What is the biggest broken promise made by any UK government

 Purely for devilment I asked the AI bot on Google the following question: "What is the biggest broken promise made by any UK government".

I received the following response:

Deciding which broken promise is the "biggest" depends on personal political views, economic impact, and how many people it affected. Several major broken pledges by different UK governments stand out in modern history for their scale and public backlash.

Major Broken Promises in Recent UK History

Student Fees (Liberal Democrats / Coalition Government, 2010): Nick Clegg and the Liberal Democrats signed a pledge to vote against any increase in university tuition fees. After entering government in 2010 with the Conservatives, they trebled the cap to £9,000 a year.

National Insurance (Conservative Government, 2021): Boris Johnson’s government promised in the 2019 manifesto not to raise National Insurance, income tax, or VAT. In 2021, they introduced a new Health and Social Care Levy via a National Insurance rise.

Iraq War Weapons of Mass Destruction (Labour Government, 2003): Tony Blair’s government asserted with "certainty" that Saddam Hussein possessed active weapons of mass destruction. This claim justified joining the US-led invasion of Iraq, but no such weapons were ever found.

AV Referendum and Electoral Reform (Conservative-Liberal Democrat Coalition, 2010): The Liberal Democrats wanted a change to the voting system. The coalition promised a referendum on the Alternative Vote, which was soundly defeated by the public in 2011, leaving the first-past-the-post system in place.

HS2 Northern Leg (Conservative Government, 2023): Successive Conservative prime ministers promised to build the full High Speed 2 rail line connecting London to Manchester and Leeds. In late 2023, the government cancelled the northern leg of the project.

Personally I would add - Boris Johnson; forty new hospitals by the end of 2030 and Keir Starmers; 1.5 million new homes by the next General Election. I know that it is not yet 2030 or the next General Election but the chances of these pledges being met are as good as me being elected the next pope ( I pray that Pope Leo outlives me)

Why is Britain so Badly Governed? (In general not party specific)

While there is no single official running tally tracking politicians who specifically worked in hands-on industry or manual trades, detailed occupational analyses of the 650 MPs in the House of Commons show that fewer than 10% come from a manual, trade, or core industrial background, with only a tiny fraction having worked in heavy manufacturing, construction, or frontline production. 

The Rise of the Career Politician

Data compiled across successive general elections by the House of Commons Library and academic projects highlights a profound shift in where British politicians originate:

The "Never Worked Outside Politics" Group: Roughly 90 MPs (around 14% of Parliament) entered politics straight through the pipeline of party researcher, political advisor, special adviser (SpAd), or local councillor without holding a significant outside job. 
The Decline of Manual and Industrial Labour: In the post-war era (such as the 1945 Parliament), roughly one-third of Labour MPs were manual workers or ex-miners. By 2010, that proportion dropped below 10%, and estimates for recent parliaments suggest fewer than 10 to 15 MPs across the entire House of Commons previously held working-class manual or industrial trade roles. So how do politicians know what it is like on the shop-floor?
Dominant Professional Backgrounds: Over half of all MPs across major parties emerge from professional fields such as law, corporate business/finance, journalism, public relations, or charity management. So how do they know the day to day realities of running a company, be it large industrial conglomerate or a small family business?
Industry vs. Corporate Backgrounds
Distinctions are often drawn between corporate/financial management and actual "shop floor" or industrial trade experience:
While a moderate number of Conservative MPs have backgrounds in corporate management, consultancy, or small business ownership, very few possess long-term careers in traditional blue-collar industry, engineering production, or technical trades. 
Conversely, MPs with Labour or trade-linked backgrounds frequently spent their pre-parliamentary years as union officials, charity executives, or public sector workers rather than industrial labourers. 
As noted by consensus on various Reddit UK Politics Discussions, the modern recruitment pipeline for mainstream political parties heavily favours higher education, public policy, and media communications over practical experience in heavy industry or manual trades. 
In the immediate post-war era most politicians had been involved in doing things during the war. The great feat of the Normandy Landings was not done by a politician wishing it - the reality was hundreds/thousands of people doing detailed planning and organising things in minute detail. What, if anything, is done with the same care and attention to detail today.
My preferred solution of shooting the lot of them and starting again is not really practical or befitting a Permanent Deacon in the Catholic Church. But unless we have a radical reform of the way we select our politicians and the way political parties operate we will continue on our downward spiral whoever is in power.

Our First Sea Cruise - To The Norwegian Fjords - May 29 - June 6 2026

 To read about our Saga Sea Cruise to the Norwegian Fjords click here

Funding Care for the Elderly Part 2

There are several different scenarios /categories of people that we need to consider.

1.     The extremely wealthy, those that if the need arises could spend several hundred thousand a year on care and not notice it.

2.     Those that have absolutely no savings or any means paying for care, either at home or in a Care Home. If the need arises the council pay, maybe not very willingly and after lots of delay, and the quality of care that they get might not be the best. It doesn’t cost them anything and currently this cost is about 20% of local council spending (according to Google!!)

3.     That leaves what I suspect is the vast majority that have some savings and perhaps some capital tied up in a property. 

a.     If they do not need care either at home or in a Care Home what they leave will go to their heirs (less IHT). 

b.     If they do need care in some form they will have to fund it and dependent on how long they live they might have nothing left for their heirs or a greatly diminished sum.

It seems to me that those in the middle have a choice/dilemma; do they/we pay a so called “death tax”, extra income tax or similar and know that what we have and leave (after IHT) will go to our heirs irrespective if we need care or not (assuming that the funds generated are hypothecated). Or if we do not reform Care for the Elderly and how we fund it, it will remain the current lottery dependent on whether you need care or not.

Personally, I favour reform.

Hamilton House School - Trying to trace John Houghton (Also at Aske's Hatcham)

The photo is of a class at Hamilton House School, Newstead Road, Lee, London SE12, taken in about 1954. Mrs Hanks was the teacher. I am seated far left; David Shaw is behind me. John Holland standing left hand end of the bench - sadly John died in an air rash (Fleet Air Arm training flight) in May 1970. Are any others in the photo still around? In particular I would like to catch up with John Houghton, think he is stood middle row next to Mrs Hanks. John Houghton, John Holland and I all went to Aske's at New Cross - we drifted apart during our school years often wondered what happened to him

Burst Water Mains

 Here in Bromley we seem to be suffering from an increased number of burst water mains, causing traffic chaos and a further strain on our water supply.

The prolonged dry spell in the South East of England is directly responsible for the surge in water leaks. The dry ground is causing soil movement and increased stress on pipes.

The South East of England has a high concentration of heavy clay soils. Clay acts like a sponge, expanding significantly when wet and shrinking heavily during prolonged dry weather. As moisture evaporates from the ground, the soil contracts, cracks, and loses volume. This process is known as soil desiccation.

The underground water mains are embedded directly within this shifting soil matrix. There is differential movement as the soil does not dry or shrink evenly. One section of earth may drop or pull away faster than the section next to it, subjecting buried pipes to bending, pulling, and shearing forces.

A large portion of the UK's water grid consists of older, rigid cast iron or brittle clay pipes. These materials cannot flex. When the surrounding earth moves or hardens like concrete, the stress causes these older joints to pull apart and the mains to fracture

Funding Care for the Elderly

How we should fund care for the elderly is the question that has dogged all recent UK governments. Every government in recent times, and we have had a lot of them, has promised that it will sort this problem out once and for all. They have all looked at it and then done the big fudge. I had hopes that Keir Starmer would tackle this, but what did he do? Have yet another commission look at the issue!

I recall some fifty plus years ago Agnes, a friend of my in-laws, who was the matron of a council run nursing home said do not save for your old age. That person has money and is funding their own care, that person has none and it is free. Why bother saving?

Andy Burnham has said that this will be one of his main priorities; yet he has not been in power for more than a couple of days and I see that the Daily Mail is already screaming “Death Tax” as in the past he proposed a solution whereby the cost was taken out of one’s estate after death. Despite what the press might think, if one is going to go into a care home it has to be funded somehow. The question is what system is the most equitable?

Care home funding in the UK depends on your local council, your health needs, and where you live. Average costs range from £925 to over £2,800 per week. Your local council will arrange a free Care Needs Assessment and a Financial Means Test to decide if you pay your own way or receive state support.  

The main ways to fund care homes in the UK depend entirely on your personal situation:

 

1. Local Authority Funding (State-Funded Care)

If your savings and assets fall below certain thresholds, your local council can help pay for your care home. 

• England & Northern Ireland: If your capital is below £14,250, you qualify for maximum funding. If you have between £14,250 and £23,250, you pay a contribution.
• Wales: There is a single capital threshold of £50,000.
• Scotland: The upper savings threshold is £35,000, and the lower is £21,500.  

The Process: The council looks at your income (including pensions) and capital (like savings and the value of your property) to work out how much you must contribute

 

2. Self-Funding (Paying Privately)

If your assets are above the local threshold, you are considered a "self-funder" and must pay for all your care home fees.  

• England & Northern Ireland: Assets above £23,250.
• Wales: Assets above £50,000.
• Scotland: Assets above £27,250. 

Paying for your own care: Self-funders usually pay for their care by renting or selling their home, using pensions and savings, or purchasing a care fee annuity (an insurance product). If your savings drop below the thresholds, you can ask your local council to step in and help with funding. 

 

3. NHS Funding

If you have severe, complex health needs, your care might be fully or partially paid for by the NHS, regardless of your finances.  

• NHS Continuing Healthcare (CHC): This is for individuals with a "primary health need". The NHS fully pays for your care and accommodation.  
• NHS-Funded Nursing Care (FNC): If you don't qualify for CHC but still need to live in a care home with registered nursing, the NHS will make a flat-rate contribution toward the nursing costs. In England, the standard rate is £267.68 per week.  

4. Extra Benefits and Options

If you are funding your own care, you might still be able to claim benefits like Attendance Allowance (up to £114.60 per week) if you are over 65 and need help with personal care.  

If you own your home but don't want to sell it immediately, you can look into a Deferred Payment Agreement. This is a loan from your local council to help pay for care, using your home as security. The loan is typically repaid when you sell the property or from your estate.

 

So basically, if you have saved during your working life you pay; no money the state pays, as Agnes said all those years ago why save? There has to be a better more equitable funding model. We need to protect and support those who have not been able to save due to sickness, disability etc; but what about those who have chosen not to save and those who have been feckless?

 

Effects of Current Funding Model in the UK

 

The UK’s current adult social care model described above of splitting s healthcare (free under the NHS) and social care (means-tested), causing severe asset depletion, postcode lotteries in local council funding, unmet needs, and over-reliance on unpaid family carers. 

The specific localized and systemic effects include:

• Catastrophic Asset Depletion: Social care in England is subject to a strict means test. Individuals with assets over £23,250 must fully self-fund their care. With average care home fees running at £951 a week (much greater in London) for those over 65, many middle-class families are forced to liquidate their homes and life savings, often leaving no inheritance. 
• Local Authority "Postcode Lottery": Councils administer care locally under the Care Act 2014, but severe underfunding has led to increasingly tight eligibility tests. Across the UK, local budgets are buckling, leading to longer waiting lists, reduced care packages, and complete lack of support for vulnerable older adults. 
• Cross-Subsidies and Market Instability: Because local authorities pay lower rates to care providers than the actual cost of care, providers are heavily reliant on overcharging self-funders to stay afloat. This makes the market highly volatile, with many care homes relying on international recruitment to fill staff shortages amid rising National Living Wage costs. 
• Hospital "Bed Blocking" (Delayed Discharges): When older people are ready to leave local hospitals like those under the NHS trusts (e.g., King's College Hospital or Bromley Healthcare), the lack of local authority-funded social care packages delays their discharge, severely impacting NHS bed capacity and patient flow.  
• Burnout of Unpaid Carers: Because of the prohibitive costs and lack of state-funded social care, millions of unpaid carers—often spouses or adult children—provide over 50 hours of care per week. This frequently forces them to leave the workforce, compromising their own financial security and physical and mental health. 

The unsustainability of this model is widely acknowledged, with expert bodies like The Kings Fund and the Nuffield Trust continually publishing data on the decline of publicly funded care and the resulting crisis for older people.  

 

The Way Forward

Rather than try and invent something from scratch it seems to me that we should use a model that is successful in other countries and work on that. Models often considered successful

Japan

Japan introduced mandatory long-term care insurance in 2000. Everyone aged 40 and over contributes through premiums, with government funding covering a significant share of costs.

Strengths:

• Universal eligibility based on care needs rather than income.
• Professional assessment of care requirements.
• Wide range of home and residential services.
• Reduced burden on family caregivers.

Challenges:

• Rising costs due to rapid population ageing.
• Increasing premiums and government spending.

Germany

Germany operates a mandatory long-term care insurance system funded primarily through payroll contributions.

Strengths:

• Dedicated funding stream.
• People can choose cash benefits for family care or professional services.
• High public support.

Challenges:

• Benefits often do not cover the full cost of intensive residential care.

Netherlands

The Netherlands has one of the world's most comprehensive publicly funded long-term care systems.

Strengths:

• Extensive coverage for severe care needs.
• Strong community and home care services.
• High quality standards.

Challenges:

• Among the most expensive systems globally.

What many experts recommend

A hybrid model is often viewed as the most sustainable, combining:

1. Tax funding for a universal minimum level of care.
2. Mandatory long-term care insurance to create a dedicated funding source.
3. Means-tested assistance for people with lower incomes.
4. Personal co-payments with annual or lifetime caps to protect against catastrophic costs.
5. Strong investment in home-based and preventive care, which is generally less expensive than institutional care.
6. Support for family caregivers through respite services, training, and financial recognition.

 

This will cost! Long term it will cost more than we pay today (allowing for inflation). But in the short- term there will be a large financial hit, the question is do we muddle along as we are today with hundreds of thousands of people not be cared for properly and some selling homes and losing all their assets or move forward to an equitable system? I hope that the major parties agree on a way forward for the benefit of all.