oldie
Joined: September 2021
Posts: 6,497
|
Post by oldie on Jul 30, 2024 9:23:45 GMT
Nobby/France
Ooooops
"Two years ago the "bean counters" at the UK's top economic institutions were just about to come directly into the line of fire.
Liz Truss’ Conservatives were plotting a full frontal attack on the Treasury and the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR), planning to sack the bosses of the former and abolish the latter altogether.
Things have now come full circle.
Treasury officials effectively penned a 20-page blame-sheet, cataloguing spending anomalies, as ammunition for the new chancellor, launching her own broadsides in parliament on Monday.
Then just after Rachel Reeves published her audit of spending, external, the OBR released a letter, external. The independent forecasters were unexpectedly backing up - in public - the chancellor's central contention that she was left a dire fiscal inheritance.
The OBR clearly does suspect that there was a large hole left in the public finances before the election.
Just how black that hole is depends on whether you think the government really had any choice over its acceptance of 5-6% pay settlements for public sector workers.
But that aside, the OBR has made clear there were billions of pounds of spending pressures that it did not know about when preparing its last forecast in March.
The spending was only revealed to them last week, the letter said, and given the “seriousness of the issue” the OBR has launched a review into the March forecast to assess the “adequacy” and “assurances” provided by the Conservatives."
Well well
|
|
|
Post by Nobbygas on Jul 30, 2024 9:25:21 GMT
Nobby/France Ooooops "Two years ago the "bean counters" at the UK's top economic institutions were just about to come directly into the line of fire. Liz Truss’ Conservatives were plotting a full frontal attack on the Treasury and the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR), planning to sack the bosses of the former and abolish the latter altogether. Things have now come full circle. Treasury officials effectively penned a 20-page blame-sheet, cataloguing spending anomalies, as ammunition for the new chancellor, launching her own broadsides in parliament on Monday. Then just after Rachel Reeves published her audit of spending, external, the OBR released a letter, external. The independent forecasters were unexpectedly backing up - in public - the chancellor's central contention that she was left a dire fiscal inheritance. The OBR clearly does suspect that there was a large hole left in the public finances before the election. Just how black that hole is depends on whether you think the government really had any choice over its acceptance of 5-6% pay settlements for public sector workers. But that aside, the OBR has made clear there were billions of pounds of spending pressures that it did not know about when preparing its last forecast in March. The spending was only revealed to them last week, the letter said, and given the “seriousness of the issue” the OBR has launched a review into the March forecast to assess the “adequacy” and “assurances” provided by the Conservatives." Well well Link to the source?
|
|
Cheshiregas
Global Moderator
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 2,644
|
Post by Cheshiregas on Jul 30, 2024 9:31:37 GMT
OAP's to lose Winter Fuel Allowance. 22% pay rise for Junior Doctor's. Next up in the budget will be the raid on Pensions. We shall see. Did you support the Liz Truss budget that forced a crash in market confidence, rising interest rates and has left millions of people having to find hundreds if not thousands of pounds each per month to meet mortgage payments. Should they also pay for the £20bln? Less well off pensioners on benefits still get the payment. How would you fill a £20bln black hole out of interest, Nobby?
|
|
|
Post by Nobbygas on Jul 30, 2024 9:41:10 GMT
OAP's to lose Winter Fuel Allowance. 22% pay rise for Junior Doctor's. Next up in the budget will be the raid on Pensions. We shall see. Did you support the Liz Truss budget that forced a crash in market confidence, rising interest rates and has left millions of people having to find hundreds if not thousands of pounds each per month to meet mortgage payments. Should they also pay for the £20bln? Less well off pensioners on benefits still get the payment. How would you fill a £20bln black hole out of interest, Nobby? There is no 20 million Black Hole, and I am surprised at the both of you, who are politically savvy, to have fallen for this blatant lie. The OBR, the IFS and even the Treasury knew nothing about this apparent Black Hole. The government finance books are transparent, and have been for many years. Don't you find it strange that Labour have just "discovered" this Black Hole when they had full access to the Books for years'? Wouldn't you have thought this would have been political dynamite during before the election? No government could 'hide' 20 billion from the Treasury. It's just not possible. Be serious. Liz Truss did not force the rise in Interest Rates. This happened Globally. Do you support cutting the Infrastructure improvements, like Railways, Roads and Hospital's? Seriously, are you saying that it was a bad thing for the Tories to be building another 40 hospitals and you support this Labour government in binning that?
|
|
|
Post by alftupper on Jul 30, 2024 9:45:15 GMT
As a beneficiary of the £300 winter fuel allowance I totally agree with dropping it. Also I would welcome a proper appraisal of the "Triple Lock's...not the political football type I too am fortunate enough not to need it. I know some who do need it but also many who don't. A number I know have given it to charity to help others. Mine went straight back into supporting British industry. Well, the cider producing part of it, anyway.
|
|
|
Post by Nobbygas on Jul 30, 2024 9:51:29 GMT
Nobody supporting Labour has mentioned dropping the Social Care legislation?
|
|
|
Post by alftupper on Jul 30, 2024 9:52:06 GMT
As a beneficiary of the £300 winter fuel allowance I totally agree with dropping it. Also I would welcome a proper appraisal of the "Triple Lock's...not the political football type I too am fortunate enough not to need it. I know some who do need it but also many who don't. A number I know have given it to charity to help others. Those in need will still get it, and it will be targeted towards those who do. I have always wondered why those with good pensions right up to millionaires should be treated the same as those who actually need support. If that`s the case, then what`s the point of regularly putting money away for your old age, via a pension? Spend it all as it comes in, and let the Government take care of you, when your working life comes to an end.
|
|
Cheshiregas
Global Moderator
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 2,644
|
Post by Cheshiregas on Jul 30, 2024 10:14:28 GMT
I too am fortunate enough not to need it. I know some who do need it but also many who don't. A number I know have given it to charity to help others. Those in need will still get it, and it will be targeted towards those who do. I have always wondered why those with good pensions right up to millionaires should be treated the same as those who actually need support. If that`s the case, then what`s the point of regularly putting money away for your old age, via a pension? Spend it all as it comes in, and let the Government take care of you, when your working life comes to an end. That's become a dilemma for society as a whole in recent times Alf. Putting away money for a pension means you have a better standard of life when you retire and don't need support. Or you can afford to have support and remain in your own home. However we have moved from a situation where those who retire might have previously been supported by family, and a basic retirement home placement provided if family can't, to those who have no money getting exactly the same accommodation as those who saved, but the latter have to pay towards that placement. My mother had to pay £1000 per month top up for my father for two years even though their savings weren't that great but they owned a property. People no longer expect the State to pick up the slack as they did in 1948 but expect them to take responsibility for everything. The question is relevant for all political spectrums to be honest. There will always be an element who know how to work the system and will literally be supported from cradle to grave. About 30 years ago I had a friend who worked in Liverpool / Manchester getting long term unemployed back to work. There were families who had had no one working for 3 generations. From the health perspective if we can get the NHS back up and running and bring waiting lists to 2010 levels or better then we will get to the level where the situation is less able to be manipulated from a health perspective. But it certainly is a minefield.
|
|
|
Post by Nobbygas on Jul 30, 2024 10:17:14 GMT
I too am fortunate enough not to need it. I know some who do need it but also many who don't. A number I know have given it to charity to help others. Mine went straight back into supporting British industry. Well, the cider producing part of it, anyway. Alf, good to see you back on here. Life under the Tories appears to have been good for you, as you've progressed from sipping Toilet Duck while sat on the park bench, to cider !
|
|
|
Post by Nobbygas on Jul 30, 2024 10:19:31 GMT
"My mother had to pay £1000 per month top up for my father for two years even though their savings weren't that great but they owned a property."
Terry. so what are your views on the scrapping of the Social Health legislation by Labour?
"From the health perspective if we can get the NHS back up and running and bring waiting lists to 2010 levels or better then we will get to the level where the situation is less able to be manipulated from a health perspective. But it certainly is a minefield." - It has been said many times on here, and Oldie agrees, that the NHS needs a total reform, with a serious cross-party debate on how it is funded. Just getting waiting lists down ain't going to fix it !
|
|
Cheshiregas
Global Moderator
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 2,644
|
Post by Cheshiregas on Jul 30, 2024 10:33:32 GMT
"My mother had to pay £1000 per month top up for my father for two years even though their savings weren't that great but they owned a property." Terry. so what are your views on the scrapping of the Social Health legislation by Labour? "From the health perspective if we can get the NHS back up and running and bring waiting lists to 2010 levels or better then we will get to the level where the situation is less able to be manipulated from a health perspective. But it certainly is a minefield." - It has been said many times on here, and Oldie agrees, that the NHS needs a total reform, with a serious cross-party debate on how it is funded. Just getting waiting lists down ain't going to fix it ! The current Government are taking short term measures to fix current problems. The previous Government had already pushed the issues out to October 2025, and it was likely it would be pushed out again. Like the 2 child payment cap lifting it is unaffordable at present. It definitely needs looking at. But from an honest perspective. As I responded to Alf elsewhere the populace has moved from the 1948 perspective of the Government support being providing NHS healthcare as a failsafe, to providing cradle to grave support for people, many of whom could perfectly afford to provide for themselves and their family. A minor example - my friend has a child with SEN. He earns well in excess of £100k per annum. Out of the blue he has been given a benefit, not asked for, which he doesn't need. His dilemma now is, does he claim it as its been offered and he is 'entitled to it' or does he refuse to take it. By the sound of many of those complaining about the winter fuel payment, they don't actually need it, its just something they got arbitrarily and are miffed its being taken away... I've already responded on HNS Review which I agree with but want it to be even more wide ranging and looking at it from a non partisan viewpoint.
|
|
|
Post by Nobbygas on Jul 30, 2024 11:04:55 GMT
The architect of the long-awaited social care costs cap today slammed Labour's 'tragic' decision to ditch the policy.
Sir Andrew Dilnot accused Rachel Reeves of 'failing another generation of families' after she brutally dropped the plans yesterday.
Fears have been raised that more frail elderly people will now be forced to sell homes in order to fund care.
In a dramatic statement to the Commons, the Chancellor claimed the reforms - including limiting total lifetime costs to £86,000 in England - had fallen victim to a £22billion black hole the Tories had left in the public finances.
The Treasury said the changes were 'now impossible to deliver in full' by October next year, and shelving them would save £1billion.
But Sir Andrew, who has worked on the plans for successive governments, pointed out that Health Secretary Wes Streeting had reassured voters during the election campaign that they could have 'certainty' about Labour's commitment.
'I think it's a tragedy, and it's also very disappointing given what was said in the election campaign on your own programme,' he said.
He told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: 'To rip this up is unbelievably disappointing for hundreds of thousands of families who need care, for the people who are providing it, for the people who are trying to make decisions about it.
'It is another example of social care, something that affects people at some of the most difficult times of their lives being given too little attention, being ignore and being tossed aside.'
'We seem again to be in a position where a government is saying this isn't an important enough thing to carry on with. As far as I can see there is no current plan… we have to recognise we have failed another generation of families.'
Asked in June whether he was committing to bringing in the cap in October 2025, Mr Streeting told the BBC: 'That's the plan, as things stand.'
Pressed for a firm commitment, he responded: 'We don't have any plans to change that situation and that's the certainty and stability I want to give the system at this stage.'
Steven Cameron, Pensions Director at Aegon, said the decision was a 'bitter blow'.
'The announcement that the government will not be taking forward the previous government's deal on social care funding will be a bitter blow to those facing unlimited bills for adult social care,' he said.
'Social care funding is a major concern to millions of families but had been noticeably absent from the Government's election manifesto and the King's Speech.
'Cancelling the deal, which was to have started in October 2025, means individuals will no longer have their contributions towards eligible care costs capped at £86,000. Instead, as currently, those requiring care for longer periods face catastrophic care costs which can wipe out a lifetime of savings...
'Unfortunately, as now, those who've done the right thing and saved for their later life could see it all – and their family home - disappear to pay for care, destroying plans to leave an inheritance to loved ones.'
Labour's manifesto pledged to create a previously-suggested national care service, with locally delivered services based on the principle that people must be supported to live independently for as long as possible.
It also promised a fair pay agreement, setting fair pay, terms and conditions.
The party said it would 'consult widely' on the design of the agreement 'before beginning the process and learn from countries where they operate successfully'."
More Labour lies - "Asked in June whether he was committing to bringing in the cap in October 2025, Mr Streeting told the BBC: 'That's the plan, as things stand.'
Pressed for a firm commitment, he responded: 'We don't have any plans to change that situation and that's the certainty and stability I want to give the system at this stage.'"
The only 'certainty and stability' that Labour have provided is to scrap the plan and leave things as they are.
|
|
|
Post by baselswh on Jul 30, 2024 11:16:06 GMT
Why personalise it? Anyway The money has to come from somewhere and we cannot keep charging younger people evermore. As I understand it the allowance is still available for those on Pension Credit, that is those who really need it. Personalise it? You said you'd be happy to give up your heating allowance. I was just pointing out that there many many other OAP's out there who did not have the benefit of your working life, which you have discussed quite openly on here. In many ways your attitude is "I'm ok Jack, so feck the rest of them!". How much will be spent on illegal immigrants?
|
|
oldie
Joined: September 2021
Posts: 6,497
|
Post by oldie on Jul 30, 2024 11:30:53 GMT
The architect of the long-awaited social care costs cap today slammed Labour's 'tragic' decision to ditch the policy. Sir Andrew Dilnot accused Rachel Reeves of 'failing another generation of families' after she brutally dropped the plans yesterday. Fears have been raised that more frail elderly people will now be forced to sell homes in order to fund care. In a dramatic statement to the Commons, the Chancellor claimed the reforms - including limiting total lifetime costs to £86,000 in England - had fallen victim to a £22billion black hole the Tories had left in the public finances. The Treasury said the changes were 'now impossible to deliver in full' by October next year, and shelving them would save £1billion. But Sir Andrew, who has worked on the plans for successive governments, pointed out that Health Secretary Wes Streeting had reassured voters during the election campaign that they could have 'certainty' about Labour's commitment. 'I think it's a tragedy, and it's also very disappointing given what was said in the election campaign on your own programme,' he said. He told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: 'To rip this up is unbelievably disappointing for hundreds of thousands of families who need care, for the people who are providing it, for the people who are trying to make decisions about it. 'It is another example of social care, something that affects people at some of the most difficult times of their lives being given too little attention, being ignore and being tossed aside.' 'We seem again to be in a position where a government is saying this isn't an important enough thing to carry on with. As far as I can see there is no current plan… we have to recognise we have failed another generation of families.' Asked in June whether he was committing to bringing in the cap in October 2025, Mr Streeting told the BBC: 'That's the plan, as things stand.'
Pressed for a firm commitment, he responded: 'We don't have any plans to change that situation and that's the certainty and stability I want to give the system at this stage.' Steven Cameron, Pensions Director at Aegon, said the decision was a 'bitter blow'.
'The announcement that the government will not be taking forward the previous government's deal on social care funding will be a bitter blow to those facing unlimited bills for adult social care,' he said. 'Social care funding is a major concern to millions of families but had been noticeably absent from the Government's election manifesto and the King's Speech. 'Cancelling the deal, which was to have started in October 2025, means individuals will no longer have their contributions towards eligible care costs capped at £86,000. Instead, as currently, those requiring care for longer periods face catastrophic care costs which can wipe out a lifetime of savings... 'Unfortunately, as now, those who've done the right thing and saved for their later life could see it all – and their family home - disappear to pay for care, destroying plans to leave an inheritance to loved ones.' Labour's manifesto pledged to create a previously-suggested national care service, with locally delivered services based on the principle that people must be supported to live independently for as long as possible. It also promised a fair pay agreement, setting fair pay, terms and conditions. The party said it would 'consult widely' on the design of the agreement 'before beginning the process and learn from countries where they operate successfully'." More Labour lies - " Asked in June whether he was committing to bringing in the cap in October 2025, Mr Streeting told the BBC: 'That's the plan, as things stand.'
Pressed for a firm commitment, he responded: 'We don't have any plans to change that situation and that's the certainty and stability I want to give the system at this stage.'" The only 'certainty and stability' that Labour have provided is to scrap the plan and leave things as they are. I listened to that debate this morning, I can understand Dilnot's frustration. I think almost all sides concluded it was a great report. It was published in 2011. Yes, 2011. Then "The Care Act 2014 legislated for many of the Dilnot Commission's recommendations, including the principle of a cap on care costs. However, although the government originally planned to introduce a cap set at £72,000 from April 2016, it announced delays to implementation in 2015 and, ultimately, plans for a cap were scrapped" In 2021 a cap of £86000 from October this year (I think) But there is no money to fund that cap. As I understand it the difference comes out of local authority funding (happy to be corrected) which is a joke given the state of local authority funding. I believe that Somerset for example is on the brink of bankruptcy. The truth is we are well and truly broke. There are some very tough choices to be made. It's time we are honest about this. Given the statements over the last 24 hours by the OBR and the Treasury it does seem, as was highlighted at the time, the March statement had a large element of unfunded commitments. I await the Treasury review of that March process with interest.
|
|
|
Post by Nobbygas on Jul 30, 2024 11:40:42 GMT
The architect of the long-awaited social care costs cap today slammed Labour's 'tragic' decision to ditch the policy. Sir Andrew Dilnot accused Rachel Reeves of 'failing another generation of families' after she brutally dropped the plans yesterday. Fears have been raised that more frail elderly people will now be forced to sell homes in order to fund care. In a dramatic statement to the Commons, the Chancellor claimed the reforms - including limiting total lifetime costs to £86,000 in England - had fallen victim to a £22billion black hole the Tories had left in the public finances. The Treasury said the changes were 'now impossible to deliver in full' by October next year, and shelving them would save £1billion. But Sir Andrew, who has worked on the plans for successive governments, pointed out that Health Secretary Wes Streeting had reassured voters during the election campaign that they could have 'certainty' about Labour's commitment. 'I think it's a tragedy, and it's also very disappointing given what was said in the election campaign on your own programme,' he said. He told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: 'To rip this up is unbelievably disappointing for hundreds of thousands of families who need care, for the people who are providing it, for the people who are trying to make decisions about it. 'It is another example of social care, something that affects people at some of the most difficult times of their lives being given too little attention, being ignore and being tossed aside.' 'We seem again to be in a position where a government is saying this isn't an important enough thing to carry on with. As far as I can see there is no current plan… we have to recognise we have failed another generation of families.' Asked in June whether he was committing to bringing in the cap in October 2025, Mr Streeting told the BBC: 'That's the plan, as things stand.'
Pressed for a firm commitment, he responded: 'We don't have any plans to change that situation and that's the certainty and stability I want to give the system at this stage.' Steven Cameron, Pensions Director at Aegon, said the decision was a 'bitter blow'.
'The announcement that the government will not be taking forward the previous government's deal on social care funding will be a bitter blow to those facing unlimited bills for adult social care,' he said. 'Social care funding is a major concern to millions of families but had been noticeably absent from the Government's election manifesto and the King's Speech. 'Cancelling the deal, which was to have started in October 2025, means individuals will no longer have their contributions towards eligible care costs capped at £86,000. Instead, as currently, those requiring care for longer periods face catastrophic care costs which can wipe out a lifetime of savings... 'Unfortunately, as now, those who've done the right thing and saved for their later life could see it all – and their family home - disappear to pay for care, destroying plans to leave an inheritance to loved ones.' Labour's manifesto pledged to create a previously-suggested national care service, with locally delivered services based on the principle that people must be supported to live independently for as long as possible. It also promised a fair pay agreement, setting fair pay, terms and conditions. The party said it would 'consult widely' on the design of the agreement 'before beginning the process and learn from countries where they operate successfully'." More Labour lies - " Asked in June whether he was committing to bringing in the cap in October 2025, Mr Streeting told the BBC: 'That's the plan, as things stand.'
Pressed for a firm commitment, he responded: 'We don't have any plans to change that situation and that's the certainty and stability I want to give the system at this stage.'" The only 'certainty and stability' that Labour have provided is to scrap the plan and leave things as they are. I listened to that debate this morning, I can understand Dilnot's frustration. I think almost all sides concluded it was a great report. It was published in 2011. Yes, 2011. Then "The Care Act 2014 legislated for many of the Dilnot Commission's recommendations, including the principle of a cap on care costs. However, although the government originally planned to introduce a cap set at £72,000 from April 2016, it announced delays to implementation in 2015 and, ultimately, plans for a cap were scrapped" In 2021 a cap of £86000 from October this year (I think) But there is no money to fund that cap. As I understand it the difference comes out of local authority funding (happy to be corrected) which is a joke given the state of local authority funding. I believe that Somerset for example is on the brink of bankruptcy. The truth is we are well and truly broke. There are some very tough choices to be made. It's time we are honest about this. Given the statements over the last 24 hours by the OBR and the Treasury it does seem, as was highlighted at the time, the March statement had a large element of unfunded commitments. I await the Treasury review of that March process with interest. Oldie, you are missing something, "" Asked in June whether he was committing to bringing in the cap in October 2025, Mr Streeting told the BBC: 'That's the plan, as things stand.'".
|
|
|
Post by Nobbygas on Jul 30, 2024 11:44:24 GMT
The architect of the long-awaited social care costs cap today slammed Labour's 'tragic' decision to ditch the policy. Sir Andrew Dilnot accused Rachel Reeves of 'failing another generation of families' after she brutally dropped the plans yesterday. Fears have been raised that more frail elderly people will now be forced to sell homes in order to fund care. In a dramatic statement to the Commons, the Chancellor claimed the reforms - including limiting total lifetime costs to £86,000 in England - had fallen victim to a £22billion black hole the Tories had left in the public finances. The Treasury said the changes were 'now impossible to deliver in full' by October next year, and shelving them would save £1billion. But Sir Andrew, who has worked on the plans for successive governments, pointed out that Health Secretary Wes Streeting had reassured voters during the election campaign that they could have 'certainty' about Labour's commitment. 'I think it's a tragedy, and it's also very disappointing given what was said in the election campaign on your own programme,' he said. He told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: 'To rip this up is unbelievably disappointing for hundreds of thousands of families who need care, for the people who are providing it, for the people who are trying to make decisions about it. 'It is another example of social care, something that affects people at some of the most difficult times of their lives being given too little attention, being ignore and being tossed aside.' 'We seem again to be in a position where a government is saying this isn't an important enough thing to carry on with. As far as I can see there is no current plan… we have to recognise we have failed another generation of families.' Asked in June whether he was committing to bringing in the cap in October 2025, Mr Streeting told the BBC: 'That's the plan, as things stand.'
Pressed for a firm commitment, he responded: 'We don't have any plans to change that situation and that's the certainty and stability I want to give the system at this stage.' Steven Cameron, Pensions Director at Aegon, said the decision was a 'bitter blow'.
'The announcement that the government will not be taking forward the previous government's deal on social care funding will be a bitter blow to those facing unlimited bills for adult social care,' he said. 'Social care funding is a major concern to millions of families but had been noticeably absent from the Government's election manifesto and the King's Speech. 'Cancelling the deal, which was to have started in October 2025, means individuals will no longer have their contributions towards eligible care costs capped at £86,000. Instead, as currently, those requiring care for longer periods face catastrophic care costs which can wipe out a lifetime of savings... 'Unfortunately, as now, those who've done the right thing and saved for their later life could see it all – and their family home - disappear to pay for care, destroying plans to leave an inheritance to loved ones.' Labour's manifesto pledged to create a previously-suggested national care service, with locally delivered services based on the principle that people must be supported to live independently for as long as possible. It also promised a fair pay agreement, setting fair pay, terms and conditions. The party said it would 'consult widely' on the design of the agreement 'before beginning the process and learn from countries where they operate successfully'." More Labour lies - " Asked in June whether he was committing to bringing in the cap in October 2025, Mr Streeting told the BBC: 'That's the plan, as things stand.'
Pressed for a firm commitment, he responded: 'We don't have any plans to change that situation and that's the certainty and stability I want to give the system at this stage.'" The only 'certainty and stability' that Labour have provided is to scrap the plan and leave things as they are. I listened to that debate this morning, I can understand Dilnot's frustration. I think almost all sides concluded it was a great report. It was published in 2011. Yes, 2011. Then "The Care Act 2014 legislated for many of the Dilnot Commission's recommendations, including the principle of a cap on care costs. However, although the government originally planned to introduce a cap set at £72,000 from April 2016, it announced delays to implementation in 2015 and, ultimately, plans for a cap were scrapped" In 2021 a cap of £86000 from October this year (I think) But there is no money to fund that cap. As I understand it the difference comes out of local authority funding (happy to be corrected) which is a joke given the state of local authority funding. I believe that Somerset for example is on the brink of bankruptcy. The truth is we are well and truly broke. There are some very tough choices to be made. It's time we are honest about this. Given the statements over the last 24 hours by the OBR and the Treasury it does seem, as was highlighted at the time, the March statement had a large element of unfunded commitments. I await the Treasury review of that March process with interest. No Oldie. The Social Care Programme was published by the Johnson Government in 2019 Tory Social Care Legislation
|
|
oldie
Joined: September 2021
Posts: 6,497
|
Post by oldie on Jul 30, 2024 11:54:17 GMT
I listened to that debate this morning, I can understand Dilnot's frustration. I think almost all sides concluded it was a great report. It was published in 2011. Yes, 2011. Then "The Care Act 2014 legislated for many of the Dilnot Commission's recommendations, including the principle of a cap on care costs. However, although the government originally planned to introduce a cap set at £72,000 from April 2016, it announced delays to implementation in 2015 and, ultimately, plans for a cap were scrapped" In 2021 a cap of £86000 from October this year (I think) But there is no money to fund that cap. As I understand it the difference comes out of local authority funding (happy to be corrected) which is a joke given the state of local authority funding. I believe that Somerset for example is on the brink of bankruptcy. The truth is we are well and truly broke. There are some very tough choices to be made. It's time we are honest about this. Given the statements over the last 24 hours by the OBR and the Treasury it does seem, as was highlighted at the time, the March statement had a large element of unfunded commitments. I await the Treasury review of that March process with interest. No Oldie. The Social Care Programme was published by the Johnson Government in 2019 Tory Social Care LegislationBut the cap of £86000 was to be set for October, it is this that has been scrapped. The rest of my timeline is accurate. You want to point fingers Nobby but your party of choice did not implement the Dilnot cap and scrapped it in 2016. So here we are, years later, indebted because of COVID, flat lined growth due to Austerity, flat lined growth due to Brexit, flat lined growth impacted by Ukraine and the energy cost hit, flat lined growth due to the chaotic Tory leadership and policies fiasco. Time for a line in the sand and go again
|
|
trymer
Joined: November 2018
Posts: 2,275
|
Post by trymer on Jul 30, 2024 11:58:31 GMT
I thought that the Labour govt would be as unpopular as the last lot by Christmas,judging by the BBC 'have your say' on the pensioners losing winter fuel payments Christmas has come early this year.
|
|
|
Post by Nobbygas on Jul 30, 2024 12:01:02 GMT
But the cap of £86000 was to be set for October, it is this that has been scrapped. The rest of my timeline is accurate. You want to point fingers Nobby but your party of choice did not implement the Dilnot cap and scrapped it in 2016. So here we are, years later, indebted because of COVID, flat lined growth due to Austerity, flat lined growth due to Brexit, flat lined growth impacted by Ukraine and the energy cost hit, flat lined growth due to the chaotic Tory leadership and policies fiasco. Time for a line in the sand and go again "You want to point fingers Nobby but your party of choice did not implement the Dilnot cap and scrapped it in 2016." - No Oldie. Check the link I posted previously. The White Paper was published by the Tory Johnson government in 2019. It is not just the cap that has been scrapped, but the whole programme which included, but not limited to :- "On 7 September 2021, the Prime Minister announced £5.4 billion for adult social care reform over the next 3 years. At the Autumn Spending Review 2021, it was confirmed that £1.7 billion of this funding would be for major improvements across the adult social care system. This white paper sets out how some of this money will be spent to begin to transform the adult social care system in England, such as new investments in: housing and home adaptations technology and digitisation workforce training and wellbeing support support for unpaid carers, and improved information and advice innovation and improvement Together, these measures aim to put people at the heart of social care and move us towards our 10-year reform vision."
|
|
oldie
Joined: September 2021
Posts: 6,497
|
Post by oldie on Jul 30, 2024 12:23:58 GMT
But the cap of £86000 was to be set for October, it is this that has been scrapped. The rest of my timeline is accurate. You want to point fingers Nobby but your party of choice did not implement the Dilnot cap and scrapped it in 2016. So here we are, years later, indebted because of COVID, flat lined growth due to Austerity, flat lined growth due to Brexit, flat lined growth impacted by Ukraine and the energy cost hit, flat lined growth due to the chaotic Tory leadership and policies fiasco. Time for a line in the sand and go again "You want to point fingers Nobby but your party of choice did not implement the Dilnot cap and scrapped it in 2016." - No Oldie. Check the link I posted previously. The White Paper was published by the Tory Johnson government in 2019. It is not just the cap that has been scrapped, but the whole programme which included, but not limited to :- "On 7 September 2021, the Prime Minister announced £5.4 billion for adult social care reform over the next 3 years. At the Autumn Spending Review 2021, it was confirmed that £1.7 billion of this funding would be for major improvements across the adult social care system. This white paper sets out how some of this money will be spent to begin to transform the adult social care system in England, such as new investments in: housing and home adaptations technology and digitisation workforce training and wellbeing support support for unpaid carers, and improved information and advice innovation and improvement Together, these measures aim to put people at the heart of social care and move us towards our 10-year reform vision." Jesus Christ Nobby. So the 2021 paper announced all the things you say to be completed over 3 years. Let me think, 2021 + 3 = 2024. So all done right? Nothing to scrap, but the bit that was not done, the cost cap.
|
|