Labour insiders say Burnham has time to persuade voters on social care overhaul

It takes courage for a party leader to pledge a multibillion‑pound new public service ahead of an election, especially when funding may require tax increases or restraints on state‑pension rises.

Yet Andy Burnham’s colleagues are optimistic about his confident promise to deliver a social care system that seven previous prime ministers have failed to achieve.

“I’m not worried because we have time to make the case,” remarked one cabinet minister when asked about the challenge of winning voter support.

David Cameron’s team popularised the political metaphor of “pitch‑rolling”—borrowed from cricket—to describe how leaders must prepare uneven ground early if they want their policies to take root.

Burnham appears to be employing that approach, acclimatizing the public to the idea of contributing more to a system that will protect them in old age, as he outlined in a Sunday‑morning interview.

Details on how the service, which could cost up to £18 billion a year according to some estimates, will be funded remain unclear. Reform UK has already suggested a “death tax” to cover the expense, while economists have floated the possibility of scrapping the pension triple lock to help meet the cost.

Whatever the financing mechanism, Labour strategists hope that, over the coming years, all arguments will have been aired, the opposition’s attacks will lose their sting, and the proposal will become ingrained in the public’s view of what the party offers at the next election.

That strategy aims to avoid the pitfalls of Theresa May’s abrupt 2017 social‑care overhaul, which surprised voters—and her own party—by proposing that individuals with assets over £100 000 pay for their own care. The plan collapsed quickly when it became evident that many older people might need to sell their homes to fund personal care.

An earlier effort by Gordon Brown and Burnham himself in 2010 foundered after a discussion paper proposed a post‑death levy on estates alongside a contributory system, but the government could not agree on funding and subsequently lost the election.

If Burnham learns from those past missteps, he has roughly three years to build his case and win over skeptics who view the problem as too intractable.

Meanwhile, with an ageing population and the social‑care system under strain, an increasing number of people recognise that the current arrangement is a lottery, leaving many elderly individuals and their families to shoulder most of the cost themselves.

Sarah Coles, head of personal finance at AJ Bell, described the move as “a difficult political step, because it immediately invites speculation about funding,” but added that it “could dramatically improve the lives of millions who have someone in need of care.”

Whether the scheme is financed by older workers, those of working age, or both, there are clear risks in heading into the next election signalling higher payments when household budgets are already under severe pressure.

Governments are traditionally wary of targeting pension benefits, given the tendency of older voters to act on their financial interests. The memory of attempts by Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves to cut the winter fuel allowance—met with a furious backlash from a surprised public—remains vivid among Labour MPs.

No party has dared modify the triple lock—the guarantee that the state pension rises by the higher of inflation, earnings or 2.5 %—since its introduction by the Conservatives in 2010.

Nevertheless, some policy experts see a golden opportunity to craft a trade‑off aimed directly at older people: a stronger care system in exchange for a modest adjustment to the triple lock.

Former cabinet secretary Gus O’Donnell told LBC: “You can pair social‑care reform with an amendment to the triple lock. Doing so as a package leaves older people substantially better off and is revenue neutral.”

Alex Clegg, a senior economist at the Resolution Foundation think‑tank, noted that the savings from revising the triple lock might not reach billions within a single parliament, but could accumulate over the long term. He also suggested that presenting the changes alongside improved social care could make them an easier sell to pensioners.

Burnham is expected to unveil further details of his vision for a social‑care system in his conference speech on Tuesday. He may not yet have all the answers on financing, pending a review of the system by Louise Casey.

Nonetheless, Labour MPs believe he is the right person to lay the groundwork for change. One senior Labour figure remarked: “Unlike Keir, he can make an argument, and everyone hopes he can bring the country along with us.”

Source link