Welcome to our brand new website

Welcome to newstatesman.com – the all-new and free to view website of the current affairs magazine of the year.

As well as our unrivalled coverage of politics, culture, books and the arts we have a raft of brand new online content for you.

We’ve got comedians, a genuine TV legend not to mention top tips on tackling your personal problems from our agony aunt, ex-glamour model turned politician, Marina Pepper.

Don’t miss our Community & Action pages with Campus Radicals - written for and by students, it will nail the lie that young people are turned off by politics. Perhaps it’s Westminster they just can’t stand.

Plus you can read unrivalled analysis and daily updates from the most eclectic bunch of writers you’re likely to encounter online.

Green Party co-leader Sian Berry, our political editor Martin Bright, plus challenging no-holds-barred insights into disability from Victoria Brignell (Crip’s Column) and James Medhurst (A different way of thinking).

And if you want a regular glimpse into life in an eco-village have a look at the world’s first ever blogosoap, written by Jonathan Dawson.

As if that wasn't enough, Bagpuss and Clangers creator Oliver Postgate, and comedians Richard Herring and Simon Munnery are also blogging for us.

In the coming weeks and months we will be providing you with tips on how to join or start campaigns and contacts so you can lobby your elected representatives. Most of all we hope this will become a forum for like-minded people to meet and exchange ideas.

So please, sign-up, get commenting and become part of the newstatesman.com community!

Finally, I'd like to thank Wilson Fletcher and their superb design team who are behind our new online look and Sheila Sang of PowWow Interactive, our redesign consultant, for all her help.

Most of all, it’s great to welcome you to our new website!

Ben Davies

Editor, newstatesman.com

Ben Davies trained as a journalist after taking most of the 1990s off. Prior to joining the New Statesman he spent five years working as a politics reporter for the BBC News website. He lives in North London.
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