The Dementia tax backlash: Tories' lead slips by 5% after manifesto pledge to make more elderly pay for care

• Proposals could mean that tens of thousands of people will face costly bills 
• For the first time the value of a person’s home will be included in their assets
• Survation poll indicates 47 per cent oppose Mrs May’s social care funding plans

Theresa May’s hopes of an Election landslide hit a setback last night when a poll showed strong opposition to her plan to make more elderly people pay for care.

A Survation poll for The Mail on Sunday showed the Conservative lead over Labour has fallen to 12 per cent, a five point drop in a week. It follows the release of last week’s Tory manifesto which included social care reforms that were quickly branded a ‘Dementia Tax’ by critics.

The proposals would mean that tens of thousands of people who receive care at home could face costly bills as – for the first time – the value of a person’s home will be included in their assets, with only the last £100,000 protected.

According to the poll, the Conservatives are now on 46 per cent, Labour on 34 and the Lib Dems on eight. Just seven days ago, the average Tory poll lead was 17.

The Survation poll indicates 47 per cent oppose Mrs May’s social care funding plans, with 28 per cent in favour. Significantly, 28 per cent say the proposals have made them less likely to vote Tory, with eight per cent more likely to do so. 

More than half say it has made them more worried about getting older, caring for elderly relatives, owning a house and securing their children’s future.

However, the poll also offers a series of boosts for the Prime Minister – and blows to Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn.

• Mrs May’s manifesto move away from Margaret Thatcher-style policies is very well received.

• Many see Mrs May as nearly as supportive of the working class as Mr Corbyn.

• Even more embarrassing for Mr Corbyn, four out of ten non-Labour voters attracted to some of his policies, such as renationalising the railways and making the rich pay more tax, say they could not vote for them because Mr Corbyn was either incapable of making them work or they were impractical.

Even before last night’s poll, Tory chiefs were privately braced for controversy over the social care changes. 

And evidence soon emerged of Tory tensions. Conservative MP Sarah Wollaston, a GP, said it was right to tackle tough issues, but added: ‘It comes as a huge shock to many to discover that if they have assets above £23,250 they are liable for all the costs of residential care. 

The sting in the tail is that the proposals bring property assets into the means test for those needing care at home, and wealthier pensioners will lose winter fuel payments.’

Her comments were echoed by fellow Conservative MP Bob Blackman who said: ‘I support the policy but clearly there needs to be a limit on how much any individual or family is required to pay.’ 

There were reports the social care proposal was inserted into the manifesto at the last minute by Mrs May’s powerful No 10 chief of staff Nick Timothy. 

The decision by Mr Timothy, who has argued for extra taxes on inheritance, is said to have been opposed by John Godfrey, the head of the No 10 policy unit. Mrs May sided with Mr Timothy.

But the proposal was defended by Treasury Chief Secretary David Gauke, who said: ‘It’s easy for politicians to stand up and deliver a long list of “free this, free that”. That’s not what Theresa May is doing. 

'There are tough choices on issues like social care and winter fuel. It is bold, but it’s right.’

Mrs May’s decision not to flinch from tough decisions in her manifesto is vindicated by a more favourable response to other proposals. 

Fears that abandoning David Cameron’s vow not to raise income tax or national insurance would provoke uproar have proved unfounded: 38 per cent support it with 39 per cent against. Scrapping winter fuel handouts for better-off elderly people is endorsed by nearly one in two voters.

Her hardline threat to walk away from the EU with no deal if talks in Brussels break down is backed by 45 per cent with 33 against. Mrs May will also draw comfort from support for the apparent shift in her manifesto away from ‘Thatcherite’ policies, highlighted by promises to give more help to the working class and less to the rich.

Most surprising of all, asked if Mrs May or Mr Corbyn is most likely to help the working class, the Labour leader scores 37 per cent with the PM not far behind on 31.

But she has her work cut out to win approval for other parts of her manifesto. There is strong opposition to ending the guaranteed annual 2.5 per cent pension rise and scrapping free hot lunches for all but the poorer primary school children. 

The new survey suggests the Tory majority could be less than 100, still a massive win, but significantly lower than Mrs Thatcher’s 1983 landslide.

Survation interviewed 1,017 people online on Friday and yesterday.

PM's warning over national security as Labour women clash over Trident 

Glen Owen, Political Correspondent for the Mail On Sunday  

Britain's security will be threatened if Jeremy Corbyn wins the Election, Theresa May warned yesterday as Labour plunged into fresh infighting over the Trident nuclear deterrent.

Shadow Foreign Secretary Emily Thornberry said she was ‘sceptical’ about renewing Trident – only for her party’s defence spokeswoman to slap her down as ‘wrong’.

The row started after Ms Thornberry used a radio interview on Friday evening to warn she wouldn’t guarantee to keep Labour’s manifesto pledge to retain Trident if the party seized power. 

Asked if she could confirm that the missile system would survive a party defence review, she said: ‘Well no, of course not. If you are going to have a review, you have to have a review. You know there was a time when we gave up on sabres or horses.

‘You need to keep updating your defence policy and meeting the most pressing and most obvious needs.’

But two hours later, Shadow Defence Secretary Nia Griffith told the BBC: ‘Nobody has raised the issue of removing the Trident nuclear deterrent from our manifesto.’ Asked if Ms Thornberry was wrong, Ms Griffith said: ‘Indeed,’ adding: ‘Emily is not the Shadow Defence Secretary. I am.’

Mrs May seized on the turmoil by telling an Election rally in West London: ‘A Labour Government led by Jeremy Corbyn would not be unequivocally committed to the Trident nuclear deterrent.

‘They would not be able to defend this country. A Jeremy Corbyn-led Labour Government could not be trusted with the defence of our country.’

The controversy is the latest in a series of embarrassing rows within Labour over Trident.

Only last month, Mr Corbyn infuriated colleagues by appearing to leave open the idea that renewing the nuclear deterrent could be left out of the manifesto. Party chiefs had to move hastily to quash the idea.

Mr Corbyn has campaigned for nuclear disarmament for decades. Just 15 months ago he told a Stop Trident March: ‘I’m very serious about this point. Very serious indeed. I don’t want us to replace Trident. Everybody knows that.’

Replacing the current class of Trident nuclear submarines is expected to cost £31 billion, with another £10 billion put aside to cover any extra costs.

Mr Corbyn tried to defuse the row yesterday. During a campaign visit to Birmingham he said: ‘The manifesto makes it very clear that the Labour Party has come to a decision and is committed to Trident.’

Last night, Barrow and Furness Labour candidate John Woodcock, who campaigned for Trident renewal as an MP in the last Parliament, waded into the row by saying that Ms Thornberry’s remarks should be disregarded as she would never get the chance to be Foreign Secretary. He said: ‘We know nationally what the result of this Election is going to be – Theresa May is going to continue as PM after the Election.’

Now we socialists have a real leader: Mrs May

By Tom Harris

These are exciting times for socialists. Red-blooded, Left-wing policies have been so watered down by various Labour leaders that they resemble homeopathic medicines – too weak to change anything yet still inspiring the faith of a deluded few.

Now, at last, we have a leader who will stand up to the elites, to big business, to exploitative bosses. A leader who will raise taxes where necessary, who will make sure the workers have their say, who will intervene in free markets to protect consumers.

Just listen to our future Prime Minister: ‘We do not believe in untrammelled free markets. We reject the cult of selfish individualism. We abhor social division, injustice, unfairness and inequality. We believe not just in society but in the good that government can do. Paying your fair share of tax is the price of living in a civilised society.’

The ghost of Thatcher’s Government is at being laid to rest. And who is presiding over the exorcism? No, not Jeremy Corbyn – Theresa May! For the first time in 40 years, working-class Labour voters are being offered a Tory manifesto they can sign up to.

Gone are New Labour’s attempts to bribe older, wealthier voters with winter heating allowances paid out irrespective of how well-off they were. Gone is the ‘triple lock’ on pensions ensuring pensioners received bigger pay rises than those in work. Labour may be committed to that scam, but not the Tories.

Instead we have promises that firms previously owned by the Government – energy companies, for instance – can no longer rip off consumers and will be hog-tied by new regulation. Thatcher may be spinning in her grave, but Tony Benn will be dancing in his.

Even the ultimate prize of the Conservative Party’s Right wing – Britain’s departure from the EU– will acquire a bitter taste. Instead of using the money we’ll save on our £10 billion-plus contributions to the EU on tax cuts, it will go to a fund to reduce inequality. Labour’s manifesto features no such socialist innovation.

May’s departure from Tory norms has been made easier, of course, by Labour’s retreat from the centre ground of British politics. Working-class voters have always had more than their fair share of conservatism (with a small ‘c’) when it came to social values, money and patriotism. So it should come as no surprise that Mrs May has taken full advantage of Corbyn’s retreat into shady Left-wing irrelevance.

But Mrs May has taken her troops well beyond the line in the sand marked ‘centre ground’.

Hers is a bold, some might say reckless, strategy. And it has been made possible only because, the polls say, she would have to try very hard to lose this Election.

And former Labour voters seem to like what they see.

Who would have thought that socialism – securing, on behalf of the workers, the full fruits of their industry – would be realised under a Tory Government?

... Which is alarming traditional Tories like me 

By Andrew Roberts 

Theresa May went to Halifax to launch her manifesto on Thursday, a constituency that has voted Labour since 1987 but which will almost certainly go Conservative on June 8.

She emphasised that metaphorically, politically and geographically, the Conservatives are capable of striking deep into Labour territory.

Her manifesto has been hailed as completely cutting the ground from under Jeremy Corbyn and Labour – and so it does. So why am I feeling queasy?

Although Mrs May is a Conservative, she is no Tory. This manifesto fires shot after shot at the philosophy of Toryism in a way that would have left Stanley Baldwin, Margaret Thatcher and Lord Salisbury reeling. The entire foreword could have been written by Tony Blair, and the programme of social engineering that the manifesto promises would have left aghast ‘wet’ Tory Premiers such as Churchill, Macmillan and Heath.

Conservatives, according to Mrs May, have ‘a belief not just in society but the good that government can do’.

Mrs Thatcher, of course, never said ‘there is no such thing as society,’ but she was adamant that governments should get out of the way and let individuals thrive.

In this manifesto we learn that Conservatives ‘reject the cult of selfish individualism’. They might reject individualism, but Tories don’t. It has been the individual, not the community let alone the State, that has produced the advances that have secured the dignity of man. Tories believe it is only through the rights of individuals that the rest of society can function properly at all.

The manifesto also attacks what it calls ‘social division’, which merely means the natural state of society, which is split into classes and groupings. Thatcher instinctively understood how social mobility through meritocracy was the spur to self-advancement, but one shouldn’t despise the class one was trying to enter.

It is Mrs May’s wholehearted embrace of the concept of classlessness, once proposed by John Major, that is extraordinarily utopian, especially coming from someone who states: ‘We see rigid dogma and ideology not just as needless but dangerous.’

In fact, ideology gave Mrs Thatcher a strong north star to guide by – invaluable for a Prime Minister.

The attacks on ‘the privileged few’ in the manifesto – by which is meant the high-earners, or wealth generators – are unworthy in a party that denounces Corbyn’s politics of envy.

The plan to expel members of the House of Lords for ‘poor conduct’ is another un-Tory example of the State choosing who can speak and vote in our legislature – something that would not look out of place in Cuba or China.

The endless concentration on victimhood – ‘If you are at a state school… If you are black… If you are a woman’ and the references to ‘white working-class boys’ – was used by Blair to atomise society, but shouldn’t have found a place in a Conservative document. Nor is it true that the ‘just about managing’ class have been ‘ignored’, since every politician has wooed the C1 and C2s from Thatcher to Blair. Remember ‘white van man’?

Classlessness is a chimera not achieved by any free society, and it won’t come in a Britain that retains its public schools.

Mrs May’s plan to force the 100 top public school heads to set up academies as well as doing their actual jobs is another promised exercise in social engineering that sounds good in a political manifesto. But it is as un-Tory as her ‘unprecedented audit of racial disparity’ and her commitment to remain a signatory of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The paragraphs on climate change, gender pay gaps, further business regulations and forcing companies to give a year’s leave for carers, let alone for ‘the most ambitious programme of investment in the NHS ever seen’, could have been written by Alastair Campbell for the 1997 Labour manifesto.

Anyone hoping Brexit might be the start of a great deregulation drive that could make us the Singapore of the Atlantic should know that, under Mrs May, ‘workers’ rights that were conferred on British citizens from our membership of the EU will remain’.

Mrs May refers to herself as a Conservative, but if this anti-business, politically correct, profoundly un-Tory manifesto is enacted, it will soon be perceived that she is in fact on the centre-Left of British politics.

Conservatism has sometimes been defined as being whatever the Conservative Party wants to do at the time; Toryism, by contrast, has a long and proud history of principled opposition to the extension of State power over the individual, joint-stock companies, the legislature and institutions such as public schools.

I have on my desk my postal vote, and I will shortly be casting it for Mrs May’s party, because the only alternative Prime Minister is utterly unconscionable. Of course it may well be that the manifesto is part of a brilliant ploy to push Labour out of British politics altogether after 117 years by denying it any central ground whatsoever. If so, then Mrs May should be congratulated.

But if she means to do what she has written, traditional Tories like me should be