Andy Burnham is planning a new care service (Image: Getty)
Andy Burnham’s promise to create a National Care Service has been condemned as a “mirage” by campaigners, who accused the Prime Minister of delaying urgently needed reforms until 2030. They spoke out as nearly 300,000 people signed a petition demanding that the Prime Minister reverse plans to axe the state pension triple lock.
Mr Burnham has claimed that changes to the pensions policy are needed in order to fund his proposals. Dennis Reed, director of Silver Voices, said: “Andy Burnham is scrapping the triple lock for a pig in a poke social care plan, which began to unravel as soon as the standing ovation at Labour Party Conference died down.” The campaign group has been calling for the Government to take immediate action to end long waiting lists for older people requiring social care. Last year, 30,000 people died while they waited for care that never arrived.
Get personal finance news, money saving tips and advice plus selcted offers and competitions
Invalid email
You agree you are 18 or over. We use your sign-up to provide content in ways you’ve consented to and to improve our understanding of you. This may include adverts from us and third parties based on our knowledge of you. You can unsubscribe at any time. More Info.
In a paper, the group pointed out that Mr Burnham had promised a system “free at the point of use”, but it later emerged that he was considering a system similar to Scotland, where people in care can still face huge bills.
Mr Burnham’s plan to axe the state pension triple lock, so that it rises by at least the rate of inflation or 2.5%, but is no longer guaranteed to increase with average earnings, would drive pensioners into poverty, said Silver Voices.
The paper said: “The Government has decided that, apart from the symbolic move to punish today’s pensioners by scrapping the triple lock, they are going to duck other funding mechanisms to resolve the social care crisis.”
But axing the pension guarantee “is selective, unfair and won’t raise anywhere near the funding required for a National Care Service”, the group said.
It called for immediate action to give older people the care they need, warning that Mr Burnham’s plan could take 10 years. The paper said: ”Any proposals for radical reform will depend on the outcome of a general election, then any new Government will reconsider them, and if we see legislation at all, implementation will stretch over a period of years.”
Mr Reed said: “Andy Burnham is increasing pensioner poverty for a mirage of free social care, which will never materialise under him, and he knows it.”
A Silver Voices petition demanding that the Government rethink plans to axe the triple lock has been signed by 291,000 people.
Labour insists it is adjusting rather than axing the triple lock. While no change would come into force before a general election, Mr Burnham is thought to be planning to introduce legislation before a poll, which could later be implemented.
Speaking at his party’s conference, Mr Burnham said: “This is the deal. A state pension that rises every year. No care charges. And a high-quality National Care Service to give peace of mind in later life.”
Andy Burnham’s Social Care Plan Condemned – ‘People Are Dying’
Andy Burnham has come under renewed pressure over social care, as critics warn that people across England cannot afford to wait for another round of political promises while vulnerable patients struggle to obtain the support they urgently need. The debate has exposed deep disagreements over funding, access to care and the responsibility of political leaders to deliver meaningful reform rather than simply announce ambitious plans.
Social care is one of the most pressing challenges facing Britain’s public services. Older people who need help with everyday activities, adults living with disabilities and families caring for relatives with complex needs can all find themselves caught between limited local authority budgets, stretched care providers and an NHS struggling to manage growing demand. For many households, the issue is not an abstract policy discussion. It is a daily battle to secure assistance, maintain dignity and protect the health of someone they love.
The criticism directed at Burnham reflects a wider frustration with successive governments that have promised improvements to social care but struggled to establish a system that is adequately funded and sustainable. Critics argue that discussions about future reforms mean little to families facing an immediate crisis. Their central question is simple: what help is available now, and how quickly can it reach those who need it?
Why Social Care Has Become Such a Serious Issue
Social care supports people who need assistance with activities such as washing, dressing, preparing meals, moving safely around their homes and managing daily routines. It can be delivered in residential care homes, supported accommodation or people’s own homes, depending on their needs.
Although social care and healthcare often overlap, they operate under different arrangements in England. The NHS generally provides healthcare according to clinical need, while access to publicly funded adult social care is subject to assessments of need and, in many cases, financial means testing.
That distinction can create enormous difficulties for families. Someone may leave hospital medically ready for discharge but still require daily support before they can safely return home. Another person may need regular assistance to remain independent but discover that the help available locally is insufficient or unaffordable.
When appropriate support is missing, the consequences can be serious. A person who struggles to move around safely may face a greater risk of falls. Someone who cannot manage household tasks may experience declining wellbeing. Family members may have to reduce their working hours or give up employment to provide care themselves.
The pressures are not limited to older people. Adults with disabilities, people with long-term support needs and unpaid carers can all be affected by gaps in the system.
This is why critics use such urgent language when discussing social care. For some families, delays are not merely inconvenient. They can contribute to deteriorating health, exhaustion and situations in which people are no longer able to live safely at home.
The Meaning Behind the Warning That ‘People Are Dying’
The phrase “people are dying” captures the intensity of the debate, but it is important to distinguish political criticism from a specific, verified claim about individual deaths.
Inadequate care can expose vulnerable people to avoidable risks, particularly when essential support is delayed, hospital discharge arrangements fail or family carers become overwhelmed. However, establishing whether a particular policy or funding decision caused a death requires evidence about the individual circumstances.
The wider concern is nevertheless serious. When people cannot obtain appropriate care, their health and quality of life may suffer. Delayed support can also place additional pressure on hospitals, emergency services and relatives who are already struggling to cope.
For families, the emotional burden can be profound. Relatives may spend months contacting councils, care providers and health professionals while trying to coordinate assistance. Some must make difficult decisions about whether they can continue providing unpaid care alongside employment and other responsibilities.
The system can become especially difficult to navigate when responsibilities are divided between several organisations. A family may be told that one service is responsible for an aspect of care while another organisation controls the funding or assessment required to access it.
Critics argue that political leaders should focus on these practical experiences rather than relying on broad commitments to improve the system in the future.
The central issue is not simply whether a plan sounds ambitious. It is whether it can prevent people from falling through the gaps between health services, local authorities and care providers.
What Is Andy Burnham’s Role in the Debate?
Andy Burnham, the Mayor of Greater Manchester, has built much of his political profile around public services, inequality and the need for stronger cooperation between the NHS and local government.
Greater Manchester has pursued approaches intended to bring health and social care organisations closer together, reflecting the argument that services work better when they coordinate support around individuals rather than operate in isolation.
That ambition addresses a genuine problem. A person receiving medical treatment may also need help at home, transport to appointments, support from relatives and assistance with everyday activities. If these services are planned separately, important needs can be overlooked.
However, coordination alone cannot resolve every difficulty. Care workers must be recruited and retained, providers need sufficient income to operate sustainably, and local authorities need the resources to commission services that meet assessed needs.
Burnham’s supporters may argue that closer cooperation between public services can reduce duplication and help people receive more appropriate support. Critics, meanwhile, can reasonably ask whether such approaches deliver enough additional capacity to meet growing demand.
It is also important to distinguish the mayor’s regional responsibilities from the powers of the UK government. Adult social care in England is shaped by national legislation, funding arrangements and local authority decisions. Burnham cannot independently redesign the entire English social care system.
Any assessment of his proposals should therefore examine what he is specifically proposing, which organisations would be responsible for delivering it and what funding would be available.
Without those details, it would be misleading to attribute every problem in social care directly to the mayor or to assume that a regional initiative can solve a national crisis.
The Funding Problem at the Heart of the Crisis
One of the biggest challenges facing social care is the difficulty of matching resources to growing demand.
An ageing population means more people may require assistance with daily activities, while advances in healthcare allow many individuals to live longer with complex needs. These are positive developments in many respects, but they also increase the importance of having a sustainable care system.
At the same time, local authorities must balance social care against other statutory responsibilities and competing demands on their budgets. When resources are limited, councils face difficult decisions about eligibility, service levels and how much support they can commission.
Care providers also face rising operating costs, including wages, recruitment, training, transport and accommodation. If the fees they receive do not cover the costs of delivering safe, high-quality care, providers may struggle to recruit staff, reduce the services they offer or leave the market.
The consequences can be felt by individuals waiting for support and by hospitals trying to discharge patients who no longer need acute treatment but cannot safely return home without assistance.
This creates a damaging cycle. Insufficient community care can contribute to delayed hospital discharge, while pressure on hospitals can make it harder for patients to receive timely treatment. Families may then be left trying to fill the gaps.
Any credible reform plan must therefore explain how funding will be raised, distributed and monitored. Announcing new structures or promising better coordination is not enough if the system still lacks the staff and resources required to deliver care.
The Pressure on Unpaid Family Carers
Behind the social care debate are millions of people who provide unpaid assistance to relatives, partners or friends.
Family carers often perform tasks that would otherwise require paid support. They may help with washing, dressing, medication routines, meals, transport and overnight supervision. Many do this while holding down jobs and caring for children of their own.
The commitment can be extraordinary, but the physical and emotional strain can also be severe.
A person providing intensive care may lose sleep, experience financial insecurity or have little time for their own health and relationships. Some carers reduce their working hours or leave employment entirely, affecting their income and future pension entitlements.
When formal services are unavailable, families can feel that they have no genuine choice. They may take on responsibilities because the alternative would leave a vulnerable relative without essential assistance.
A stronger social care system must recognise unpaid carers as people who need support themselves. That can include respite services, reliable assessments, information, training and access to assistance when circumstances change.
It also requires acknowledging that families cannot be expected to compensate indefinitely for shortages in publicly funded services.
What Would a Credible Reform Plan Need to Deliver?
If Burnham and other political leaders want to convince critics that their proposals can make a difference, they will need to demonstrate how reform would translate into practical improvements.
First, people must be able to access assessments and support without facing unnecessary delays. Clearer processes and better coordination could help, but they must be accompanied by sufficient capacity to provide the services recommended.
Second, the workforce needs attention. Care workers perform demanding jobs that require skill, patience and responsibility. Better recruitment, training, career progression and pay arrangements could help providers retain experienced staff and improve continuity of care.
Third, the relationship between the NHS and social care must work more effectively. Hospitals need reliable community support for patients who are ready to leave hospital, while people living at home need access to assistance that can prevent avoidable crises.
Fourth, funding arrangements must be transparent and sustainable. Political leaders should explain not only how much a reform is expected to cost, but also where the money will come from and how success will be measured.
Finally, families need clear information about the support available to them. Navigating a complicated system can be exhausting, particularly when a relative’s condition is deteriorating. A simpler route to advice and assistance could make a significant difference.
These measures would not eliminate every challenge, but they would give the public a clearer basis for judging whether a plan is likely to work.
Why Political Promises Are No Longer Enough
Social care has been the subject of repeated political debate, yet many families continue to report difficulty obtaining the help they need. This history has created understandable scepticism about announcements that promise long-term transformation without explaining what will change immediately.
For Burnham, the challenge is to show that his approach can produce tangible results rather than simply identify problems that are already widely recognised.
That means being specific about responsibilities, timescales, funding and outcomes. How many people could receive additional support? Which services would improve first? How would the plan help unpaid carers? What safeguards would ensure that vulnerable individuals do not lose access to essential assistance during a transition?
These are practical questions, not merely political challenges. The answers would help families understand what they can expect and allow the public to assess whether the proposals are realistic.
The same scrutiny should apply to national politicians. Social care is too important to be reduced to a contest of slogans, particularly when the consequences of failure can fall on people who have little power to influence the system.
Conclusion: A Crisis That Demands More Than Another Announcement
The anger surrounding social care reflects a genuine national concern. People who need assistance should not have to navigate a maze of organisations while their health deteriorates, and relatives should not be expected to carry unlimited responsibility simply because formal services are unavailable.
Andy Burnham’s proposals should be judged on their substance, their funding and their ability to improve the experiences of people who rely on care. Better coordination between services may be valuable, but it cannot replace the staff, resources and reliable support that vulnerable people need.
The warning that “people are dying” conveys the urgency felt by critics, even though specific claims about deaths require careful evidence. The wider challenge is clear: delays, gaps in provision and inadequate support can place vulnerable people at risk and leave families facing unbearable pressure.
Ultimately, social care reform must be measured by what happens to people in their everyday lives. Can an older person remain safely at home? Can a disabled adult obtain the assistance needed to live independently? Can a hospital patient return home with appropriate support? Can a family carer take a break without fearing that a loved one will be left in danger?
Those are the questions political leaders must answer. Until credible plans translate into accessible, dependable care, promises of reform will struggle to overcome the anger of families who need help now.