On a bright morning in June 2023, George Osborne appeared before the UK Covid inquiry. The former chancellor had been called to give evidence in the module which looked at pandemic preparedness. Eventually the conversation turned to social care. With the air of an elder relative saying “I told you so,” Osborne was pious in his assessment of why successive governments – including his own – have failed to tackle the enduring crisis in social care. “There are two [groups of] people who pay for social care,” Osborne said, “the taxpayer and the individual.” He continued: “the system for 20 years under governments of all colours, has rejected those two options… the solution is clearly unpalatable.”
Osborne’s diagnosis is a neat one. Successive governments have, as of yet, failed to find an answer to the “unpalatable” question looming over social care reform: if not the tax payer or the individual, who is willing to pay for it?
Instead of answering this question, Labour has sidestepped it. On 3 January, Wes Streeting announced that he and Keir Starmer would launch a new Royal Commission on social care, to be chaired by Baroness Louise Casey, with its final report not due until 2028. (In a massive overstatement, The Guardian dubbed it “the biggest shake up of social care in decades.”) The government said Casey’s review would help to find “political consensus” on how to tackle the crisis. But scepticism should be encouraged: in three years time, when the final findings of the review will be published, the question of who is going to pay will likely still require an answer.
Repairing the UK’s ailing social care system demands political courage, a quality in short supply right now. Repeated attempts to decide between these “unpalatable solutions” – of increased taxation or personal responsibility – have been abandoned once their political costs have been made apparent. In 2010, then-Health Secretary Andy Burnham’s plans for a 10 per cent care premium on inheritance tax were dubbed the “death tax” and subsequently scrapped. During the 2017 election, Theresa May’s so-called “dementia tax” manifesto pledge would have required elderly people to provide the upfront cost of their care until they reached their last £100,000 of assets. It was so unpopular it was ditched before voters even went to the polls.
But something significant distinguishes May and Burnham from Streeting and Starmer. The former attempted to change policy at moments of relative political instability – May was facing a tough election, while Burnham was operating within a weary administration approaching the end of its life. Meanwhile, the current government finds itself in possession of a 154-seat majority, four years out from an election.
Nevertheless, the government has deferred action to 2028, with none of the excuses of May and Burnham. And this inaction is costly. Starmer’s promise to reduce NHS waiting times, for example, will not be achieved so long as the government prevaricates on social care. A lack of capacity in social care places direct pressure on NHS waiting times, as hospital beds are filled by those unable to be discharged into suitable care places. This situation is likely to worsen over the next 5 years as more and more of the Baby Boomer generation reach an age at which they require social care.
But social care is not the only locus of government equivocation. The government is currently reviewing its Right to Buy policy (whereby council tenants can purchase their resident property). But as a slow review is being carried out, the harmful effects of the policy – that is, social housing being sold to private owners – will continue to abound, deepening the housing crisis.
In fact, in its first 150 days, the government launched 67 reviews, taskforces and consultations into a raft of policy areas including water pollution, education and planning. This caution could be pinned on a lack of delivery experience in cabinet, which has left some ministers ill-equipped to function without bureaucratic handholding. (This hypothesis holds weight considering that policies led by veteran minister Ed Miliband – GB Energy, Clean Power 2030 – are already guaranteeing long-term delivery despite complaints of their short-term expense.) And so, maybe after the permanent Westminster psychodrama of the last eight years, the government is hesitant of making too radical a decision for fear of the parliamentary wrath that may ensue. But again, the conditions of government are different now. Starmer has a majority; and the chances of an unwieldly rebellion are incredibly slim.
Whatever its cause, the delay is damaging. And needless. Labour was elected to enact change – a manifesto promise – but in government it has shied away from making the difficult decisions that realising it will entail. There are still four and a half years to go before the next election. If the government cannot be “unpalatable” and courageous under such favourable circumstances, if the tides change for Labour it’ll likely be little more than a zombie.
[See also: Why Farage is turning left]
Listen to the New Statesman podcast
Content from our partners
Related
