Social care funding plan: How has it changed and why are people angry?

The prime minister seems determined to have all the Tory Party family fights before Christmas. First standards, then rail and now social care in England.

The plans MPs are voting on are much less generous to people with lower levels of wealth than had been expected. And some of Boris Johnson's MPs don’t like it.

Those with constituencies where house prices are lower have most reason to feel aggrieved (yes, it’s those new ‘Red Wall’ Tories again).

Here’s the problem: there is to be an £86,000 cap on how much anyone has to pay for social care. Until last week the less wealthy, who had financial support from their local authority, expected that support to count towards their cap.

Now the government wants to remove the local authority money from the calculation. That means that everyone will pay the whole £86,000 themselves, regardless of their assets (although once down to your last £20,000 you don’t pay anything).

So a system that already left the wealthy with a much greater proportion of their assets than the less well off has been tweaked to take more from the less well off.

The government is expected to win the vote on Monday evening. But not without upsetting even more of its own MPs who are faced - yet again - with voting for a measure many of them don’t like.

A tweak which - despite a more generous level of means testing - seems to fly in the face of ‘levelling-up’.

Labour shadow health secretary Jon Ashworth told ITV News the proposals are a "care con, because... if you live in a £1 million house, perhaps in the Home Counties, 90% of your assets will be protected if you need social care.

“But if you live in an £80,000 terrace house in Hartlepool, Barrow, Mansfield or Wigan, for example, you lose nearly everything.

“That is manifestly unfair. That is not levelling up, it is daylight robbery."