X Close

No one cares for carers Without their sacrifice, the NHS would collapse

The vulnerable deserve better. (Etienne George/Sygma via Getty Images)

The vulnerable deserve better. (Etienne George/Sygma via Getty Images)


July 11, 2023   5 mins

Granny Rosie, as she is known to everyone, is still very much herself at the age of 92: partial to a G&T when the sun is over the yardarm, and always up for a gossip. She’s also frustrated to be in a wheelchair — she was the Hampshire Ladies Cycling Champion in 1950, a horsewoman and dog walker. She hates to “be a trouble”.

Rosie moved into our ramshackle house 25 years ago, completely independent, and a fabulous support when we had school-aged children. A decade later, my parents threw their lot in with us, too. We bought a neglected and damp Edwardian pile around the corner, which had once been a care home. As my father’s Parkinson’s threatened to become more severe, we would need ramps, grab rails, widened doorways. And I would learn how to be a carer.

“Carer” is a tricky word. It’s a noun that brings with it a hint of transaction, of imbalance. The NHS defines it as anyone who looks after someone who “cannot cope without their support”, and clarifies: “The care they give is unpaid.” This definition is all the more uncomfortable if you are caring for someone you love.

First, I was supporting my mother caring for my father; then watching over her as she negotiated life without him; finally, after my Ma died, I became Granny Rosie’s full-time “extra pair of hands”, as she puts it. Each act has been one of love, but it has also been tough and distressing. It is challenging, caring for those who once cared for you, managing the physical and sometimes mental life without a loss of dignity, the tiredness and the loss of privacy. And it is endless. Being a carer is about meeting someone else’s needs, every single day, at all hours. If you can’t be there all the time, it’s about finding someone who can — a neighbour, a relative, a friend.

Many people, finding the relentless struggle impossible, have to leave their jobs. A spike in the number of people giving up work to care for family members was reported last year — 84% of them women. Most carers talk about feeling guilty whatever they do — that terrible disappointment on a beloved father’s face when the visit is over too soon, the falsely bright goodbye from a mother who is refusing to give in. The feeling, when you are caring for someone with dementia, when they can’t even recognise your face anymore.

On top of the emotional challenges are the practical ones, the financial ones. How do you agree with siblings over whether an ageing parent needs a residential home or a paid carer? Where do you turn, when you can afford neither to leave your job nor pay someone to care for a beloved relative? When there is so little state support on offer?

Without unpaid carers, the NHS would collapse. There are 10.6 million of us in the UK, and we save the government £162 billion per year in England and Wales. (For context, in 2020-21, the NHS received an estimated £164 billion per year in funding.) Despite this, the Carer’s Allowance is only a measly £76.75 per week (up from last year’s £69.70). To qualify, you have to spend at least 35 hours a week caring for someone: a fulltime job. If an extra £7 a week seems paltry, consider the Carer’s Leave Act, which is about to come into force. It will give employees the right to take leave to provide care — unpaid — for a mere five days. But if carers withdrew their labour, the system would simply collapse. Hospital beds would be flooded, care homes would be unable to cope with the influx, the NHS would crack under the strain.

When the Dilnot Commission on Funding of Care and Support was published in 2011, one of its key recommendations was that there should be a cap placed on an individual’s contributions towards their own care. The figure was set at £35,000. The intention was to protect those who have spent their working lives paying National Insurance contributions from the sort of “extreme” care costs that would force them to sell their homes. The asset threshold for those in state-funded residential care should, it suggested, increase from £22,500 to £100,000. There should be greater integration between health and social care services, and better information for care users. The Commission was thorough, it was fair, and it achieved royal assent in 2015.

But nearly 13 years on — and despite the tough lessons taught by the pandemic — almost none of the Dilnot Commission’s key recommendations has been implemented. Cameron, May and Johnson all stalled. Theresa May changed the name of the Department of Health to the Department of Health and Social Care in 2018, as a nod to better integration. But, as in so many government departments, this one has seen a revolving door of ministers, who have made few lasting changes. Now, Britain’s care system is at breaking point. There is no fairness in who pays what; there is no plan for those who do not have children to step in and help, or those whose families are estranged or living too far away. As the NHS remains starved of funds — Rishi Sunak has just announced the “most radical” reform in NHS history: his plan to make £10 billion in savings — the situation is only worsening. In May, the Prime Minister killed off the Conservatives’ flagship social care plan.

Social care is not seen as a vote-winner. I’d hazard that this is at least partly because care is seen as a women’s issue. By the age of 46, women have a 50% chance of being a carer. Men don’t have equivalent odds until they are 57, which suggests that men mostly care for their partners, whereas women care for everyone. And though there are men actively campaigning in this field, the blunt fact is that the majority of carers, paid or unpaid, are women, and the vast majority of legislators are men. In September 2020, at the beginning of the period of local, tiered lockdowns, not a single woman attended Cobra meetings, and there was not one female nurse on the Sage Cobra team. If the Government is going to address the crisis in care, it needs to listen to those actually providing it. The trouble is we often don’t see the point in complaining. We just get on with it.

There is also a growing number of young carers looking after parents or siblings — the Children’s Society estimated in 2021 there might be as many as 800,000 carers between the ages of 5 and 17. If they have managed to stay in school, they are often alienated from their classmates because of the unpredictability of their lives. There are few advocating for this often invisible group of carers. Those that do, for instance the All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on Young Carers and Young Adult Carers, have little power to effect change.

Carers are everywhere, hidden in plain sight. Most of us, even if we long for compassionate support from the Government, take on the role willingly, regardless of the consequences to ourselves. I am lucky: I didn’t have to give up my job to become a carer, but many have no choice, and find themselves pushed further to the margins of society. The current political narrative is that a valuable life is a “productive” one — one that makes the nation money. It belittles both those who give care and those who receive it. It ignores the fact that women and men who have spent their lives contributing to society deserve to be looked after, not seen as a burden, or a “trouble”.


Kate Mosse is a novelist, memoirist and broadcaster. An Extra Pair of Hands: A Story of Caring and Everyday Acts of Love was published by Profile Books last year.

katemosse

Join the discussion


Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber


To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.

Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.

Subscribe
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

31 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Susan Grabston
Susan Grabston
9 months ago

Retrospectively I would not have undertaken to be a carer. Hard, unremitting work that goes up as the caree’s capacity for independent action goes down. Calculations of how much longer are made. Appreciate these are brutal statements lacking compassion.

Milton Gibbon
Milton Gibbon
9 months ago
Reply to  Susan Grabston

Fair and honest though. Thank you for sharing them.

Kate Heusser
Kate Heusser
9 months ago
Reply to  Susan Grabston

Not ‘lacking compassion’ at all, but acknowledging exhaustion and the years – decades – having to devote more and more time with less and less positive effect. I hope you can get at least a little support and time to look after your own health and welfare.

Milton Gibbon
Milton Gibbon
9 months ago
Reply to  Susan Grabston

Fair and honest though. Thank you for sharing them.

Kate Heusser
Kate Heusser
9 months ago
Reply to  Susan Grabston

Not ‘lacking compassion’ at all, but acknowledging exhaustion and the years – decades – having to devote more and more time with less and less positive effect. I hope you can get at least a little support and time to look after your own health and welfare.

Susan Grabston
Susan Grabston
9 months ago

Retrospectively I would not have undertaken to be a carer. Hard, unremitting work that goes up as the caree’s capacity for independent action goes down. Calculations of how much longer are made. Appreciate these are brutal statements lacking compassion.

clare davies
clare davies
9 months ago

There are more carers than before because people who would once have been able to retire at 60 to care for aging relatives now are forced to struggle on until 68 (or even longer). As I try to juggle work and my own aging aches and pains with a 93 year old mum and an elderly aunt with leukemia, despair sets in because I know there wont be anything left of the NHS or the pensions system to care for me when my turn comes.

Kate Heusser
Kate Heusser
9 months ago
Reply to  clare davies

My concerns exactly!

Kate Heusser
Kate Heusser
9 months ago
Reply to  clare davies

My concerns exactly!

clare davies
clare davies
9 months ago

There are more carers than before because people who would once have been able to retire at 60 to care for aging relatives now are forced to struggle on until 68 (or even longer). As I try to juggle work and my own aging aches and pains with a 93 year old mum and an elderly aunt with leukemia, despair sets in because I know there wont be anything left of the NHS or the pensions system to care for me when my turn comes.

Steve White
Steve White
9 months ago

We live in a time where there is a collapse of integrity in leadership. Pragmatism has replaced love. Therefore, institutions themselves are too big to fail, and greater than the individual. The reality is that institutions only thrive when there are those who actually care about their fellow humanity and act accordingly.
What we have now is a sort of systemic narcissism, where people are to be used and discarded. We saw this coming. In America at least even companies replaced the departments that used to be called “Personnel Departments” with the name “Human Resources”. That’s significant. That’s significant language, and I would argue that it was a shift in thinking about a lot of things. In that change of language we see that there is no more personhood, but we humans are simply a resource…
Whatever it is, we are in the late stages of our cultures because of this shift. So, naturally everything is rotting, including the quality of those who would lead. 

Last edited 9 months ago by Steve White
Steve Murray
Steve Murray
9 months ago
Reply to  Steve White

Some useful points, but like anyone else, you’ve no idea whether we’re in “the late stages of our cultures” or not, since you’ve no idea what comes after that. It could, for instance, be something completely unprecedented but positive, so please don’t reply with “another Dark Ages” or similar. None of us know; it’s not a fait accompli.

Steve White
Steve White
9 months ago
Reply to  Steve Murray

I do know that for 1500 years there have been various forms of Christendom, (some helpful and some not so helpful), in existence in the West. It was Aquinas who got the Greek philosophers (particularly Aristotle) accepted in the universities that brought us out of the so called “Dark Ages” with the Renaissance following, and Reformation following after that.    
Some would claim the Enlightenment was the end of the “dark ages”, but Voltaire (the father of the Enlightenment) was inspired while sitting in an English prison, yet inspired as to how the English (with thier Reformation) were able to share power with the people without chaos. His writings later inspired the bloody and chaotic French Revolution, which the only way to stop that was with the authoritarian Napoleon ruling. Which will be the only way to bring order in many places in the future IMO.
The fact is that Christendom is dead, and the merger of Aristotelian particulars with universal truths from the Bible has been cast off in the West.
Like Nietzsche’s terror that “God is dead…we’ve killed him”, which gave rise to his replacement of “human excellence” to define universal truth, we’ve gone the exact opposite direction in an appeal to nihilistic postmodernism, or worse a sort of “might makes right”-ism. Either way, it’s already leading to chaos. It’s a philosophical, theological, and cultural dead ender.
You might be right about the fact that something unprecedented but positive, and not a sort of dark ages is in front of us, but I think it’s safe to say without some sort of dramatic change of course, or some act of God that causes change, the “ordinary means” will be that we’re headed towards disaster. 

Last edited 9 months ago by Steve White
Steve Murray
Steve Murray
9 months ago
Reply to  Steve White

I would argue that it’s the process of disentangling our former naive beliefs that’s produced the current disruptions. If you believe in a god, of course you’ll yearn for us to revert to our former state – which led to disillusionment, producing precisely the problems you rail against! And you wish to continue repeating that unhappy cycle?
“Belief” systems have yet to be replaced with something more substantial – but the seeds are there, within our humanity. I know they are, because they exist within myself and others, and they’re entirely positive. One such seed is the wonder we experience as our technology allows us further and greater insights into the cosmos around us – entirely without any recourse to a creator. When those insights first came forth via Galileo, the result by your god-worshippers was torture and imprisonment.

Kate Heusser
Kate Heusser
9 months ago
Reply to  Steve Murray

Well, that was lazy.

Kate Heusser
Kate Heusser
9 months ago
Reply to  Steve Murray

Well, that was lazy.

Clare Knight
Clare Knight
9 months ago
Reply to  Steve White

Headed towards disaster for sure.

Steve Murray
Steve Murray
9 months ago
Reply to  Steve White

I would argue that it’s the process of disentangling our former naive beliefs that’s produced the current disruptions. If you believe in a god, of course you’ll yearn for us to revert to our former state – which led to disillusionment, producing precisely the problems you rail against! And you wish to continue repeating that unhappy cycle?
“Belief” systems have yet to be replaced with something more substantial – but the seeds are there, within our humanity. I know they are, because they exist within myself and others, and they’re entirely positive. One such seed is the wonder we experience as our technology allows us further and greater insights into the cosmos around us – entirely without any recourse to a creator. When those insights first came forth via Galileo, the result by your god-worshippers was torture and imprisonment.

Clare Knight
Clare Knight
9 months ago
Reply to  Steve White

Headed towards disaster for sure.

Clare Knight
Clare Knight
9 months ago
Reply to  Steve Murray

I kinda think it is a fait accompli.

Steve White
Steve White
9 months ago
Reply to  Steve Murray

I do know that for 1500 years there have been various forms of Christendom, (some helpful and some not so helpful), in existence in the West. It was Aquinas who got the Greek philosophers (particularly Aristotle) accepted in the universities that brought us out of the so called “Dark Ages” with the Renaissance following, and Reformation following after that.    
Some would claim the Enlightenment was the end of the “dark ages”, but Voltaire (the father of the Enlightenment) was inspired while sitting in an English prison, yet inspired as to how the English (with thier Reformation) were able to share power with the people without chaos. His writings later inspired the bloody and chaotic French Revolution, which the only way to stop that was with the authoritarian Napoleon ruling. Which will be the only way to bring order in many places in the future IMO.
The fact is that Christendom is dead, and the merger of Aristotelian particulars with universal truths from the Bible has been cast off in the West.
Like Nietzsche’s terror that “God is dead…we’ve killed him”, which gave rise to his replacement of “human excellence” to define universal truth, we’ve gone the exact opposite direction in an appeal to nihilistic postmodernism, or worse a sort of “might makes right”-ism. Either way, it’s already leading to chaos. It’s a philosophical, theological, and cultural dead ender.
You might be right about the fact that something unprecedented but positive, and not a sort of dark ages is in front of us, but I think it’s safe to say without some sort of dramatic change of course, or some act of God that causes change, the “ordinary means” will be that we’re headed towards disaster. 

Last edited 9 months ago by Steve White
Clare Knight
Clare Knight
9 months ago
Reply to  Steve Murray

I kinda think it is a fait accompli.

Steve Murray
Steve Murray
9 months ago
Reply to  Steve White

Some useful points, but like anyone else, you’ve no idea whether we’re in “the late stages of our cultures” or not, since you’ve no idea what comes after that. It could, for instance, be something completely unprecedented but positive, so please don’t reply with “another Dark Ages” or similar. None of us know; it’s not a fait accompli.

Steve White
Steve White
9 months ago

We live in a time where there is a collapse of integrity in leadership. Pragmatism has replaced love. Therefore, institutions themselves are too big to fail, and greater than the individual. The reality is that institutions only thrive when there are those who actually care about their fellow humanity and act accordingly.
What we have now is a sort of systemic narcissism, where people are to be used and discarded. We saw this coming. In America at least even companies replaced the departments that used to be called “Personnel Departments” with the name “Human Resources”. That’s significant. That’s significant language, and I would argue that it was a shift in thinking about a lot of things. In that change of language we see that there is no more personhood, but we humans are simply a resource…
Whatever it is, we are in the late stages of our cultures because of this shift. So, naturally everything is rotting, including the quality of those who would lead. 

Last edited 9 months ago by Steve White
Jeremy Bray
Jeremy Bray
9 months ago

“There are 10.6 million of us in the UK, and we save the government £162 billion per year in England and Wales. (For context, in 2020-21, the NHS received an estimated £164 billion per year in funding.)”

These statistics highlights the scale of the problem. At the same time we read in the Telegraph a few days ago that Motability cars were being financed for the autistic and anxious and all sorts of near cosmetic procedures are financed by the NHS and the unemployment budget is enormous.

If people are to be left enough of their earnings to be incentivised to work prioritising where the health and social care budget is spent has to receive more attention and less attention be given to particularly noisy lobbying. Of course my assessment of priorities will not be the same as others and therein lies the difficulty – but some overall assessment must be made which does not appear to be done at present.

Jeremy Bray
Jeremy Bray
9 months ago

“There are 10.6 million of us in the UK, and we save the government £162 billion per year in England and Wales. (For context, in 2020-21, the NHS received an estimated £164 billion per year in funding.)”

These statistics highlights the scale of the problem. At the same time we read in the Telegraph a few days ago that Motability cars were being financed for the autistic and anxious and all sorts of near cosmetic procedures are financed by the NHS and the unemployment budget is enormous.

If people are to be left enough of their earnings to be incentivised to work prioritising where the health and social care budget is spent has to receive more attention and less attention be given to particularly noisy lobbying. Of course my assessment of priorities will not be the same as others and therein lies the difficulty – but some overall assessment must be made which does not appear to be done at present.

John Dellingby
John Dellingby
9 months ago

Even for those carers in paid work, their earnings are nothing more than a joke. Within the last year or two, I saw a job advert for a manager in a care home in East Anglia and it was paying £12.50 per hour. For that amount of responsibility and stress, that is a contemptible offer. Alas sometimes caters are their own worst enemy here as they will do it on the basis “someone has to do it” which leads to them being taken advantage of by these joke offers. I fear that as a society, we will just have to suck it up and pay more in taxes to fund this.

John Dellingby
John Dellingby
9 months ago

Even for those carers in paid work, their earnings are nothing more than a joke. Within the last year or two, I saw a job advert for a manager in a care home in East Anglia and it was paying £12.50 per hour. For that amount of responsibility and stress, that is a contemptible offer. Alas sometimes caters are their own worst enemy here as they will do it on the basis “someone has to do it” which leads to them being taken advantage of by these joke offers. I fear that as a society, we will just have to suck it up and pay more in taxes to fund this.

Milton Gibbon
Milton Gibbon
9 months ago

Another article pointing out a well known and well publicised opinion but with no reflection on the solution to this by the author. The bit she lost me was in denigrating productivity while earlier calling the amount carers are given as measly and the NHS insuffuciently funded. Where does she think more money would come from?

Once again an Unherd author in an article about carers forgets to mention what would have been the greatest national shake up in social care since the NHS abandoned it to private interest (with the conivance of the Church). This was Theresa May’s social care plan in the 2017 GE. Unbelievable. The fact that it was derided as a crackpot plan by a supposedly sociaist Labour party showed the baseness of their convictions. Does anyone really believe that Labour are any closer to grappling with the issue now? That should have at least been given a paragraph along with the lack of solutions from an opposition scared to face the challenges of government.

Steve Murray
Steve Murray
9 months ago
Reply to  Milton Gibbon

You were easily “lost”. Whilst social care is a sensitive subject, interpreting the author as denigrating productivity is being oversensitive: a more fair reading would be the current neglect of caring roles as non-productive – a subtle but important difference.

I agree about the failure of nerve regarding May’s sincere attempt to try to revise the caring settlement. Grasping the nettle was regarded with horror rather than necessity; meanwhile, millions of lives are put on hold out of a sense of love and duty.

Last edited 9 months ago by Steve Murray
Steve Murray
Steve Murray
9 months ago
Reply to  Milton Gibbon

You were easily “lost”. Whilst social care is a sensitive subject, interpreting the author as denigrating productivity is being oversensitive: a more fair reading would be the current neglect of caring roles as non-productive – a subtle but important difference.

I agree about the failure of nerve regarding May’s sincere attempt to try to revise the caring settlement. Grasping the nettle was regarded with horror rather than necessity; meanwhile, millions of lives are put on hold out of a sense of love and duty.

Last edited 9 months ago by Steve Murray
Milton Gibbon
Milton Gibbon
9 months ago

Another article pointing out a well known and well publicised opinion but with no reflection on the solution to this by the author. The bit she lost me was in denigrating productivity while earlier calling the amount carers are given as measly and the NHS insuffuciently funded. Where does she think more money would come from?

Once again an Unherd author in an article about carers forgets to mention what would have been the greatest national shake up in social care since the NHS abandoned it to private interest (with the conivance of the Church). This was Theresa May’s social care plan in the 2017 GE. Unbelievable. The fact that it was derided as a crackpot plan by a supposedly sociaist Labour party showed the baseness of their convictions. Does anyone really believe that Labour are any closer to grappling with the issue now? That should have at least been given a paragraph along with the lack of solutions from an opposition scared to face the challenges of government.

laura m
laura m
9 months ago

I’m in California. When our youngest brother developed young onset Parkinson Disease he become a burden for our elderly mother. I stepped up to the job of securing his safety net benefits and putting a health/living plan in place. It is an arduous task which the US government makes more difficult for family of cognitively impaired people, especially the disabled without private insurance and housing. I succeeded, and for 7 years preformed all necessary caregiver functions alone. Hit the wall and my underlying neurological disease came out of remission. Now my sister is performing the job, much easier since all the pieces are in place, subsidized housing, routine care givers, quality Medi-caid funded health care and social security benefits. She has hit burn out after 7 years and wants me to take on the job next. I can’t turn away and pretend other options exist, they don’t, yet I am sad for myself as I enter my senior years.

Clare Knight
Clare Knight
9 months ago
Reply to  laura m

It sounds grim. You have my utmost sympthy.Can you hook up with other carers via social media?

laura m
laura m
9 months ago
Reply to  Clare Knight

Yes and in person meetings through local Parkinson groups. That said, my sketch points out several key issues, without an advocate, most seriously ill disabled folks cannot manage. Families are critical re: homeless untreated SMI and drug addicts and the serious ill disabled folks. The system needs to carve out case management approach for these groups. It ain’t $$, it is a failure to create the necessary housing plus services for folks disabled by serious disease. There are many potential fixes if the liability issues can be addressed.

Last edited 9 months ago by laura m
laura m
laura m
9 months ago
Reply to  Clare Knight

Yes and in person meetings through local Parkinson groups. That said, my sketch points out several key issues, without an advocate, most seriously ill disabled folks cannot manage. Families are critical re: homeless untreated SMI and drug addicts and the serious ill disabled folks. The system needs to carve out case management approach for these groups. It ain’t $$, it is a failure to create the necessary housing plus services for folks disabled by serious disease. There are many potential fixes if the liability issues can be addressed.

Last edited 9 months ago by laura m
Clare Knight
Clare Knight
9 months ago
Reply to  laura m

It sounds grim. You have my utmost sympthy.Can you hook up with other carers via social media?

laura m
laura m
9 months ago

I’m in California. When our youngest brother developed young onset Parkinson Disease he become a burden for our elderly mother. I stepped up to the job of securing his safety net benefits and putting a health/living plan in place. It is an arduous task which the US government makes more difficult for family of cognitively impaired people, especially the disabled without private insurance and housing. I succeeded, and for 7 years preformed all necessary caregiver functions alone. Hit the wall and my underlying neurological disease came out of remission. Now my sister is performing the job, much easier since all the pieces are in place, subsidized housing, routine care givers, quality Medi-caid funded health care and social security benefits. She has hit burn out after 7 years and wants me to take on the job next. I can’t turn away and pretend other options exist, they don’t, yet I am sad for myself as I enter my senior years.

j watson
j watson
9 months ago

The sort of huge social policy issue it’s good to see UnHerd giving some space. Good grief this will be occupying many more lives now and in future than the latest Trans saga that we seem to get daily. And with 140k social care vacancies it also links to immigration policy.
Just to clarify though, May did not propose to fully implement Dilnot. The 2017 manifesto had different caps and little to nothing on the Dilnot recommendation general taxation had to share the load – to an estimated 0.22GDP by mid 20s. She was also blindsided by the dementia tax’ argument – which remains an issue now in that care for dementia is seen as social and not NHS care and thus means tested. She and the Tories proposed no change to that. That said she did deserve some credit for pushing something forward, but undone as much by her own side as anyone.
Tories now had 13 years, and furthermore with Brexit shrinking the social care workforce for a generation at least, even more reason to get on and deliver some fundamental change. Abject failure.
If there is a change of Govt let’s hope they’ve the strength to immediately seek cross party agreement to go back to Dilnot and largely implement what was recommended. Anyone got a better idea?

Milton Gibbon
Milton Gibbon
9 months ago
Reply to  j watson

How about people look after their own families as happens as a matter of course (rich and poor) in mich of the non-western world and we don’t look to the state or a private institution to do it for us.

Caty Gonzales
Caty Gonzales
9 months ago
Reply to  Milton Gibbon

That is workable depending on what the needs of the individual in question are. Some people can no longer live at home due to the intense 24 hour care or supervision they need. If you are caring for a bedridden parent and they need to be changed, bathed etc and you are older or incapacitated yourself then your parent may need to be placed somewhere where they can receive a level of care that is needed.

Milton Gibbon
Milton Gibbon
9 months ago
Reply to  Caty Gonzales

If you are of an age where you need your own care then where are the children/grandchildren? A return to multi-generational living is the truly radical solution – free childcare for the young and loving care for the elderly/infirm. Freedom is all well and good until you can’t clean yourself.

John Solomon
John Solomon
9 months ago
Reply to  Milton Gibbon

A good enough idea where an elderly (grand) parent was a loving and caring individual. What about the uncaring and abusive? Do they have to be cared for too, or can they just be left in the gutter?

Clare Knight
Clare Knight
9 months ago
Reply to  John Solomon

Exactly, it’s complicated.

Milton Gibbon
Milton Gibbon
9 months ago
Reply to  John Solomon

Great response. If your parents were uncaring should you not show them care? If they were abusive towards you and are not in a situation to be so any more then should you not try to forgive? Your argument sounds like an eye for an eye.

John Solomon
John Solomon
9 months ago
Reply to  Milton Gibbon

I’m with Clare on this. It’s much, much more complicated than that, at least here in the real world.

John Solomon
John Solomon
9 months ago
Reply to  Milton Gibbon

I’m with Clare on this. It’s much, much more complicated than that, at least here in the real world.

Clare Knight
Clare Knight
9 months ago
Reply to  John Solomon

Exactly, it’s complicated.

Milton Gibbon
Milton Gibbon
9 months ago
Reply to  John Solomon

Great response. If your parents were uncaring should you not show them care? If they were abusive towards you and are not in a situation to be so any more then should you not try to forgive? Your argument sounds like an eye for an eye.

John Solomon
John Solomon
9 months ago
Reply to  Milton Gibbon

A good enough idea where an elderly (grand) parent was a loving and caring individual. What about the uncaring and abusive? Do they have to be cared for too, or can they just be left in the gutter?

Milton Gibbon
Milton Gibbon
9 months ago
Reply to  Caty Gonzales

If you are of an age where you need your own care then where are the children/grandchildren? A return to multi-generational living is the truly radical solution – free childcare for the young and loving care for the elderly/infirm. Freedom is all well and good until you can’t clean yourself.

Billy Bob
Billy Bob
9 months ago
Reply to  Milton Gibbon

Easier said than done however. With most families now requiring both parents to work full time simply to pay the rent (or mortgage if they’re one of the more fortunate ones), they simply don’t have the time or money to look after for family members that need full time attention.

Clare Knight
Clare Knight
9 months ago
Reply to  Milton Gibbon

Ignorant comment. Is that what you do?

Last edited 9 months ago by Clare Knight
Milton Gibbon
Milton Gibbon
9 months ago
Reply to  Clare Knight

Yes. Sorry CK for suggesting a solution. My grandmother was put into a home and I saw the way she was treated as a number for the staff – many of whom tried their best – but the point is that it was a lottery. One day she would get better care than I could have given her, the next not so. The care got worse as the years went on and she needed more help. Why do you put a difference of opinion down to ignorance?

Milton Gibbon
Milton Gibbon
9 months ago
Reply to  Clare Knight

Yes. Sorry CK for suggesting a solution. My grandmother was put into a home and I saw the way she was treated as a number for the staff – many of whom tried their best – but the point is that it was a lottery. One day she would get better care than I could have given her, the next not so. The care got worse as the years went on and she needed more help. Why do you put a difference of opinion down to ignorance?

j watson
j watson
9 months ago
Reply to  Milton Gibbon

I daresay some of this going to be more required whether we like it or not as a consequence of aging population. But caring full time for someone can require some support – even lifting, understanding pressure sores, avoiding deterioration that generates more hospital visits, etc. Don’t be to ‘rose tinted’ on this until you’ve done it and been utterly exhausted by it as it can be 24/7 relentless.
But it also it cuts across a economic requirement that we’ve mobile population able to do the jobs we need. We can already see the caring requirements are contributing to workforce shortages.

Caty Gonzales
Caty Gonzales
9 months ago
Reply to  Milton Gibbon

That is workable depending on what the needs of the individual in question are. Some people can no longer live at home due to the intense 24 hour care or supervision they need. If you are caring for a bedridden parent and they need to be changed, bathed etc and you are older or incapacitated yourself then your parent may need to be placed somewhere where they can receive a level of care that is needed.

Billy Bob
Billy Bob
9 months ago
Reply to  Milton Gibbon

Easier said than done however. With most families now requiring both parents to work full time simply to pay the rent (or mortgage if they’re one of the more fortunate ones), they simply don’t have the time or money to look after for family members that need full time attention.

Clare Knight
Clare Knight
9 months ago
Reply to  Milton Gibbon

Ignorant comment. Is that what you do?

Last edited 9 months ago by Clare Knight
j watson
j watson
9 months ago
Reply to  Milton Gibbon

I daresay some of this going to be more required whether we like it or not as a consequence of aging population. But caring full time for someone can require some support – even lifting, understanding pressure sores, avoiding deterioration that generates more hospital visits, etc. Don’t be to ‘rose tinted’ on this until you’ve done it and been utterly exhausted by it as it can be 24/7 relentless.
But it also it cuts across a economic requirement that we’ve mobile population able to do the jobs we need. We can already see the caring requirements are contributing to workforce shortages.

Milton Gibbon
Milton Gibbon
9 months ago
Reply to  j watson

How about people look after their own families as happens as a matter of course (rich and poor) in mich of the non-western world and we don’t look to the state or a private institution to do it for us.

j watson
j watson
9 months ago

The sort of huge social policy issue it’s good to see UnHerd giving some space. Good grief this will be occupying many more lives now and in future than the latest Trans saga that we seem to get daily. And with 140k social care vacancies it also links to immigration policy.
Just to clarify though, May did not propose to fully implement Dilnot. The 2017 manifesto had different caps and little to nothing on the Dilnot recommendation general taxation had to share the load – to an estimated 0.22GDP by mid 20s. She was also blindsided by the dementia tax’ argument – which remains an issue now in that care for dementia is seen as social and not NHS care and thus means tested. She and the Tories proposed no change to that. That said she did deserve some credit for pushing something forward, but undone as much by her own side as anyone.
Tories now had 13 years, and furthermore with Brexit shrinking the social care workforce for a generation at least, even more reason to get on and deliver some fundamental change. Abject failure.
If there is a change of Govt let’s hope they’ve the strength to immediately seek cross party agreement to go back to Dilnot and largely implement what was recommended. Anyone got a better idea?