Andy Burnham has rightly made fixing social care a top priority and seems, on the face of it, to be genuinely interested in reaching a cross party consensus. Social care has been a priority for Liberal Democrats for a long time as well – I shed more than one or two tears when I first saw some of our election broadcasts from Ed Davey talking about his experiences.
The good news is that we don’t need to wait for the Casey Review to conclude in several years – the answers are already out there. In 2019, the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee published a landmark report calling for £8bn investment in social care, followed by the introduction of free personal care in England. The committee at the time was chaired by the very right-wing Lord Forsyth – this is not a lefty fringe idea, but one that makes practical sense.
It was wisely adopted as our party’s policy in 2023 and a major plank of our manifesto in 2024.
Of course, post-Covid and an ever aging population would mean you need more than £8bn today – some estimates as much as £18bn for transformative social care by 2036.
Frankly, Liberal Democrats need to be a bit less squeamish about asking people to pay more tax. Real substantial taxes rather than fiddling with the Digital Services Tax which is paying for seemingly everything (incidentally widening its base to cover more products like user data sales and streaming services as France and Denmark do or expanding it to AI companies would generate substantially more revenue than upping the headline rate).
The main beneficiaries of making personal care free are people like my family – a fair amount of wealth and assets (a 3 bed detached house in Berkshire and investments) but not necessarily cash rich. The fairest solution is to look at taxing wealth more, rather than working people during a cost of living crisis, so the main beneficiaries are the main contributors. Equalising Capital Gains Tax with Income Tax, and removing some of the egregious loopholes would raise upwards of £11.3bn a year as well as removing distortions which would promote economic growth. It is also backed by the IFS.