So now there's two caps, minimum they can leave you with 100k property, and maximum (as yet unquantified) they can take towards the car- the latter being the u-turn.
So now there's two caps, minimum they can leave you with 100k property, and maximum (as yet unquantified) they can take towards the car- the latter being the u-turn.
What is the existing rule again, briefly?
On funding means rested:
Care in your own home takes no account of the house value. So you get help if you have less than £23k.
In a care home they do take account of your house value, same £23k cap but including house so below which you get financial help.
I thought Labour's main problem was an incompetent leader. Watching Mike Kane, the Shadow School Minister, now on Newsnight, and I can't believe the Labour leadership has allowed him to be interviewed. As each day goes by I am staggered by the incompetence that seems endemic across the whole shadow cabinet.
Corbyn has been hampered by right wingers in the party pissing in his tent. His appointments have been thus limited. This election will change his options and I doubt Dianne Abbott will be a player going forward.
The social care issue is very difficult to solve and neither the conservatives (who came up with a complete dog of a policy) or labour (who don't really know what they are trying to achieve) have anything sensible as far as I can see.
A sensible policy would be to ringfence national insurance towards NHS and pensions, either to increase contributions or to mandate an additional insurance requirement into a government pooled pot managed by current players in that market, insurers mainly but perhaps investment management firms.
Collective pooling of risk works. It works best the larger the number of contributors and the smaller the number of providers.
It's a classic for a national policy, bigger and better government, the sort of idealogical debate Corbyn, if he was a. It less wet and therefore not himself, would be forcing.
He is trying hard though and his policies are good.
There is no doubt for me that there are certain services that are best run with central control. Mainly those where there is a virtual monopoly or oligarchy. Appropriate levels of accountability and transparency are key to this but achievable.
Power, rail, public transport generally, pensions, road infrastructure, libraries, arts infrastructure and funding, prisons, defence spend, social housing, health service
There is a role here for private investment, for local government to have a say, but these for me are national and local interest issues.
So now there's two caps, minimum they can leave you with 100k property, and maximum (as yet unquantified) they can take towards the car- the latter being the u-turn.
What is the existing rule again, briefly?
It's not quite a U-turn as nothing has been stated in definite, just that there will be a green paper on the subject. You can't be held to account if you do not provide any details. Straight from the Lynton Crosby school of thought, try to shift the discussion or "throw a dead cat on the table".
The existing and proposed future rules are quite complex from what I remember.
If you live in your house and get care there, then the house price is not included. This favours those who themselves, their insurance or their family can afford in home care.
There are other assets that are not included like insurance written into trust, some pension assets and so on.
The details of conservative and labour do not really deal with the complexity of this.
But at a very high level, the Conservatove manifesto is aiming for private provision. If you are unlucky enough as a family to have high cost of services, you bear them.
Labour manifesto is more about jointly funding any such costs. The family that is lucky enough not to have these costs in this life still pays, who knows, tomorrow they may need it.
This is why, despite having a decent job that allows me to pay separately for medical, death, care, school fees, I will vote labour.
Why does care cost 50k a year? I thought the care industry was really poorly paid. We seem to have accepted the ridiculous cost and now forcing people to pay it. Is there a genuine reason or is someone just getting rich on it? I'm asking as I don't know.
Using the equity in your family home is not the answer, the housing crisis means multi generational homes are becoming a reality and this policy is a ticking time bomb for future generation. Future generations will be forced to sell and then require social house. It's about time the policies thought of the future rather than the next 5 years.
Tories have scored an own goal as the SE, a Tory stronghold, will be badly affected. It's a miscalculated policy and an embarrassing U turn due to the latest poll.
Clearly most are profit organisations, my own experience with up to 25 residents in my fathers wing there is roughly 12 staff on at anyone time plus manager of the home overall, an admin clerk, cook etc. Possibly less over night but of course it is 24hr and a lot of dementia suffers don't know the difference between night & day.
If you said overall an average 10 staff with on cost £15 an hour is roughly £3.6k a day or £110k a month.
£110k / 25 = £4.4k a month per resident.
Not all homes will have that number of staff to residents but later stage dementia wings generally will. You then sadly have to build in that numbers of residents will fluctuate.
That's all before building costs, laundry, food etc etc.
Teresa May's interview with Andrew Neil last night completely embarrassed her. She was pathetic, did not answer questions, repeated same answers, just awful. Pity Labour is not a viable opposition.
Just noticed that the parties have suspended campaigning for a short period following the tragic incident last night. Not sure what people's views are but it may be appropriate to mirror their break with a pause in this thread - leaving it pinned to the top of the homepage so it can be reopened when the campaign recommences in a short while. Totally understand why the parties don't want to be taking politics at the moment - I would be happy to mirror that on this site.
All parties have suspended their election campaigns after the recent tragic event in Manchester. I suggest we do so too. Some people just logging in are probably not aware of it. We can't allow this evil to beat us and we beat them by carrying on, but maybe it is best to suspend this thread in line with what the political parties are doing and re-open it when they feel the time is right to carry on.
Question: If anyone knows the answer from what Erase My Hat has now u-turned to? It arises from an individual on the news last night. Background: he was a pensioner who was the live-in carer for his ancient mother. I don't think she was suffering with dementia but was very, very frail. The carer was assisted by home visits three times a day. Currently they don't pay anything for this. For these purposes, I am assuming the mother owned the house. Let's say it's worth £300k. So, now the house would come into the equation, correct? Okay there may be a cap. Upon her death, let's say for the sake of argument, that her estate owes the local council £150k. Does the carer have to sell the house to pay the debt? Will he become homeless? Does anyone know? What if it's a married couple and the surviving spouse is still in the house?
Some people like CAFCfan will wake up and go straight to this thread without knowing what has happened or reading previous threads. Totally understandable. It is probably best to suspend the thread and re-open it as Damo says when the election campaigning resumes if that is possible.
As I understand it, all parties have suspended campaigning again today so may not be any specific talking points. But may I just add that can we please try and avoid any of that unnecessary silliness that was happening on the terrorist attack thread, spilling over onto here today if you choose to post.
It was a gut wrenching, horrible day yesterday and I think this whole country is going to be in a very sombre mood as more facts emerge. Let's us try and show a bit of respect by keeping it civil
Seems hard to even consider an election after this shocking action against children. Perhaps it will be suspended, campaigning certainly should be maybe until next week.
That cartoon's dreadful and as we are in Daily Mail bashing mode only three national newspapers* didn't run the Tories u-turn on care costs yesterday on their front page. No prizes for guessing what the other main one was either.
I know people will say it's only BA getting on his soapbox about the right wing press in this country again but these are the two best selling newspapers in the UK and whether their readers realise it or not they have a huge influence on how an issue is perceived by the public.
I feel Corbyn is weak on this and defence, but to splash this all over immediately in the wake of yesterday's events is absolutely disgusting oppprtunism.
The issue we have now is that we don't know how many bombs are out there. It is possible it was just the one. Election campaigns attract crowds - Party leaders have to get amongst the people. I think it would be wise to suspend the election if the police are not confident of people's safety. They have to make their enquiries which has to be the priority.
I feel Corbyn is weak on this and defence, but to splash this all over immediately in the wake of yesterday's events is absolutely disgusting oppprtunism.
I think part of the reason those newspapers are making so much of it is not because Corbyn is weak on this, but that May is.
We could have a debate that Corbyn was one of 13 MPs who voted against actions that saw the rise of Islamic State but it feels wrong having that debate. This is one area everybody should unite on and to be fair all the major parties seem to be doing this. There may be disagreement on how best to tackle the threat we all face, but that is surely a good thing. Better undertsanding of things never did bad!
The issue we have now is that we don't know how many bombs are out there. It is possible it was just the one. Election campaigns attract crowds - Party leaders have to get amongst the people. I think it would be wise to suspend the election if the police are not confident of people's safety. They have to make their enquiries which has to be the priority.
It wouldn't be putting a stop to it, but delaying it. I am saying the call has to come from the police. They have to be confident of people's safety.
Sorry but I disagree. The civilised world has to get on with its life. Certainly put in place greater security and encourage everyone to be vigilant but I wouldn't want too much postponed as a consequence of this latest outrage. There will be crowds of people coming together up and down the country day in day out from elelectioneering to village fetes. Impossible to stop someone intent on causing mayhem.
Maybe worth reflecting that what we are experiencing is relatively normal in some parts of the world. To delay it would not be a good signal to people who risk their lives whenever they vote.
Comments
What is the existing rule again, briefly?
Care in your own home takes no account of the house value. So you get help if you have less than £23k.
In a care home they do take account of your house value, same £23k cap but including house so below which you get financial help.
tent. His appointments have been thus limited. This election will change his options and I doubt Dianne Abbott will be a player going forward.
The social care issue is very difficult to solve and neither the conservatives (who came up with a complete dog of a policy) or labour (who don't really know what they are trying to achieve) have anything sensible as far as I can see.
A sensible policy would be to ringfence national insurance towards NHS and pensions, either to increase contributions or to mandate an additional insurance requirement into a government pooled pot managed by current players in that market, insurers mainly but perhaps investment management firms.
Collective pooling of risk works. It works best the larger the number of contributors and the smaller the number of providers.
It's a classic for a national policy, bigger and better government, the sort of idealogical debate Corbyn, if he was a. It less wet and therefore not himself, would be forcing.
He is trying hard though and his policies are good.
There is no doubt for me that there are certain services that are best run with central control. Mainly those where there is a virtual monopoly or oligarchy. Appropriate levels of accountability and transparency are key to this but achievable.
Power, rail, public transport generally, pensions, road infrastructure, libraries, arts infrastructure and funding, prisons, defence spend, social housing, health service
There is a role here for private investment, for local government to have a say, but these for me are national and local interest issues.
What sort of country do you want to live in?
If you live in your house and get care there, then the house price is not included. This favours those who themselves, their insurance or their family can afford in home care.
There are other assets that are not included like insurance written into trust, some pension assets and so on.
The details of conservative and labour do not really deal with the complexity of this.
But at a very high level, the Conservatove manifesto is aiming for private provision. If you are unlucky enough as a family to have high cost of services, you bear them.
Labour manifesto is more about jointly funding any such costs. The family that is lucky enough not to have these costs in this life still pays, who knows, tomorrow they may need it.
This is why, despite having a decent job that allows me to pay separately for medical, death, care, school fees, I will vote labour.
Using the equity in your family home is not the answer, the housing crisis means multi generational homes are becoming a reality and this policy is a ticking time bomb for future generation. Future generations will be forced to sell and then require social house. It's about time the policies thought of the future rather than the next 5 years.
Tories have scored an own goal as the SE, a Tory stronghold, will be badly affected. It's a miscalculated policy and an embarrassing U turn due to the latest poll.
If you said overall an average 10 staff with on cost £15 an hour is roughly £3.6k a day or £110k a month.
£110k / 25 = £4.4k a month per resident.
Not all homes will have that number of staff to residents but later stage dementia wings generally will. You then sadly have to build in that numbers of residents will fluctuate.
That's all before building costs, laundry, food etc etc.
So, now the house would come into the equation, correct? Okay there may be a cap. Upon her death, let's say for the sake of argument, that her estate owes the local council £150k.
Does the carer have to sell the house to pay the debt? Will he become homeless? Does anyone know? What if it's a married couple and the surviving spouse is still in the house?
Might be worth considering doing the same on here.
We need a bit of levity given recent tragic events
Daily Mail cartoon yesterday. Shows what Corbyn is up against.
It was a gut wrenching, horrible day yesterday and I think this whole country is going to be in a very sombre mood as more facts emerge. Let's us try and show a bit of respect by keeping it civil
I know people will say it's only BA getting on his soapbox about the right wing press in this country again but these are the two best selling newspapers in the UK and whether their readers realise it or not they have a huge influence on how an issue is perceived by the public.
*other one was The Star.
Exactly what the bombers would see as a victory.