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

I’m not disagreeing with that, Dickens. I have said over and over that low wages and high rents underpin so much of the division and discontent in the country.

I’m not suggesting cutting benefits, but saying that a social contract needs everyone to be part of it. People need to know that they are expected to contribute, and that in return they will be decently housed and able to live a dignified life, rather than being units of labour for those who want to pay as little as possible, and cash cows for those who own several properties in a housing shortage.

I did not suggest cutting public services either. I am all for a ‘big state’ where that is concerned, but one based on the expectation that those capable of building it are expected to do so, with protection in place for those who, permanently or temporarily, are not able.

Human nature means that people hate being taken advantage of, and there is, IMO, no difference in the morality of refusing to work full time if it means cuts in UC and doing so to qualify for free childcare when your income rises to over £100k. Both are understandable responses to a system that means-tests rather than encourages contribution.

It’s things like that which have to change, IMO, along with disincentives to save for a better life in case it is all means-tested away, or finding that those who didn’t are given more.

Dickens

Doodledog

It will have to be more profitable to work than not, and less easy to assume that others will work to pay for care, pension top-ups and so on if you (generic) have not.

Over the last 30 years, stagnant wages and skyrocketing living costs, especially rent, have created a real poverty trap where working barely pays. While benefits shouldn't be a lifestyle choice, constantly cutting them and public services solves nothing. A strong, growing economy relies entirely on its workforce. If workers are trapped in debt, struggling with poor health, and left with zero disposable income to spend back into businesses, the whole economy fails.

I’m all for free markets, but capitalism only works when money circulates. Right now, workers spend every penny they earn straight back into the economy, driving growth. In contrast, massive conglomerates are draining cash out of the system into offshore accounts or shareholder pockets. That growing wealth gap doesn't just hurt families; it starves the everyday economy of the cash it needs to thrive.

... so - maybe we need to look at another way to make work more profitable other than the one that the Right always fall back on...

The growing wealth gap has nothing to do with conglomerates, it is the difference between poor and wealthy within the UK.
Forget companies, forget billionaires any extra revenue has to come from individuals in the UK above average wealth, a lot of those are pensioners.

Burnham needs extra cash quickly, that means Income tax,
VAT, CGT, IHT, higher rates on existing taxes. In the future maybe some form of wealth tax, we are a wealthy country there is plenty to tax

Doodledog

It will have to be more profitable to work than not, and less easy to assume that others will work to pay for care, pension top-ups and so on if you (generic) have not.

Over the last 30 years, stagnant wages and skyrocketing living costs, especially rent, have created a real poverty trap where working barely pays. While benefits shouldn't be a lifestyle choice, constantly cutting them and public services solves nothing. A strong, growing economy relies entirely on its workforce. If workers are trapped in debt, struggling with poor health, and left with zero disposable income to spend back into businesses, the whole economy fails.

I’m all for free markets, but capitalism only works when money circulates. Right now, workers spend every penny they earn straight back into the economy, driving growth. In contrast, massive conglomerates are draining cash out of the system into offshore accounts or shareholder pockets. That growing wealth gap doesn't just hurt families; it starves the everyday economy of the cash it needs to thrive.

... so - maybe we need to look at another way to make work more profitable other than the one that the Right always fall back on...

He's also tied to honouring the Manifesto, in which the LP promised not to scrap the triple lock during this parliament.

By the time this all comes together, I think there will be a number of changes to the welfare system in place. It will have to be more profitable to work than not, and less easy to assume that others will work to pay for care, pension top-ups and so on if you (generic) have not. We have to return to a system where there are more contributors than recipients. Of course that will anger those who are used to taking rather than paying in, so I expect to see a lot of fury in some quarters.

What I think would be a huge mistake would be to means test the pension so that those with more than £X in occupational pension lose it after decades of contributions. That would be a disincentive to work for those on lower incomes (or even higher ones, depending on where the cut off is set), so we would lose their tax, NI and spending power, as well as the benefits from what they produce or provide from their work.

I endorse what Graphite and Dickens have posted.

The Baroness Casey review is not published until summer 2027. AB came into PM role this summer 2026.

The war time coalition government outlined early proposals for a national health service in 1944. The NHS was launched July 1948. From early proposals were then followed by the outcome of the Beveridge Report that laid out the social policy blue print for a comprehensive NHS.

AB's timescales seem about right to me. The Casy report will give the Labour Party and all other parties time until the next GE to set out their plans regards Social care reform.

I agree.

fancythat

^The other big worry of course is that AB intends to delay any change till after the next election which is a risky strategy of course.^

Even the Triple Lock being taken away is not until 2030.

When he announced certain things, I was busy so had no time to look things up, other than to read literally just headlines.
Then I thought, hang on, things dont tend to happen right away anyway, with these types of things.

Feels like more delays than usual though.

I have no problem with a proper measured and thoughtful approach to legislation with thorough research completed before presenting it to parliament, but this delay seems risky to me - why not do the research and then present to parliament while they know they have a majority?

How the revised uprating to State Pension will work from 2030 remains to be seen. Plenty of financial analysts are crunching the numbers on this and coming up with different projections because it’s going to depend on the economy, how much inflation there is and earnings growth each year. Much the same as now.

And debt. And funding debt repayments.
The Uk are not alone in this aspect at all.
May things could come toppling down quickly, because of the debt. And repayment of it.

I endorse everything you've said Graphite.

Government is going to have to take a holistic approach to this including, as others and I have said upthread, cutting out the fat cats who are currently creaming off the top; bankers loading care homes with leveraged debt and directors paying themselves millions every year while overstretched staff are paid peanuts and residents receive poor care.

I was researching this aspect of the care-home industry recently - with the help of AI for some figures and stats. It informs:

Some corporate buyers fund acquisitions by piling massive debt onto the care business itself. Reports indicate that top PE-backed providers carry over £35,000 of debt per bed. When interest rates rise, up to 16% of a resident's weekly care fee can disappear purely into paying off corporate interest rather than frontline care.

... I should add that AI scooped that information from The Telegraph - a national daily that is sympatico with Right-wing, market-led, ideology.

When huge global corporations, like US Real Estate Investment Trusts, view the UK as an "under-valued" market... it should make people realise that their mum or dad in the care-home they've possibly chosen, is viewed by such corporations purely as a commodity.

But, it seems, many prefer that human frailty is valued as a commercial product rather than consider a proposal which has the taint of 'socialism' about it. Such individuals cite the downsides of state-run institutions harking back to the 60s and 70s - completely ignoring the fact that not only has the country moved-on since then; but so have management, working practices, technology - and, indeed, the Labour Party itself.

The other big worry of course is that AB intends to delay any change till after the next election which is a risky strategy of course.

Even the Triple Lock being taken away is not until 2030.

When he announced certain things, I was busy so had no time to look things up, other than to read literally just headlines.
Then I thought, hang on, things dont tend to happen right away anyway, with these types of things.

Feels like more delays than usual though.

The other big worry of course is that AB intends to delay any change till after the next election which is a risky strategy of course.
I absolutely know that preparing a sound new system needs time and hard work and cannot happen overnight, but this feels a dangerous strategy. He is giving the opposition time to pull together their objections and kick it all down the road again.

I'll move to Wales ... it's only 5 minutes away!

Luckygirl3

I've just looked up the figures Casdon ..... between 99 and 96% of care and nursing homes are privately owned, and the figure for care at home is 95%.
So unless this is tackled in some way any state financial input will be paying a huge chunk to private companies rather than to care.

I just did the same Luckygirl3, and it does look as though there is more in Wales than there is in England, between 9% and 14% of care homes are owned run by local authorities here according to the Nuffield Trust - which figures given the strong Labour tradition in Wales. From what I know of the Welsh model, all the LAs run their own reablement service with Council and Health staff providing in home care for up to six weeks post discharge for eligible people, then the long term care at home is provided by agencies - although one or two of the councils still provide long term care at home too.

So much negativity from people on the right who seem to want this to fail for no other reason than a Labour Prime Minister is applying a socialist principle. Fairness.

Little or nothing is going to happen until Baroness Casey makes her report next year.

How the revised uprating to State Pension will work from 2030 remains to be seen. Plenty of financial analysts are crunching the numbers on this and coming up with different projections because it’s going to depend on the economy, how much inflation there is and earnings growth each year. Much the same as now.

People receiving funded care already make a contribution to daily living costs from State Pension.

This year, my county council has budgeted over a billion from it’s 2.8 billion revenue budget for adult social care for around 17,000 people at an average annual cost of £55,000.

I figure around £600 of my annual council tax bill goes on that. I have no objection if the money is spent on care for our most vulnerable people.

If future funding is to come from central government that gives scope for a decent reduction in council tax bills. £600 is equivalent to a £3,000 uprating in the personal tax allowance.

Government is going to have to take a holistic approach to this including, as others and I have said upthread, cutting out the fat cats who are currently creaming off the top; bankers loading care homes with leveraged debt and directors paying themselves millions every year while overstretched staff are paid peanuts and residents receive poor care.

That's what I do object to, that some people have become very wealthy and continue to become wealthy exploiting others.

Such is the capitalist model for social care and it needs to end.

AB is bold proposing to implement the double lock. No other party leader has been so bold or brave.

Boris Johnson promised to "fix the crisis in social care once and for all". A long overdue crisis that needs fixing but evidently wasn't. In fact the social care crisis has got worse.

AB has pledged to create a National Social Care Service that is free at the point of personal care. AB has said it will be a manifesto central detailed proposal in the next GE. This will be shaped by Baroness Louise Casey's independent Commission of Adult Social Care with reporting accelerated to summer 2027.

AB doesn't come across as pie in the sky to me but evidently he will have his detractors. Time will tell what is planned and how the new National Care Service will be funded.

Pie in the sky again from government?

It hasn't all been announced. There will be some from the change of the triple lock to a double one, and the rest depends on the results of an enquiry that is currently ongoing.

Maybe things like using the state pensions of those in care would plug some of the gaps, and there could be tweaks to council tax that divert some income from there, too.

And how much of this funding of private care is currently funded by the public purse?
Under Burnham’s plan does the taxpayer now have to pay the total cost via NHS care?

I've just looked up the figures Casdon ..... between 99 and 96% of care and nursing homes are privately owned, and the figure for care at home is 95%.
So unless this is tackled in some way any state financial input will be paying a huge chunk to private companies rather than to care.

My friend was so sorry that his aunt had put off going to a care home. When he saw her there she was so enjoying it all that it was sad to consider her lonely years back in her own house.

Yes, my MIL's home was very good too, although the experience of being frail enough to need to be in one is never going to be much fun.

Our local care home is excellent and also provides nursing care if required. It's always interesting to see how new residents perk up and improve in health as the food is very good (and carefully nutritionally balanced) and the activities and company seem to be much enjoyed. It's lovely to see. Still expensive though.

I think it's fair enough to stop someone's state pension when they are in residential care - otherwise they are taking out of the system twice. OTOH, if someone is leaving a house behind to take up that care, there are still some expenses attached.

We have just lost my dearly loved MIL who was in a care home for around 7 months. During that time we made sure her council tax was paid, and the heating came on for a couple of hours a day when the weather was cold, lights came on in the evening and so on. We had POA and could use her bank account to pay for it, and as she was self-funding her pension continued. Had that not been possible we would happily have covered it, but the point is that even when someone is in care there are expenses, and not everyone in care has family on hand. That opens other cans of worms, as had we not been there I have no idea who (if anyone) would have done that sort of thing. Anyway, that's way off topic, sorry. Stopping the state pension when someone is in state-funded care seems reasonable to me, though, and that would help towards paying for LA homes.

I agree with Luckygirl that taxpayers' money should not line the pockets of care home owners and investors. I looked up our council tax for another thread, and in my postcode over £2500 per household per year is spent on adult social care.

Many people who pay that money are also charged if they need such care themselves, often subsidising other residents who get their own care free. That is unfair in itself, IMO, but if we get LA-funded care (which I would very much prefer to see) it would be even more unfair for people to pay that sort of money, lose some of their pension and subsidise private homes as well as LA ones. So long as tax is compulsory (be it income tax, council tax or NI) it should be spent on things that everyone can access if and when they need it, and accounts should be a matter of public record.

I agree that there will always be private care - Thursday Murder Club/Waiting For God sort of places will always exist, and I have no objection to that. But they are not care homes so much as hotels for the elderly. If residents needed nursing care they would have to get it somewhere else.

Luckygirl3

The central issue is whom we are paying for care. At present all homes and home care agencies are private. If it is fully state funded for everyone we need to ask ourselves if we want that money to go to high quality care or to lining the pockets of rich investors in homes and care agencies. We cannot state fund care until the corporate leeches have been removed from the equation and care is state run. Every tax penny that goes into care should be spent on that care.

That’s not the case Luckygirl3, some councils do still have and run their own care homes, and some do still provide an in house home care and/or reablement service, in Wales at least. The councils do charge though, I believe they always have?

I don’t personally think all care should be free, I think it’s reasonable to charge a board and lodging fee, those are unavoidable when you live in your own home, and it wouldn’t be right for people in care to make a profit at the state’s expense. Those costs could be met from the state pension being reduced, as it is now when people need residential care.