constituency before polling day on 28 February and it's not hard to detect increasing nervousness in the Tory camp about the party's chances of taking the seat off the Lib Dems. Interviewed on The Sunday Politics yesterday, Conservative chairman Grant Shapps, who defended Tory candidate Maria Hutching's comments on state education, did not sound like a man confident of winning. The Lib Dems' local advantage - the party holds all 36 council seats in the constituency - is beginning to tell, with the party estimated to have three times as many helpers as the Tories. 

The row over Hutchings, who claimed that it would be "impossible" for her son to become a surgeon if he went to a state school, is rumbling on this morning after eight doctors signed an open letter criticising her comments. The medics, all of whom were state educated, wrote: 

 

As GPs and surgeons who all started their education at state-funded schools, we are proof that Maria Hutchings' assertions are not true. The education system in this country provided us with the knowledge and skills we needed to follow our dream career.

It's such a shame that Conservatives like Maria Hutchings want to do our education system down instead of sending the message that whatever your background, you can achieve what you set out to do in life.

The imbroglio is a good example of why, as I wrote the day after Hutchings was selected as the Conservative candidate, a significant number of Tories thought she was the wrong choice for the seat. Hutchings, who fought and lost Eastleigh in 2010 (Chris Huhne increased his majority from 568 to 3,864), was viewed as exactly the kind of political novice that the party should avoid. Nothing that has happened since suggests this judgemenet was wrong. 

David Cameron and Conservative candidate Maria Hutchings leaflet residential homes in Eastleigh, before the imminent by-election. Photograph: Getty Images.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

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