Boris Johnson said: Dump a plan for welfare fees or face a Tory rebellion | Social Welfare

[ad_1]

Top Conservatives on Saturday urged Boris Johnson to abandon plans that would cause many of England’s poorest pensioners to pay more for their welfare – or risk forcing their MPs to make a humiliating turn.

The prime minister, still reeling from corrupt allegations and anger among “red wall” MPs over curtailed rail investment in the north, faces another potentially damaging rebellion in the House of Commons at the hands of an increasingly rebellious party.

The Observer has learned that several Northern Conservative MPs took part in an emergency call set up by Care Minister Gillian Keegan on Friday afternoon, who was said to have been “attacked” by MPs who complained that the plans were unfair and incomplete. Explain or think through.

According to MPs on the call, former Conservative Party chief Mark Harper challenged Keegan to provide a more detailed analysis of the plans – something neither she nor two of the civil servants present were able to do. Harper then said it wouldn’t be a good idea for her to provide the details on voting day, which is expected to be Monday or Tuesday.

Welfare Secretary Jillian Keegan. Photography: Stephen Buffer/Rex

It is understood that Tory whips have been told by several senior Tory MPs that they are considering voting against the plans, or abstaining, unless they are amended to ensure that retirees will not be forced to sell their homes to pay for their care, as Johnson had previously promised.

Jeremy Hunt, the former health secretary and current chair of the Health Select Committee, said it was “deeply disappointing” that the new plans were “not as progressive” as those put forward by Andrew Delno, the economist who put the original plans for a cap on individual contributions. He said it was now up to the government to improve the entitlements once the cap was introduced.

Damien Green, a former Tory government minister who was also on the call, told The Observer that the government should abandon plans and adopt a system that ensures people can keep a percentage of their housing wealth.

“I would urge them to take a different approach,” Green said. “I think it would be infinitely better to ensure that people can keep a percentage of their housing wealth rather than have a fixed rate that applies to the whole country.”

The Tory WhatsApp groups are said to be full of comments from members of Parliament – including several Red Wall seats – talking about a possible rebellion unless the government backs down.

Last week, as MPs’ minds focused more on the problems related to corruption and the decision to separate the eastern section of the high-speed rail line to Leeds, ministers announced changes to welfare plans meaning that poorer pensioners would not, after all, be Able to calculate state-tested payments for their care towards a total limit of £86,000 for any individual. It is believed that the change was made under pressure from the Treasury.

Critics said this meant that while someone who owns a £1m home would be able to protect more than 90% of their assets, anyone with a £70,000 home, in a less affluent part of the country, would lose everything. Approximately.

Dr Dan Poulter, an MP who works part-time as an NHS psychiatrist, said the unwelcome change of plans was the result of the government not allocating enough money to social care when its main announcements were about additional funding and health care reform from the NHS. Made in September.

“The initial set of proposals for a £86,000 cap on social care costs was robust and addressed the unfairness of people having to sell their homes to pay for their care, but there were always questions about whether or not the government’s sums were raised,” Poulter said.

Andrew Delno will present evidence before the Treasury Committee this week. Photo: HoC

“So while this change in policy is surprising, I think it may have been driven by the realization that an additional £5.6 billion, while welcome, would never be enough to meet the challenges of the care and social care workforce as well as adequate funding to introduce A cap of £86,000 for care costs. Unfortunately, it will be the poorest pensioners with relatively modest assets who will be hit the hardest by these changes.”

When she announced the plans last Thursday, Keegan said she would work to “reduce complexity” and ensure that people “don’t unfairly reach the limit at an artificially faster rate than they contribute.”

An Observer analysis shows that nearly three-quarters of the seats won by the Conservatives from Labor in the last election will be among those hardest hit by these changes.

Of the 54 seats that the Labor Conservatives won in 2019, 41 have average home prices below that level. In Burnley Circle, for example, the average home price is £99.950. In Darlington it is £135,000 and in Durham North West it is £120,000, according to the latest figures from the House of Commons Library.

About 60% of seniors who eventually need social care will lose out under the government’s plans, Delno told a panel of MPs last week.

“The people most affected by this change are those who have assets worth exactly £106,000,” he said. “But everyone with less than £186,000 in assets will do less under what the government is proposing than the proposals we have made and for which they have been legislated. This was a major change announced yesterday. You find savings exclusively from the less affluent group.”

Shadow health minister Jonathan Ashworth said: “Boris Johnson’s care plans descend into chaos, with Tory MPs squabbling while ministers admit they have not even considered how the proposals disproportionately affect owners of modest assets.

“While civil servants assert that these changes will hit some of the poorest pensioners, many of them in the North and Midlands, Tory MPs must join Labor in voting against this unfair scam of care and demand that ministers return with a fair alternative.”

Charles Talack of the Health Foundation said the average price of a home in Red Wall benches of £160,000 meant they were “most likely to be affected by the proposed changes”. The type of people currently receiving care are also likely to fare worse under the plans. The majority of people receiving care are women over 80, with an average wealth of £156,000.

[ad_2]