What makes this result striking is how narrow the margin was set against how little common ground the two sides shared: 76 votes to 72 is barely a verdict at all, yet the arguments behind it read like two different conversations about the same crisis. Voters were not really divided on whether adult social care is underfunded — almost nobody disputed the £18-20bn problem — but on whether a new 1.8% levy was the right instrument to fix it.
The No side's most-respected voice made the efficiency case rather than a tax-cutting one, arguing that "the NHS is not underfunded, its grossly inefficient, top heavy with pen-pushers" and that an integrated health and care system should find savings before asking for more. A second No voter drew a sharper line still, distinguishing principle from delivery: "I would pay more for good services in a coherent structure. That this Labour Party can't deliver that is blindingly clear." Others raised the constitutional oddity of an unelected PM imposing a levy a manifesto had ruled out, and worried benefit claimants who use care most would "dodge paying again."
Yes voters, for their part, argued less that the levy was wrong in principle than that its design needed fixing — ring-fencing, fairness across benefits and earners, and a guarantee it wouldn't become "another means tested benefit not available to anyone who works." One conceded flatly there is "no more money to be saved from the NHS, and councils are all broke, so if we want more stuff we have to pay for it." The two camps rarely engaged directly; No distrusted government competence, Yes distrusted the alternative of doing nothing.
The split echoes the broader stalemate that has trailed social care funding since the Dilnot reforms were shelved a decade ago — everyone agrees the system is broken, nobody trusts the mechanism proposed to mend it, whether National Insurance rises, inheritance levies, or now this.
That the losing case barely needed the strongest arguments to lose so narrowly suggests this is a debate the public has heard many times before, and still hasn't been persuaded to fund.
8 Opinions
There's no more money to be saved from the NHS, and councils are all broke, so if we want more stuff we have to pay for it, but it has to benefit us all. So broadly in favour but detail of what will be funded is important. If it turns into another means tested benefit not available to anyone who works/worked then its not going to go down well- working people are already resentful of struggling while others do nothing for what they get.
We need to look at restructuring the NHS and bloated management roles. Not increasing tax for working families who are already struggling to afford family expenses.
As stated too high and those on benefits who probably use service more dodge paying again
I would if there's was an act passed in parliament to ring fence it.. All to often in the passed taxes were meant to be specifically for certain things then got used to pay for other things.. Thinking foe example ... Road tax - to pay for roads NI - to pay for healthcare
Yes if he taxes benefits as well.
These are standalone questions - no I'm not going to pay more for the same substandard schlock we have been served up by government. Yes, I would pay more for good services in a coherent structure. That this Labour Party can't deliver that is blindingly clear
1.8% is too high. Part of the funding for social care needs to come out of rhe existing NHS budget. By having an integrated health and social care service we should, if its managed properly, see huge efficiency savings, less bed blocking, less need for people to be hospitalised. The NHS is not underfunded, its grossly inefficient, top heavy with pen-pushers, and has its priorities all wrong.