I am a pensioner and a Liberal Democrat. I believe in freedom, fairness and the responsibility we share to ensure that everyone can live with dignity. Those convictions are why I want our party to speak more clearly about pensions and social care.

My concern is not with Ed Davey’s commitment or compassion. It is with whether our leadership is giving people enough substance to understand the choices ahead.

As someone who served as a Southwark councillor for twelve years, including working on health and social care scrutiny, I know how closely these issues are connected. A pension provides an income. Social care helps someone wash, dress, eat safely and remain in their own home. For many older people, both are essential to independence.

Yet the political debate too often treats them separately. We hear assurances about protecting pensioners, while families struggle to arrange care, meet its costs or provide it themselves.

I want Ed Davey to explain how these commitments fit together. What should pensioners expect beyond 2030? What would a properly funded social care system provide? How would we pay for it, and how would we protect people on low incomes?

These are questions a party seeking to govern should be prepared to answer.

I am worried about my own pension, but I am also worried about the condition of social care. I do not want a debate that assumes older people care only about the amount entering their bank accounts. We also care about what happens when we become frail, when a partner needs support, or when our children must reduce their working hours to look after us.

A pension increase can bring welcome relief. But if someone’s care costs rise, or suitable help cannot be found, that increase alone cannot give them security.

This does not mean pensioners should be asked to accept less in exchange for a vague promise of better care. People with modest incomes need dependable protection. Any proposed change must explain who would be affected, how, and what safeguards would apply.

Equally, we should be willing to discuss whether those with greater resources can contribute more fairly. Older people are not one uniform group. A person living on a small pension with no savings is in a different position from someone with substantial income and assets. Fairness requires us to recognise that difference without setting generations against each other.

Our leadership should make the case for social care as a shared public priority. Good care matters to the person receiving it, to relatives and unpaid carers, and to the wider community. It should not depend on whether a family has the money, time or strength to fill every gap.

My criticism of Ed Davey is therefore a constructive one: compassion must be accompanied by a clear account of what we would do, what it would cost and which choices we would make.

Warm words can communicate our values. They cannot, on their own, show voters how those values would shape a government.

I would welcome an honest discussion led by Ed, even if some of the choices were difficult. We should trust people enough to explain the trade-offs and listen to their concerns. Pensioners deserve that respect, as do younger people who will help fund the system and may one day depend on it.

As a Liberal Democrat, I want our party to offer more than reassurance. I want a credible promise of dignity: enough income to live on, care when it is needed, and support for those who provide it.

That is the substance our liberal values should deliver.

* Maria Linforth-Hall is a former Southwark Councillor 2014-26