I have previously written that I agree whole-heartedly with Theresa May's proposals about the funding of social care for the elderly. Michael Portillo, a former senior Conservative Cabinet Minister with whom I was at school, though never very 'pally', has also supported this as being a thoroughly right approach.
On last Thursday night's 'This Week', one of the few truly bright spots in the BBC's recent output, Portillo repeated and expanded on his previous comments in debating with Suzanne Evans, UKIP's Deputy Chairman. While Evans made the case for those with significant assets nonetheless being supported by the state when it comes to their own social care, Portillo shot her down in flames.
Portillo quite simply pointed out the illogicality of the state being expected to safeguard the inheritance of the wealthy when it is supposed to be there as a safety net for the poor. He made it clear that the expectation, which has only arisen in recent years, that the state would provide for our old age regardless of the value of our assets is misguided. He pointed out that the uproar against Theresa May's proposals is not about the funding of the costs of care, but about the potential loss of inheritance that could be suffered by the children of those who happen to own their own home; Portillo stated clearly that the issue is not about the care of the elderly but about the state guaranteeing the inheritance of the younger generation of the well-off 'middle class'.
In defending her position, Evans stated, unequivocally, that she is a socialist and thinks that the state should support everyone regardless of wealth. However, Alan Johnson, sitting alongside Portillo and certainly a socialist, supported Portillo and even said that he had a degree of admiration for Theresa May's approach. Johnson pointed out that the current system, and that proposed by Andrew Dilnot, both suffer from the same defect; they leave the 'just managing' paying the same as the very well-off when it comes to care costs which is not at all socialist.
To my mind, Theresa May, and Portillo, are absolutely right. Why should those with property, which includes myself, be supported by the state simply so that we can be allowed to pass more onto our own next generation ? Surely it is better to use the value in the property in such a way as to reduce the costs to be borne by the generality of the younger, tax-paying generation.
The opinion polls suggest that some in the electorate don't agree with this approach. Presumably this is due to a reluctance on their part to accept that their lifelong efforts and savings should be applied to their own needs rather than being purely for passing on to their children. In this, they are categorically wrong !
We all have personal responsibility for our lives, which includes making provision for our own old age and, if needed, our own care should we become incapable of looking after ourselves. In the past, the elderly were often cared for by their families though, today, this is less common as the state has become more and more involved in our lives; the consequence is that children are less happy about looking after mum and dad as it impinges on their own lifestyles and, anyway, 'isn't it down to the state and what about my inheritance ?' Astonishingly, in the days when families cared for themselves, they were far worse off than almost everyone is today and inheritance was usually irrelevant.
The state should be there to help those who can't help themselves, basically the poor who simply don't have the resources and others who have the most complicated medical or social needs. Some of us, perhaps even a majority, seem to have forgotten this very basic point, though Theresa May and Michael Portillo have not; they understand the realities. The rest of us need to wake up and accept that the 'free lunch' no longer exists.
No comments:
Post a Comment