|
Helen blinked as she stepped out into the blazing sunshine and walked the few steps to her car.
She started the engine, turned the air conditioning onto full blast, leaned back in the seat…
...and burst into tears.
She had just spent an hour with her mum…
… in the stifling care-home lounge, huddled around a fan, she'd tried to talk about Dad, her sisters and the grandchildren.
Her mum looked blank and asked when her daughter was coming to see her. It was the same every Tuesday.
Mum no longer recognised her, yet the relentless care-home bills, knew where to find her.
With the school run still to do and a boss who had been patient about the endless absences but still expected the spreadsheets tomorrow morning...
... it had suddenly became all too much.
All too much.
All too much of a problem Andy Burnham has been trying to fix for almost twenty years.
For families like Helen's, social care isn't a policy debate. It's Tuesday afternoon.
Andy Burnham understands that, better than most politicians. He has been wrestling with social care since he was Health Secretary in 2009.
He launched a Green Paper, argued England needed a National Care Service and concluded the existing system was unfair, confusing and unsustainable.
Few politicians have devoted more time to the subject.
Now, as Prime Minister, he has a big opportunity to do something about it.
His proposal is straightforward.
In a leak trailed in the Saturday Times (alas £walled) personal and nursing care would become free according to need. People would continue to meet their ordinary living costs… similar to the fix in may EU health systems.
For many families, that would be a welcome and important change.
The present system is impossible to defend.
Cancer… the NHS pays.
Dementia… mostly, the family pays.
Burnham is right to challenge that inconsistency. He deserves credit for refusing to let the issue disappear into the long grass, but…
… seventeen years is also a long time to think.
-
Long enough to know every objection.
-
Long enough to understand every failed attempt.
-
Long enough to appreciate that announcing an entitlement is the easy part.
Delivering one is rather harder.
That's why his announcement feels incomplete.
Not because the ambition is wrong… but, because four essential questions remain unanswered.
Question one. What exactly becomes free?
The broad outline is clear, but families will want to know precisely where the line is drawn between personal care and everyday living costs.
Question two. Who qualifies?
Eligibility has a habit of becoming more complicated than the headlines suggest.
Question three. Who pays?
Current estimates suggest the proposal could cost around £18.5 billion a year by the middle of the next decade.
- General taxation?
- National Insurance?
- A dedicated care levy?
- Borrowing?
- Cuts elsewhere?
Someone pays.
Families deserve honesty.
Taxpayers deserve honesty too.
Question four. Where do the carers come from?
England already struggles to recruit and retain enough care workers. Providers are under financial pressure. Councils struggle to commission services. Hospitals remain clogged because patients cannot be discharged safely.
Changing the funding mechanism does not magically create capacity.
That’s not a criticism of Burnham, alone. Every government has struggled with the same arithmetic. Demand rises. The workforce ages. Local authority finances weaken. Costs increase faster than revenues.
There are no easy answers. Which is exactly why expectations matter.
Burnham should not oversell this as fixing social care. It doesn't.
It tackles one of the biggest injustices in the present system. That’s … important, but ...
... funding is not the same as reform.
Social care also depends on workforce, productivity, prevention, unpaid carers, sustainable providers and a functioning relationship with the NHS.
All those pieces matter and they all have to move as one.
--------
Helen started the engine and joined the afternoon traffic. By next Tuesday;
She'd still need to visit her mum.
She'd still need to collect the children.
She'd still need to juggle work.
Whether she'd still need to be worrying about paying for care depends on decisions ministers have yet to explain.
Seventeen years is a long time to think about a problem.
Long enough, perhaps, for the country now, to expect not just a promise...
...but the answers.
| 
