It appears that the brutal Tory approach to social care is not going down so well with its own candidates.
From PoliticsHome:
One candidate said the author of the proposal “should be shot”, The Times reports.
Another candidate standing for re-election said it is “very hard to justify” the plan. “This plan was coming up on the doorstep this morning and there has not even yet been much coverage [on] it. It is very hard to justify, because people with a house of £300,000 could have a liability now of £200,000. I thought the campaign was just right until yesterday,” they said.
Bob Blackman, the Tory candidate in Harrow East, told the Evening Standard: “I broadly support the policy but clearly there needs to be a limit on how much any individual or family should be required to pay.”
A third candidate said the plan was “not great. Theresa should have stuck with Dilnot [which would have imposed a cap on the maximum amount that care users could pay] and an insurance scheme.”
Norman Lamb said:
The Tory high command is now in meltdown. It realises it has misjudged the British people, who don’t like this cold, mean-spirited Conservative approach to our most vulnerable citizens.
First Theresa May was revealed as the lunch-snatcher. Now she is pushing a Dementia tax. This will go down as her poll tax – not only a colossal political miscalculation, but also cruel, showing that she just doesn’t care.
No wonder the Tories are panicking. The Liberal Democrats will continue to campaign to give social care the extra funding it needs, properly funded with a penny on income tax to pay for it, and to give Britain a brighter future.
The Tory plan was also condemned by the Institute of Fiscal Studies, who said:
A life-time cap on care costs, as proposed by the Dilnot Commission, is a solution to the insurance problem. It is effectively a form of social insurance, funded from general taxation. It may also make it easier for a private market to emerge that would offer insurance against care costs up to the cap.
By contrast, the Conservative plan makes no attempt to deal with the fundamental challenge of social care funding. That is the big problem – not how many people might win or lose.
In response to that, Norman said:
This is a scathing conclusion from the IFS. Theresa May’s dementia tax shows her utter disregard for the most vulnerable. It is a betrayal of those who have worked hard all their lives and end up with a condition like dementia through no fault of their own. It doesn’t even deal with the fundamental challenge facing social care funding.
In Coalition we secured a commitment to introduce a cap on care costs.The Conservatives first dithered and have now scrapped it. The Liberal Democrats on the other hand have committed to implementing the cap.
The Liberal Democrats are the only party who have a costed plan to save social care and are the only party who will stand up to Theresa May’s mean-spirited vision for Britain.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
The mysterious mole men of New York caught on video
Doing better? The goal must be Sufficeincy
Michael Meadowcroft (1942-2026) - A Liberal to His Core
Labour deputy claims that Farage is a threat to democracy
Rob Heale
Mick Taylor
Jason Connor
Chloe
23 Comments
Of course Tory candidates don’t like it – because it is highly progressive and quintessentially “unTory”. Sad to see us playing on people’s fears about dementia and implying that the spouse of someone with dementia could be turfed out of their home under these proposals.
A cap on care costs, of around £100,000, or the Lib Dem policy of £72,000, would create a booming insurance market and save the state the cost of providing all of the cost. As someone re-entering the financial advice industry, a cap on care costs would be easy to plan people’s finances around, but this is hard and basically amounts to telling people to either save more money or be prepared to use the equity in your home to pay for care costs.
I personally think their policy on care is a disgrace basically it says if you have bought your own home you won’t get any care. Even the cheapest homes to buy currently are over £100K. There is a better possible long term solution out there where most employees and employers pay a workplace pension – a care element could be added of say £3-£5 per month from both parties to pay for people’s care in the future but also have a cap on basic care costs of £72,000.
PS, the increased protection for those who have little assets is welcome, but without an overall cap the insurance industry won’t really get-going and amounts to saying that parts of the public sector are not for the middle class, which won’t be popular. If someone is unlucky enough to have long-term illness and others a short-term one then arguably it’s fair for the state to help spread the risk and the cost amongst the population.
Harsh though the proposals seem, they are founded on a sound principle. Basically, one should save for a rainy day. That is what capital is for. The state should not subsidise inheritance. It is better to incentivise long term savings.
Why not stick with Atlee and use progressive general taxation to ensure fairness?
The trouble with saving for a rainy day is that the young do not think of old age coming upon them, therefore do not save.
Bank interest rates are pathetic therefore why save?
Not all can build up a lot of capital due to their circumstances.
As above. Cap care costs at, say 72 thou. AND get an insurance scheme going from both parties.
I believe the Japanese, when they reach the age of 40 have to have a relevant insurance policy in place to care for old age.
Just a few thoughts to consider in the debate.
“The trouble with saving for a rainy day is that the young do not think of old age coming upon them, therefore do not save.”
I would suggest that young people are thinking about housing primarily rather than not thinking about old age at all. Also, there was a BBC article about how much you’d have to save per month in order to meet average annual retired household spend and found by 25 you have to be putting away several hundred pounds a month, but not many young people are in a position where they can save for a starting home (especially if they’re not living at home) and put away several hundred pounds per month. Lib Dems have recognised that wealthy older generation should pay more in suggesting a means test for winter fuel allowance and whether you agree of disagree with how the Tories are doing it it’s a good thing they are considering it.
Yes, they deserve credit for being clear on the matter. There is no easy answer.
This dementia tax will be gone by the summer, it might not even last the week, carry on hammering it or Labour might get the credit for the U-turn.
It’s anathema to the Tory core vote and many others don’t like it either.
Er…and where exactly in the manifesto have we costed the 1.7 billion to implement Dilnot…?
The Tories are not being progressive on this. It is a deeply unfair proposal which hits those with long term debilitating illnesses the hardest. It relies on these seriously ill people being content with not passing any of their wealth, however modest, on to their spouse and children. In my experience, many parents do want to leave their children some money. Afterall, many had parents who did so for them.
Certainly those with houses worth less than 100k and with no savings will not be affected as greatly as those with houses worth more. In other words, most households will be hit, with paying for an uncapped private care industry, and spiralling, out of control costs. The thought of contracting diseases like alzheimer’s, and then having to drain your savings and assets to pay for care, causes deep anxiety for many people.
So why not pool the risk, lessen people’s deepest insecurities and cap the amount people pay for social care?
It’s a question of priorities.
Do we want a society where people with dementia are left to fend for themselves or do we believe in a compassionate society which comes to our aid in our time of greatest need?
Do we as a society want to invest in health and social care through progressive taxation or do we put the burden on the individual, at their most vulnerable moments, with that responsibility?
I’m posting this explainer on state help for social care to someone I made on Facebook after a lot of confusion on the current, incoming and Theresa May’s new idea.
Current policy: free for anyone with assets, usually excluding family home, below around £14,250. No help for those, usually excluding family home, above £23,250 (limit seems a bit higher for Scotland and Wales).
2020 policy, which Lib Dems seem to back: Free below £17,000 of assets excluding family home. No help if other assets are above £118,500.
Theresa May’s new policy: No help for anyone with assets above £100,000, so better than £23,500 currently, but for the first time the family home is definitely being included. This is what the uproar is about.
One person thought all social care was free currently, so we need to communicate the reality.
There are a number of ways of looking at this. The first is that it is essentially a hypothecated tax, and hypothecated taxation is fundamentally a bad idea (yes, I know what’s in our manifesto – I understand why, but I disagree). The second way, as Ruth Bright suggests, is to see it as progressive taxation: those who can afford the most pay the most. It could also been seen as a tax on consumption of goods, in a similar way that if you have a large car you pay more for it in fuel duty. However, it violates the essential element of the post war Beveridge welfare state, that citizen should be treated in the same way whatever their means and whatever the contribution they may or may not have been able to make in their lives through the tax system. The Tories, therefore, have made a decision (if, indeed, they have thought this proposal through thoroughly, which I doubt), to prioritise keeping income tax levels low over allowing wealth to pass from one generation to the next in a non-random way. This proposal will have many unintended consequences, the long-term effects of which can only be guessed at. One might be that families choose to care for elderly parents for longer than they might otherwise have done, but conversely it might mean that people who need specialist care don’t get it because their relatives don’t want to start eating into capital value to pay for it (bear in mind that Powers of Attorney are very common these days). If there is no significant value left in a property for children to inherit then that is another avenue by which many in the next generation will be prevented from acquiring property of their own. Properties acquired in this way by the insurance companies, or whoever will be supplying the equity released to pay for the care (Tory supporters no doubt) may either be sold to private landlords, or depress the overall price of housing because the capital value extracted has been passed to corporations. Mrs May’s Poll Tax? It could have even more far-reaching consequences.
The Tories have made a big mistake on this one. It is only anecdotal but my 83 year mother has changed her intended vote from Tory to LibDem on this one and the last time she voted like that was in the 80’s. I am sure there will be many more over such a potentially huge issue, so badly handled.
Social care costs need to be pooled somehow but not foisted on the working poor, while the Tories cut death duties on the rich for people who would be relatively unaffected by this new measure. So it is the same as the way they have prioritised big firms and banks over small firms on rates and Corpn. Tax plus high wage earners over low on income taxes.
Lib dem high command – this is surely an 11th hour gift – max attack and focus needed here surely?
Lib Dems should be supporting the Conservative proposals for funding social care.
Of course wealthy people should be paying for their own social care and residential costs. It is only health care which is free at the point of delivery under Beveridge.
David Evershed 22nd May ’17 – 1:29am……..Lib Dems should be supporting the Conservative proposals for funding social care……….Of course wealthy people should be paying for their own social care and residential costs. It is only health care which is free at the point of delivery under Beveridge………………
The targeting of any group is unfair…..
Regarding ‘severe dementia’….Near where I live is a ‘home’ for children with severe mental illness (severe Autism, Down’s Syndrome, etc. many of whom are confined to wheelchairs) there would, rightly, be outrage if the equity of homes of the parents of these unfortunates were targeted to pay for their care….
I’ll keep banging on about ‘progressive tax’…
David Evershed – the Inheritance Tax threshold is currently £325,000. Someone owning a house worth that where you live could not remotely be called wealthy.
tonyhill,
Yes, and the Tories are putting the threshold up to effectively allow a couple to pass on £1 million tax free.. Yet they said this weekend that £100k is “plenty to inherit”! And above the threshold you can still pass on 60%!
If this proposal was combined with inheritance tax such that it was fair to all it would be ok. Those people who are fortunate to have parents who escape dementia or other debilitating conditions in old age should NOT be able to inherit more money than those who are doubly unfortunate and have to support their aging parents.
Paying for proper, decent care for the elderly in all circumstances should be a societal responsibility not a lottery. And everyone should accept that richer people passing on all of windfall gains from house price inflation while the poor who are trapped in rental accommodation can pass on nothing is one of the deepest areas of unfairness in our society. We should be taxing wealth, not income in all possible circumstances, but £100k is not wealthy.
@David Evershed: dementia is a disease: treating it is healthcare. Paying for it is a big problem that we all should be paying for, not just those unlucky enough to get it
For once, I sympathise with the Conservative Party. Which is not to say that I agree with them, but as the fictional Sir Humphrey Appleby might have said, “It is a brave policy”.
If the Conservatives ditch some of their current position, promising a full review during the next parliament, they’ll still have done something good. We (UK citizens) don’t have a serious plan for funding social care, or how to avoid the hospital trap when elderly people reside in wards because social care is effectively denied to them. A party has finally been “brave” enough to connect elderly care with inheritances.
The debate has also reminded us how much citizens desire considerate homes for the elderly and that care is not cheap. Similar arguments apply for children in care and adults with mental illness or other impairments in residential care — quality is not cheap.
Phil Beesley 22nd May ’17 – 1:08pm…………..For once, I sympathise with the Conservative Party. Which is not to say that I agree with them, but as the fictional Sir Humphrey Appleby might have said, “It is a brave policy”…………
What IS the policy?
No cap; yes cap; what cap?
Damian Green, Jeremy Hunt, Boris Johnson, and now Theresa May, all have different ideas of what this ‘policy’ is….
Strong and Stable it isn’t….For the first time in my lifetime a manifesto is being changed BEFORE the election…
@Phil Beesley “For once, I sympathise with the Conservative Party.”
I agree with the points you make here.
It seems a great shame that this has become a party political issue, doubly so that it has happened in the middle of a general election.
There seem to be a lot of good points here on all sides but often arguing at cross-purposes about different aspects of the overall issue. It would be good to see some sort of consensus forming around the way we provide social care and the way we fund it.
A floor on the value of assets which can be held before state help will be provided seems unfair on the wealthy while a ceiling on costs seems unfair on poorer people, but surely there is some centre ground on this. Is it fair or unfair that those unfortunate enough to require more social care should also be required to pay more for it? Should general taxation (probably based on taxing inheritance or wealth) be used to spread the cost? There seem to be some very important questions but the atmosphere at the moment does not seem conducive to answering them.