The Labour Party under Andy Burnham

[Tetchytyke]

Save towards a good pension, or just save, and when you come to need care the government will not only have it all off you in care-home fees until you're nearly broke whilst at the same time expecting you through higher-than-necessary fees to subsidise those who have never bothered to save but will pay out for the latter group to be looked after just as if they had saved.

If your care is being funded by the taxpayer then you don't really get much say in where you are placed. You certainly don't get treated the same as those who are paying privately.

My late mother-in-law paid privately, the annuity she purchased for her care home fees cost her almost £200,000, and because of that she had choice in where she went. So her room was on the top floor of a seafront care home, and the care home was more like a four-star hotel than anything else. Private payers only.

Of course the real issue with care home fees is the rampant exploitation of older people by the care home operators. The big players are all loaded up to the eyeballs in debt, debt "borrowed" from other companies in the group headquartered in places like the BVI and the Cayman Islands at very high interest rates. You also have the care homes being owned by companies in these jurisdictions through sale-and-leaseback arrangements, again at high rental prices.

Yet even after these interest payments and rental payments have been made, the care homes are running at a 15% profit margin. Factor in the interest and rent payments going to the companies related to the controllers of the care homes, and the profit margins are often closer to 30%.

Ending extraction in the UK care system

A good practice guide to maximising public value through procurement

publication.cles.org.uk

A recent report for the Scottish Trades Union Council found one large care home group could be extracting up to 22% of revenue through interest and rental payments to related parties, with most rent being paid to a related company located in a tax haven

 

[jon0844]

If your care is being funded by the taxpayer then you don't really get much say in where you are placed. You certainly don't get treated the same as those who are paying privately.

My late mother-in-law paid privately, the annuity she purchased for her care home fees cost her almost £200,000, and because of that she had choice in where she went. So her room was on the top floor of a seafront care home, and the care home was more like a four-star hotel than anything else. Private payers only.

Of course the real issue with care home fees is the rampant exploitation of older people by the care home operators. The big players are all loaded up to the eyeballs in debt, debt "borrowed" from other companies in the group headquartered in places like the BVI and the Cayman Islands at very high interest rates. You also have the care homes being owned by companies in these jurisdictions through sale-and-leaseback arrangements, again at high rental prices.

Yet even after these interest payments and rental payments have been made, the care homes are running at a 15% profit margin. Factor in the interest and rent payments going to the companies related to the controllers of the care homes, and the profit margins are often closer to 30%.

Ending extraction in the UK care system

A good practice guide to maximising public value through procurement

publication.cles.org.uk

And yet the humble care worker receives very little pay for what is very hard work.

These are the sorts of thing Labour could and should be trying to fix, along with a multitude of other issues that get talked about on numerous forums (explaining just how bad the exploitation is by big businesses, investors/hedge funds/private equity) and yet seem to go untouched - presumably because a lot of people involved are closely connected to politics.

 

[Harpo]

And yet the humble care worker receives very little pay for what is very hard work.

And get treated very poorly. Seeing care workers huddled together in winter coats in a single car outside of a nearby care home appals me.

 

[martin butler]

What sort of level of nursing or end of life care do you think people who have not saved should have?

Often, though, People who have not been able to save, often, it's because they did not have the disposable income to be able to save, and for the next generation, that's going to be an issue, many now are living paycheck to paycheck, With little to no savings.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Nov 2025 ==

And get treated very poorly. Seeing care workers huddled together in winter coats in a single car outside of a nearby care home appals me.

And When Farage's version of ICE, gets going, most likely made up of fellow racists, they and NHS nurses will be the first to be rounded up,
After all, Reform said that even those with right to remain, won't be safe,

billionaires won't care that nursing homes will be closing because they can't get staff, or the NHS has collapsed because there aren't enough nurses, or doctors, nor will the racists, until they get ill, or have to be rushed to A&E.

 

[Senex]

If your care is being funded by the taxpayer then you don't really get much say in where you are placed. You certainly don't get treated the same as those who are paying privately.

My late mother-in-law paid privately, the annuity she purchased for her care home fees cost her almost £200,000, and because of that she had choice in where she went. So her room was on the top floor of a seafront care home, and the care home was more like a four-star hotel than anything else. Private payers only.

Of course the real issue with care home fees is the rampant exploitation of older people by the care home operators. The big players are all loaded up to the eyeballs in debt, debt "borrowed" from other companies in the group headquartered in places like the BVI and the Cayman Islands at very high interest rates. You also have the care homes being owned by companies in these jurisdictions through sale-and-leaseback arrangements, again at high rental prices.

Yet even after these interest payments and rental payments have been made, the care homes are running at a 15% profit margin. Factor in the interest and rent payments going to the companies related to the controllers of the care homes, and the profit margins are often closer to 30%.

Ending extraction in the UK care system

A good practice guide to maximising public value through procurement

publication.cles.org.uk

Do those forms of insuring yourself against care-home fees still exist? I thought there was a move quite a while back to get the insurance industry to provide such schemes and they did for a while appear, but then with costs rocketing the companies involved all withdrew from the market. Was your mother-in-law lucky enough to be able to buy when such an annuity was still available? I suppose if one had to pay out of simple savings £200,000 would now only buy you two to three years' stay.

You're so right about the care-home operators and their profit-margins (that a state that on't grasp the nettle and deal with the issue has happily allowed). The other side of that is the lousy pay for those who actually work in those homes, which we've all heard about. There was an interesting interview on the radio a few days ago — I don't remember which programme — about water bills. A Liverpool man who had worked in care provision for 30 years had separated from his long-time partner and for the first time had to deal with all his own bills. And, to cut the story short, he found that when he'd paid rent, council-tax, electricity, etc, he really didn't have enough to live on. What sort of a set-up have we got into when a single person who's been consistently employed through the greater part of a working life can't afford to live modestly decently?

The care-home profits come in part from the excessive charges for those who have to pay themselves, support for specially-discounted water and fuel tariffs comes not from government but from other customers of a particular provider as a surcharge on the tariffs they pay — and on top of all that we have one of the world's most complex taxation systems. When will we ever get a government to sort out a simple and fair taxation system to provide health and care services for all those who pay (i.e. no means-testing, so that all benefit and all have a real stake in the system), also to insist that all employers pay at least a minimum wage that allows a single person to live decently (not luxuriously)?

The answer, unfortunately, is certainly not during what's left of my life-time, if ever. Things just get worse. It seemed there was a new low under Boris Johnson, but Starmer and Reeve have managed to plumb new depths. Come the next election, what do those of us who say to the traditional main parties "a plague on both your houses" but could not bring ourselves to vote for the woolly leftishness of the LibDems to the Greens do?

 

[Tester]

Come the next election, what do those of us who say to the traditional main parties "a plague on both your houses" but could not bring ourselves to vote for the woolly leftishness of the LibDems to the Greens do?

Perhaps decide that woolly leftishness might not be so bad after all?

 

[martin butler]

Perhaps decide that woolly leftishness might not be so bad after all?

If you compare that to what an extreme right-wing government would do, especially one based on personalities, not on competence, advised by the American far right pressure groups, The greens or Lib Dems, might be the safer bet.

 

[Broucek]

I'm fine with the whole care home thing. My mum has just sold her bungalow (not London / South East so a decent sum but not silly money). If she lives a good while then the money will be all gone and my sister and me will get nothing. Which is fine! Why should the taxpayer support us getting an inheritence? (And it would tend to be kids of better off parents who would benefit the most and, in many cases will have benefited from having better off parents.)

 

[jon0844]

billionaires won't care that nursing homes will be closing because they can't get staff, or the NHS has collapsed because there aren't enough nurses, or doctors, nor will the racists, until they get ill, or have to be rushed to A&E.

Well, quite.

If you close more and more A&Es so people have further to go to a hospital with a life-threatening condition, and end up sat outside in a queue, there's a good chance a number will be DOA.

It's a bit like the sick people who were caught during Covid suggesting that a virus that mostly killed the elderly or those with other health conditions would take pressure off the NHS - implying it was some sort of miracle cure to the problem of providing healthcare to the sick and needy.

As long as the well off have access to private healthcare they should be okay, although I am not sure if they realise when it comes to accidents and emergencies, they're likely not going to be given any special treatment.

 

[styles]

Often, though, People who have not been able to save, often, it's because they did not have the disposable income to be able to save, and for the next generation, that's going to be an issue, many now are living paycheck to paycheck, With little to no savings.

While there is clear a cost of living crisis at the moment, I think the idea that 'often' workers are unable to save into a pension over their entire working lives.

I've worked with 50 year olds in finance, earning over £100k, who had no idea how their salary sacrifice pension scheme worked, or even about the 60% income tax they were paying on some of their income.

Many people make a choice to opt out of pensions, or to spend money in the here and now rather than save. The UK also has an unhealthy aversion to investing in assets other than cash. My partner is like this - cash ISAs every day even when saving for something likely 20 years away.

The UK has been bad at this for as long as I've been alive; the cost of living crisis may make it a bit worse, but it's really an entrenched cultural attitude towards savings and investments in my view.

 

[sor]

Many people make a choice to opt out of pensions, or to spend money in the here and now rather than save. The UK also has an unhealthy aversion to investing in assets other than cash. My partner is like this - cash ISAs every day even when saving for something likely 20 years away.

The UK has been bad at this for as long as I've been alive; the cost of living crisis may make it a bit worse, but it's really an entrenched cultural attitude towards savings and investments in my view.

Unless that asset is a buy to let house - then the British public can't get enough of it! Even better still if it's inherited.

Though I do question if this is the right time for the government to be encouraging the use of S&S ISAs and other investments given that the US economy (and specifically a handful of "tech" firms) is in a bubble. An already risk averse public isn't going to be happy if they quickly lose money, even if it eventually recovers

 

[Harpo]

Kier Starmer reckons he’ll lead the Labour party into the next election. I’m guessing he means ‘leadership election’?

 

[DarloRich]

Well, I have to say the recent announcements on immigrants have gone down very well with real people. I know fellow lefties will be hand wringing and conscience waving like mad but real people seem happy with them.

My football chat group ( people I go to the match with, all middle aged northern white blokes) seem to be very supportive of the ideas. It is a broad church of political views. The main negative statement was "why has it taken so long"!

CLEARLY: This is anecdotal and based on a small sample but the people, like me, who I expected to be horrified by these plans were broadly supportive. I suspect that some of the members of the group are on the Farage bus with a couple more waiting at the bus stop. Anything that stops those people boarding that bus is a positive because otherwise we will have a Fargaist government of chaos.

I know this is going to create blowback but the time for trying to influence views has been and gone. Normal people think ( rightly or wrongly) that there are too many forins coming here and want it stopped. If Labour aren't seen to do that they will be booted out.

The UK has been bad at this for as long as I've been alive; the cost of living crisis may make it a bit worse, but it's really an entrenched cultural attitude towards savings and investments in my view.

Based on a long history of normal people getting rinsed by poor behaviour and failures of companies with whom they invested hard earnt money. My late father paid into a fund for years ( standard life?) He got almost nothing back. That put me off pensions for a long time. What's the point of giving over your money if you are going to get rinsed? may as well spend it now.

 

[styles]

Based on a long history of normal people getting rinsed by poor behaviour and failures of companies with whom they invested hard earnt money. My late father paid into a fund for years ( standard life?) He got almost nothing back. That put me off pensions for a long time. What's the point of giving over your money if you are going to get rinsed? may as well spend it now.

The problem is our pensions often don't work to change this behaviour, instead investing in lower risk assets.

Take NEST for example, one of the biggest workplace pension providers. When you join as someone in their early 20s, NEST aim to simply beat inflation for 5 years. That's crap, I could beat inflation with a high interest savings account if that's all I wanted (though I wouldn't get tax relief). The theory is that it prevents younger investors getting spooked if their investments go down. The problem is, if you're saving for retirement then investing in assets which are more volatile but more likely to result in greater gains in the long term is best done as early as possible. The lost gains will be compounded for up to what 40 years or more. Providers like NEST should instead be educating their investors to put their minds at ease and encourage investing in say equities rather than low yield bonds.

Even once you leave this 'foundation phase', NEST's default retirement dated funds are only a little over 50% equities. It's absurd. Their Sharia fund used to be 100% equities, and as you can see in the investment reports, it outperforms their other funds by a country mile. However they recently discovered sukuk, which are basically Sharia compliant bonds, and practically overnight they changed their asset allocation to be 30% bonds. Most people don't get a choice in who their workplace pension is with, so people assigned a NEST pension are basically getting short changed no matter what. The only way around it is to, every month, if permitted, transfer out of NEST to a SIPP where you can choose a more sensible investment. But that requires time, effort, and knowledge.

The FCA was going to start RAG rating pension providers and showing a greater rating for those investing in equities than those investing in say cash or low yield bonds. But I think Labour canned the idea in the end.

Edit, here is the FCA Value For Money Framework which was proposed https://www.fca.org.uk/publications/consultation-papers/cp24-16-value-for-money-framework (I won't add a quote into this post as it's very detailed).

 

[alex397]

Well, I have to say the recent announcements on immigrants have gone down very well with real people. I know fellow lefties will be hand wringing and conscience waving like mad but real people seem happy with them.

My football chat group ( people I go to the match with, all middle aged northern white blokes) seem to be very supportive of the ideas. It is a broad church of political views. The main negative statement was "why has it taken so long"!

Interesting to hear opinions from different groups of people. I often assume fellow left-wing voters will have similar views to me, but of course everyone is different. I am perhaps in a bit of a bubble sometimes.
In my friendship group and online communities, Labour’s announcements haven’t really gone down well. It’s too similar to Tory ideals, so there may be a loss of ‘left wing’ votes for Labour.

Are Labour maybe making the same mistakes as the Tories? They tried to get the Reform vote with their policies. Will those who are strongly opposed to immigration just vote for Reform anyway?

However, it could be positive for Labour with more centre-left, or centrist votes if these voters think Labour are moving in the right direction with this. There may be plenty who want stronger borders but are also strongly opposed to Reform, so they may vote for Labour.

My annoyance is how much attention this topic takes up in the news. It’s an important issue, but I think there are far more important things that affect our day to day lives. Now policy will reflect this, which will have a real impact on other human’s lives. Humans who don’t really have much in life.
It’s maybe one of those chicken and egg scenarios - is immigration important in the media and policy because the general public are strongly opposed? Or is the general public strongly opposed because of the constant negativity of it from the media and certain politicians?

 

[styles]

My annoyance is how much attention this topic takes up in the news. It’s an important issue, but I think there are far more important things that affect our day to day lives.

Someone asked this on question time. I can't remember the exact numbers but their question was along the lines of - 200 people arrive by small boats each week and it's all we talk about; there's over 4 million children living in poverty; what sort of difference could we make if we dedicated as much time to the 4 million children living in poverty as we do the 200 arriving in small boats?

 

[brad465]

Immigration/asylum is one of those areas where left and right can be contradictory based on whether social or economic policy is used. Control on migration is left wing economically (state intervention in the labour market), but right wing socially (preservation of culture). Likewise, looser migration rules are left wing socially (diversity of culture) but right wing economically (free market).

 

[bleeder4]

I lean to the right politically so, as you might expect, support the proposed immigration/asylum changes. It is a divisive topic though and one that I am surprised to see a Labour government going for. But if they can get it through then fair play to them.

 

[Broucek]

For me, it's not just about the people coming here. It's also about the competence of government to apply the law.

And if we want to help people fleeing Southern Sudan or Syria, it would be better to do so locally. People who come to the UK from those places are NOT the most vulnerable - they are those with enough strength for the journey and enough money (or future labour capacity) to pay the people smugglers. (And that's ignoring people who are not from those hellholes but relatively stable countries like Tunisia.)

 

[Tetchytyke]

And if we want to help people fleeing Southern Sudan or Syria, it would be better to do so locally. People who come to the UK from those places are NOT the most vulnerable - they are those with enough strength for the journey and enough money (or future labour capacity) to pay the people smugglers.

This is a consequence of decades of government policy though. If you gradually pull up the drawbridge on legal migration and asylum routes then all you end up with is 'survival of the fittest' unlawful migration routes.

The people who aren't strong enough or wealthy enough to leave get blown to pieces. Those who are a bit stronger and a bit wealthier move a short distance. Turkey is currently hosting 3,600,000 displaced people, mostly Syrians (and that figure is not including the Kurdish). It's only the strongest and wealthiest who make their way from eastern Turkey all the way across Europe to France and then to the UK.

Turkey hosting 3.6 million refugees also rather puts the 36,000 boat people into perspective.

I know this is going to create blowback but the time for trying to influence views has been and gone. Normal people think ( rightly or wrongly) that there are too many forins coming here and want it stopped. If Labour aren't seen to do that they will be booted out.

Racism and xenophobia has never been very far under the surface in the UK and the current political climate has allowed it to rear its ugly head again.

I know the sorts of people who support Tommy Ten Names get very upset if you say they're racist, they just have legitimate concerns, but the simple fact is that they are racist. It's not about migrants or asylum seekers or the small boats with these people, it's about sending the buggers back. No blacks, no Irish, no dogs.

You talk about white Northern football fans. Football still has a huge racism problem. The football fans complaining about the boats will, in more cases than they'd like to admit, also have been the ones chucking bananas at black players back in the 80s. The racism went under the surface for a bit but it didn't go away. This issue has just become an acceptable proxy for out and out racism.

However, racists have exactly the same votes as the rest of us, and Reform know this as well as anyone.

It's why I despair of the likes of Kemi Badenoch and Shabana Mahmood deciding to kick downwards. Badenoch is only allowed to be in this country at all because of her mother's illegal migration and because of a citizenship loophole which was closed in 1983. She really really ought to button it about illegal economic migration.

Shabana Mahmood talked in Parliament yesterday about the racist abuse she receives but she appears to believe that if she pulls the drawbridge up then the racism will stop. But my opinion is that many of the people wanting to stop the boats would also, if they were being truly honest, admit that they believe that second and third generation migrants should also be sent back to where they came from.

As for Labour being booted out, that will happen anyway unless they stop banging on about Reform talking points. They can't out-Reform Reform. Whatever performative cruelty Labour (or the Tories) come up with, Reform will always take it one step further.

The Guardian's editorial from yesterday sums it up for me:

In post-Brexit politics, it’s hard to see how one out-Farages Nigel Farage. Yet that is what the Labour government is attempting to do. Copying Reform UK’s cruelty on asylum lets Mr Farage own the issue, outbid Labour and drive the debate rightward at no cost. Worse, Labour increases the salience of an issue that it cannot solve on its own – and gifts rightwingers the advantage, while setting itself up to look cruel and incompetent.

The Guardian view on Labour’s asylum plans: ministers cannot out-Farage the far right and should stop trying | Editorial

Editorial: Shabana Mahmood’s asylum overhaul burdens an overstretched system and hands political advantage to her opponents

www.theguardian.com

Nothing Labour say will be enough for the Reform lot. But what Labour are currently saying is distasteful to their existing voter base. Upsetting your voter base to attract voters who will never vote for you is an interesting strategy.

 

[DarloRich]

You talk about white Northern football fans. Football still has a huge racism problem. The football fans complaining about the boats will, in more cases than they'd like to admit, also have been the ones chucking bananas at black players back in the 80s.

They would have been quite young to have been chucking bananas! I have certainly never done anything like that and am upset if you think I would or that I would hang around with people who did.

As for Labour being booted out, that will happen anyway unless they stop banging on about Reform talking points. They can't out-Reform Reform. Whatever performative cruelty Labour (or the Tories) come up with, Reform will always take it one step further.

I think we as lefties have to take a look at the world that exists not the world we want to exist. I maintain that the time for influencing the debate has been and gone. We have lost the argument. The public, rightly or wrongly want to see action on immigration. Rightly or wrongly they think ( generated by crackpot media coverage no doubt) that there are to many people coming here.

This view is especially prevalent in northern working class areas where immigration is actually lower than where I live. We have to acknowledge that or be swept away by Farage and his clowns. If you think it is bad now....................

EDIT:

Do I like this - no!

Is this required - unsure

Is this politically expedient - yes

 

[Ted633]

Shabana Mahmood talked in Parliament yesterday about the racist abuse she receives but she appears to believe that if she pulls the drawbridge up then the racism will stop. But my opinion is that many of the people wanting to stop the boats would also, if they were being truly honest, admit that they believe that second and third generation migrants should also be sent back to where they came from.

This is absolutely spot on. Just look at the comments on social media when a British born person who isn’t white commits a crime. Constant calls for them to be deported even though they are British citizens.
Cases in point: the recent LNER stabbing, the grooming gangs etc

 

[jon0844]

GB News is in hot water with Ofcom* over a 'feature' that looked at the names of offenders in different areas to conclude that it's mostly foreigners committing crimes. Clearly if you're name is Mohammed, you absolutely cannot be British in their eyes.

* Ofcom will likely do very little, and GB News' viewers will claim it to be a witch-hunt etc.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I think we as lefties have to take a look at the world that exists not the world we want to exist. I maintain that the time for influencing the debate has been and gone. We have lost the argument.

Ten years ago the EU was why everything in this country is ****. So the people voted Brexit for those sunlit uplands but the country is still ****. So now it’s the fault of brown people on pedalos. This is right across the media landscape.

I don’t know whether the argument has been won or lost. I don’t even know whether there is an argument to win or lose or whether, if there is, it has even been heard.

We are in a cycle where the far right say something inflammatory and the left respond by saying how mean the right are. The result is that we’re talking about what the far right want us to talk about and we’re talking about it on the far right’s terms.

The brown people on pedalos aren’t why you can’t get a GP appointment. The brown people on pedalos aren’t why HMRC will take two working weeks to answer the phone. The brown people on pedalos aren’t why we’re spending 15% of our tax revenue on interest payments for debt that Boris Johnson took out and handed over to Michelle Mone.

I’m not daft, I realise that my opinion is more of a minority opinion.

This view is especially prevalent in northern working class areas where immigration is actually lower than where I live. We have to acknowledge that or be swept away by Farage and his clowns. If you think it is bad now....................

Whatever Labour say and whatever the Tories say, Farage will take it one step further. Whatever performative cruelty Labour bring in, Reform will crank it up a notch. No matter how nasty Labour go, it’ll never be enough.

The way you beat Reform is by selling a different product. Maybe the people won’t want to buy it. But they’re certainly not going to buy Temu Farage from you, not when the OG is standing over there.

I don’t understand why Labour don’t seem to grasp this.

Just look at the comments on social media when a British born person who isn’t white commits a crime. Constant calls for them to be deported even though they are British citizens.

Yep. We saw this with the Southport killings. The killer had a foreign name and his parents were foreign. The killer himself was born in Cardiff. He was British, like it or not. Not that you’d ever know from the coverage, everyone screeching that he should be deported. Where to, who knows.

GB News is in hot water with Ofcom* over a 'feature' that looked at the names of offenders in different areas to conclude that it's mostly foreigners committing crimes. Clearly if you're name is Mohammed, you absolutely cannot be British in their eyes.

Bingo.

I’m not even sure what a “British name” is. I’d love to see their methodology. I have an Irish surname, I wonder whether that is white enough for them or whether my surname would have me marked down as one of them dirty forrins. Especially as I wasn’t born in Britain.

I have certainly never done anything like that and am upset if you think I would or that I would hang around with people who did.

I don’t think you would.

But I’m a Bradford City fan and it’s fairly common to hear chants about us being a “town full of p—-s”. It’s not all football fans, obviously, but clearly someone is chanting it.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 18 Nov 2025 ==

Interesting article from the Bureau of Investigative Journalists about the rise of AI immigrant ragebait slop on Facebook.

How racist AI Facebook posts made one Sri Lankan influencer rich

The content creator made his fortune from racist Facebook groups aimed at Brits; now he’s sharing his formula

www.thebureauinvestigates.com

• Geeth Sooriyapura, a Sri Lankan influencer, claims to have made $300,000 running Facebook pages and groups
  
  
• His UK politics pages promoting Islamophobic and anti-immigrant ideas have have amassed more than a million followers
  
  
• Generative AI allows him and his students to create content at speed and maximise ad revenue from viral posts

 

[DarloRich]

I don’t understand why Labour don’t seem to grasp this.

This is why. I found this flyer on my doormat when I got home from work. (Sigh)

Reform have 2 linked issues: boats and forigns. If labour can sort out this issue or even be SEEN to sort it out they defang reform considerably.

I agree those that want to vote reform will. You MIGHT be able to win back the undecided or shy voters.

(Btw this flyer and the other crackpot one about MK being overcrowded went straight in the recycling!)

 

[david1212]

..... Wasn't the Beveridge principle supposed to be to provide good services for those who had contributed plus a basic level of support for those who for whatever reason hadn't?

This is what my parents always understood and expected.

Due to a blunder by Social security / Social services in the end the state had to cover the full cost for the final 9 months of life when my father was in a Nursing home. Had he known that it should have been a charge against the house ( his funds were below the threshold ) he would have been livid.

If your care is being funded by the taxpayer then you don't really get much say in where you are placed. You certainly don't get treated the same as those who are paying privately.

My late mother-in-law paid privately, the annuity she purchased for her care home fees cost her almost £200,000, and because of that she had choice in where she went. So her room was on the top floor of a seafront care home, and the care home was more like a four-star hotel than anything else. Private payers only.
......

I'm fine with the whole care home thing. My mum has just sold her bungalow (not London / South East so a decent sum but not silly money). If she lives a good while then the money will be all gone and my sister and me will get nothing. Which is fine! Why should the taxpayer support us getting an inheritence? (And it would tend to be kids of better off parents who would benefit the most and, in many cases will have benefited from having better off parents.)

If someone chooses to use their funds to upgrade fine but the basic level should either be provided or paid as a contribution to the cost of the home of their choice.

... These are the sorts of thing Labour could and should be trying to fix, along with a multitude of other issues that get talked about on numerous forums (explaining just how bad the exploitation is by big businesses, investors/hedge funds/private equity) and yet seem to go untouched - presumably because a lot of people involved are closely connected to politics.

Save towards a good pension, or just save, and when you come to need care the government will not only have it all off you in care-home fees until you're nearly broke whilst at the same time expecting you through higher-than-necessary fees to subsidise those who have never bothered to save but will pay out for the latter group to be looked after just as if they had saved.....

Consider hypothetically two people who did exactly the same job at the same small company ( so no workplace pension and before the statuary Second State Pension / NEST ) from the end of education to retirement hence had exactly the same deductions for National Insurance and Income Tax.

One spent the majority of their nett income as they received it so never saved for a deposit on a house then bought with a mortgage but lived in rented property. Towards the end of their working years they saved a small amount to top up the state pension.

The other lived modestly, saved for the deposit then bought a house with a mortgage and as their disposable income increased built up a pension / savings.

While the first person will have returned more to the state in VAT the second person will have paid a proportion of the interest on their savings as tax. ( At 5% interest rate and 20% of interest taxable over 20 years the same as 20% VAT and they still have the capital plus 80% of the interest. If our economy was in better shape and the interest rate was 10% the tax equivalent to VAT would be paid in 10 years. )

Both go into a care home. The remaining savings that first person still has are under the threshold so they are fully funded. The second person has funds over the threshold plus as these fall the property is brought into consideration so they get nothing from the state.

This is totally unfair.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Reform have 2 linked issues: boats and forigns. If labour can sort out this issue or even be SEEN to sort it out they defang reform considerably.

The number of brown people arriving in pedalos is about half what it was at the height of the arrivals in 2022. August 2022 saw 8,600 arrive, August 2025 saw 3,500 arrive.

So whatever Labour have been doing has been working, at least to an extent.

It’s why I genuinely don’t think any of this is really about the brown people in pedalos.

ETA: A lot of it is emotional rather than fact based. And that’s almost impossible to argue against.

The places which have people who are most upset about immigration are the places where there is the least immigration. Mansfield is 95% white. Darlington is 96% white. Bishop Auckland is 98% white.

People sitting in a town which is 98% white arguing that Britain doesn’t feel British anymore and there are too many forrins? Really?

 

[jon0844]

The number of brown people arriving in pedalos is about half what it was at the height of the arrivals in 2022. August 2022 saw 8,600 arrive, August 2025 saw 3,500 arrive.

So whatever Labour have been doing has been working, at least to an extent.

It’s why I genuinely don’t think any of this is really about the brown people in pedalos.

ETA: A lot of it is emotional rather than fact based. And that’s almost impossible to argue against.

The places which have people who are most upset about immigration are the places where there is the least immigration. Mansfield is 95% white. Darlington is 96% white. Bishop Auckland is 98% white.

People sitting in a town which is 98% white arguing that Britain doesn’t feel British anymore and there are too many forrins? Really?

Yes a lot of very white areas do seem very deprived (Skegness, Clacton etc) but it is much easier to blame everything on people who are relatively recent arrivals and with darker skin - or indeed a different religion (as if all the residents were devout Christians).

What better way to cover for lack of council and Government funding and care, than shift the blame.

 

[oldman]

I’m not daft, I realise that my opinion is more of a minority opinion.

I half agree.

I suggest a lot of people believe the state should control who crosses its borders, and that criminal gangs being able to help people evade border controls for a price is not acceptable. I suggest they also believe that recent numbers of migrants have been too high.

Until these are tackled the social friction we have been seeing will only get worse. Tough on friction (jail rioters), tough on the causes of friction (control migration).

The way you beat Reform is by selling a different product

Which is what?

 

[AlterEgo]

Immigration/asylum is one of those areas where left and right can be contradictory based on whether social or economic policy is used. Control on migration is left wing economically (state intervention in the labour market), but right wing socially (preservation of culture). Likewise, looser migration rules are left wing socially (diversity of culture) but right wing economically (free market).

Agreed. One of the things which is fairly notable about Britain's political attitudes is many people may be right wing culturally and socially but left wing economically. Regardless, I think left and right are much less useful political distinctions than they have ever been.

The number of brown people arriving in pedalos is about half what it was at the height of the arrivals in 2022. August 2022 saw 8,600 arrive, August 2025 saw 3,500 arrive.

So whatever Labour have been doing has been working, at least to an extent.

It’s why I genuinely don’t think any of this is really about the brown people in pedalos.

ETA: A lot of it is emotional rather than fact based. And that’s almost impossible to argue against.

It is almost entirely to do with the fact people feel forgotten and the social contract has evaporated. Austerity has a lot to answer for.