UKC

Does she know something, possibly Brexit related, that she knows is going to f*ck the UK?

With this in mind is she ducking out for five years, so they can comeback and blame Labour for the shit storm?

She really doesn't seem to be trying to win all that hard.

In reply to krikoman:




Nice little U-turn this morning. Coalition of chaos indeed!

In reply to krikoman:

Strong and stable strong and stable Strong and stable strong and stable Strong and stable strong and stable Strong and stable strong and stable Strong and stable strong and stable Strong and stable strong and stable Strong and stable strong and stable Strong and stable strong and stable Strong and stable strong and stable Strong and stable strong and stable Strong and stable strong and stable Strong and stable strong and stable Strong and stable strong and stable Strong and stable strong and stable Strong and stable strong and stable Strong and stable strong and stable

In reply to RomTheBear:


Sorry, I forgot to do my morning repetitions.

In reply to krikoman:

Coded message from the health commentator Roy Lilley (who at one time advised Maggie)... how times change...

" Make it count - News and Comment from Roy Lilley

It's worth taking a moment to reflect on how the NHS came into being. In 1941 the government commissioned a repot from a civil servant, William Beveridge on how to rebuilt the nation, after the war. He published his report in 1942 and recommended that the government should find ways of fighting the five 'Giant Evils' of 'Want, Disease, Ignorance, Squalor and Idleness'. In 1945 the Labour Party swept into power and set about following the Beveridge blueprint for a welfare state.

The Maymite has announced the Tory manifesto (Good luck reading it on a mobile phone. The pdf version is much better), based on 5 Giant Challenges... facing the nation. For the record they are; a strong economy, a united nation, a meritocracy, a restored contract between the generations and prosperity in a digital age. A couple of pages later the 5 giant challenges turn into; A strong economy, Brexit, enduring social divisions, an ageing society and fast changing technology. Oh well.... The document is a rambling essay. A sort of discourse. Dense paragraphs. A determined read. Not good enough to be a dissertation and a bit over the top for a treatise. It's long, too long, 84 pages, too wordy, too complicated. Far from being a neat shop-window of eye-catching stuff, it's more like a car-boot sale. "We believe in the good that government can do...' Of course you do, you are the government! Fer-gawd-sake!

Flip to page 66; the NHS bit starts there. There are another '5 things'.
1. £8bn 'extra' over the next Parliament. Don't get excited that's to cover 2017 to 2023 and it's complicated. Health Foundation have the clearest explanation.
2. A half promise that EU staff will stay and a repeat of the '1,500 more medical student places'... already a commitment.
3. An investment programme in building and technology; a continuation of existing promises, much of which has been stalled.
4. An increase in the pay-2B-treated tariff for immigrants and students.
5. Implementing the accelerated access review for new drugs. Already in train. Don't be fooled, it doesn't mean they will be put onto the NHS formulary.
Of more interest is a passage that might have been contributed by Bletchley Park; "If the current legislative landscape is either slowing implementation or preventing clear national or local accountability, we will consult and make the necessary legislative changes. This includes the NHS's own internal market, which can fail to act in the interests of patients and creates costly bureaucracy. So we will review the operation of the internal market and, in time for the start of the 2018 financial year, we will make non-legislative changes to remove barriers to the integration of care." ... code for tearing up the last of the Lansley lunacy. Hooooray for that!

There are more bungs for GPs to work together but where the money is to come... dunno. Also a promise to pay for GP indemnity costs... I can't hear any money rattling in the tin. There is more repackaged stuff, including a watered down 7-day working: "...we will make sure patients receive proper consultant supervision every day of the week with weekend access to the key diagnostic tests needed to support urgent care. We will also ensure hospitals can discharge emergency admissions at a similar rate at weekends as on weekdays..." Sort of new is a cancer promise; a diagnosis in 28 days, which for many cancer sufferers might be 28 days too long. And, a rehash of more mental health staffing. This time 10,000 'professionals'. Doesn't say from where or by when.

So, that's the manifestos. Labour, Lib-Dem, Green, UKIP. How you gonna vote? In the polling booth there is no mirror but you will look at yourself. You will reach inside you and go to the private places you don't share with a soul. A place beyond confidential. You will ask questions of yourself. Voting defines you to you. How will you cast your vote?
The Tory win is forecast as a landslide. You are intelligent, informed and care about people. You are also smart and tactical. Think about 1941.

You have one vote, make it count. Have a good weekend.
----------------------
Contact Roy - please use this e-address
roy.lilley@nhsmanagers.net "

In reply to Offwidth:

Intersting post. Clearly Lilley also comments on labours manifesto and the NHS. Are you able to post what he says about their plans?

In reply to krikoman:
It's strange because I would have thought the "Dementia Tax" would have been popular with left leaning voters. I think most people on here think the NHS is fooked, so a policy that tried to raise money to pay for the biggest drain on the NHS (old dying people) by getting them to pay for it with their assets after death seems like the kernel of a good idea ?

Obviously not but i'm not sure why (I have probably misunderstood it)

In reply to neilh:


You could

In reply to krikoman:

he has clearly commented on their proposals...he says as much..but I canot find the link.

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:


Because in simple terms it penalises those who get dementia (which is already their bad luck) yet it doesn't touch the lucky ones who are already lucky in not getting dementia. As I've said on the other thread health is a lottery and because of that the burden should be shared equally. If the Tories are set on going down this route why not impose a more equitable tax across the board, and just increase the Inheritance Tax rates and reduce the thresholds? That won't be popular, but if May is really serious about spreading the pain to include the old, at least it would be fairer and more honest.

In reply to Trangia:

Good point re health lottery. I saw it more as "means tested" social care, where old people with a lot of assets were made to pay and those with none would still get free care, part subsidised by dead wealthy people and the living.

In reply to krikoman:

If so, then she finally has a policy I can get behind.

In reply to Trangia:

I agree. But do you think we as a society really agree on this view that with the health service (including social care) we should pay in according to progressive taxation, and what you take out is just whatever happens? Or do we think we should pay in more according to what we take out (plus or minus a safety net if you need care you can't afford)?

Have we really been asked the question? It's unlikely that many people will see it in these terms, which I think is the crucial question for the democratic system to address. Instead we just get predictable party political responses to proposals like this. And with old people May will be damned by opponents either way: protecting the grey vote or victimising vulnerable old biddies!

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

That is not what it is, it's essentially a form of variable inheritance tax, the more you are sick ok old age the more you pay on your inheritance. Obviously as the more wealthy you are the more likely you are to age well this will benefit the wealthiest.

What would be so wrong about simply reducing the inheritance tax threshold for everybody instead ?

In reply to neilh

Raw meat - News and Comment from Roy Lilley

Here are some ideas...

The NHS funded with an extra £6bn-a-year raised from new taxes on the nation's highest earners.
Millions to be taken off waiting-lists and support for overstretched ambulance and GP services.
Planned closures of hospitals, A&E wards and pharmacies reviewed and a new plan for autism rolled out.
NHS privatisation "reversed" and the NHS and Social Care Act 2012 repealed.
A further £8billion over the Parliament spent on social care, with the aim of creating a National Care Service "rooted in the traditions of the NHS".
A £250million-a-year fund will focus on improving children's health.
I guess there are few of us who would vote against that? If there is more dosh for the NHS, I'll always be at the front of the queue.

If you like that, how about this:
A Ministry of Labour, to empower workers and clamp down on exploitation.
A 20-point plan on workers' rights and give more strength to trade unions.
The Trade Union Act 2016 scrapped, workers given rights to union representation and trade unions guaranteed access to workplaces.
Redundancy laws toughened to bring them "more into line" with parts of Europe.
Firms exploiting the self-employed... a clampdown, with laws assuming workers are a full employee unless their boss can prove otherwise.
Paternity leave doubled to four weeks and paternity pay increased.
A consultation on statutory bereavement leave for workers who lose a close relative.
If you like all that you'll love state-owned regional energy companies, (like Germany), railways back into public ownership (if that means they run on time, I'll have some of that), Royal Mail renationalised (We lost £1bn in an undervalued float) and municipal bus-companies.

You've probably guessed, all this is in the leaked Labour manifesto. Along promises for 30mbps broadband (Yes!!), support for community pubs and banks stopped from closing branches.

In a turbulent workplace why wouldn't we want to guarantee workers-rights. Why wouldn't we want to encourage community pubs and banks in the high street.

It can't be done? Actually, I think all of it could probably be done. Labour are not going to go to the polls without a costed manifesto. And, yes, it does mean redistribution, refocus and a huge shake up.

The top earners will bear the brunt of the bill, in higher taxes. Half of tax revenues comes from 3% of adults. However, the evidence seems to be; you hike taxes and the yields drop. Are we heading back to 97% top-earners tax?

This is a leak, so who knows how developed it is. Interestingly, it is a leak of 55 pages. So, it is a draft of the whole manuscript. That tells us something.

Manifestoes are put together in segments, experts in their own fields contribute their bit. From there it might go through focus groups to 'see how it plays'.

Only 'head-office' will have the full picture. Only head office will have all the segments, only head office will have a complete document... so only head office could have leaked it.

Was it a leak, or a clever bit of kite flying so see what kind of reaction a radical agenda would get?

Was it a cock-up or conspiracy? It wasn't accidentally attached to an email and circulated... so, not a cock-up. It was pin-pointed to the Telegraph, the BBC and the Mirror. So, conspiracy, then?

Who are the conspirators? Blairites wanting to embarrass the Corbynites? A leak, four days ahead of the planned publication is neither here nor there.

This manifesto is probably as transformational as Attlee's manifesto in the '40s. Does it wind the clock back? You could say that or you could say it re-calibrates Britain. Re-sets the clock.

Some say it's just Miliband with a bite.

To vote for this you have to look beyond the leadership issue, trust there will be a cabinet experienced and strong enough to pull it off and hope Labour have batteries in their calculator.

Earlier this week I posed the question; could Labour give us a meat-n-two veg manifesto. If this is it, they have. Raw meat.

Have a good weekend.
----------------------
Contact Roy - please use this e-address
roy.lilley@nhsmanagers.net

In reply to neilh:

Meat and two veg - News and Comment from Roy Lilley

Watching The Tinkerman on the Sunday morning political shows was a bit like eating a Chinese meal. Tasty, interesting, dainty, appetising... and an hour later... your starving. Here's the situation. Ten items on the urgent-fix-it list:

A&E crisis, 900% worse than 2010 (Source: NHS Digital)
£5bn cuts to social care (Source: NAO)
Spend per patient down by 9.1% (Source: IFS)
Nurse vacancy rate up by 200% (Source: HoC Library)
GP vacancy rate up 500% (Source HoC library)
NHS Waiting at 8 year high, 3.9m (Source: NHS Digital)
Cancelled operations up 37% (Source: NHS Digital)
Nurse pay cut in real terms £2,300 (Source NHS Digital)
NHS running deficit £2bn (Source: NHS accounts)
£21bn wasted in agency staff (Source: DoH)

According to The Tinkerman, this will all come right after the election if we vote Tory and 'get a good Brexit'. For the last time, let's nail this Brexit thing; '... we will get the Brexit Germany wants and France agrees with. Trade and expats, from either side, will be a quid-pro-quo. All the rest we'll have to buy into or do ourselves. End of...'

On the telly the Tinkerman told us; we are missing the 18 weeks by only 2%, most major conditions have better outcomes, +7,000 of us are alive today but we wouldn't have been in 2012, there are 5,000 more operations, 8% fall in avoidable incidents and more doctors and nurses than ever before.

...and the average nurse earns £31k, so what's all this about food banks?

We know all this. We also know, averages can be misleading, quality always improves over time, outcomes do get better with techniques and technology and learning not to cut off the wrong leg is hardly rocket science.

A Chinese meal, if ever there was one.

The prawn crackers came in the guise of a new mental health Bill and 10,000 new MH 'professionals'... by 2020. Right? Well, maybe? Haven't we lost 6,700 MH staff? MH Staff? 10k at, say, nurse entry wages £23k = £230million plus whatever management, training, CPD, supervision and HEE want to take for doing it. All in three years. I make that, starting today, training and hiring new people at the rate of 60 a week. Don't worry, it ain't gonna happen. Read the small print. It's only a handful of qualified staff, the rest are volunteers. First-aiders.

Oh, reducing detained patients? About 6,000 adults and 200 children with mental health issues were detained in police cells in 2014 because of a shortage of space in NHS hospitals. Whilst Home Secretary, Theresa May said the government was 'reducing the numbers'. The 5YFV has it in its sights. The latest numbers halved and show, for children, 43 inappropriate referrals to police cells.

An easy policy win? In September 2016, £15 million of Department of Health funding was announced to increase provision of health-based alternative places of safety and... 'through the Policing and Crime Bill, the government banned the use of police stations for this purpose for under 18s'.

An easy policy win? Neatly; it cuts beds (the real cost) and unless the Bill is carefully drafted, the end of Sec 117 statutory after-care. Also, if a dementia patient is a 'wanderer' they can be detained under the MH Act and their care needs are then paid for by the NHS. Could it mean the end of that?

Is that all there is in the Tory health manifesto? Just a spring roll and sweet and sour pork ball?

This is not making policy, it's taking the p***s...

The 'Full-English' came in the guise of the LibDems health manifesto; who have pretty well pinched all the ideas I came up with two years ago and rewrote about last week. Grown up politics. Yes, sorting out the NHS will cost more in taxes. On average £3 a week and hypothecated to be used, focussed and pinpointed on getting the NHS back on its feet. Sorting out the the '10, urgent-fix-it list'. A proper recognition that we can't carry on the way we are and as much as we all like the idea of sorting out the MH mess, as the Jim Reaper said; '...for now, good enough will have to be good enough'... until we can get the basics right and balance the books. The outcome of the general election won't make a blind bit of difference to Jeanne-Claude Junker, Jose Manuel Barroso, Donald Tusk, Frans Timmermans, Martin Schultz or Asterix the Gaul. However... It will make a huge difference to the people whose lives and families depend on the health service. It will make a huge difference to the one million frail elderly who no longer get social-care support. It will make a big difference the 400,000 waiting for an operation. It will make a huge difference to the understaffed nurses, struggling on their shifts and the junior doctors who work around rota gaps. It will make a huge difference to primary care and community care.

We've had the Chinese and the Full-English. It'll be interesting to see if Labour can come up with the meat and two veg.
----------------------
Contact Roy - please use this e-address
roy.lilley@nhsmanagers.net

In reply to RomTheBear:
"Obviously as the more wealthy you are the more likely you are to age well this will benefit the wealthiest."

Is that right? I would have thought wealthy people who look after themselves are far more likely to die with dementia at a greater age than poorer people who are more likely to die earlier with lifestyle type disease. (generalisations accepted)

So how does this benefit the wealthiest?

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:



My thoughts too, you'd think Labour would love this so called tax on rich.. unless of course many of them and their supporters happen to be rather well off themselves.

On this note, Russell brand has been very quiet. Wondered if he is panic writing another book he can promote whilst pretending to support momentum and labour. This snap election must have caught him on the hop a little.

In reply to krikoman:


She really is doing a good job at throwing away what was unloseable.. Sadly I think we will have the worst case scenario, Tory win but enough gains to keep Corbyn..

In reply to summo:

If you're interested in Russel Brand's thoughts, he's published 3 podcasts ('Under the Skin with Russel Brand') since the snap election was called, worth a listen.

In reply to krikoman:


No, she's not trying to lose. Even to do so tactically for her party would leave her indelibly branded, the woman who called a snap election holding all the cards and somehow lost a huge 20+pt lead to the man she, her party and her press have been branding a weak, incompetent, traitorous loser. Nobody with the ambition, ego and sharp elbows to get where she is would accept that ignominy for anything.

She's been complacent and is probably rather disconnected from her electorate, she's taken them for granted, they've kicked back and she's spooked. Thing is she can probably still afford to be complacent and untrustworthy, with the press still on side and her poll lead still lingering in double digits she'd struggle to throw the election if she tried.
jk

In reply to Roadrunner5:


I imagine what will happen is the polls will close to about 5ish points in the final week, and the Tories will go for a final all-out fearmongering push about the possibility of a Corbyn premiership. Slightly increased majority is my bet.

In reply to Offwidth:
Thank you. Just do not agree with his comments away from the NHS.

In reply to Billymo:


No, I think he is a loud mouthed hypocritical @rse. Preaching about anti austerity whilst promoting his books. Or talking about an unequal society as he buys a mansion. Never mind under the skin, he makes mine crawl.

In reply to summo:


Why mention him then?

In reply to Trevers:


The barrel needs scraping and they are all out of ideas

In reply to Roadrunner5:

Better piece in the Economist written in the Bagehot section.

The labour party is only campaigning in their secure seats. I was flabbergated at this comment until I realised that in my area ( which is Tory but only by 3,000 votes), I have not seen any labour material, any Labour posters or any labour canvassers. They are not stepping outside their secure seats.

The party is still split between hard lefties and moderates (Blair courtiers). Corbyns plan after the election is to make sure if he steps down another hard left person will win and that is his priority.So he is already planning what to do at the next party conference.

All the talent is leaving the Labour Party as it is becoming a waste of time.

There is in effect no real opposition to the Conservatives which is not good .

In reply to Mr Lopez:


But like the shadow cabinet.

In reply to summo:

So only people who are not buying mansions or making a decent living are allowed to comment on anti-austerity and unequal society?

In reply to Billymo:


No. But if you are preaching about anti austerity and capitalism, whilst selling a book for a profit. Then purchasing a mansion from the proceeds it does seem a little hypocritical?

He even seems quite happy to sell it on Amazon etc.. quite funny, but also sad because so many people fall for his big words and buy it.

In reply to summo:

.On this note, Russell brand has been very quiet. Wondered if he is panic writing another book he can promote whilst pretending to support momentum and labour. This snap election must have caught him on the hop a little.

He's moved to Henley (Tory heartland) and it is causing him severe discombobulation as he rather likes it there........

In reply to summo:


Wanna borrow my wire brush?

In reply to RomTheBear:

In reply to summo:

Oh right i get it. So if he sold a book to break even, or even gave it away for free, then it would be okay for him to speak about society's problems?

I'm sure he isn't overly happy that his books are being sold on Amazon, but i doubt the publication company gave him much choice. Anyway whose perfect, surely the more people (from all walks of life) speaking about the problems we face the better?

In reply to Billymo:

I'm sure a millionaire, who sells in reasonably large numbers, has plenty of air time, could find a publisher who doesn't sell through Amazon if they really chose to. Or even one that is deliberately more ethical in all respects.

In reply to summo:


Since Maggie, pretty much everyone has been encouraged to be a homeowner, not just the rich. So everyone who needs care will be liable for, on average, the same payment. That's not even like a flat rate tax - that's a flat rate, payable until you no longer have significant assets. Now ask yourself, do you think this will proportionally hit more the middle class people or the wealthiest people more? Now tell me again why Labour should be keen on it.

In reply to neilh:


Yep, I'm not sure that this GE is what he's really got his eyes on and I've been saying this for some time. I'd be interested to see a list of exactly *whose* seats he's been campaigning in, as I suspect it will read exactly like a list of his supporters in the PLP. I reckon regardless of the GE result he'll be clinging on before trying to hand-over to someone else on the left, knowing that they can get 15% of the PLP to nominate if a bunch of the more centrist-inclined MPs lose their seats. Being generous, it'd be nice to see someone with a plan for once...

It's a bit of a shame as I actually like their manifesto and I'd like to see it put to those who might be floating voters and if this doesn't come off and is a substantial loss, the ideas will be discredited along with the leadership.

In reply to john arran:

I agree. My comments up the way were because someone said the wealthiest live the longest, so this new 'tax' would effect them more.

In reply to john arran: "So everyone who needs care will be liable for, on average, the same payment. "

Why?

Hypothetically two people in late life care spend 3 years being looked after by the state at a cost of £2m each.

Person 1 has an estate worth £1.5m
Person 2 has an estate worth £300k

Both estates are used to pay for the owners care until £100k is left to pass on to relatives. Both receive the same care yet one has paid £1.4m towards it and the other has paid £200k

What am I missing? where is this same payment across the board rich or poor?

In reply to krikoman:
Breaking News

It's just been announced that May has done a U Turn on "Dementia Tax" following a significant cut in the Tory lead in the weekend polls. No details of the watered down proposals yet, other than contributions towards care are to be capped.

This shows how important a role opinion polls play during the run up to an election.

In reply to Trangia:

Or that the media are the new opposition?

In reply to summo:

Have been for some time......

I reckon they are on track to hound Trump out.

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

The plan is at the next conference to get that 15% down to 7.5% from the PLP and then they can hang on in there for ever.

That was as per the Economist.

Not good.

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:
Your figures are askew.

The average life expectancy in a care home is 3 years. Typical cost of your state care home is about £40k a year. so that is £40 k x 3 x 2 = £240k for a couple.

The issue is wider than that though. all depends on the type of care support you need.

Also,if you want good care, you pay more.You really need to look at £60k minimum a year if you want a good standard.

When you look round care homes you quickly grasp the more you pay the more you get in terms of quality of care.In some areas there is a growth in the number of homes because there is more house wealth to pay for care.

i suspect those with houses of £1.5 million can easily pay for very good care.

In reply to krikoman:

Been musing similar for a few weeks. Don't quite believe it - the conspiracy theory that is, this OAP thing made me think again. Seems like an odd time to float it, right before the cold dead hand off my Daily Mail devouring Baby Boomers go out and vote for you.

There wont be a shit storm if labour get in. Hundred of thousands of dead brexiteers and newly turned 18 year olds will have shifted the demographic considerably in five years.

D

In reply to Trangia:

Because in simple terms it penalises those who get dementia

Its not just them, the old old are forecast to grow considerably. They need enormous amounts of care and supervision. Actually the healthcare / social care market will expand and diversify considerably if you have notionally assets and its no longer just a choice between being visited at home once or twice a day by someone for ten minutes who barely speaks your language and being plonked into a care home until the end of days.

D

In reply to Trangia:

Mostly this shows they'll say and do anything to stay in power.

In reply to neilh:


Thanks for the numbers. I reality I see it as unlikely that both people in a couple would need care home treatment (by simple probability) so somewhere between £120k and £240k would end up being the average couple's liability if either of them needed a care home. With the average house price now being somewhere around £230k, that suggests that a majority of people needing care homes could be paying for the entirety of the bill out of house equity, and therefore not paying a graduated amount according to means.

In reply to RomTheBear:


?? The opinion pollsters are not in power, they don't "say" anything, they reflect the views of the public they interview.

In reply to RomTheBear:


Like leaking a manifesto, then gauging the public's reaction. Modifying and releasing?

In reply to john arran:

The numbers Neil quotes are accurate but almost certainly not viable for maintaining business medium term, assuming the situation in the EU now, let alone after brexit .. homes are closing all over the country, sometimes through choice and more often forced by the impossibility of meeting CQC requirements on their current levels of income. Anyone with a consevative (small c) view in this should allow at least £60k a year per person index linked.

In reply to Trangia:


They being the Tories I presume.

Funny how the front page of the Mail a few days ago was stating how May at last was a PM who was straight and honest and told us what we needed to hear. Apart from the fact that it's objectively bollocks, it's funny how that supposed quality goes out the window when a few seats are at risk.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:
Frankly unbelievable that anybody would trust a coronated PM who went from remainer to extreme brexiteer, and refuses to debate the opposition. That the very opposite of strong and stable, that's a turncoat and a coward in my book.
A weak, incompetent leader, with no other vision than making Britain at the image of the monocultural narrow minded provincial Tory heartland of the 1970s she grew up in.

In reply to Dauphin:
Well alot of young voters I know voted brexit

In reply to Offwidth:

That's rubbish . All depend on where you live .if you are in an area where there is equity available then homes are opening up to the latest standards.

The ones that are failing deserve to be closed they are usually below modern standards and poor places to work.

In reply to john arran:
It's not until you have parents in the care system that you really understand what is going on.

The system is being overwhelmed financially never mind medically by the numbers . Any govt really has no choice but to extract the money from housing equity.

In reply to neilh:


Ah yes, but in what proportion? Wouldn't it make a lot more sense to increase inheritance tax ?

In reply to john arran:

I doubt it would produce enough income to pay for it . They would really have to lower the threshold to about £100k and then you pay tax. Either way it will hit you

In reply to neilh:


And the problem with doing that would be ... ?

In reply to RomTheBear:


The only bit I'd take issue with is that she wants us back in the 1950s, not the 70s.

It's laughable really the comparison between the Daily Mail portrayal of her as a modern-day Boudicca and the reality that is now becoming evident which is that she is weak and spineless.

In reply to RomTheBear:


I reckon she spends more time in kennels than stables

In reply to neilh:

"That's rubbish "

You believe what you want but it matches my wide experience through friends working in the sector and those dealing with old relatives in the sector across England and I don't just rely on my own experiences: If you do a simple search the papers are full of examples of such problems. Council fees are simply not viable to keep most predominantly council funded care homes going and yes of course that means the ones that are failng don't meet standards as often despite trying hard they simply can't afford such standards. Given you are so confident why not name me a single example of a modern care home comfortably coping despite predominant reliance on council funds, if you can... there must be hundreds if not thousands if what you say is true.

In reply to Offwidth:

A relatively recent 'bottom line' programme covered this. A home manager highlighted that for roughly the cost of staying in a travel lodge or premier inn(£60-70 I think), their care homes have to provide 24/7 care, food and any specialist needs. Clearly impossible.

In reply to john arran:
A house is a fixed asset less easy financially to move.easy to put a legal charge on it. More practical. Money from the estate of the deceased can easily vanish.

In reply to Offwidth:

As I said there are areas where homes are opening where there is housing equity .Just look round Cheshire. Even in Warrington new modern homes have opened over the last year or so .

The homes in old Victorian houses are more likely to have been closed down. Same with the ones in old style buildings built in the last 30/40 years.not fit for purpose, poor kitchens , poor community areas, poor bedrooms.

You need units with 2 floors max, wide corridors, separate dementia area etc etc.

I agree that in city centres it is unlikely.

In reply to neilh:
I'm fully aware such places are opening, if for no other reason councils can't just abandon the old, it still doesn't mean they have a viable medium term business case on current council funding levels. If a brand new hotel would be struggling on that level of income how can a new care home cover costs. Go ask them how they do it and someone will be putting in extra money somewhere. A friend of mine died in an amazing new place near Oldham, as good as a home can get... charity co-funded of course. Huge swathes of council provision are charity subsidised in these days of austerity.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/may/19/two-thirds-charities-subsid...

In reply to krikoman:


Yes, but that's her motivation for having the election now, rather than in two years when the Art 50 shit hits the fan.

In reply to Offwidth:

I think we are talking at it from 2 different perspectives. One is where you have assets and can afford to pay and the other where you are being 100% funded on current council funding levels.

New care homes cover costs by targetting those with equity in their houses who are then able to afford to pay by using that equity.Those care homes really have very few residents as the council will only pay upto their funding levels. Above that " family and friends" chip in. or else the resident has a reasonable pension as well to top up the difference.

Its not good where you are 100% funded by the council although that does vary from area to area.In Congleton you can get care homes for £800 a week upto £1500 a week.if you go a couple of miles south and into North Stoke postal code £800 is top price and £450-£600 is available.

It then off course gets compliocated with eligibility for such things as attendance allowance, continuing nursing care etc which are all designed to top the council funding.

It is a " d*g's b~~~~cks" of a system.

Its worse because alot of residents have a very poor qulaity of life due to their medical condition .I suspect in a few years time the clamour will be so great for assisted dying that the laws will have changed.Give that 10 years.

I do not know the answer.But its not until you are involved you really get to grips with what is going on.

In reply to neilh:

Is this going to be for all health issues, or just dementia.

Are we going to have a disease lottery too?

If they are going to charge you for keeping you alive, then they should allow you to elect when you die. "when my bill gets to £8,000 put me to sleep.

What if you children are still living in your house when you go ga ga? After 5 years you gently slip away, leaving them £100K and nowhere to live?

It's ludicrous that you have to travel to Switzerland to go with some dignity, and all the expense of that.

In reply to krikoman:


Even more ludicrous that soon there could be financial benefits to loved ones in doing so.

In reply to krikoman:

Dementia is awful, and most people you talk to do not want it and prefer to be allowed too pass away .

The disease is grim.