Rachel Reeves has been on the morning media round, protesting to anyone who’ll listen that Labour is doing the right things. But was it really ‘responsible’ to scrap the social care cap?
A cap on the amount people pay for social care was first recommended to the Conservative/Liberal Democrat coalition government in 2011 by economist Sir Andrew Dilnot, whose Commission on Funding of Care and Support recommended limiting individuals’ contribution to social care costs to £35,000, after which the state would pay.
The Tories sat on the plan for a staggering 12 years before modifying it so that people would have to pay £86,000 towards social care before the state took over paying for the costs. The amount of assets people were allowed to have before being required to pay towards their care fees would also be raised from £23,250 to £100,000.
Buy Cruel Britannia in print here. Buy the Cruel Britannia ebook here. Or just click on the image!
Boris Johnson’s government planned to bring the plan into effect in October 2023, but Jeremy Hunt delayed it for two years after he became Chancellor of the Exchequer.
And then, despite promises to honour the commitment during the 2024 general election campaign, Labour axed the plan altogether in July this year.
According to Age UK, it costs around £800 a week for a place in a care home and £1,078 a week for a place in a nursing home, so the practical meaning of the cap being scrapped is that families will go on being forced to sell their homes in order to pay care fees.
People will continue to have, as Sir Andrew described it in the summer, “no control and no ability to plan, no ability to assess how much they themselves want to spend on care”.
And forcing this on them – according to Rachel Reeves – is “the responsible thing” to do, because it will contribute £1.1 billion to fill the £21.9 billion financial “black hole” she claimed the Tories left behind when they were voted out of government.
She could fill that “black hole” with cash to spare, simply by bringing in a one per cent wealth tax on the richest one per cent of people in the UK.
How is it “responsible” to take away working people’s homes, rather than taxing unearned wealth that its owners won’t miss?
Vox Political needs your help!
If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers)
you can make a one-off donation here:
Be among the first to know what’s going on! Here are the ways to manage it:
1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (bottom right of the home page). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.
2) Follow VP on Twitter @VoxPolitical
3) Like the Facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/VoxPolitical/
Join the Vox Political Facebook page.
4) You could even make Vox Political your homepage at http://voxpoliticalonline.com
5) Join the uPopulus group at https://upopulus.com/groups/vox-political/
6) Join the MeWe page at https://mewe.com/p-front/voxpolitical
7) Feel free to comment!
And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!
If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!
Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
fighting for the facts.
Cruel Britannia is available
in either print or eBook format here:
The Livingstone Presumption is available
in either print or eBook format here:
Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:
The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:
Was it really ‘responsible’ to scrap the social care cap?
Rachel Reeves has been on the morning media round, protesting to anyone who’ll listen that Labour is doing the right things. But was it really ‘responsible’ to scrap the social care cap?
A cap on the amount people pay for social care was first recommended to the Conservative/Liberal Democrat coalition government in 2011 by economist Sir Andrew Dilnot, whose Commission on Funding of Care and Support recommended limiting individuals’ contribution to social care costs to £35,000, after which the state would pay.
The Tories sat on the plan for a staggering 12 years before modifying it so that people would have to pay £86,000 towards social care before the state took over paying for the costs. The amount of assets people were allowed to have before being required to pay towards their care fees would also be raised from £23,250 to £100,000.
Buy Cruel Britannia in print here. Buy the Cruel Britannia ebook here. Or just click on the image!
Boris Johnson’s government planned to bring the plan into effect in October 2023, but Jeremy Hunt delayed it for two years after he became Chancellor of the Exchequer.
And then, despite promises to honour the commitment during the 2024 general election campaign, Labour axed the plan altogether in July this year.
According to Age UK, it costs around £800 a week for a place in a care home and £1,078 a week for a place in a nursing home, so the practical meaning of the cap being scrapped is that families will go on being forced to sell their homes in order to pay care fees.
People will continue to have, as Sir Andrew described it in the summer, “no control and no ability to plan, no ability to assess how much they themselves want to spend on care”.
And forcing this on them – according to Rachel Reeves – is “the responsible thing” to do, because it will contribute £1.1 billion to fill the £21.9 billion financial “black hole” she claimed the Tories left behind when they were voted out of government.
She could fill that “black hole” with cash to spare, simply by bringing in a one per cent wealth tax on the richest one per cent of people in the UK.
How is it “responsible” to take away working people’s homes, rather than taxing unearned wealth that its owners won’t miss?
Vox Political needs your help!
If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers)
you can make a one-off donation here:
Be among the first to know what’s going on! Here are the ways to manage it:
1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (bottom right of the home page). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.
2) Follow VP on Twitter @VoxPolitical
3) Like the Facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/VoxPolitical/
Join the Vox Political Facebook page.
4) You could even make Vox Political your homepage at http://voxpoliticalonline.com
5) Join the uPopulus group at https://upopulus.com/groups/vox-political/
6) Join the MeWe page at https://mewe.com/p-front/voxpolitical
7) Feel free to comment!
And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!
If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!
Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
fighting for the facts.
Cruel Britannia is available
in either print or eBook format here:
The Livingstone Presumption is available
in either print or eBook format here:
Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:
The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:
you might also like
Tories in tatters over NHS as stormin’ Corbyn trounces Theresa May
Government policies have led to huge rise in malnutrition – again
Hammond wants us to think social care is under control because he’s watching it as it fails