I know this will come as a surprise that despite his promises Johnson was lying he has no plan and is now searching around for ideas. I guess it just shows he will lie to anyone even those worried about their futures in old age.
I look forward to the disgust in the right wing media. I suppose it could be the fault of the previous government, oh wait he was part of it.

]Do we really need another left wing bias thread...?

SP, what is your [ipersonal experience[/i of Social Care, or are ypu just taking your opinion from a slanted opinion piece somewhere?

I note you have no defence other than to state irrelevancies. What does my involvement with social care have to do with the fact that once again your great leader continues to lie even to the old.
Can you deny he stated on more than one occasion that he had a plan for social care and now he doesn’t and in fact never did. I wait your reply with facts rather than the usual waffle.
I suppose you could be just gullible who blindly accept everything to be true. I bet you thought that the EU actually required straight bananas or that we had to have the current coloured passports.

So, as expected, no ACtUAL experience, I'll leave the leftie luddites to this one.

You are the classic lots to say but none of it relevant to the discussion. I gave you an opportunity to prove me wrong but you can’t, so you just take your ball home or like your mentor run into a fridge.

you on the beer or something?

An all party approach seems sensible, even if it is motivated by cynical aims (ie so it doesn't get seen as a 'Conservative' problem).

I can see social care being a major issue in the 2024 election, and it's one which could hit the Conservatives older voting base. A lot of the 55 to 65 year old generation are now dealing with elderly parents in social care and seeing just how difficult the current situation is. Social care costs will also rise if the loss of migrant workers drives up wages, which will be welcome in a low-wage sector, but someone has to foot the bill.

Either this means that individuals have to meet the costs of their own care (eg from selling their homes) or caring responsibilities should fall to other members of the family, or it needs to be paid for out of higher taxation. Given the huge (unearned) windfalls that people have earned through house price appreciation it's not unreasonable to start there, but that won't be popular with Conservative voters, neither will they like the idea that they are responsible for caring for elderly relatives (why not? other cultures do it?). And of course there will be lots of right wing lobby groups that will pile heat on to the Chancellor if he is tempted to raise taxes.

So it's quite likely that the can will be kicked down the road with the system getting steadily worse until it becomes a real political weakness for the government. If the Conservatives were thinking that there was a chance Labour might come in in 5 years time the best tactic might be to just mark time and let Labour take the unpopular decisions required to sort it out, and then attack them for it, but as they are probably thinking of a 10 year stint in power if not 15, they will have to address it themselves at some point.

Why should anyone was has bought their own property be at a disadvantage in having to pay for their care compared to someone who hasn't. Yes their will have some gains - especially in London - not that much in Yorkshire but they will have paid approx. 3 times the original purchase price on their mortgage. That doesn't seem equitable to me.

Ok - this is very much in my bailiwick; what specific questions do you have about adult social care?

It's quite a strange situation, almost a role reversal, whereby people with hugely valuable asset's expect someone else to pay for their care in old age when, if they cashed in their property, they could live in luxury through their old age and not burden the rest of us.

As things are, the taxpayer has to cover the cost of the wealthy so they can hang on to their most prized asset ??

The cost of social care is the biggest single issue this country faces - far greater than the environment.

I cannot see any other way than an increase in taxation to fund it if it is to be equitable to everyone. Yes it can be argued that if you own a house you should lose any equity in it but surely those people will most likely have been the biggest contributors through earning taxation over their working lives. It simply cannot justified on an equitable basis.

I disagree with your summary.
If you and I both earn £100k per annum but, I spend every penny that I have on goods, services and rent (rather than mortgage), the exchequer will have received substantially more form me than they would from someone who has bought their house.
However, you would then like to keep hold of your asset and get me to pay for your old age.
Granted, you would also be contributing to my care but, you would have retained the value of your property ?

The current system is a means to protect the wealthy, absolutely no question about it.

If you scenario were correct - sadly it wont be the case - there will be very few people earning the money you talk about that don't own property. The most likely case is:

Earn 100k pay 33% in tax - plus spend 30k a year on fuel/clothing/entertainment/insurance/ house repairs-upgrades etc
Earn 25k a year pay 18% in tax - spend 12k on non housing items

So the higher earner e.g. top 1% pay >a third of all income tax - so they will have paid in far more and you want the rest how is that equitable?

yayyyyy, envy and jealousy.. the left want the right to make money, and then hand it over, and be grateful for the facility to do so.