Osborne calls cost of an ageing population "a burden"

First topic message reminder :

Successive governments have betrayed Britain’s pensioners by spending less on social care for the elderly than almost any other country in Europe.

Research which campaigners say ‘should shame us as a nation’ has found that Italy and France spend twice as much on their pensioners as we do in the UK.

Britain comes 17th out of the 20 major European countries surveyed, behind wealthy Germany as well as former Communist countries such as Poland and the Czech Republic.

Miserable: Proportionally the UK spend less than half of the what Italy do on the elderly

The shocking betrayal of the elderly, many of whom fought to defend Britain’s freedom in the Second World War, is revealed in a damning report by the over-50s group Saga.

They say it shows that the UK simply does not respect and care about the elderly as much as our EU neighbours do.

The tiny amount of public spending committed to the elderly – 5.8 per cent of national income compared to 11.7 per cent in Italy – is a key reason behind the scandal of tens of thousands of people having to sell their homes every year to pay for their residential care.

The UK rank a lowly 17th out of 20 nations, with Italy way out in front

Other countries fund care home fees through taxes or national insurance systems, meaning care is available when people need it. The report warns that our low spending rate has also led to an enormous burden on family members, who are left having to take on roles as unpaid carers because the state does not step in.

And it means thousands of pensioners are isolated in their own houses because not enough home helps, meals on wheels services and day centres are available.

Director general of Saga, Ros Altmann, said our low spending on elderly social care could explain why women in Britain die earlier than those in any other major country in Western Europe.

The two countries at the top of the care funding table – France and Italy – have the longest life expectancy for women in Europe. They live to an average of more than 84 years, compared to 81 in England – lower even than Slovenia.

‘These figures show how generations of British politicians have betrayed our increasingly ageing population and have failed to fund properly the care so many of them will clearly need..

‘It should shame us as a nation that other European countries seem to take the needs of their older population more seriously than we do.’. also due to low State pensions,-

Cold kills 180 British pensioners a day during winter

Please go to this link and sign this petition on the Government’s web site.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

All elderly people should receive residential care free, via the State, and a much higher basic State pension free of means testing

Responsible department: Department for Work and Pensions

The Government must fund elderly people's rights to free residential Care paid for by the State because our elderly people have paid into the system all their working lives, and Government must also pay all pensioners now and in the future, a much higher basic state pension by restoring the National Insurance Act born of a Labour Government in 1974 which linked increases in the State pension to male average earnings, or The Retail Price Index ( RPI), whichever the greater. In 1975, the then Labour Government passed the "Social Security Act", introducing a State Earnings Related Pensions Scheme, this was considered in the pensions industry, the most cost effective scheme ever.

Please sign this petition.

tlttf wrote:What a non-budget this was, pensioners are better off (good) why whinge over something they've never had when they've been given a rise first. Companies buying homes are being hit by extra stamp duty whether it's offshore or not. Extra stamp duty on homes over £2m, lower taxes to companies generating jobs, giving child benefit to those in need. On the whole a neutral budget barring the fact that drivers, drinkers and smokers will fund it. I guess it's an equal whinge from all sides.

""pensioners are better off (good)""

How patronising of you.

why whinge over something they've never had

tlttf. And did you say that when Brown abolished the dividend tax credit on future pension contributions? Or did you pretend, like most Tories, that Brown was taking money out of existing pots in a so-called "pension raid"?

Nice to see that Camoron is so media savvy as to make the remark 'no grandmother will lose out' ....just because the headlines shout 'Granny Tax' ...

Does this man and the media not realise that not all 'Grannies' are pensioners and that not all pensioners are Grannies.....or granddads for that fact......

I notice not very much is being said about the fact that the upper limit for the 40% tax bracket has been lowered now bringing more people in to the it's clutches........

I was just wondering once the government has decided to go for regional public pay levels will they then move on to regional pension levels? ....It is of course the logical next step......

Quote Astrad1

I was just wondering once the government has decided to go for regional public pay levels will they then move on to regional pension levels? ....It is of course the logical next step......

You've gotta be joking. You're not? Whaaaaaaaaaaaaa

Have you noticed a number of 'Official Bodies' that have been 'prompted' to say that it is a good deal for the pensioners. Been listening to the radio while in the greenhouse. They keep up the pretence by saying that the pensioners have been 'given' £5.35 pw. Unfortunately it's been said 3 times while I've had a trowel in my hand. Must visit the glaziers tomorrow. More expense:(

Do they think we're morons. They're so busy having to 'manage' on Ministers salaries they can't be bothered to find any more 'feed' for the 'chickens', so to speak.

Ooh. I'm so mad I could crush a grape.

But then, what do I know

Did anyone hear Peter Bottomley, :affraid: (Must now wash my mouth out) in todays debate on the budget, ask why when the government was increasing a tax rate in line with inflation it is by RPI but when increasing money they pay out, like with pensions it's CPI.......

tlttf wrote:What a non-budget this was, pensioners are better off (good) why whinge over something they've never had when they've been given a rise first.

The "rise" is intended to cover the effect of inflation by restoring the purchasing-power of an old-age pension, it doesn't add to the wealth of the grateful recipient.

Anything taken away from Pensioners by way of extra taxes or reduced allowances is doubly damaging because there is less money available for non-essentials like food and heating. Their great difference from the rest of Society is that they have little or no prospect of returning to the waged economy to make ends meet.

I hope that the Tory's on this site, are thoroughly ashamed of themselves, particularly after yesterday's budget that basically stuck to fingers up to all British pensioners, while helping out the very rich.

Ah yes OW, but Camer-con explains they have a whole £5 per week extra in their pockets in April . Enough for perhaps two packets of cornflakes.

Roughly £120 odd pounds per year. Compare that with someone on £150kpa + receiving a top rate tax cut. Is that fair??? Camer-con and Gideon think it is "very fair." They must think we are all thick. Perhaps some are, especially many of those who voted this lot into power.

They must think we are all thick. Perhaps some are, especially many of those who voted this lot into power.

It wasn't The Thick who enabled the Tory bandits in, it was the apathetic.

Anybody who doesn't vote at the next General Election will have no right to complain about the result.

Mel wrote:Ah yes OW, but Camer-con explains they have a whole £5 per week extra in their pockets in April . Enough for perhaps two packets of cornflakes.

Roughly £120 odd pounds per year. Compare that with someone on £150kpa + receiving a top rate tax cut. Is that fair??? Camer-con and Gideon think it is "very fair." They must think we are all thick. Perhaps some are, especially many of those who voted this lot into power.

The trouble is Mel, a lot of people in this country, are thick. Look how many voted for the Tory's at the last general election. I wonder how many wish they had not ?

"apathetic" is absolutely correct OW.

Cameron and Gideon have come up with another great wheeze!!

The length of the day in the UK is now 30 hours!


This to give us oldies 6 hours overtime every day!!


I am joking

I AM!!!!

Mr astra - have you been at the 'high-octane' Horlicks AGAIN!?

Hello Mr Phil,


High Octane Horlicks ????????

I was on the Orgasmic milk in my cocoa!!

Base Rate Tax threshold raised to give base rate tax payers a substantial saving of £220 a year.....

Pensioners allowance held but will only cost them at most the small sum of £64 a year...

these are the two responses being given to try and deflect critisim from the budget.. so the difference between large and small is only £150 per year

The other quote which is being touted and as yet I have not seen on reporter or interviewer challange is the one about the base rate threshold being raise to £9200 as if it will happen this year........

Although Osborne insisted there would be no cash loss to pensioners, Treasury sources said existing pensioners would be, on average, £63 a year worse off while new pensioners would lose out to the tune of £197 a year.

But the Chancellor pointed to a report which claimed many pensioners did not understand the allowances and found claiming them "burdensome".

Source Huffington Post

When G Broon screwed me by ending the 10p tax band, an MP on Newsnight assured the camera that "Only 150,000 people will be affected by this change!" So that made it allright then?

AND and I did not expect that treatment from a labour gubmint!

I have seen a passing reference that "ONLY 300,000 people are badly affected by the tory changes to the pensions"

I always expected trouble from a bory administration, but to be so blithely (casually) cast aside again just finishes me with ALL politicos.

May they all - ALL burn in the hell they have made for themselves!

astra wrote:When G Broon screwed me by ending the 10p tax band, an MP on Newsnight assured the camera that "Only 150,000 people will be affected by this change!" So that made it allright then?

AND and I did not expect that treatment from a labour gubmint!

I have seen a passing reference that "ONLY 300,000 people are badly affected by the tory changes to the pensions"

I always expected trouble from a bory administration, but to be so blithely (casually) cast aside again just finishes me with ALL politicos.

May they all - ALL burn in the hell they have made for themselves!

true astra

middle-aged workers now face the prospect of a much poorer retirement. They face a triple whammy: the over-65 tax allowance will be scrapped by the time they can claim it, compulsory pension saving by their employers is deferred and their state pension age could be increased without limit. This is quite some tax raid, compounded by another under-discussed phenomenon: the chancellor is also dragging an extra 300,000 basic-rate taxpayers up into the 40% bracket. The repercussions of that will be felt over time, but they might be surprisingly dramatic. Think this will hurt the Tory party a great deal with its core OAP voters myself. a gift horse in my view

A former health minister has urged Prime Minister David Cameron and Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg to "take on the Treasury" and force through reforms to the way care is financed.

Mr Burstow, who lost his post as care services minister in this month's reshuffle, said the longer the coalition Government "kicks the can down the road", the more elderly and disabled adults and their families will lose homes and savings.

Last year a Government-commissioned report by economist Andrew Dilnot recommended placing a cap of £35,000 on the amount people would have to contribute to their care costs.

But in July the Government said no decision would be made on capping the sky-high bills pensioners in care homes currently face until the next spending review.
"sky-high bills pensioners in care homes currently face"

Here we have it again, huge and unjustified profits made by these greedy private care homes, feeding like mad at the expense of the elderly and disabled. Isn't it time these thevies fees were capped instead?

Mel wrote:A former health minister has urged Prime Minister David Cameron and Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg to "take on the Treasury" and force through reforms to the way care is financed.

Mr Burstow, who lost his post as care services minister in this month's reshuffle, said the longer the coalition Government "kicks the can down the road", the more elderly and disabled adults and their families will lose homes and savings.

Last year a Government-commissioned report by economist Andrew Dilnot recommended placing a cap of £35,000 on the amount people would have to contribute to their care costs.

But in July the Government said no decision would be made on capping the sky-high bills pensioners in care homes currently face until the next spending review.
"sky-high bills pensioners in care homes currently face"

Here we have it again, huge and unjustified profits made by these greedy private care homes, feeding like mad at the expense of the elderly and disabled. Isn't it time these thevies fees were capped instead?

Sure it is time they were capped, but under the Tory right wing it wont happen. Privatisation is the order of the day, with a whittled away, State.

If this was happening in Europe there would be riots, but in useless Britain, nothing.

I agree with every word Ivanhoe.

Special pleading is obviously popular in this neck of the woods. The first query is why nearly all Care Homes are in the Private Sector. Local Authority or NHS provision is minimal - as it has been since the beginning of the Welfare State.

Provision for the elderly is by its nature labour-intensive, it can't be mechanised, so the wages-bill is enormous by comparison with most other kinds of business, so exactly what Gideon took an axe to in government departments.

The other component of the discussion, inheritance, must be rendering some foreign observers speechless with disbelief. The Dilnott proposal is that beyond the "first £30K" of contribution from an elderly person's assets, everything else connected with their care should be a charge on the public purse. Why? So that Granny can leave her house to the next generation of the family.

For working tax-payers without a Granny that may not sound particularly attractive.

Thatcher closed mantypublic care homes which has assisted the private sector to overcharge with impunity. Wages paid to many carers is poor, considering the hassle involved with difficult elderly folk. Many work part time and are not properly qualified. The food dished up is in many cases boiled fish/bone and any scraps such as carrot heads go into the pot. Elderly folk generally have poor appetites to boot.

I have seen it all on many occasions during my lifetime and I have to say that again profit is the highest priority in these cases.

Profit is necessary of course, extortionate charges/fees are not.

Mel wrote:Thatcher closed mantypublic care homes which has assisted the private sector to overcharge with impunity. Wages paid to many carers is poor, considering the hassle involved with difficult elderly folk. Many work part time and are not properly qualified. The food dished up is in many cases boiled fish/bone and any scraps such as carrot heads go into the pot. Elderly folk generally have poor appetites to boot.

I have seen it all on many occasions during my lifetime and I have to say that again profit is the highest priority in these cases.

Profit is necessary of course, extortionate charges/fees are not.

Mel, For years I have been trying to find out how things for the elderly are achieved in Europe, Germany and France for example, because I know that "the State" in Europe plays a valid part in European life.

I know State pensions are higher, but I have been unable to find out about how residential care for the elderly is funded.

Do you have any information. ?

Profit is necessary of course, extortionate charges/fees are not.

We often hear about these fees but what is the true weekly fee (in Numbers) rather than the assertion that they are just extortionate.......?

I realise you work for a nursing home astradt1. However, depending upon the area in which an elderly person resides the fees may vary.

As I understand it, the average cost is around £30k pa and no doubt more in the South and the South East. Probably even more in parts of London.

I believe that what is sometime overlooked or missed is the fact that the cost of care within a private home is split into social care and nursing care.

Social care is the personal hygiene, meals and such like which is deemed to be able to be carried out by non-professionally trained staff (Care Assistance) and the Nursing care side requires the presence of a professionally trained nurse...These are the Dressing of wounds, management of some medications and such....

At present the whole system is full of complexities which leave all involved not really knowing what is going to have to be paid and by whom...Family, the local PCT or the local council....

For the home owner/manager there is the problem of the patient to staff ratio, this can change almost daily...

If there was a will to save money the main area could be in the Drugs.....Under current rules when any patient dies and drugs left for that patient have to be destroyed rather than returned to the pharmacy for recycling so with some drugs costing more than £100 per bottle, the waste so mounts up...........

You obviously know more than I do astradt1 for which I have respect.

My own take on this matter is that from what I have seen in large private care homes is one qualified nurse (as you say) who has the key to the drugs cupboard. She or he often leaves the administering of medication/drugs to patients to unqualified staff having obviously given full instructions. I realise these qualified nurses can demand high salaries, but for the rest the care assistance staff, generally poor pay is evident.

I do not feel sorry for the home owners. If they paid a fair wage to the care assistants then staff turnover would not be a problem.
As far as the home owner not knowing what is to be paid and by whom seem to be academic to me as he/she will be handsomely paid by whoever for fees determined by the owner and nobody else in a private nursing home.

Perhaps you have a different slant on the subject astradt1?

Trained staff can demand high salaries!.... the average at present for trained staff in a care home is £11.50 an hour about middle of the scale that paid to the same nurse in the NHS........who can earn up to £14.50.....And, in my experience, those nurses do not give the meds to unqualified staff to give, not if they value their registration........

When it come to who pays what, patients are reviewed every 6 months by the local authorities and the PCT to see if they can reduce their share of the cost and pass more on to the families........This can mean the nurse saying that patient X no longer needs such extensive care and the authorities saying fine they will reduce their share of the costs.......

I wonder how many nurses in the cases you mention receive backhanders from the home owners to keep the authorities cash flowing in?

It always comes back to money. I had a wry smile listening to a Radio commentator today who said that the entire Country seems to have been taken over by Ryanair - everything we ask for now costs extra.

oftenwrong wrote:It always comes back to money. I had a wry smile listening to a Radio commentator today who said that the entire Country seems to have been taken over by Ryanair - everything we ask for now costs extra.

oftenrong is wrong here

We are being lead to believe it's about extra cost. This pertains to the gut instinct of survival. We are being conned, and allowing ourselves to be because we believe what we are told

Its not about money, it's about dogma.

Mel wrote:I wonder how many nurses in the cases you mention receive backhanders from the home owners to keep the authorities cash flowing in?

Mel, these assessments are a little bit more involved than just talking to the nurse......and follow a set format which is cross checked against the daily nurses notes and the family are asked for their view of how well the patient is doing........more often than not they are their own worse enemy...

In most occasions the governments liability is cut rather than increased, leaving the family to make up any short fall......

Copy of the assessment form [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

More information....http://www.nhs.uk/CarersDirect/guide/practicalsupport/Pages/NHSContinuingCare.aspx

Thank you astradt1

If everyone worked a 15 hour week there'd be enough work for everyone.

If the basics of food and energy are sorted then service industries can be as equally respected as merchants selling things made by people working in Asian sweatshops.

If all the money which is out of circulation, especially if it is in off-shore locations, was recirculated to pay people to provide services for universal use, everyone would be valued, and no-one would be seen as better or worse regardless of how they earned their money.

Cuba anyone??

Well that sorted out that debate then!

Old age is something that the present generation of old people achieved quite possibly due to being on limited and healthy food rations as children during the second world war - the next generation coming up will want sex and drugs and rock'n'roll, and won't settle for being told it's bed-time at 7.00pm like current oldies do, who were brought up in families and schools that used to hit people for having an opinion.

We in Britain have the longest working hours in Europe and the oldest retirement age - together with greasy chips and fried mars bars. That should sort it out.

Death is Nature's way of balancing the books.

I think the tories see more than just the aged as being a burden.

It seems the Tories even see working people as a burden - the horrid plebs expect to be reasonably paid for their work. Why can't they be happy with a pittance so us tories and our rich friends can reap all the rewards of their labour and continue to live our lives in ever more opulence and luxury.

And those pesky young pleb people! Why are they so unhappy about working for their dole money.

And those pesky young pleb people! Why are they so unhappy about working for their dole money.

Why indeed, if this was France doing it would be called a state sponsored apprenticeship. Wha'ts th difference?

It is really the same everywhere.

tlttf wrote:And those pesky young pleb people! Why are they so unhappy about working for their dole money.

Why indeed, if this was France doing it would be called a state sponsored apprenticeship. Wha'ts th difference?

This would'nt be tolerated in France.

A Reminder

Last updated by the House of Commons Information Office on 1 October 2012.


Conservative 304

Labour 253

Liberal Democrat 57

Democratic Unionist 8

Scottish National 6

Sinn Fein 5

Plaid Cymru 3

Social Democratic & Labour 3

Alliance 1

Green 1

Respect 1

Independent 2




Total number of seats 650



Current working Government Majority 83



Figures which signify that the Coalition can continue to thrash the Poor for being poor until there is another General Election.