PM's credibility - will a social care consultation help?

Is Prime Minister Gordon Brown's credibility going to be enhanced by launching another consultation when Labour's own policy consultation implies Labour in Government is already on the job? Take concern about social care provisions leading the headlines this morning. I have just been proof-reading a CommentonThis version of the Labour Party's Partnership in Power Final consultation round Health document.

Page 17, lines 31 to 42 read:

Unlike the care provided by the NHS which is free at the point of delivery to everyone, the cost of social care has always been shared between the individual and local authorities, based on assessments of the person’s need for care and the person’s financial resources. There is a wide consensus that a means-tested element to social care will continue to be needed. But the eligibility criteria used by social services, which were introduced in order to ensure that resources were targeted towards the people who need them most, have too often been used to deny people help. As well as reviewing the way social care is funded, we are reviewing the eligibility criteria to look at ways of making them fairer. We will also ensure that local authorities provide universal information, advice and advocacy services about social care, so that even where people have the financial resources to pay for their own care, they are not left to arrange that care alone.

Why didn't he just remind everyone of how mindful Labour is already about this issue and what it is doing?

Instead the BBC reported this morning:

His speech kicks off a six-month public consultation focused on making care services fairer and affordable.

Aagh! Is the government consulting on something different? How does this related to the Labour Party Policy Review and claims of what Labour in Government is already doing? As for the statement in the Labour Party document statement Page 17, line 34 about:

....a wide consensus that a means-tested element to social care will continue to be needed.

I wonder if that will stand up to detailed scrutiny by Labour's depleted membership, let alone the media and ultimately, the electorate? There might have been were it not for differences between social care provisions in Scotland. Oughtn't we to be talking about testing whether there should be a national (read Union, not England) consensus about what we could and should afford for social care provision? Perhaps someone following this more closely could explain.

Comments

[Robert]

The government wants to do personal budgets, then the elderly or sick person can buy the care they need. At the moment people are saying it's a cut in actual funding, because at the moment my council has a duty of care, if I need around the clock care the council will carry this out, I will pay for some of it, through my Disability living allowance.

But the government are talking about giving me a budget then I will spend this money employing people or family or whom ever to look after me.

The problem is I will become an employer, I will need to have personal liability insurance, I will need to pay tax, national insurance Holiday pay sickness benefits for my carer or PA, then you have the added problem if you need somebody like an accountant to do this of paying them.

The talk is the government are talking of paying below what we already get, so it's more of a benefit cut then real help.

The only difference they are talking about at the moment you cannot employ friends or family, this will we think be removed.

I'm not sure yet because the government like it seems to do all the time have not given the full information.

[Bob]

Three points:

1) As you must surely be aware, the Health Policy document to which you refer contains, on the very same page you quote, in the very first paragraph, the following words:

"Meeting the demand for a person-centred service for everyone with long-term needs, with a fair balance in funding between the taxpayer and the individual, is one of the biggest public policy challenges facing us. We will lead a major national debate on this issue, consult widely and publish a Green Paper with detailed proposals on the long-term future funding of adult social care."

In other words, far from ignoring the Labour policy review process, the Prime Minister is launching something which the Labour policy review process explicitly says the Labour government will do. I'm genuinely puzzled that your post doesn't recognise and acknowledge this fact - it looks like wilfully selective quotation. Did you just miss that bit?

2) On your point about the consensus that a means-tested element will need to be retained: this is indeed the broad consensus within the social care sector, based on the fact that anything else is simply not affordable without significant cuts and/or tax rises elsewhere. You will be aware that the so-called "free personal care for the elderly" in Scotland is no such thing, and requires significant top-ups from families/savings - hence the Lib Dems' recent abandonment of the policy. Retaining some kind of means test basically means that the taxpayer does not subsidise large numbers of people who do not need additional help, at the expense of those who do. You may of course think that paying for care which enables rich elderly people to hand their entire wealth down to their already rich children, at the expense of other public spending options, is consistent with Labour values; you are perfectly at liberty to propose amendments to the policy document accordingly. My understanding of the documents as they stand is that they are not the final statements of Labour Party policy; they are still open to amendment.

3) On Scotland: there is nothing wrong in principle with seeking a national (UK, not just England) consensus on the funding of social care. However, since this is in fact a devolved matter, most of the issues involved are academic. The Labour Party is in opposition in Scotland, and is therefore not in a position to implement Labour Party policy in government. It makes sense for Labour Party policy in the next manifesto to focus on the things that a future Labour government is constitutionally able to deliver - in the case of health and social care, that means policy in England - rather than making up fantasy policies for places where we are not in government, and over which MPs elected to Westminster have no say.

[Peter Kenyon]

Dear Bob

Thanks for that. Your response highlights what I perceive to be a serious issue for us Labour Party members. Are we members of a national/British/United Kingdom Labour Party or not? Devolution has implications for the way we govern ourselves as a voluntary association and formulate policy.

What you are suggesting implies abandoning the ideal of a National Health Service, and only formulating health/social care policy based on Labour values for each of the devolved nations of the Union. Or have I misunderstood?

[Bob]

Dear Peter,

As a matter of fact and of law, the Scottish Executive is responsible for the NHS in Scotland, and has been for some years. This means that it can, and does, have different policies from the NHS in England. We can argue about whether this is a good thing or not - as a supporter in principle of devolution, I think it is, however much I may regret Labour's defeat in the last Scottish elections. It's best if we don't pretend that we can make policy for the whole of the UK, given that we just can't.

By the way, I'd still be interested to read your response to the first point in my previous comment. Did you just miss the words I quoted in the policy document?

[Bob]

I guess I'm not going to get an answer. Oh, well.

[Peter Kenyon]

Dear Bob

Your point being?

I have been back through our exchanges and we have different opinions.

If that has to be stated, there you have it.

Personally, if I need to restate my position, I would prefer a Labour health/social care policy applicable across the Union.

[Bob]

Dear Peter,

I think you misunderstand me. We may well disagree over the question of whether it is sensible to devolve decision-making and then insist that the same decision is made everywhere. I don't think it does. You do. Fair enough.

But that was not what I asked you. I was genuinely puzzled by the way you quoted the Labour policy document to support the argument that the Prime Minister is "launching another consultation when Labour's own policy consultation implies Labour in Government is already on the job", without acknowledging the fact that that very document, on the very same page you quote, says that the Labour government will launch the very consultation the Prime Minister launched this week, and in due course publish a Green Paper. As I asked you earlier, did you just miss that bit when you read the document, or did you deliberately leave that part of the quotation out to support your argument that launching the social care consultation (as promised by the Labour Party) would damage his credibility with the Labour Party?

The policy document says Labour will consult widely, lead a national debate and publish a Green Paper. Gordon Brown launches the consultation and national debate, and says there will be a Green Paper in due course. This lacks credibility because... well, why?

[Bob]

Oh well.

[Peter Kenyon]

Dear Bob

Bear with me. Launching Labour Wiki-politics is taking precedence. Why don't we have this exchange on the CommentonThis versions assuming you are a Party member?