Gordon Brown has weighed into the social care debate - that must be good news, I can't remember the last time a PM talked about social care. He's launched a six month debate on the future funding of the care system - but haven't we already had Wanless? Don't we already know what the options are and shouldn't we just choose one? 

Yo be perfectly honest here, I have worked in social care for more years than I care to remember, I have seen so many reorganisations, and redefined roles that I am not sure I know what social care is anymore. Any suggestions/defiitions?

 As you said, Simeon, there have been a number of debates about social care funding - I think there was a Green Paper announced last October and I'm not sure what's happened with that (i.e if this one will supercede it). I personally think it is being brought back into the limelight so that the general public are prepared for the announcements that there will be more means-testing and less expectation that any care provided will be 'free' or relatively low cost. 

The bills for care will go up and someone has to pay. The government probably doesn't have enough money and I see Brown is horrified that people have to sell their homes that they want their children to inherit. It's possibly these prime middle class votes that he is after in this debate.

I personally think that a lot of positive proposals were presented by Wanless and I really hope it hasn't been pushed to the wayside.

Harmony, as to what is social care, I was interpreting it as being seperate from 'health care' - such as personal care, domestic care - but I think the boundaries between social care and health care have become increasingly blurred as more people are being cared for at home as opposed to in hospital environment. It might be a distinction between what it is acceptable to charge for and what it isn't but in either way, the costs are increasing incrementally - but this isn't new news that has appeared today, these debates have been going on for years.  

So Labour has announced another "big conversation", this time a pre-consultation to a consultation. If in doubt, delay, delay, delay. The news that Brown is horrified that people have to sell their homes to pay for their care horrifies me: was he unaware of this until recently? Perhaps someone should push some of Wanless's proposals under his wobbly jaw and use them as a starting point rather than these delaying tactics. Otherwise Brown is at risk of becoming known not as The Great Dictator but The Great Procrastinator

We need to clarify precisely what Gordon Brown has done here - he is not looking at social care (however defined) per se, he is looking at the COST of social care.  More specifically how governments afford social care funding and how vulnerable service users are forced to pay - that is sell their homes.

Both of these aspects are highly politically sensitive and are in a context of other social matters such as housing (shortage of provision, need to build so many more, 5 million persons projected to be on council waiting lists by time of next election, credit crunch aspects of this, etc).  Wanless, from my recollection, did not factor in the importance of housing and accommodation to the options presented and - without being an apologist for GB here - it is right for anyone to have to factor in these vital considerations to solutions.  I doubt this 'pre-consultation to a consultation' as this was aptly described above will do that - it would need far longer than 6 months anyhow.

One matter we can be sure about is that public sector services such as housing and social care will be very high on the agenda of the next general election.  Given that greater than 40% of the electorate is the 'grey vote' and the increasing ageing population the need for politicians of all parties to court such a vote grows day by day.  Add to this the power of the elderly lobby (Age Concern, Help the Aged etc, etc) and the importance of older persons matters - specifically having to sell their homes and paying for care become a massive political hot potato.

One of the dangers with this is that all other non-elderly aspects of social care - such as disability etc - will be squeezed to pay for what is seen as funding for the primary political cause (the elderly) rather than what is best for the entirety of social care need.  In short, led by targetting political sympathetic funding rather than need whether that be on immediate, medium term or long term bases.  This is a perennial pragmatic problem of course but heightened even more so because of the reasons given above.

I suggest that while the above reads as cynical, it is more practical than cynical and, unfortunately, an inevitability.

 

 

 

Yet more delays! The problem is basic: where will the money come from to fund care for older people? Some suggestions: pull the troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan, ditch the ID cards, increase income tax for those earning over £100,000pa.