Best Of

The key to social care was set out in the Dilnot report on Social care as long ago as 2011. We need the elderly to pay a lot more of their care. The idea that the inheritance for the family is more important than the cost to the taxpayer is simply not sustainable nor even remotely equitable. Taxpayers with no aspirations of money for themselves are paying higher taxes on their income to subsidise wealth for the privileged. It is outrageous. Theresa May wasn't right about much but she was right about this and the British people were delusional in rejecting her solutions.

If we are more aggressive about prioritising the debts of the elderly over the inheritance they leave we can save ourselves at least £10bn a year now and more going forward. It would not solve our deficit, that is on a truly different and frightening scale, but it would be a significant step in the right direction for once. Carpe diem.

Here's the thing, though.

This causes moral hazard, because why save if the state will step in if you have no assets?

So either people will just spend their money to avoid having it taken away to pay for care bills or, they will find a way to give their assets to their children.

I get that and that is undoubtedly a risk at the margins. But how many people are really willing to risk an old age in a grubby, poorly maintained and very poorly staffed local authority care home so their kids can buy their homes on the property ladder? I suggest very few. Some money will escape, no question, but I still think it would catch a hell of a lot of money that is needed to fund care and reduce the burden on the taxpayer.

The key to social care was set out in the Dilnot report on Social care as long ago as 2011. We need the elderly to pay a lot more of their care. The idea that the inheritance for the family is more important than the cost to the taxpayer is simply not sustainable nor even remotely equitable. Taxpayers with no aspirations of money for themselves are paying higher taxes on their income to subsidise wealth for the privileged. It is outrageous. Theresa May wasn't right about much but she was right about this and the British people were delusional in rejecting her solutions.

If we are more aggressive about prioritising the debts of the elderly over the inheritance they leave we can save ourselves at least £10bn a year now and more going forward. It would not solve our deficit, that is on a truly different and frightening scale, but it would be a significant step in the right direction for once. Carpe diem.

Here's the thing, though.

This causes moral hazard, because why save if the state will step in if you have no assets?

So either people will just spend their money to avoid having it taken away to pay for care bills or, they will find a way to give their assets to their children.

I have never understood the logic behind elderly people scrimping in retirement in order to leave a legacy to their children who in most cases don’t need it and don’t want it. If you have the funds to help your children or grandchildren to e.g. get on the property ladder, why not gift it to them now, rather than wait until you are dead, and risk it being spent on a care home.
Enjoy your retirement, and spend it on yourself or maybe spend it on things that will help you remain in your own home instead of going into care?
Sorry kids!

What everyone who makes such a decision has to understand is what happens when you have no savings (bar ≈ £23K) and you need social care and you apply to the council.

If you need a care home you will be put in one that the council chooses and not one you choose. You might be given a list of two or three but here's the rub: they will be the cheapest ones in a set geographical area. What you get offered will vary enormously depending on area and indeed just luck.

Care homes often cannot provide adequate care on the fees that councils are prepared to pay.

If you want choice and a better care home you have to get family to top up the fees.

If you need care in your own home and have run down your savings - the council will send in the cheapest agency they can find that has capacity. They will offer it out to contract to those agencies that will work for say £22 or £23 an hour when most want £30 or more.

Take a wild guess what some at least of those agencies that will work for a lot less than others are like.

Some councils may have an in-house service. You will get that.

These are the agencies that in many cases send people rushing in with only 15mins to get you on the toilet, have a basic wash, take meds and do a cup of tea or whatever.

If you want to have choice and power over where you spend the last two years or so of your life then be prepared to set aside your savings if you have them and forget inheritance.

The key to social care was set out in the Dilnot report on Social care as long ago as 2011. We need the elderly to pay a lot more of their care. The idea that the inheritance for the family is more important than the cost to the taxpayer is simply not sustainable nor even remotely equitable. Taxpayers with no aspirations of money for themselves are paying higher taxes on their income to subsidise wealth for the privileged. It is outrageous. Theresa May wasn't right about much but she was right about this and the British people were delusional in rejecting her solutions.

If we are more aggressive about prioritising the debts of the elderly over the inheritance they leave we can save ourselves at least £10bn a year now and more going forward. It would not solve our deficit, that is on a truly different and frightening scale, but it would be a significant step in the right direction for once. Carpe diem.

This is one option that puts the cost of care substantially onto those that lose the end of life lottery, who have illnesses that require lots of expensive care.

There is another option where the cost of end of life care is funded by everyone through compulsory insurance or taxes, whether they ultimately need it or not.

Either of these is better than an unmanaged ad-hoc as we have now.

The key to social care was set out in the Dilnot report on Social care as long ago as 2011. We need the elderly to pay a lot more of their care. The idea that the inheritance for the family is more important than the cost to the taxpayer is simply not sustainable nor even remotely equitable. Taxpayers with no aspirations of money for themselves are paying higher taxes on their income to subsidise wealth for the privileged. It is outrageous. Theresa May wasn't right about much but she was right about this and the British people were delusional in rejecting her solutions.

If we are more aggressive about prioritising the debts of the elderly over the inheritance they leave we can save ourselves at least £10bn a year now and more going forward. It would not solve our deficit, that is on a truly different and frightening scale, but it would be a significant step in the right direction for once. Carpe diem.

Here's the thing, though.

This causes moral hazard, because why save if the state will step in if you have no assets?

So either people will just spend their money to avoid having it taken away to pay for care bills or, they will find a way to give their assets to their children.

I have never understood the logic behind elderly people scrimping in retirement in order to leave a legacy to their children who in most cases don’t need it and don’t want it. If you have the funds to help your children or grandchildren to e.g. get on the property ladder, why not gift it to them now, rather than wait until you are dead, and risk it being spent on a care home.
Enjoy your retirement, and spend it on yourself or maybe spend it on things that will help you remain in your own home instead of going into care?
Sorry kids!

For my fellow Whovians.

Channel 4 Going Inside 10 Downing Street In Steven Moffat Drama

Sherlock writer Steven Moffat is opening the doors to 10 Downing Street in a drama for Channel 4.

The UK’s most famous residency will be the subject of Number 10, which comes from Moffat’s ITV Studios-owned production house, Hartswood Films.

The show is, in effect, an Upstairs Downstairs-style drama looking to the activities of many people inside the property, which houses the British Prime Minister and their family during their terms. Politics will be put to aside as Moffat focuses on the fictional personalities that make up the home.

Per the synopsis: “10 Downing Street. There’s a Prime Minister in the attic, a coffee bar in the basement, and a wallpapered labyrinth of romance, crisis and heartbreak in-between. Set in the only terrace house in history with mice and a nuclear deterrent, it’s the only knock-through in the world where a hangover can start a war.

“The government will be fictional, but the problems will be real. We’ll never know which party is in power, because once the whole world hits the fan it barely matters. This is a show about the building and everyone inside. Not just the Prime Minister upstairs, but the conspiracy theorist who runs the cafe three floors below, the man who repairs the lift that never works, the madly ambitious ‘advisors’ fighting for office space in cupboards. Oh, and of course, the cat.”

https://deadline.com/2025/08/channel-4-steven-moffat-drama-number-10-1236491676/

Number Ten is famous for being bigger on the inside than it looks on the outside, I suppose.

Recent occupants of Number Ten being notorious for turning out to be smaller on the inside than they look on the outside, positively dwarfish in some cases.

Breaking: one of the island’s newly elected Reform councillors, who won one of the three by-elections back in May, has today resigned his seat, having missed most of the meetings he was due to attend since his election. So there’s likely to be another by-election shortly. There are widespread rumours that he doesn’t live on the island, as his primary residence, and hence struggled to meet his obligations as an elected councillor.

I need some help here, even as a connoisseur of Independents.

Isle of Thanet? Isle of Anglesey? Isle of Grain? Isle of Wight? Isle of Portsea?

Was there not an Isle of Something Independents Party somewhere in the "Thames Estuary" general direction that had some shenanigans a few years ago - Ashfield or Boston Bypass style?

Isle of Wight - https://www.countypress.co.uk/news/25400616.reform-councillor-david-maclean-resigns-isle-wight-council/

In answer to your second question - suspect you're thinking of the Canvey Island Independents - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canvey_Island_Independent_Party

They’re still about; their leader is Leader of Castle Point Council. Although they lost a by-election to Reform recently.