The Labour Party under Andy Burnham

[8ace]

I find subscriptions where you have to phone to cancel the most irritating. You should be able to cancel online if you’ve taken up the sub online. Happy with auto renewal as an option. Off by default.

Anyway, this is small beer. Still waiting to find out what Burnham is actually going to do.

I had this with something a few years ago (I can't recall what), so I emailed them and said that I was deaf (I'm not) so couldn't speak to someone on the blower. Sub cancelled straight away

 

[styles]

I had this with something a few years ago (I can't recall what), so I emailed them and said that I was deaf (I'm not) so couldn't speak to someone on the blower. Sub cancelled straight away

I'm gonna try this one next time I hit a brick wall with emails!

 

[75A]

Interesting to read that Mr Burnham is a Season Ticket Holder @ Everton F.C. So Manchester isn't quite his favourite place then.

 

[styles]

Interesting to read that Mr Burnham is a Season Ticket Holder @ Everton F.C. So Manchester isn't quite his favourite place then.

He was part of a pitch invasion in the 80s if I remember rightly.

 

[Yew]

Looks like there could be some big shakeups in social care in the pipeline.

Andy Burnham proposes NHS-style social care system for England

The prime minister told the BBC that social care in England is "as unfair as American healthcare".

www.bbc.co.uk

Andy Burnham wants to offer access to free social care services to everyone in England, and will put his plans before voters at the next general election.

The prime minister told the BBC that it would be a system in which "everyone contributes, everyone is covered". He did not rule out tax rises, acknowledging it may be "difficult or unpopular" with some.

Burnham said he wants to set out his "vision" on Tuesday and Whitehall troubleshooter Baroness Casey, who is conducting a review, will advise on the "best way of doing it".

 

[brad465]

I still think assisted dying should be part of any social care plan. It doesn't matter how much one has to pay for it, in whatever form, for some death is preferable to a life of 24/7 care with no serious understanding of who one is or what's going on around them.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Looks like there could be some big shakeups in social care in the pipeline.

Andy Burnham proposes NHS-style social care system for England

The prime minister told the BBC that social care in England is "as unfair as American healthcare".

www.bbc.co.uk

Laudable but it will come at a huge cost and further undermine the family unit.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Looks like there could be some big shakeups in social care in the pipeline.

More tax on us Gen X and millennials to hand freebies out to the boomers who created this mess in the first place. It’s bad enough having to pay the pensions of people who retired at 60 when I won’t get to retire until 70.

No thanks.

The issue with social care in the UK funding, it is private equity cash grabbing.

 

[brad465]

More tax on us Gen X and millennials to hand freebies out to the boomers who created this mess in the first place. It’s bad enough having to pay the pensions of people who retired at 60 when I won’t get to retire until 70.

No thanks.

The issue with social care in the UK funding, it is private equity cash grabbing.

Depends, a lot councils are cash-strapped in part because of how much money they have to spend on social care. If they are relieved of this as a result of a dedicated fund, then a whole host of other issues get dealt with better that benefits all generations. Private equity though is an issue I agree.

 

[Yew]

More tax on us Gen X and millennials to hand freebies out to the boomers who created this mess in the first place. It’s bad enough having to pay the pensions of people who retired at 60 when I won’t get to retire until 70.

Yes, I do worry that it will be a case of tax the working population to pay for a generation of people that had to pay no such tax. Especially given the propensity of the Tories to refer to taxes on inheriting large amounts of money in misleading an inaccurate manners such as calling them "death taxes". I'm open to the idea of it, certainly, and know of people that have had a very diffciult time with their family members in their old age, but we can't pretend that there are easy answers.

The issue with social care in the UK funding, it is private equity cash grabbing.

I don't think that issue is just limited to social care funding. I don't know if a "National Care Service" is still on the cards, but I'd certainly be worried that it could end up as a load of greedy private companies in the trench coat of nationalisation.

 

[Broucek]

Having sold her home, my mum's care home is gradually burning through any inheritance that might have come to me and my sibling.

And that's fine. I don't see why the state should pay given she has the money...

If it did pay, it would just be subsidising my sibling and I getting an unearned windfall from inheritance.

Now, my sibling and I are both pretty solvent which may skew my perspective. But subsiding inheritors is not an obvious use of public money.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

More tax on us Gen X and millennials to hand freebies out to the boomers who created this mess in the first place. It’s bad enough having to pay the pensions of people who retired at 60 when I won’t get to retire until 70.

Us late boomers are having wait as well to receive state pension!! Anyhow despite that I do support our generation having to pay NI as well as income tax for say another 5-10yrs after pensionable age to reflect the improvements in longevity that has been achieved partly through the NHS.

 

[WesternLancer]

More tax on us Gen X and millennials to hand freebies out to the boomers who created this mess in the first place. It’s bad enough having to pay the pensions of people who retired at 60 when I won’t get to retire until 70.

No thanks.

The issue with social care in the UK funding, it is private equity cash grabbing.

The current system is completely untenable in my view.

Scotland seems to have achieved something rather better. If probably not perfect.

 

[contrex]

Laudable but it will come at a huge cost and further undermine the family unit.

"Laudable" was what my dad called something that I liked, that he didn't, but couldn't think of a particularly good reason for not liking. What is this 'family unit' of which you speak?

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

"Laudable" was what my dad called something that I liked, that he didn't, but couldn't think of a particularly good reason for not liking. What is this 'family unit' of which you speak?

Families taking responsibility for each other thats is very prevalent in other societies like Japan and Italy

 

[WesternLancer]

Families taking responsibility for each other thats is very prevalent in other societies like Japan and Italy

People without adequate skills giving up productive work in the economy to care for people with complex needs for free.

 

[contrex]

Families taking responsibility for each other thats is very prevalent in other societies like Japan and Italy

But this country is not Japan or Italy. And this is the twenty-first century. Will you wipe your grandpa's backside?

 

[WesternLancer]

But this country is not Japan or Italy. And this is the twenty-first century. Will you wipe your grandpa's backside?

Families in this context often means women I suspect. Wives, daughters, daughter in laws etc.

 

[speedy1]

Another handout for house-builders with a new George Osborne style help-to-buy scheme. He even was honest and mentioned the builders in one of the announcements.

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...new-scheme-for-first-time-home-buyers-england

Under the scheme, first-time buyers will get a 20% equity loan to help them buy a new-build home, with an initial interest free period and a requirement of a minimum deposit of just 2.5%.

Red Tories...got to get that quick-and-easy GDP bump!

 

[Darandio]

Another handout for house-builders with a new George Osborne style help-to-buy scheme. He even was honest and mentioned the builders in one of the announcements.

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...new-scheme-for-first-time-home-buyers-england



Red Tories...got to get that quick-and-easy GDP bump!

Yet wasn't the George Osborne style help-to-buy scheme just an extension of one that had been introduced a few years earlier? The one introduced by Labour.....

 

[speedy1]

Yet wasn't the George Osborne style help-to-buy scheme just an extension of one that had been introduced a few years earlier? The one introduced by Labour.....

Maybe, my memory is failing. Not quite a gotcha though when I commented "Red Tories", calling them all the same It's a bad scheme whoever implements it

 

[brad465]

Another handout for house-builders with a new George Osborne style help-to-buy scheme. He even was honest and mentioned the builders in one of the announcements.

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...new-scheme-for-first-time-home-buyers-england



Red Tories...got to get that quick-and-easy GDP bump!

Property developers are huge political donors and will donate hefty sums to whichever party is set to be in government. If Reform UK ever got in they would be bankrolled by them too (especially given Jenrick's shady record with Richard Desmond). This scheme is one of the results. The way to address this is to outright ban/severely cap all political donations.

 

[Yew]

Maybe, my memory is failing. Not quite a gotcha though when I commented "Red Tories", calling them all the same It's a bad scheme whoever implements it

It is a shame that the announcement wasn't about the most important way that has been shown to work to make housing more affordable - building social housing.

 

[WesternLancer]

Yet wasn't the George Osborne style help-to-buy scheme just an extension of one that had been introduced a few years earlier? The one introduced by Labour.....

scheme before 2013 was FirstBuy which apparently started in 2011
So coalition schemes.
Not sure there was any equivalent pre 2010.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Yesterday at 22:32 ==

Another handout for house-builders with a new George Osborne style help-to-buy scheme. He even was honest and mentioned the builders in one of the announcements.

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...new-scheme-for-first-time-home-buyers-england



Red Tories...got to get that quick-and-easy GDP bump!

I would assume an equity loan from govt means the taxpayer gets repaid the loan at an equity stake so if house prices are above inflation the taxpayer gets a stake in that.
Doesn’t necessarily make it a good thing though.

 

[contrex]

Families in this context often means women I suspect. Wives, daughters, daughter in laws etc.

Precisely. These days more and more are not standing for it. Often, I gather, in the face of great pressure to conform from Social Services departments.

 

[WesternLancer]

Precisely. These days more and more are not standing for it. Often, I gather, in the face of great pressure to conform from Social Services departments.

Indeed and Maybe the case. Probably is.
Social Services only become involved in paying for it if the person in need has less than c£23 k in all assets of course.
But also such women may themselves need to work in paid employment to bring enough money in to sustain existing direct family commitments.

 

[AlterEgo]

Families taking responsibility for each other thats is very prevalent in other societies like Japan and Italy

Orientalist myth in Japan's case. As a proportion of elderly population, more elderly people are in care homes in Japan. Over a million people. Here it's 350K or so.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Another handout for house-builders with a new George Osborne style help-to-buy scheme. He even was honest and mentioned the builders in one of the announcements.

I'm sure it will be just as successful as the last one, which was great for house price inflation and house builder profit inflation. Not so great for everyone else though.

If we're serious about cutting housing costs and the welfare bill we should be paying house builders to build social housing. Instead we get this nonsense, which won't make houses any more affordable for first time buyers; the builders will just jack up the price to take up the slack.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Today at 15:29 ==

The current system is completely untenable in my view.

It is, but when the private care home providers are taking profits of upwards of 15%...there's your issue.

Plugging the leaks in the UK care home industry – Strategies for resolving the financial crisis in the residential and nursing home sector — Centre for Health and the Public Interest

This report identifies where each pound that goes into the care home industry ends up by using a forensic study of the accounts of over 830 adult care home companies, including the 26 largest providers. The companies examined have a combined income of £10.4bn, representing 68% of the total estimated

www.chpi.org.uk

The report’s key findings are:

1. There are significant levels of leakage across the care home sector and the type of care home business impacts the amount leaking out.

For 784 small and medium-sized care home companies £7 of every £100 received goes to profit before tax, rent payments, directors’ remuneration, and net interest paid out. For the 18 largest for-profit providers the level of leakage is more than double at £15 of every £100 received.

2. There are significant differences in the level of leakage amongst the largest 26 care home providers.

For the 8 largest not-for-profit providers the level of leakage is £8.60 out of every £100 received, and amounts to £93m a year

For the 5 largest for-profit providers (Private Equity owned or backed) the level of leakage is £9.06 out of every £100 received, and amounts to £159m a year.

For the 13 largest for-profit providers (Non-Private Equity) the level of leakage is £19.49 out of every £100 received, and amounts to £401m a year.

3. Some of the largest 26 providers use complex company structures to maximise leakage and hide profit extraction.

6 have an offshore owner in a tax haven; 18 split up their operating and property companies; 9 use sale and leaseback; and 12 purchase services or supplies from a related company. The significance of each of these is discussed in the report.

4. The largest 26 providers pay out significant amounts in rent payments each year, often to related companies which are based outside of the UK’s tax jurisdiction.

7 of the 18 largest for-profit providers spend between 15-32% of their income on rent payments, totalling £264m a year.

The 8 largest not-for-profit providers spend £2.34 out of every £100 of their income on rent, compared to the £11.07 out of every £100 received for the 18 largest for-profit providers.

5. Debt repayments are a significant area of leakage for some of the largest 26 providers.

The problem is especially serious in relation to homes operated by the 5 largest for-profit care home providers which are owned or backed by Private Equity. Collectively their debts amount to £35,000 for each care bed they own, and they pay interest costs of £102 per bed per week; this means that 16% of the weekly fees paid to these providers by local authorities or individuals for residential care goes towards paying off debt.

6. Much of the debt loaded onto the care homes by the largest for-profit providers is owed to related companies that are often based offshore and at high rates of interest i.e. a form of hidden profit extraction which also avoids tax.

Across the 26 largest care home providers a total of £261 million of the money they receive to provide care goes towards repaying debt. Out of this £117 million (45%) are payments to related companies which is a known way of avoiding tax and hiding profits.

7. Splitting the care home business into separate operating and property companies raises other public interest concerns, including the ability of a care home operator to pay compensation for causing harm, and potential tax avoidance.

8. Leakage is also occurring through management fees and related company transactions.

 

[WesternLancer]

I'm sure it will be just as successful as the last one, which was great for house price inflation and house builder profit inflation. Not so great for everyone else though.

If we're serious about cutting housing costs and the welfare bill we should be paying house builders to build social housing. Instead we get this nonsense, which won't make houses any more affordable for first time buyers; the builders will just jack up the price to take up the slack.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Today at 15:29 ==


It is, but when the private care home providers are taking profits of upwards of 15%...there's your issue.

Plugging the leaks in the UK care home industry – Strategies for resolving the financial crisis in the residential and nursing home sector — Centre for Health and the Public Interest

This report identifies where each pound that goes into the care home industry ends up by using a forensic study of the accounts of over 830 adult care home companies, including the 26 largest providers. The companies examined have a combined income of £10.4bn, representing 68% of the total estimated

www.chpi.org.uk

On the care aspect most of it is provided at home and still the harsh means test applies.
This isn’t just about care home costs. I suspect relatively small amount of overall funds needed for care relate to residential care. And many people are not in residential care for especially long periods. Though of course some are.