Letter: Budget cuts are cruel to elderly people

So George Osborne wants to cut the support to the disabled (your report, 14 September). Is there no morality to this man? No ethical approach, or empathy towards people who cannot work, even if there were jobs?

As a Tory member for 20 years, a local government candidate twice, I just could not support cuts that the Tories had not outlined in the manifesto before the election.

They didn't tell us how cruel they were intent on being. I voted under the impression that David Cameron would act in a way that the poor were protected. I was wrong.

George Osborne says his top priority is cutting the deficit. But in order to get the deficit down, you need to keep economic growth up and you need to keep unemployment down. You don't get borrowing down by pulling the plug on support for business, throwing people out of work and stifling economic growth.

The Chancellor delivered a Budget that will throw people out of work, hold back economic growth and damage the public services we all rely on - and increased VAT from 17.5 per cent to 20 per cent, so that higher prices will be paid in the shops by everyone, from pensioners to the unemployed.

The Tories' cuts are unfair to families and older people: cuts to the disability living allowance, cuts to help the jobless, cuts to tax credits, cutting back free school meals, and cuts to child benefit, which they have frozen for the next three years.

They areintent on cutting housing benefit by making people who are unable to find a job after a year by 10 per cent and making them pay the difference by using their 65 in jobseeker's allowance.

And if you are unfortunate enough to live in a house with bedrooms that your children used to sleep in, but have now left home, and you are disabled and on housing benefit, look out, the Tories are going to cut your housing benefit as well, and make you pay the difference as well. Or worse, force you to move.

What the country needed was a Budget to support economic growth, protect jobs and cut the deficit fairly. Instead the Tories gave us a reckless Budget that pulls the rug out from under the recovery. And they couldn't have done it without the support of the Lib Dems, who have let down everyone who voted for them in the election..

Gerry Freedman

Graham Street

Edinburgh

Free personal care is a good example of why we should give local councils more powers. It saves the state money - from its NHS budget - and it provides the service, and the jobs, close to home.

Peter Jones suggests that the NHS and councils could work more closely together to reduce the costs of free personal care.

He proposes a national third age service but says he hasn't worked out how such a service could be provided which is not bureaucratic and preserves local flexibility.

The answer is to merge the third age service with the NHS and the local councils.Instead of taking powers away from local councils - with national council tax freezes and talk of a national police force or centrally funded schools etc - we should take advantage of well established local democratic institutions and give them more powers and flexibility to run affairs in their own areas and to save or spend money in their own ways.

John Knox

Dinmont Drive

Edinburgh

Regarding Peter Jones's opinion piece on old age care (14 September), when I last looked at a dictionary the word "free" was, in part, defined as "provided without charge". "Free" healthcare for the elderly is therefore a misnomer. Should an individual be required to move into a care home, they are means-tested to ascertain any charges due. Those with savings above a certain level are required to pay the full cost of services which, as Jones attests, is at least 600 per week.

Financial intervention by the state only enters the equation when this "nest egg" is reduced. Even then, however, the bulk of any monies received via pension(s); state, occupational etc, is still taken from the recipient to offset care charges.

Thus the service is not "free" and politicians et al should desist from describing it so. The correct term is "subsidised".

Brian Hogg

Sanda Street

Glasgow