Just been listening to Andy Burnham on care ......

There’s no doubt that Andy Burnham is sincere in his wish to really solve the problem of social care, but he says it will be up to voters to choose to vote Labour next GE so he can actually do it.Nothing will be changed before then, and even if Labour do get into power again there’s no guarantee that social care will be solved in the next five years either.
Still, he’s keen as mustard to actually try, which counts for something.

Doodledog

My MIL is in a care home. She has no dementia, but is very frail.

It's hard. She is in the right place, as she couldn't manage at home, and is adamant she doesn't want us doing personal care, so I don't know what else would work, but it's so difficult. The staff are lovely, on the whole, and do as much as they can, but it's hard to think she is getting anything like the care she's paying for. I don't know where the money goes, as the staff won't be earning much.

I ca't be objective about it just now, but I do think the system has to change, and I would like to see social care go back into state hands.

I agree with your last sentence. We had some brilliant purpose built care homes around here which were modern, light and airy, well staffed and with great food and rooms. All the large towns had such a home run by the County Council.

Staff received regular training, were smart and polite and were held in high regard. Families were happy with their loved ones care. Now there are so many independent care homes and they are making loads of money while scrimping on care, training and facilities.

Oreo

There’s no doubt that Andy Burnham is sincere in his wish to really solve the problem of social care, but he says it will be up to voters to choose to vote Labour next GE so he can actually do it.Nothing will be changed before then, and even if Labour do get into power again there’s no guarantee that social care will be solved in the next five years either.
Still, he’s keen as mustard to actually try, which counts for something.

Hopefully not

That’s one way of getting them voted back in, to sort the social care bill, which I doubt they’ll do.

Yes, Primrose, my grandparents were in such a home and it was very good. This is going back a long time though. MIL’s is clean and as I stay the staff are caring and kind, but hugely overstretched. It’s part of a ‘chain’ of homes, and someone at the top will be making a fortune.

Several years ago now, there was an edition of Radio 4’s You and Yours where they discussed how investment bankers and venture capitalists had bought and sold on care homes each adding more and more leveraged debt.

That’s a financial model where private equity firms or corporate operators borrow large amounts of money to buy care home businesses and then transfer that heavy debt load onto the care home company itself.

In other words a very large proportion of what someone pays for care is going on serving that debt.

Not long after that hearing that, I accompanied a friend to look at possible care homes for her husband. He had advanced dementia and she could not longer care for him. Some of the homes were far more expensive than others but we struggled to see why.

At each home, we asked the manager for a general breakdown of their charges. Not one would give even a rough idea. After a couple of refusals, I started to ask pointedly if they were deliberately concealing how much was going on indirect costs to service loans. They refused to answer.

The You and Yours presenter has said that even without leveraged debt, investors were expecting a 12% return. Considering this was after the 2008 crash when ordinary savers were receiving next to interest on their savings, this struck me as greedy in the extreme. That care homes are seen as a vehicle for bankers to profit from is obscene.

There’s no doubt the care home sector can be very lucrative.

Gordon Sanders who owns Runwood Homes.

A multimillionaire dementia home boss paid himself at least £21m in five years despite inspectors finding multiple breaches of staffing, safety and leadership rules, with residents left in dirty incontinence pads and staff accused of rough handling.

He owns a mansion in Essex and a flat in London’s Knightsbridge that Zoopla estimates suggest are worth about £4m and £4.7m respectively.

www.theguardian.com/society/2023/jan/17/owner-of-uk-care-home-group-paid-himself-21m-despite-safety-concerns

That was 2023. This was 2019:

The former boss of a care home company which was under investigation by Essex Police for allegedly mistreating patients left with a £17.2m payout last year. Logan Logeswaran, who stepped down as managing director of Runwood Homes in 2018, was handed £15.8m in a long-term incentive scheme on top of his usual salary and benefits. Runwood handed payouts worth £2.8m to other directors and £5.3m of dividends to owner and chief executive Gordon Sanders, accounts filed at Companies House show.

www.echo-news.co.uk/news/17728921.ex-runwood-homes-boss-leaves-payout/

Thank you Graphite for taking the time to post a very explanatory assessment of what shenanigans are going on in some of these expensive care homes. You’ve put it down so well in terms we can all understand. I think many of us suspected some of this - however you’ve said it so well.

Thank you.
This explains such a lot.

This is Thatcher's legacy. I was working in adult social care when this immoral system came in, replacing trusted LA run homes where staff were properly paid, trained and supervised.
It made my heart sink then and does so still.
Until care returns to a service model rather than a chance to rip people off and line the pockets of the rich this iniquitous mess will continue.

I feel ashamed for Britain over this.

There is no quick fix. It will take time to turn this juggernaut around but Burnham is making a start and we must start somewhere.

The cost of a decent nursing home for my late OH could only be met by me selling our home and having to move... during covid, and after years of caring for a very sick man ... I did not need that extra burden when I was worn out. Not long after he died I had a heart attack and further heart problems that required a pacemaker. No coincidence I feel. I want no-one else to go through this.

I also think the sector looking after SEND children is exactly the same. The cost per child often borne by the LA is mind boggling.

I’ve read that scrapping the triple lock might be considered to pay for social care.

I would need to see the detail, but assuming it would be a simple trade-off and the money could be ring-fenced, I think I would get behind that. The only thing that might put me off is the knowledge that a future government (specifically Reform, but potentially Conservative too) might delight in its removal but take the money and re-privatise social care, so we would get the worst of both worlds.

With a guarantee (no idea how that would work), I think everyone being slightly worse off so that nobody is wiped out by the cost of care would be a good thing.

It’s much the same as the NHS principle - those lucky enough not to need it would pay a bit more, but everyone would have the security of knowing that if they needed it, help would be provided. Also, it wouldn’t put all the tax burden on working people for a change.

I watched the interview with Laura Kuenssberg with Andy Burnham and by the end of if I was taken in and felt almost hopeful things might start to improve . He can talk the talk , but can he walk the walk ? There needs to be actions to back up his words and then we can start to believe .

Bk

I watched the interview with Laura Kuenssberg with Andy Burnham and by the end of if I was taken in and felt almost hopeful things might start to improve . He can talk the talk , but can he walk the walk ? There needs to be actions to back up his words and then we can start to believe .

It is this sort of magic wand thinking that is destabilising our political system.
How can he solve this deap-seated problem overnight?
He is getting parties together to find a way forward and I am sure discussing in depth with departments.
When there are detailed plans to present we will hear them.

Doodledog

I’ve read that scrapping the triple lock might be considered to pay for social care.

I would need to see the detail, but assuming it would be a simple trade-off and the money could be ring-fenced, I think I would get behind that. The only thing that might put me off is the knowledge that a future government (specifically Reform, but potentially Conservative too) might delight in its removal but take the money and re-privatise social care, so we would get the worst of both worlds.

With a guarantee (no idea how that would work), I think everyone being slightly worse off so that nobody is wiped out by the cost of care would be a good thing.

It’s much the same as the NHS principle - those lucky enough not to need it would pay a bit more, but everyone would have the security of knowing that if they needed it, help would be provided. Also, it wouldn’t put all the tax burden on working people for a change.

As a pensioner living existing solely on the old pension (pre-1950) I would not be happy to see the triple lock removed unless some other protection could be made for our meagre State pensions.

Meanwhile, many of those whose career path is benefits are on the gravy train. We pay out an eye-watering amount to many people who refuse to work and contribute nothing to the economy.

Let's trim that down and leave the pensions alone.

Re - triple lock - in principle I think I would agree, but there must be some sort of guarantee that social care will never be privatised again, together with beefing up the NHS and re-establishing first principles.

However a reasonable base level of income must also be set for the elderly or else you will be having far more customers for the NHS and SC than is necessary.

FriedGreenTomatoes2

Well I suppose hearteningly only a tiny percentage of us will be going into a care home anyway. 3% of us? Not worth worrying about imo.

You never know the minute when you are going to need a care home.
I’ve looked after young stroke victims in their early forties. Also early onset dementia residents too.
When Labour got in in the 90s under Blair ( we were begged & pleaded with by Unison to vote for labour.
Under that lot our homes shut down one by one.
The heartbreak that caused to many of the residents as it had been home to many for many years.
I sacked off the union & never voted for labour again, especially because of that war Blair involved us in.

jaxjackie I just looked it up and think the dates go like this:

2011 (The Dilnot Report) - independent commission recommended capping lifetime individual personal care costs at around £35,000.

​2014 (Legislated) - Cameron’s coalition government enshrined the framework into law via the Care Act 2014, setting a cap of £72,000 to take effect in April 2016.

​2015–2020 (Delayed & Shelved): Shortly before it was due to go live, the government delayed implementation to 2020 - and then shelved it entirely.

​2021–2022 (Revived as £86,000) - Johnson’s government re-announced the cap at £86,000, scheduled to launch in October 2023.
Under Sunak, Jeremy Hunt postponed it again—this time to October 2025.

​July 2024 (Scrapped): Shortly after taking office, Rachel Reeves announced that the government was scrapping the planned £86,000 cap altogether to save £1.1 billion, stating that the previous government had never set aside the funding required to implement it.

I think "kicking the can down the road" is the truth.

We are currently responsible for our own care costs until we are down to £23,250.

My family in Sweden are happy to pay what they see as "sensible" taxes as they know they will get great care if needed.

They seem to be more socially/ community focused than we are here.

I often wonder if it comes from periods of really hard winters where in the past they had to cling together for support.
I wish we had a high tax high service situation here.

I do not think that anyone of whatever political persuasion can seriously want the current system to continue. Nor I would hope can the most die-hard right wingers possibly see it as morally justifiable that large corporations are lining their pockets while vulnerable people receive substandard care from poorly paid care workers.

This is going to take time to unravel but at last we have a clear statement of intent and I am relieved that Burnham is not taking the easy way out and just perpetuating the status quo. He is to be commended for this.

I am more interested in how Burnham is going to fund this system. Talk is cheap; calling it a 'statement of intent' means nothing until the cost is in place.

Burnham is spot on about care. I hope Labour lead with it at the next GE and enact it afterwards. It's been kicked into the long grass too often and we deserve better.

I think that there is little doubt that tax must rise. I am content with that, as I expect nothing if I’m not prepared to pay for it.

I think that now the argument must be made over and over to get it into peoples mind set. So that they understand what they are voting for at the next election.

I am more interested in how Burnham is going to fund this system. Talk is cheap; calling it a 'statement of intent' means nothing until the cost is in place.

He too is interested in how it might be funded - that is what he is working on. What more can he do at this stage? The funding issue is clearly central and he is researching this with his advisors to find a solution. At this stage we can expect no more than a statement of intent.

It is not cheap talk - that is the height of cynicism. He knows it is controversial - he knows he is putting his and his party's future on the line with this - but he is taking the risk anyway because he knows how vital it is that someone has the courage to take this on. Because he has a moral compass; because he can see how immoral the current system is.

Give him a chance.

How will we ever get stable governments with this sort of magic wand thinking going on?

I think the NHS and Social Care need a cross-party agreement.

NotSpaghetti

I think the NHS and Social Care need a cross-party agreement.

Absolutely it does!