Britain talks about family, community, and the dignity of work. But if you want to see what we truly value, look at how we treat carers.

Ed Davey has spoken about caring for his mother and caring for his disabled son today. That gives the Liberal Democrats credibility. Supporting carers is not a niche “nice-to-have”; it is the natural flagship for a liberal party that believes in dignity, family life, and a state that works.

Unpaid carers keep Britain afloat. They keep loved ones out of the hospital, stop social care from collapsing, and hold families together. Yet many live with exhaustion, paperwork, and the fear that one wrong payslip could trigger a demand for thousands in repayment.

A humane country does not punish people for taking responsibility.

A Jenkinsite approach is not nostalgia, but instead, a method: practical reform,
administrative competence, and compassion appropriately delivered. Carer’s Allowance is a test of whether the state can manage fundamental fairness.

Carer’s Allowance is £83.30 a week for those providing at least 35 hours of care to someone on a qualifying disability benefit. It rises to £86.45 from April 2026. Even then, it is a poor reward for work done under sustained pressure.

End the cliff-edge

Carers can earn up to £196 per week under the 2025/26 rules. Go even slightly over, and
you can lose the entire allowance. This is not a taper; it is a trap.

The message is grotesque: “We will support you, but only if you remain poor enough.”. It discourages work and punishes carers for trying to stay afloat.

The fix is obvious: replace the cliff-edge with an earnings taper, so support reduces gradually rather than collapsing overnight. That is not radical; it is basic competence.

Stop setting carers up to fail

There is a second scandal: overpayments.

Carer’s Allowance is administered in a way that leaves many carers facing debts for minor earnings breaches, sometimes with the threat of fines or criminal consequences. The
Guardian has reported 144,000 carers owing more than £250 million in overpayments,
driven by a system that fails to warn people in time and then demands repayment later.

A liberal state should prevent predictable harm. If the government has the data to spot a problem, it has a duty to stop it from becoming a catastrophe. Reform should include
real-time alerts as carers approach the limit, automatic pauses and prompts, and a
presumption of good faith.

Fund care properly, and build respite in

We should raise Carer’s Allowance, because a country that values family life must fund the
reality of it. Eligibility should be modernised too. The 35-hour rule draws an arbitrary line through lives that do not fit neat administrative boxes; the direction should be fewer obstacles and more recognition of real life.

But cash alone is not enough. Respite is not a luxury; it is infrastructure. It protects carers’ health, reduces emergencies, and prevents avoidable hospital admissions. A national guarantee of respite care is reformist liberalism at its best: invest early, reduce crisis spending, and treat carers as partners rather than invisible labour.

A liberal society does not run on martyrdom

This is not a sentimental argument. It is about whether we want a society that runs on
martyrdom or one that runs on fairness.

Carers need a system that recognises care as work, supports it without humiliation, and
does not punish them for trying to survive. That is the Jenkinsite case: reform that is moral and precise. Carers have upheld their side of the bargain for years. It is time the state upheld its side too.

* Jack Meredith is a member of the Welsh Liberal Democrats and an active campaigner and canvasser with Swansea and Gower Liberal Democrats. His writing focuses on democratic reform, social justice, trade unionism, economic democracy, and the institutional foundations of effective government. He has written for the Fabians, Lib Dem Voice, Liberator, Nation Cymru, Bylines Cymru, and Centre Think Tank.