Andy Burnham has pledged to reform social care (Alamy)

3 min read14 min

Within days of entering No 10, Andy Burnham pledged to end decades of drift and fix Britain’s broken social care system. His government is committed to delivering a “National Care Service” that is fully and sustainably funded.

Advertisement

This is a bold pledge – such reform is likely to be complex, politically contentious, and most of all, expensive. Election campaigns have turned and political careers foundered on similar promises. It is nonetheless encouraging because it presents a chance for genuinely transformative policymaking to restore Britain’s social contract, as I argue in my report for the Social Market Foundation today.

There are a number of potential models for a nationally funded social care system – it could be funded through national taxation like the NHS, or from a dedicated levy; a mandatory social insurance system, like in Japan and Germany; or a system similar to Theresa May’s could draw more heavily on housing wealth. All these would entail raising significant revenue when the tax burden is high and the cost of living is rising, but there are advantages as well. 

Any new system must be nationally funded. Currently, old age social care provision is a duty of local authorities, and a major contributor to the parlous state of local government finances. Councils in England spent around £9.2bn from their own budgets on old age social care in 2024-25; that’s 22 per cent of all council tax receipts. These rising statutory costs have forced councils to cut non-essential services to the bone, leaving them less able to respond to local priorities and undermining local democracy.

Advertisement

The burden is not distributed equally or fairly. Nine of the 10 councils spending the smallest proportion of their council tax on old age social care are in London, with the highest-spending authorities concentrated in lower-income parts of the North and Midlands. Though it sounds counterintuitive, a purely national funding system for old age social care would help Burnham deliver on his pledge to put power and resources back in the hands of local communities. Councils would be free to spend the cash they raise on local services, and local councils, rather than central government, could determine spending priorities.

This could allow the PM to finally sort out England’s outdated, inefficient and unfair council tax system. Based on home valuations from 1991, the system has fallen dangerously out of sync with the distribution of wealth. Absurdly, Buckingham Palace incurs a lower council tax bill than a typical three-bedroom semi in Hartlepool. Council tax is deeply unpopular – one study ranked it last among 23 possible tax-raising measures.

The main barrier to council tax reform has been the fear that revaluation will generate a backlash from those required to pay more, particularly in London. Even if most bills were lower, the geographical concentration of “losers” would make for a serious political problem for any government, let alone a Labour administration holding 59 London seats. If, however, old age social care was funded nationally, council tax reform need not be revenue neutral. A reformed local tax system needing to raise £9.2bn less could be more rational and progressive without large swathes of the country paying significantly higher bills.

Advertisement

Our new report examines this possibility, finding that multiple models of council tax reform become more politically feasible in this scenario. Under the most politically feasible model, this social care saving at lower bands could cut the share of households facing higher bills from 35 per cent to just 4 per cent. In London, the number falls from 2.24m to around 670,000.

Rather than undertaking one difficult and politically dangerous reform, Burnham might be better off attempting two simultaneously.

 

Barney Dowling is a researcher at the Social Market Foundation

Advertisement

Source link

LAS VEGAS — Vice President JD Vance has faced skepticism from some in the Jewish Republican community. He waded directly into the fray Monday — and was met with raucous applause.

In a closed-door appearance at the Republican Jewish Coalition leadership summit, Vance addressed what he called the “elephant in the room”: Israel’s plummeting favorability among young Americans, according to one people in the room for Vance’s speech, granted anonymity to describe an off-record conversation, and audio of the event obtained by POLITICO. Vance also discussed rising antisemitism.

“There is a growing suspicion among, I would call it, under-40s of the U.S.-Israel relationship,” Vance said in a moderated conversation with former Sen. Norm Coleman (R-Minn.), chair of the RJC board. “I think my view is, what we have to do is articulate why this is in the best interest of the United States of America, and actually get out there and talk about the ways in which it is in the best interest of the United States of America.”

Vance noted that Republicans must “talk about the concrete alignment of interest and to hook a relationship on that, rather than something that may have made a lot of sense rhetorically 30 or 40 years ago, but just doesn’t have … the same purchase as it did 30 or 40 years ago because the country is different and because young people are looking at this in a different way.”

Vance’s appearance at the annual RJC confab — hosted at the Venetian Resort, developed by the late GOP megadonor Sheldon Adelson — came as a surprise to many in the pro-Israel community, with which Vance has shared a sometimes tumultuous relationship. Vance, the current frontrunner for the Republican presidential nomination in 2028, will likely need to shore up support from the community to succeed Trump.

The hesitancy toward Vance among some in pro-Israel circles boiled up in recent months over Vance’s dovishness on the Iran war and his criticism of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s Israeli government. But other concerns go back further, centered on his longtime relationship with Israel-skeptical pundit Tucker Carlson and the way he’s addressed antisemitic incidents or statements.

Some pro-Israel megadonors, like billionaire hedge fund manager Ken Griffin, have already signaled they’d support Secretary of State Marco Rubio in 2028 over Vance. (Neither Vance nor Rubio have announced whether they’ll seek the presidential nomination, though Rubio has stated he will not run if Vance does.)

But Vance’s speech was met with applause inside the cavernous convention hall where it was delivered, and praise outside of it.

“He hit a home run with the crowd,” Sen. Jim Banks (R-Ind.) told reporters after the speech, noting Vance received “several standing ovations.”

The Jewish community has “a great ‘bullshit detector,’ to understand when they’re being pandered to,” said Matt Brooks, CEO of the RJC. “And I don’t believe that anybody will come away from this meeting thinking that they were pandered to. I think they will come away from this conversation with a sense that the vice president really gets it and gets us.”

Last year, the RJC’s leadership summit was centered on combatting antisemitism within the Republican Party, and leaders took aim at Carlson and others. Vance has been an ally of Carlson’s, and when Coleman asked Vance about podcasters like Carlson, Vance gave a winding answer.

“I recognize a lot of people in this room may disagree with things that Tucker Carlson or Megyn Kelly or Joe Rogan have said,” Vance said, before focusing on Rogan and Fuentes, saying they are “two very, very different categories of people.”

“I think it’s a mistake to sort of say we’re going to write Joe Rogan off because he said something that we don’t like,” he said. “I think the best approach is to actually go in there and talk to him and make the argument as best as you can.”

Vance directly condemned some antisemitic theories like blood libel, saying it is the exact opposite of the Christian gospel. He said that Jew-hatred is “corrosive to the soul.”

And echoing other speakers at the two-day RJC summit, Vance declared that former Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.) is the most important Senate candidate this cycle, and urged those in attendance to support him in his race against Democratic nominee Abdul El-Sayed.

Earlier Monday, Vance rallied alongside Rogers at a Michigan event hosted by MAGA Inc., Trump’s super PAC, before flying to Nevada. His cross-country itinerary signaled his seriousness in courting the Jewish donor community, suggested Robert Schostak, an RJC board member.

“I think it’s great that he’s here. This is not easy,” said Schostak, the former Michigan GOP chair. “He cares about the fight of antisemitism, and the support for Israel. If this was secondary to him, he wouldn’t be here.”

Ari Fleischer, an RJC board member and a former White House press secretary, agreed. “Today is not primary day,” he said. “But I think today was progress day for JD Vance with the Jewish community.”

Source link

Allies of Texas GOP Senate hopeful Ken Paxton are planning a $15 million ad campaign starting Tuesday, the first major ad buy on behalf of Paxton in his battleground matchup with Democrat James Talarico.

Two new ads from Lone Star Liberty PAC, the pro-Paxton super PAC, will air across 18 markets across Texas over the ensuing two weeks. They mark Paxton’s first significant foray on to the airwaves, jolting a campaign that has been clouded by concerns over Talarico’s massive cash advantage and Paxton’s electability.

One of the new ads will lean into Paxton’s record as attorney general, highlighting Texas’ recent agreement with Kellogg’s to remove certain food dyes from cereals and the state’s billion-dollar settlements with Meta and Google over privacy and safety concerns.

“When they come after Texans, he comes after them,” a voiceover says in the ad.

The other new advertisement accuses Talarico of aiding China’s growth at the expense of Texas residents, pointing to the Democrat’s vote against restrictions on Chinese investments, and argues that a Chinese billionaire’s ownership of land near Laughlin Air Force Base presents national security concerns.

“China’s got Talarico. Texas needs Ken Paxton,” the ad says.

“[James Talarico] voted to sell Texas land to China, pushed a Texas Green New Deal that would gut our oil and gas jobs, and stood with criminals over cops as the most pro-criminal member of the Texas House,” Lone Star Liberty spokesperson Sam Cooper said. “That record is too extreme for Texas. Between now and Election Day, voters are going to hear it.”

Talarico’s campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The multimillion-dollar campaign comes as Republicans look for ways to negate Talarico’s war chest. The latest Federal Election Commission filings from July show Talarico with $21.5 million in the bank, dwarfing Paxton’s $1.8 million in reserves.

That advantage, along with Paxton’s drawn-out primary runoff that forced him to focus on beating Sen. John Cornyn, has allowed Talarico to dominate the general election messaging battle on television. He’s spent $39 million on TV since the March primary, according to data tracking firm AdImpact.

On Saturday, Talarico launched his first negative ad against Paxton, spotlighting his impeachment and labeling him “the most corrupt politician in Texas.”

Although Republicans have traditionally been favored in Texas statewide elections, Democrats are optimistic Talarico can defeat Paxton. A Texas Public Opinion Research poll released Thursday found Talarico leading Paxton — 48 percent to 42 percent.

Concerns about a potential Paxton defeat have prompted some Republicans to implore President Donald Trump to invest some of the gargantuan MAGA Inc. war chest in the Texas race. MAGA Inc. has over $400 million in cash on hand, and Trump publicly pledged to support Paxton financially.

Source link

Source link

These are strange days, readers.

It’s getting hard to tell who’s on which side.

To be honest, we’d take George Foulkes’ offer in a heartbeat. It’s not ideal, because there should be no limits on democracy, but the UK government can perfectly lawfully deny another indyref indefinitely anyway (and seem entirely inclined to), so we’d be losing nothing, and according to polling we’d be starting from a winning position.

His tweet was responding to this Daily Record editorial:

Advertisement

…to which the SNP’s army of online dolts have responded with predictable fury despite it being a remarkable concession from the firmly Unionist newspaper. The Record didn’t say the VOTE in the referendum should have to be over 60%, just that sustained polling over that level should be the trigger for the referendum to HAPPEN.

(And since polls have a margin of error and the change option usually falls away on polling day, it would represent our best chance of winning anyway.)

But as Unionists hold out apparent olive branches and (frankly unearned) opportunities for real and measurable progress towards the SNP’s ostensible goal, how is the SNP responding?

With a deafening chorus of “WE CANNAE DAE IT!”

Advertisement

In the last 72 hours, senior SNP figures including the FM have insisted that:

(1) they won’t do a deal with Reform to get a referendum,

(2) that any route that isn’t a referendum won’t work, and

(3) that even if a legislator from the current governing party of the UK comes out and explicitly OFFERS a second referendum, they’re going to put their fingers in their ears, pretend it never happened and just pray that he goes away.

Advertisement

That’s pretty much every possible road towards independence rubbished and closed down. Even uber-loyal idiot comic The National is struggling to grasp it all.

Which is understandable, because it makes no sense. After years of simply stalling on the pursuit of independence, the SNP now appears to be in full headlong retreat, running for the hills as fast as their legs will carry them with the Daily Record and George Foulkes and Reform running after them going “Come back! Don’t you WANT a referendum?”

But the SNP won’t hear a word of it. “Please, please, please don’t let us get what we claim to want”, they wail.

?

Advertisement

Because these days of unending power, money and status without responsibility ARE their good times, and they don’t want anything to change.

Source link

Source link

Republicans and Democrats are fighting over working class voters. Americans don’t believe the rhetoric.

Fifty-five percent of Americans think politicians are just trying to win votes when they say they will help the working class, according to new results from The POLITICO Poll. It’s a view held by majorities of people who voted for President Donald Trump, who voted for Kamala Harris and who self-identify as working class.

Only one in four Americans who self-identify as working-class say politicians genuinely want to help them.

That wariness comes as both parties increasingly see working class voters as key to their winning coalitions. But The POLITICO Poll results show both parties face serious challenges to doing so.

Neither party does particularly well with Americans who identify as working class: 38 percent of them say Democrats best represent them, while 32 percent say Republicans. Americans, broadly, are almost identically split, with a 37 percent plurality saying Democrats best represent the interests of the working class, while 30 percent say Republicans.

Democrats wrestling with how to win back voters who have drifted toward the GOP — as their coalition has grown increasingly dominated by college-educated Americans — are locked in an intraparty battle over which wing of the party, progressives or moderates, best speaks to these voters.

“We’ve struggled with the working class for quite a while and it’s been a combination of being out of touch with working class values on a lot of culture issues and being seen as either not helpful or not helpful enough on economic issues,” said Jim Kessler, executive vice president for policy at the centrist Democratic think tank Third Way.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), widely considered the leader of the progressive movement, told Playbook’s Will Steakin that progressive Democrats “are speaking to the needs of working families.”

“It is not just traditional Democrats or independents,” he said. “There are a lot of working-class Republicans who understand that there’s something wrong when we are the only major nation on Earth not to guarantee health care to all people.”

Republicans, meanwhile, are trying to hold onto the gains Trump made in 2024 with working class voters — including Black and Latino voters frustrated with the Biden-era economy — at a time when cost of living remains voters’ top concern.

“With the [Iran] war, with gas prices, with cost of food, the working class is not happy with the president, and many who are independents and even some Republicans have said that he’s forgotten about them,” said former Ohio Republican Rep. Jim Renacci.

Who is working class?

Complicating both parties’ efforts to win over these voters is that Americans do not agree on what makes someone working class. Neither do lawmakers and party officials.

When asked whether the term “working class” describes them, a 59 percent majority of Americans broadly say it does, while just 31 percent say it does not, according to the survey conducted by London-based polling firm Public First. But when forced to choose from a list of labels — including wealthy, middle class, lower middle class, working class and poor — just 16 percent of adults say they identify as “working class.”

Americans are also divided over what characteristics define the working class.

Some politicians, including progressive New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani and Andy Schor, the centrist Democratic mayor of Lansing, Michigan, have argued the definition of working class is expansive — encompassing anyone who needs to work to pay their bills.

“If you’re not making enough money that you don’t have to work, then you’re working class,” said Schor in an interview. “The American Dream is to be able to work hard and get ahead, and people are not getting ahead like they used to, and they’ll look at the folks that they vote for and think, ‘Who can help me to get ahead?’”

The POLITICO Poll illustrates the difficult path for the GOP to solidify its gains with working class Americans as economic concerns continue to be top of mind: More than a third of this group say they are not currently employed. A 35 percent plurality also say Trump, not former President Joe Biden, is fully responsible for the economy and many oppose the war in Iran, which most say has made things more expensive for them.

Half of self-identified working class Americans say Trump has spent too much time focusing on international affairs instead of on domestic issues.

“I think [Republican candidates] just got to tell the truth,” Renacci, the Ohio Republican, said. “You just have to start realizing that those middle class voters are struggling and they’re just looking for somebody who’s going to understand their issues and problems.”

The race for 2026

November will offer a major test of whether each party’s working class pitch is working, carrying implications that extend into 2028.

Candidates in both parties are racing to flex their working class bonafides this cycle, leaning on their biographies to signal ties to these voters. Trump pushed that playbook to extremes in 2024, when he briefly worked the fryer and drive-through window at McDonald’s as part of a campaign swing through Pennsylvania.

Republicans have continued that approach, with candidates and administration officials emphasizing their blue-collar roots on the campaign trail. Vice President JD Vance recently returned to his hometown of Middletown, Ohio, where he spoke at the steel plant where his grandfather worked.

In battleground Georgia, Rep. Mike Collins — the state’s GOP Senate nominee — often touts his background as a trucker. And GOP Sen. Susan Collins has broken with Trump on tariff policy, saying his trade fight with Canada hurts working families and small businesses in Maine, where she’s locked in a competitive battle for reelection.

These efforts come against the backdrop of increasing concerns about the economy, fueled by the ongoing Iran war.

Democrats, meanwhile, are divided over which flank of the party can best appeal to working class voters, a fissure that burst into public view during primary season, when a slate of progressives prevailed in high-profile contests.

“The working class are giving Democrats another look and we better not blow it,” said Kessler of Third Way. “Donald Trump got reelected based on the notion he was going to fight for you, working class men and women, and his first year and a half has been anything but that.”

Some Democrats have made their working class background central to their pitch: Sam Forstag, a union leader and former smokejumper, is running in an open district in western Montana that Trump won by double digits in 2024. Bob Brooks, a firefighter union chief, is challenging GOP Rep. Ryan Mackenzie in Pennsylvania.

But some progressives are still running into limits: In Michigan, one of Democrats’ must-hold seats in November, the state’s divisive Senate primary illustrated that debate in real-time. Progressive Abdul El-Sayed, who won the Democratic nomination, performed best in the state’s wealthiest and most highly educated areas, while moderate Rep. Haley Stevens did better in places with lower average incomes and where fewer votes have college degrees.

Jessie Blaeser contributed to this report.

Source link

Source link