Conservative MP John Redwood has questioned the prioritising of children's inheritance over the quality of care faced in the Dilnot report.

The former Secretary of State for Wales said on BBC radio 4's Today program:

"Looking at the Dilnot report, which is a very good, detailed report, it had a bit too much on trying to protect the inheritance of the children of the elderly people concerned and not quite enough on what I think is the bigger issue: how we make sure no elderly person is faced with inadequate or inappropriate care,"

"We need to discuss the contribution they make as opposed to the contribution taxpayers make to afford it. This idea that there's a maximum of £35,000 and then everything else is free for everybody may not be affordable.

If somebody is very rich why should their estate not make a contribution to that? It could be deferred; that the elderly person gets the best possible care and then the bill could be settled out of their estate after they've unfortunately died."

The UK's growing number of elderly has been a ticking bomb within public finances through consecutive Conservative and Labour governments that have thus far been managed by a very advanced system in Whitehall which involves sticking your fingers in your ears and ignoring the problem and the findings of select committees.

John Redwood is essentially correct in as much as under the current economic construct, it is a toss between the the tax payer shouldering the burden for our elderly or removing inheritance from children, which does send a message out to anyone who is approaching their retirement with assets that it could be a good idea to gift, spend and sell what you have before the state get its hands on your hard earned savings.

But as I said above, such choices only exist under the current economic construct because it is more than evident we cannot simply print the money to support our elderly because that would herald inflationary pressures.

In fact John Redwood's comments are typical of the way our politicians view any serious and achievable remedy for dealing with public sector funding and where the provision comes from to provide services.

And this argument is the dividing line between left and right wing politics which no longer exists, socialism is dead within the Labour party so no effective opposition argument can be presented which would allow a remit to be served to our finest and brightest economists to devise exit points for inflation which would allow money printing to pay for the care of our elderly to exist.

Exponents of true left wing politics place people before the greed of those who would exploit us whilst supporters of true capitalism would place profit and ingenuity devised from the free market as the key to a successful system which cares for the needs of the less fortunate by providing more efficient and competitive services.

The fact of the matter is in the 21st century our politicians have become so obsessed with fighting for the middle ground of politics they have abandoned any polemic absolutes in devising policies.

It is almost as if the centre ground has become a third polemic point of attraction and reference whilst the ideologies of yesteryear are abandoned.

The centre ground of politics is full of contradictions, the left will scream that our economic and social problems are down to a capitalist system yet we do not have a capitalist system and probably never had one, instead we see a corrupted version where systemic bank bailouts at the expense of the taxpayer are perceived as the socialist move of nationalising debt yet a true socialist system would not then place financial burden onto future generations via tax.

John Redwood asks the right question yet gives the only answer he can from the centre right of politics, who should pay for our elderly and why are we not focusing on the care of the individual instead of the wealth of those who would inherit.

Years ago Labour would have provided an answer that would be simply 'the state will provide all' yet excessive personal wealth was very much frowned upon by the far left who would have confiscated the wealth of the many to pay for the needs of the many and the wealth of the rich was to be carved up with joyful glee.

In the 21st century, Labour asks for responsible capitalism and shuns all talk of socialism whilst the conservatives are given free run to exploit the lack of any effective opposition.

Will there be a socialist backlash where the aforementioned inflation exit point to facilitate viable money printing remit is presented to the BOE?

No, but one can dream the Utopian dream….and when it comes to the morality of confiscating inheritance, it could be time to reappraise the luxuries afforded to the monarchy who should by all rights be subject to the same laws as every other UK citizen.

Comment Here!