• BACK in April, many assumed that the key issue at this general election would be Brexit, and they could be forgiven for doing so.

The Prime Minister made it very clear that her decision to call an election was on the basis of “strengthening her hand” in negotiations with the EU.

On that issue, it seems we have a pretty distinct choice, with Tulip Siddiq insisting in Parliament on a Brexit process scrutinised throughout by Parliament, and the Ukip-backed Conservative candidate fully backing Mrs May’s approach.

However, since the manifestos were released, the debate has somewhat shifted back to domestic concerns.
Pensioners in particular have not had such a clear choice for decades.

Previously, both Labour and Conservatives would have offered to “retain the triple lock” on pensions; this ensures the basic state pension rises by a minimum of either 2.5 per cent, the rate of inflation, or average earnings growth, whichever is largest.

And both parties would have ensured universal benefits, such as the winter fuel allowance, stayed in place.

However, the recent Conservative manifesto offers neither the triple lock on pensions nor the universal winter fuel allowance.

As far as social care is concerned, a divergence between Labour and Conservatives would have been inevitable sooner rather than later, but at this election the two offers couldn’t be further apart.

Labour will lay the foundations for a National Care Service to be built alongside the NHS with the aim of improving the quality of social care for all and ensuring dignity in older age. It will also put an extra £8bn into social care over the next five years, fully costed within its manifesto.

The Conservatives’ social care offer, on the other hand, is likely to result in potentially substantial social care costs for those with long-term degenerative conditions such as dementia. This policy has been dubbed the “dementia tax”, and is fully supported by the Conservative candidate for Hampstead and Kilburn.

Whilst there can be no denying the need to put social care on a sustainable basis, and that the country does need to face up to the real costs of an ageing population, is it fair for the burden to fall on those who are unfortunate enough to develop long-term illnesses?

Whether this move has emerged out of over-confidence or a genuine belief that it is the correct course is somewhat immaterial.

The fact of the matter is that, if Theresa May forms the next government, elderly people and their families will have to hope they do not suffer a protracted illness, or they could be facing impossibly high social care costs.

MYRA FARNWORTH
Lindfield Gardens, NW3