Tory leader Kemi Badenoch is right about one thing: social care reform demands serious thought. But she is wrong to insist that the answer cannot involve asking those with the broadest shoulders (the very richest) bear the biggest burden and contribute a bit more through taxation. If we are serious about fixing one of Britain’s greatest public policy failures, there will be a cost. We must be honest about that.
For me, this is not an abstract political argument. It is deeply personal.
In July 2022 my mum died two days after waiting eleven hours for an ambulance following a bad fall at home. Local ambulance crews were doing their best, I later learned, but many were trapped outside a local hospital because there were no beds available. Some of those beds were occupied by people medically fit to leave but unable to do so because there was no social care package for them at home or in the community. It was a whole system failure that left my beloved mum on her bedroom floor, in pain and distress, for hour after long hour.
That is what a broken social care system looks like. It harms older people, disabled people, unpaid carers, NHS staff and, ultimately, patients like my mum.
Andy Burnham is right to say the NHS cannot thrive without fixing social care and he’s due to set out his plans on the issue later this week. But I worry when I hear suggestions that we should wait for the (Louise) Casey Commission before meaningful action is taken. The Commission’s work is important, of course, yet the crisis is happening now. Every single day of delay means more cancelled operations, more patients waiting multiple hours for ambulances, more patients stuck in hospital unnecessarily and more families enduring avoidable suffering.
Of course long-term reform should be informed by evidence. But that should not prevent immediate investment in care workers, community care and local authority services while the wider reforms are developed.
As liberals, we believe in fairness. Fairness means protecting the most vulnerable, not pretending we can transform public services without paying for them. Those with the greatest wealth can and should contribute more if that is what it takes to build a social care system worthy of the name.
Prime Ministers are often remembered not for the crises they inherited but for whether they had the courage to confront them. On social care, Andy Burnham has an opportunity to succeed where successive governments have failed.
For the sake of families like mine, I hope he takes it.
A grown-up opposition for a new political era
Andy Burnham becoming the Prime Minister presents we Lib Dems with an opportunity to demonstrate political maturity. Our job is not to oppose for opposition’s sake. We can leave that to the Tories.
Instead, we should be guided by our values. Where the government pursues policies that advance fairness, strengthen public services, help mend our broken relationship with Europe, or tackle long-neglected challenges such as social care, we should be prepared to work constructively alongside it.
Equally, where ministers depart from liberal and social democratic principles, centralise power unnecessarily or erode rights and freedoms, we should be robust in our opposition.
Pluralism means recognising that good ideas are not the exclusive property of one party. It also means having the confidence to disagree without descending into tribalism.
Britain needs a serious, constructive Liberal Democrat opposition: principled when necessary, collaborative where possible, and always focused on the national interest.
Thank you – see you in September!
Thank you, as always, for reading, sharing and engaging with Mathew on Monday. Your support, encouragement and thoughtful debate mean a great deal. I’m taking my usual August break to recharge (including a few days in Paris… can’t wait!), and this column will return in September, for a brand new political season and, of course, for our own autumn conference.
Until then, have a wonderful summer, take care and see you soon.
Bye!
* Mathew Hulbert is a former Councillor, is a regular commentator on TV and Radio, and is Co-Host of the Political Frenemies podcast.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Dr Who or Terminator
Olly Lambert's The Devil in the Family: The Fall of Ruby Franke
Cystatin-C some thoughts and some references
Could water companies put up prices to pay for drought?
Like Trump, Farage cannot understand democracy
John Hann
Peter Wrigley
Jana
Peter Hirst
12 Comments
So pleased Mathew to see your comment about Kemi Badenoch and her comments about tax. The Conservatives have led the way on messages about tax and others have too readily followed. We are NOT a high tax country; a couple of years ago we were just below average and probably now about average for a developed country. Why are we and other politicians not telling the public this? That means the rich should pay more especially on unearned income. Listen to the Patriotic Millionaires and what about the huge profits made by banks and energy companies!
“So pleased Mathew to see your comment about Kemi Badenoch and her comments about tax. The Conservatives have led the way on messages about tax and others have too readily followed”
Seconded – if this old pensioner (who has other pension income apart from state pension) has to pay a bit more tax so be it.
Sadly, in some cases the NHS system actively encourages ‘bed-blocking’…
Last October I suffered a serious heart attack (‘bells and whistles’ to hospital by ambulance which arrived within 15 minutes of the 999 call)..Treatment at my local hospital was impeccable as was my transfer to a specialist unit at another NHS facility where I was immediately fitted with a balloon..
However, another patient who arrived with me was found to need bypass surgery at Papworth and this is where bureaucracy kicked in…
He was told that he would just continue on his existing medication whilst awaiting surgery but, when he suggested returning home where his wife, a registered nurse, would be in attendance he was informed that “If he remained in the cardiac unit the Papworth waiting list was under 6 weeks” BUT, if he left the cardiac unit, he would automatically be on another list with a minimum wait of 6 months”
His requests for WHY? were met with, “That is the system”..
Presumably they try to process those in hospital first to free up their beds. Unintended consequences.
We get what we pay for and whilst there is no doubt room for improved ways of working it will require more of our cash!
This might be a wonderful opportunity for us to work cross-party to bring about solutions regarding social and residential care. We have however been pretty vague on solutions hitherto and supporting Dilnot plus or something similar will (in a good and just cause) shoot all our campaigning foxes in one go.
It comes as no surprise that some on here support the Dilnot proposals. It gave the biggest tax break to the wealthy in generations .. Someone with an asset of £125k would be taxed at nearly 70% while someone with a £750k asset would be taxed at just over 11%.
Grotesquely unfair.
Agreed – I think people support it because it’s there.
Dilnot did not propose a tax but a subsidy. That’s how he convinced so many people that such an amazingly unfair proposal was acceptable.
Is it time to repurpose the taxes we already have perhaps changing NI to a social care fund to assist the cronically ill and provide a support fund for long term care .
>” So pleased Mathew to see your comment about Kemi Badenoch”
We shouldn’t forget the Conservatives lead the attacks on social services – deriding their value and restricting funding. It irritates me that every time Kemi opens her mouth the interviewer is not ‘gently’ reminding her the reason for the mess is decades of application of Conservative beliefs…
I hear this morning that Andy will be inviting both the Conservatives and LibDems to contribute to the creation of a national care service. Less hope people hold them to account and not permit Kemi et al to get away with point scoring as if they are all innocent about their involvement in the creation of the mess.
It is clear from some of the examples being given, such as bed hogging, sorting out social care will have a big positive impact on the NHS budget, potentially permitting a reduction in NHS spend as Social spend is removed and correctly allocated to care.
Governments have repeatedly promised to do something, and have then done nothing, thanks to scare stories about costs from their opponents. What, if anything, can be done to get away from this record of failure?
Long term NHS budget savings may happen, but can’t be proven, so they won’t cut the mustard. In the short term, costs are inevitable. Badenoch has made it clear that she wants to scupper any plans that cost money. That’s nasty politics for you. Burnham wants to do something useful and gain credit, ergo, Badenoch wants to stop Burnham gaining that credit, never mind whether the country loses out.
BBC Verify clarifies the costs. Dilnot is by far the cheapest option, hence the least impractical in the face of Badenoch’s nihilism.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cj4k54g0ldjo
Sure, Dilnot mainly helps the rich. So, why not pay for it by taxing the (fairly) rich, e.g. by raising the 40% and 45% income tax rates?
This well-off over-70 is hanging on to a savings nest egg, just in case I or my wife might end up facing high care home costs. If Dilnot were in place, we could give most of that money away. That type of behaviour would also help charities, help generational equality, and boost the economy!