Labour isn't Working - Thread 37

[NoWordForFluffy]

In Nuthatch's absence, I've been asked to start the new thread!

A chat thread for those of us who don't like this Labour government.

"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy; its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."

Previous thread: www.mumsnet.com/talk/_chat/5548208-labour-isnt-working-thread-36?page=1

I genuinely hope Burnham can improve things in social care, cross party is probably the only way. Labour should have included Reform though. Excluding them is petty if Burnham is serious about this.

The Conservatives have set their red lines. They won't support anything funded by tax rises or borrowing.
Just read that Kemi can't attend as she's having minor surgery. I hope she's ok. Shadow Health Sec will attend in her place.

I understand wanting to help with social care. I also think, if it is made more available you will find that more people ask for it. I suspect that demand is very elastic. It will cost as much as the NHS.

Zack Polanski has given a long Newsnight interview. He refused three times to apologise to Nigel Farage.

Zack Polanski has refused three times to apologise to Nigel Farage for re-posting a photo of a man wearing a t-shirt with an image of a guillotine and the slogan "we're only making plans for Nigel". (BBC).

A full third of the fees paid by self-funders is currently used to subsidise 'state' funded spaces in the same care home.

Bet that doesn't change.

So the 'broad-shouldered' will pay an extra 1.8% on their salary from age 34 (ie all their higher-earning years) + 45% of their care home fees... of which about a third of the total (ie 2/3 of what they're paying) is actually just an additional subsidy for other people.

Fuck that.

He's a disgrace.

Farage isn’t an MP at the moment…

And? He's still the leader of Reform. There are other figures in Reform who are MPs and could attend.

Or put another way, you end up still paying 70% of the cost of your own care, despite having paid in an extra 1.8% of your salary most of your working life, supposedly to cover it

So, so much hidden redistribution.

I see the broad shouldered will be the ones paying for the proposed 'solution' to funding social care. 10% of your assets taken upon death. So you've worked, bought a house, got savings then your kids will lose 10% of it. Who then ends up paying for those that have never worked? Hmmmm...I wonder!

I’m vaguely heartened by Burnham inviting the Tories and LibDems to talk about social care provision. I’d watch him carefully though: if the Tories say ‘we can’t support anything funded by borrowing or tax increases’ and he goes around saying that the Tories don’t want solutions/want the elderly to suffer etc, it’ll just be more of the same misleading virtue signalling.

I think the 10% proposal for everyones estates is reasonable. 10% is a low enough percentage that I don't think people will take dramatic steps to mitigate it..

I think the problem of people who don't work needs to be tackled through different initiatives rather than wrapped up into care. I needs cultural change to be coming non-accepting of people who don't contribute. Simple stuff like going back to paying benefits at the job center rather than them landing in people bank acccounts.

Whatever they come up for adult social care won’t be fair really. There will always be winners and losers with care home fees.
The lady on ‘good morning Britain ‘ said that her mum received continued health care from the NHS for her mum as she had mixed dementia, yet my dad ( who didn’t own a house ) still had to pay full care home fees because he had savings and a private pension and was turned down for CHC despite also having dementia and other additional needs. Only by a few points.
Some people will never need a care home at all.
If you do the right things in life and save and don’t have to depend on the state , you’ll be punished , but that’s always the case isn’t it. Lots of people put their houses into trust funds , but councils can see what assets you have apparently. Not sure how that can be tackled as it seems a way around people having to lose everything to pay for the fees. Not sure how the trust funds works or if it does protect you from having to sell your house.

If that’s on top of the mooted land tax and home value tax and everything else they might think of then no, I don’t think that’s reasonable.

And if you then still have to pay a lot more for your social care compared to someone who has never paid anything in.

Simple stuff like going back to paying benefits at the job centre rather than them landing in people bank accounts. YY to this. Also, I'm sick of hearing people referring to 'being paid' when they get their benefits! No. I work, I get paid. What is happening with benefits is you are literally getting someone else's money. ffs.

Burnham plan is this big vague unconnected mess at the moment. If inheritance tax goes and a 10% levy comes in, and the land tax replaces council tax then I would be ok with that. My fear is that we get the classic Labour approach opf land tax and social care levy on top of everything that is there today.

They’ll just slap it on it top of everything, the backbenchers will have a strop, it will be waived for those on benefits and to make up for that it will be 15% fir those with the ‘broadest shoulders’.

I suspect your right.

Absolutely agree that returns to social care need cross-party agreement - same goes for the NHS in general as well as education.

All of these reforms will take years to bed in and show results and it’s no use one party forcing something through if 4 years later it’s you going to be overturned.

<Podcast Plug Incoming>

There was an interesting discussion on today’s TRIP about how apprenticeships can be overhauled and the changes made to the education system to give technical qualifications more weight - very interested in particular about the Swiss system which sees young people automatically doing 3 year apprenticeships in their chosen line of work.

But as they said, true reforms will take 15-20 years to see the full benefits and will initially cost a lot of money, so there has to be political will on all sides.

There would be uproar if people actually had to shift their arses to get to the job centre.

I have to admit that I’m very cynical about the realities of fixing youth unemployment. There’s a premium on money without effort. And we’ve lost the sense of disapproval of being out of work for no good reason. Plus the bollocks about ‘influencing’, ‘content creation’ and the like.

The NHS should stop the difference between what they can fund and what they can’t. Dementia and Alzheimers should be treated the same as other diseases , the trouble is it isn’t at all.

This £4,500 payment to parents to stop them holding back their children really highlights the problem. Some people just see their kids as benefits cash cows.

What parent would rather their child didn't get out in the real world and start a career? These are the perverse attitudes any government is up against.

Part of it I’m sure is that for families on universal credit all the child elements paid by the DWP for years just stop at 18/19 so the parents are left with a huge drop in “income”. The solution in many of their eyes is to get the kids claiming benefits as soon as possible to make up the shortfall in the household.

They seem to manage to shift their arses to get to the pub.

You had to sign on every two weeks in the 80s. It’s probably not feasible these days to have people queuing up to sign a piece of paper though. I am not sure if people have to attend job clubs or still go to the job centre these days , but must be something in place ?