Can Andy Burnham really pull this one off?

James O'Brien - The Whole Show

The episode examines the intersection of the UK's social care crisis and broader fiscal challenges under the leadership of Prime Minister Andy

Key takeaways

• Approximately 53% of the UK population is estimated to take more out of the system over their lifetime than they contribute.
• Falling migration numbers are projected to create a £7 billion fiscal headroom gap for Chancellor John Healey.

Main topics

• Social Care Funding
• Economic Impact of Migration

Notable quotes

The percentage of our population... that over the course of a lifetime will take more out of the system than they put in is currently about 53%.

Conclusion

The episode serves as a poignant argument for universal social care, w

Transcript preview

Speaker 2 (0:00) you Speaker 2 (0:02) This is a Global Player original podcast. Speaker 1 (0:05) Good morning. Three minutes after ten is the time. I hope you had a cracking weekend. I have quite a Speaker 4 (0:11) lot to get through today. Obviously, we will be keeping a very close eye on that incident in Fairford. It's still, I mean, thank God nothing terrible Speaker 1 (0:22) happened and we await details of what was or was not planned. But I don't know how much of the detail of the story you've read. It's such a, I mean, I'd even go so far as to say it's got such a Cotswold subtext, not even such an English subtext. A woman driving back from a party whose husband was asleep in the passenger seat was dropping off a friend. You can almost smell the Berth Bourguignon, can't you, coming out of that scenario and Speaker 4 (0:50) encountered what she originally thought would be some sort of security exercise and Speaker 1 (0:55) then clocked the fact that they kind of didn't look. like the full ticket, as it were. So she just phoned 999. And the next thing you know, a major incident has been declared. And we're speculating about whether or not it might be an Iranian-sponsored terror attack. One quick word on opportunism and treachery. I don't understand completely. Well, unfortunately, I do. This insistence that we must be told what nationality they are. Do you honestly think you're not going to find out what nationality they are? So why do you want to know now? Why is it the people insisting that they need to know now are the same people that many of us consider responsible for things like, oh, I don't know, the Farage riots? It's almost as if they're really, really hoping there'll be some sort of ethnic or religious dimension to the story so that people who have nothing to do with any events that have or have not unfolded in Fairford can somehow be held responsible for it. I don't know why it always falls to me to join these particular dots, but we're going to find out who the arrested men are. We're going to find out what they are suspected of doing. We're going to find out where they're from. We're going to find out what their star sign is. Why do people like Farage go, we need to know now? Because he wants to make points about people that aren't them. but who share a certain characteristic. I think that's pretty straightforward once it's explained to you. So, of course, it's up to you now whether you continue to subscribe to that rather sinister school of thought or whether you move into the light with the rest of us. Any developments, by the way, will bring you toot sweet. Speaker 1 (2:25) And so we come to social... Well, two things, actually. I'm in one of those moods, aren't I? I hope I managed to find some way of focusing on the central issues of the day before we throw open the phone lines. Two things occur to me. One just popped up at the end of last week, and one is very much back in the news today, as John Healy, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, prepares to Speaker 4 (2:45) address conference today, something which I'm currently minded to take, if not in its entirety, then Speaker 1 (2:50) certainly we begin. coverage of that speech live. There was a little bit of a round-up in a column last week, and I double-checked the figures. You don't really have to, but it's always worth double-checking things. The percentage of people... I can't remember whether I told you this on Friday. I think I might have teased you with the statistic and then not delivered the answer. God, what an amateur. God, imagine a radio presenter who does so-called hooks and teasers and then forgets to give you the answer to the thing that he's teased you with. The percentage of our population... that over the course of a lifetime will take more out of the system than they put in is currently about 53%. Now, obviously, if you've earned a relatively average income and then you spend quite a few years being a pensioner, an old-age pensioner and not earning, then you can see how that happens. You move into, if you like, the red in the course of a lifetime. 46%, at risk of bombarding you with figures, 46 % of the 53 % are not pensioners. So a significant swathe of the working age population are over the course of their, are already net receivers rather than net givers. And to be honest, I wonder how many pensioners look back upon 40 years of work and honestly think that they have taken more out of the system than they've put into it. It's an extraordinary disconnect, isn't it, between... the reality of our shared existence and the perception. Everybody's always talking about how they want to pay. I pay too much tax. I need to pay less tax. Well, automatically, if everybody says that, 53 % of them are already taking more out of the tax pot than they're putting into it. 53%. And they are likely to be in work, those people. They certainly will have worked, almost all of them. I don't know what idea you have in your mind. Who is in that category? You take out more than you put in. Well, it's the long-term unemployed, James. It's the shirkers and the layabout. No, it's you. And think about it. Think about what your tax money is spent on. Everything from what's left of our army right through, of course, to the NHS. So that is point number one. Point number two, which is finally getting some coverage. If you've been listening to this programme for the last couple of years, you will not be shocked Speaker 4 (5:10) or surprised by this. But I remain shocked and surprised by how long it's taken for everybody else to wake up to this. It's Speaker 1 (5:17) estimated that John Healy today, as he prepares to crunch the numbers, could be hit with a £7 billion penalty. He could have £6.5 to £7 billion less than he might reasonably have expected. And guess why? Speaker 1 (5:34) When I tell you this and you add that little bit of information to the thing I just told you about tax, you're going to sit here wondering what the hell the media is doing in this country if it's not telling you the things that you need to know to have a clear idea of what is going on. Why do you think John Healy is looking at what even Rupert Murdoch's Times today describes as a £7 billion headache, a £7 billion headroom headache, fiscal headroom headache? Yeah, it's falling migration. Now go on Facebook, have a look at what you think is happening in this country. Everyone is paying loads of taxes to fund the migrants and they're all robbing us blind and we're all skint because of migration. A £7 billion gap between where we might reasonably have expected to be and where they now predict we will be as a direct consequence of migration numbers falling and over half of the population are already taking more out of the pot than they are putting in. I mean, genuinely, how accurately do you think that twin scenario is reflected by public discourse or indeed by most members of this profession or most newspapers? How accurately do you think that is? So 53 % of people listening to this program right now will be taking more out of the pot over the course of their lifetime than they'll be putting into it. And at the same time, migration coming down is going to hit the Treasury to the tune of up to, that's the outer limit, up to £7 billion. Which brings us to social care and the likelihood or the possibility of Andy Burnham being able to do what needs to be done against that twin backdrop. Not only are most of us going to be taking more out than we put in, but we are actively repelling people who would help to balance the books. Working age people coming to this country in the hope of working and propping up not just our ailing demographic, people living longer and being poorer, and younger people having fewer and fewer children. Not only are we actively repelling people who might come here and fix both sides of that demographic time bomb, but we are also showing no sign whatsoever of stopping the endless calls for it. So those are the twin facts. Extraordinary, right? It's extraordinary. Speaker 1 (7:59) that this situation is allowed to persist. But of course, it's not extraordinary when you think about where politicians and governments would go for the money that they desperately need if the country hadn't been persuaded to obsess endlessly about immigration. It would go to the people who've got it all. And I don't even mean the high earners. I mean the assets. The assets that we have spent 50 years moving from public ownership into private ownership and from ordinary people into an ever-shrinking fiscal Speaker 4 (8:30) elite. But I digress, because that ain't what we're talking about today. What we're talking about today is Andy Burnham's determination to sort something out. And I suspect this has a lot to do with his personal experiences with his father. Speaker 1 (8:44) And that's both... a good thing and a bad thing at the same time. It's a bad thing because it reminds us of the old adage that this program often operates at its best under, which is things about which you know nothing until you need to know everything. So Andy Burnham will know almost everything about the difficulties Speaker 4 (9:02) of dealing with, in his family's case, in his late father's case, dementia, but more broadly with social care. People who are not in receipt of specifically medical care. but who need looking after pretty much all the time, but whose family or even they are therefore on the hook for the costs of that care in a way that they wouldn't be if they had cancer. It's Speaker 1 (9:25) as simple as that. If it is a physical illness... traditional illness, is that a word even? Then it's free at the point of care. It's, of course, also one of the reasons why so many of us end up taking more out of the pot than we put in. But if it's social care, if you just need help, not as opposed to treatment. Speaker 1 (9:48) then you've got to pay for it yourself. Speaker 4 (9:50) Scotland have got a pretty good deal already, as is often the case when we turn our attention to these sort of issues. And we'll include that in the conversation. But Andy Burnham has described his determination to rip the plaster off and to radically transform care, to turn it into a universal service that would be free at the point of use for everybody in England. He hasn't. detailed exactly how it would be paid for, but it is almost certainly going to involve some sort of tax rise. And that, of course, is politically toxic in a country whose discourse is dominated by right-wing media. He's also pledged to put it into a general election manifesto. And the last time a prime minister did that, it was, of course. Theresa May, and it was a disaster. It was widely regarded as being the main reason why she went from a healthy lead in the polls when she called a general election to actually losing ground to a Labour Party led by Jeremy Corbyn. And he hasn't detailed yet what it is that he's going to do. He has rejected. suggestions that it could cost as much as £18 billion a year, which of course is three times what we're losing every year as a consequence of falling migration. But he thinks that it will be lower and insists that he will grasp the nettle. Speaker 1 (11:17) And he talks about being unpopular, which is a wonderful thing to see for those of us who try to actually understand what's going on rather than taking our political guidance from your Uncle Bob's Speaker 4 (11:27) racist Facebook page. He is prepared to be unpopular, but he knows that it has to be done. He knows that it has to be done. Quarter past ten is the time. It's Monday, so we'll be doing the Burnham Optimism barometer at some point. I know my Speaker 1 (11:45) monologues are quite lengthy, but it's because there's quite a lot to get through, particularly on Mondays when we sit down. So I'm going to do things a little bit differently today. I'm going to hit this junction on time. I'm going to come back and talk a little bit more about the first phone-in that we're going to have. But if you want to get in early, the question will probably involve some variation upon this theme. Speaker 1 (12:05) Will you be happy to see your taxes go up to fund social care for everybody? Because at the moment, it's a bit of a gamble. Most people won't have to fork out for it, for themselves or for their loved ones. So most of us, probably in utilitarian terms, are better off under the current system than we would be under a system where our taxation paid for everybody's social care. But the same, of course, is true of the NHS. So that's probably where we're heading, but you'll have to stay tuned to find out exactly where we end up. 18 minutes after 10. So I Speaker 4 (12:37) think in the finest traditions of the time we spend together every day, we are looking for both stories and opinions. The opinion is going to be looking at the wisdom or otherwise of using universal taxation to fund families that have members who need social care, because it certainly ain't all of us. The same, of course, is true of cancer. Many families will never have cancer in their midst or in a direct family will not have cancer in their midst. And yet, of course, our taxation is still required to pay for all the families that do. But I think I forget sometimes. Speaker 4 (13:14) How shocked I was the very first time I realized that this was the mothership of stories whereby or wherein we know nothing until we need to know everything. Speaker 1 (13:25) So I actually want some facts and figures, particularly if you still can't quite believe it. You hear idiots like me on the radio. Actually, that's not fair. I'm not an idiot every day. You hear characters like me on the radio. talking about this, and you sort of tune me out a bit, because you're sort of thinking, well, mum's fine. I'm only 20. None of this is going to affect me any time soon. I get it. I used to do it myself. I used to present programmes, or at least listen to programmes, 20 years ago, where even I was tuning it out. Social care, social schmare. My mum and dad are in their 50s. I mean, it's never going to matter. It's not something that particularly... My grandparents died young, or I was young when my grandparents died. We never really had responsibility for... haven't been touched by dementia as a family everything's hunky-dory everything's fine and then boom suddenly it isn't and you are still reeling from the simple financial impact and and it's a grim comparison but it's the one that i'm going to use if your loved one had motor neuron disease Speaker 4 (14:30) well that actually is probably not a great example because the necessity of care is so obvious and so acute but if your loved one had a form of cancer and Speaker 1 (14:40) you were required to pay for it, you'd be bankrupt. But if your loved one is simply fragile, if I told Speaker 4 (14:49) you my mum ended up on a ward the other week that I hadn't even heard of before, it was called the acute frailty Speaker 1 (14:55) ward. It's a chilling phrase, isn't it? It almost brought tears to my eyes when I first heard it. I thought I'd misheard actually on the switchboard, the acute frailty ward. Speaker 1 (15:06) My mum was poorly. She actually had all sorts of things going on. But, you know, you reach a point of acute frailty. You don't need to be ill. You are acutely frail. And you need constant care. You need constantly looking after. But if there's no actual diagnosable illness there, then you're going to have to pay for it yourself. So bearing in mind that there'll be people listening to this who truly don't have the first idea about the costs involved, let's talk about how much it has cost you. or your loved one, the simple impact financially of looking after somebody who, if you want to engage in slightly emotive cliche, who has worked all their lives, who has made an enormous contribution to this country, was possibly in the armed services or the emergency services. And then when the time came, when the curtain began to fall. it turned out you're going to have to pay for all this care yourself. So the house that you were hoping to leave to your children or your grandchildren gets sold. Or the money that you were hoping to use for a retirement has to go on the care of one of you, even though they would much rather you kept it for yourself and went on that cruise that you'd always dreamt. Do you see what I mean? Just the simple financial realities of it. Because an awful lot of people listening will Speaker 4 (16:19) not know. 03456060973. And then alongside the experience, the opinion. Do you think Andy Burnham can pull this off? Do you think that putting taxes up to fund universal social care that's free at the point of use is a mountain that he can succeed in climbing where pretty much every previous prime minister, including specifically Boris Johnson and Theresa May, have signally failed? All right. And remember, social care isn't just about old people. Social care. is about anybody that needs looking after because they can no longer look after themselves and possibly because they never could look after themselves. Amy is in Hemel Hempstead. Amy, what would you like to say? Speaker 6 (16:59) Hi, James, big fan. Thank Speaker 4 (17:01) you. Speaker 6 (17:02) Yeah. So my dad is currently 72 and he went into a care home in spring with Alzheimer's and dementia. He was diagnosed 2021 during COVID, which was not a great time to be diagnosed with Alzheimer's. It took a... a long time and there wasn't a lot of help. So he's kind of, I would say in the last stages now, he's completely non-verbal and starting not to recognise. Definitely me, I think he still remembers my mum. But I suppose I tried to ring you last week when you were talking about a similar thing because it's so relevant to our family at the moment. But because mum was really struggling to look after him by herself, she's really fit and active. But it was a lot, you know, he started having fits, he became incontinent. It was really, really difficult. His moods were up and down. It was really, really hard. And a care home really was the only option. It was sort of driving her into the ground. And, you know, she's got some years left to enjoy as well. And it was, you know, it was really, really hard work. The fees are £9,000 a month. Speaker 1 (18:08) There it is. So just pause, because you're used to this now, although I suspect it came as a fairly major shock when you first got told that. Speaker 6 (18:15) Yeah, I thought it was going to be around five. Nine is correct. Nine is wild. My parents worked really hard all their lives and had savings. And, you know, I think the plan was to travel and go on nice holidays during retirement. And that didn't come to be, sadly. And that Speaker 4 (18:34) money... So the savings are depleting? The savings are Speaker 6 (18:37) depleting. She's nearly now at a stage where it gets handed over to the state, I believe. She'll never have to move Speaker 4 (18:45) out of her home. Well, Speaker 6 (18:47) that's one of the reasons I'm ringing at you. Interestingly, the house that we've lived in since I was 12, I'm now in my 40s, she's still in. It's quite a big house. She's by herself. Obviously, it's a lot to look after. There's quite a lot wrong with it. Like, it possibly has subsidence. There's some, like, leaking problems. And if she moves, potentially half the equity of the house would go to dad's care. So it completely limits her moving and where she can go. Speaker 4 (19:14) Ah, I see. Are Speaker 6 (19:16) you Speaker 4 (19:16) following me? Yes, I hadn't thought of that. So she can stay there for the rest of her life, regardless of what happens to your dad. But she might not actually want to. And because of what's happening to your dad... her hands are sort of tied because that money would immediately, it would go immediately. It wouldn't go when she passes away or when he passes away. Speaker 6 (19:37) Exactly. And, you know, we live in quite an expensive part of the UK. House prices are expensive in Hertfordshire. And with the work that needs doing on the house, she probably won't get what she should do for it. And then that's going to limit where she moves. So it just seems hugely unfair. So I suppose to answer the question, I'd be more than happy to Speaker 4 (19:59) hang into the Speaker 6 (20:00) system. Well, of course you would. Speaker 4 (20:01) Of course you would. And you sound lovely. So, I mean, we will theorise and speculate that you listening to the Speaker 1 (20:07) radio 10 years ago or listening to the radio now when your dad never got dementia and they're happily... And then all of us are going to pay more tax in order to pay for families like yours when the majority of us will not be in one. Would you still have been all in favour of it if it was for thee and not for me, as it were? Or for me and not for thee? Speaker 6 (20:28) I think I would have been. I'm a bit of a socialist. I probably would have agreed to that. I mean, you've only got to see it. You know, we went to visit him in the home on Saturday. And it's really sad. You know, there's women just sort of wandering around lost. My dad doesn't say a lot. A few of them will come over to us and chat to us. And it doesn't make a lot of sense. But it is sad, you know. I took my children who were 14 and 11 and they were both in tears. He doesn't speak to us. We just play some music to him and his favourite songs and that seems to get him more excited than anything else now. But it is a really sad... state of affairs for all those people in that home. Speaker 4 (21:09) Presumably, that's at the higher end of care. Is it or not? He's in a Speaker 6 (21:14) nursing home because of his needs. So I think hence why it's a nine grand. But it's pretty standard. I think seven to nine grand is about right. I mean, it sounds like a lot of money, but when you think about the rent, the food, the actual nursing staff, everything that is involved in... the costs it kind of makes sense it's nine grand a month i think Speaker 4 (21:39) well it soon adds up and there's no suggestion that those figures are going to cut well i i mean we don't know what Speaker 1 (21:45) what slice off the top the providers of private care the private providers of care are taking and of course that is the great tragedy of the last 50 Speaker 4 (21:54) years is the commoditization of everything really from from the water that's coming out of your tap to the care for an elderly relative. But, you know, I suppose arguably people voted for it, whatever you want to call it, neoliberalism or rampant capitalism. But there might be a little bit of money to be saved if it came into public ownership. But no one's talking about that yet with regards to most care homes. And there's the problem. So nine grand a month, you've got to find it. About... Speaker 4 (22:22) 45 % in the southeast, which is why Amy mentions house prices, are self-funding. In the northeast, it goes down to 24.6%. But that just gives you an idea of one of the statistics. The families that do need it, only roughly half of them in the wealthiest part of the country are self-funding. So for the people who aren't self Speaker 1 (22:44) -funding, their taxes would go up as well. That's probably why it's so politically toxic. actually, because unlike Amy, most people would say, well, I'm not going to have to pay it. So why should I pay? Even if I go into it, even if one of my loved ones needs social care, I'm not going to have to pay for it. So why would I want my taxes to go up to pay for other people to be looked after? And that, you know, morally and emotionally is very much the direction of traffic in this country at the moment. It wasn't always, but if it wasn't for Nye Bevan. Frankly, we never would have had an NHS. It was an extraordinary effort of will from one single individual politician who just refused to be cowed or turned away from his path. I don't know if Andy Burnham is a politician of quite that calibre, although we will now open the Burnham Optimism Barometer. So if you want to text 84850 with a mark out of 10. for how optimistic you feel about Andy Burnham. Not for what you think of his performance. We may move on to that a little later in the year. But just how optimistic you feel about it. Today, after some 10 weeks or so of his premiership, just text that number to 84850 or WhatsApp it to Speaker 4 (23:53) 03456060973 Speaker 1 (23:57) and we'll get the results up shortly. The time now is half past 10 and Dominic Speaker 4 (24:02) Ellis is here with your headlines. 10.33 is the time you are listening to James O'Brien on LBC. I mean, the key question here is the calculation on whether you're going to need it or not. This would be social care that's free at the point of care versus your happiness seeing your taxes go up. So if you're on the hook for nine grand a month at the moment because your dad is in a home, then you are almost certainly going to be... coming out of this equation better off if taxes go up to pay for everybody who's in that situation. But the majority of us won't be, which means Speaker 1 (24:40) that the Tories will campaign on, he's putting up taxes. We're spending too much on, I don't know, cigarettes for children. Whatever it is they're going to claim is the real reason why the country is in Speaker 4 (24:52) fiscal peril. And it will work. People will fall for it. Daily Mail will throw its full weight behind the thing that is not true. The reason why the chancellor has little fiscal headroom is because, well, in one way, one big reason Speaker 1 (25:07) for it at the moment is because immigration is coming down. And that leaves us worse off as a country than we would be if it wasn't. But they're never going to be able to explain that to you, are they? Because it's what they've told you that you want. So how does it work, do you reckon? And Speaker 4 (25:19) that figure of 9,000, just how it hits you financially. Speaker 4 (25:25) You go from nought to 60 in three seconds flat when it comes to understanding the financial reality of these scenarios for, quotes, ordinary people. Stephen is in Carlisle. Stephen, what do you reckon? Speaker 2 (25:38) Yeah, good morning. We've just been through it as a family with my dad. Unfortunately, he passed away in June. I'm sorry. Yeah, but it went on for four or five years. And just like the lady I was listening to before on the phone, she described it quite well. I mean, it's an absolute financial nightmare. You know, he worked really, really hard. all his life and you know he had this thing oh yeah you know be happy when I can leave the family a little bit we decided as a family he needed the best of care when it came to it he had care at home full time carers and then they couldn't manage him so we had to put him we found the best care home we could because it was his money we decided it was his money so when he was having Speaker 4 (26:33) care at home was that self-funded as well or did that come from no Speaker 2 (26:38) self-funded it was yeah yeah it was costing it was costing basically a well about over four thousand pounds a month but we had to keep the house going as well and this is dementia Speaker 4 (26:51) though but if he had had dementia if he'd Speaker 2 (26:54) been Speaker 4 (26:54) physically compromised then it would have been nhs provision that not so well this Speaker 2 (26:59) this is this is the whole thing um you know there is a a thing called continuing health care but the criteria is so strict to get anything near that to get any help near that criteria but you know people are then bed bound and on their last legs you know in a lot of ways um yes i know it's the Speaker 1 (27:24) hardest thing to actually understand unless you have like you been right through it and that you this distinction i mean dementia is the Forgive me for sounding crass, Stephen, but it's kind of like the trump card, isn't it? It's a mental decline. Yeah. I mean, in some ways it is physical because the brain is an organ, but it's not the same as someone who can't walk and therefore needs help getting to bed at night or going to the... Do you see what I mean? It's such a strange distinction when you actually break it down. Speaker 2 (27:53) But it's, you know, everybody knows about the mind-body connection. Yeah, Speaker 8 (27:58) of Speaker 2 (27:58) course. And it's just... That affects everything. I mean, you know, I mean, even when my dad was incontinent and had all the worst things you could ever imagine with dementia, there was no help available at all. You know, so... Because it was dementia Speaker 1 (28:17) related? Speaker 2 (28:18) It's dementia related. And I mean, I'm not 100 % on top of this, but I'm sure there's other conditions where there is help there. But Speaker 1 (28:30) it's not like urgent medical care or specific medical care. It's more like the long-term grind of care that exempts you from state support. And then when he went into a home, the house is next to go, potentially. Speaker 2 (28:44) Yeah, well, we were at the stage where we were going to have to put the house up for sale to, well, we did, to fund his care in the care home. Speaker 2 (28:56) And to be honest, you know, the last few months of his life, he was bed bound. And we did, in the end, we did manage to get a little bit of the continuing health care for him because his condition was that bad. Speaker 4 (29:10) But Speaker 2 (29:11) honestly, it's just such a fight. Everything's such a fight. And it's as if people don't want to tell you what helps out there. In the end, I was lucky enough to get a half-decent social worker, but before that, it was an absolute nightmare. I've Speaker 1 (29:32) had a little taste of some of this in recent months. Nothing like as serious or as severe as what you've been through. But I sensed a couple of points. I wonder whether you noted this. I wouldn't like to use the word competing, but certainly when the hospital wants a bed back and they're keen to get somebody home and yet... there are concerns that that person isn't ready to go home, it sometimes feels like they're not all on the same side, all of the people involved in that process. Speaker 2 (30:03) Yeah, I can see that. And to be honest, when you go, you get into a situation where my dad had to a couple of times go into hospital because he had falls and different things at home. Yes. You know, the communication between... Speaker 2 (30:21) I don't really want to criticise it. No, I can tell you don't, and I Speaker 1 (30:24) don't really want you to, but sometimes the left hand doesn't know what the right hand's doing. I think we can say that without attacking either the left hand or the right hand, Speaker 4 (30:32) Stephen, can't we? Speaker 2 (30:33) Yeah, it's about communication, really. But as a family, it can cause... Speaker 2 (30:43) problems within families as well. Well, Speaker 1 (30:45) of course it can, because there are different priorities and different things. John Crace in The Guardian today makes this point, although... from a Speaker 4 (30:52) perspective where I don't think there was any family falling out, but it is an experience many have gone through. My sisters and I, he writes, had to sell my mother's house to pay for her care during the last seven years of her life as she suffered from Alzheimer's. We didn't mind so much, but my mother would have been gutted had she been aware. It mattered to her that she could Speaker 1 (31:10) leave her house to the three of us. Paying a little extra in tax to make sure that other people, possibly even you, don't have to burn through their assets seems the kind of thing any fair-minded society... would do. And he's right until the usual suspects pop up and start pretending that all the money is going to go on illegal immigrants or children smoking 40 fags a day. And they will do that. I exaggerate slightly in the second example, but that's what will happen. And if it never happens, if Burnham can't get it over the line or he campaigns for it on the next general election and loses, that will be why. John Craze, one of my favourite writers, nails Speaker 4 (31:47) it. Why? He says Burnham ended by saying, this is his interview yesterday on the BBC, he very much hoped to work cross-party on all this. It was too important not to. This aspiration lasted all of five minutes because that's how long it took the ever-ridiculous Chris Philp to start going on about a death and dementia tax, like clockwork. The filpster becomes more and more a parody of himself, the Tory party's very own Alan Bastard, venal, self-serving and not very bright. A man whose answer to everything is cut the welfare bill still further, seemingly unaware his leader has already spent the cuts her party has proposed. It's as if he sees dementia as a personal failing. Speaker 1 (32:22) That's the tension. That's why I conduct these phone-ins in the way that I do. The reality versus the rhetoric. That is the reality. Stephen's experience is the reality. All our callers' experiences is the reality. Speaker 4 (32:35) The Speaker 1 (32:36) rhetoric is, oh, well, the only reason he's going to have to put taxes up to pay for this is because everybody's living a life of Riley on welfare. Everybody's living a life of Riley on universal credit. And that's a lie. And people like Chris Philp know it's a lie. But it's as if he's done a deal whereby I'll tell lots of lies and it will increase my chances of getting back into power, even though almost all of the lies that I tell are rendered ridiculous as well as dishonest by what we actually did last time we were in power, including people like me, Chris Philp, who had Speaker 4 (33:04) quite big jobs at the time. It's tragic, really. And then you factor in the other two elements. 53 % of us are going to be taking more out of the pot than we put in. Anyway, where does that leave you if you're saying, oh, taxes, taxes, taxes? But I don't know how many people see it until it's too late. Emma's in Leeds. Emma, what would you like to say? Speaker 3 (33:23) Hi, I'm a hospital social worker. It's my job to meet your relatives in hospital and discuss what care is available outside of hospital. Speaker 4 (33:36) And Speaker 3 (33:36) I'm sorry if people are having bad experiences, but I can't speak for everybody, obviously. Of Speaker 4 (33:40) course. But what I can say... I'll shut up for a while. What I can Speaker 3 (33:44) say... is in the last 10 years since I've been working in hospital social work, the financial ability to provide and offer options for people has been squeezed and squeezed and squeezed. I'm working for a council who literally have cut all their services in the last couple of years because they're in debt to the government because they were about to go bust because of our social care bill. And so I stand at people's hospital beds now and I have to offer them... charge services because i can no longer offer them a period of free service because we can't afford it as a council and Speaker 4 (34:19) that's not i mean just to clarify because i know you know this but not everyone listening will that's a postcode thing that is literally not going to be the case in other parts of the country Speaker 3 (34:27) your lady was paying nine pound nine thousand pounds a month it where i live you know people are paying a lot less than that because of the the area we're in a lot less But it's still a lot of money for the demographic. And the competition for those beds is horrendous. But what I do want to say, I listened to Andy Burnham yesterday. And obviously I listen to this shouting at the telly and the radio a lot. But I listened to him and I thought, well, do you know what? There is people in hospital