To Unlock…Or Not to Unlock – That is Burnham’s Question

 

Andy Burnham is in the process of finding out the true meaning of the word 'dilemma'...if he hasn’t already.

His self-declared major policy objective at the party conference this week – to introduce a Social Care System free at the point of need – has introduced a degree of consternation into his party’s faithful, to say the least.

Here’s why…

Such a scheme for the UK would go much further than the scheme already introduced by the SNP in Scotland. The implication in Burnham’s speeches is that the English scheme would include residential care, and would not be means-tested. This would cost many billions (up to £18Bn for a full scheme including residential fees) to fund annually - which the Treasury simply doesn’t have right now.

Burnham’s answer to this funding shortfall is to abolish the Pensions Triple Lock (i.e. the guarantee that the State Pension will rise annually by the rate of price inflation, wage inflation or 2.5% whichever is the higher), and use the cash to fund the new social care scheme. He believes that the elderly would accept the loss of the triple lock in return for a fully funded care scheme.

There are three major flaws in this argument:

1)       * Retaining the Triple Lock was a manifesto promise in 2024

2)       * The cash saved would not meet the full cost of the scheme, meaning that extra funding would be required on top, presumably either via increased taxes, or cutting other benefits.

          *  The costs of the scheme would inevitably mushroom as the population ages and the cost of living generally continues to rise. 

A Although the exact savings obtained by abolishing the triple lock altogether are tricky to estimate, current estimates range between £5Bn and £40Bn annually. Even if a simple earnings link were kept without the current 2.5% floor, the savings over the remaining 2.5 years of this parliament could be as low as £0.5Bn.

While anyone nearing retirement age with any savings or assets above ca £23k (or the £14.5k threshold for full costs support) will be fully aware of the potentially vast costs of their owncare (ca £5000/month minimum for residential care). 

Assuming anyone in this position were unlucky enough to survive into their ‘80s or even ‘90s, if faced with a residential care need at that point, they would quickly use up any cash savings, and would eventually have to sell their house to fund the remainder. Both they and their families (who would be the ones to inherit any residual assets) might find the idea attractive at first sight, but they will, quite rightly, be wary of any attempt to take away any more of their age-related benefits now, to say nothing of suffering yet more taxes on their often meagre and fixed incomes.

The real issue is that Burnham could abolish the triple lock now in return for a promise of cost reductions at some later date......anyone with even a slightly suspicious nature would regard this as 'jam tomorrow..' as the old idiom goes...and uncertain jam at that.

This is because realistically, such a promise would probably take at least 5 years to materialise from scheme startup, and Healey has already intimated that nothing would happen until after the 2029 election. To come to fruition, we would also have to assume that Labour would be re-elected with a sufficient majority to force the necessary legislation through and support its development. You can be sure that there would be strong opposition from strengthened Reform and Tory contingents in a post 2029 parliament. And he would still need to get Triple Lock abolition past his current back benchers in the run up to the vote.

That is probably why one of Labour’s  largest Union supporters, Unite, have already warned that abolishing the triple lock would be ‘political suicide’. It’s also why it would be almost certain to come up against strong back bencher resistance if he tries it – we’ve already seen how their opposition to Starmer’s WFP means testing 'caper' went, and MPs in marginal constituencies will not have forgotten the state of their mailboxes at the time. They will be in no mood to compromise on the manifesto promises, and they have already 'tasted blood' in bringing down Starmer.

Burnham is obviously sincere about wanting to reform Social Care – his experiences with his father’s Alzheimers  care was probably what has reinforced his desire to ‘grasp the nettle’. And there is no doubt that reform is definitely needed.

What remains to be seen is whether Burnham makes what would amount to a serious ‘rookie mistake’ in trying to fund it by abolishing the Triple Lock. Doing so would undoubtedly raise even more of a ‘stink’ with the pensioner population (and their immediate younger relatives) than did WFP, thus setting the scene for a calamitous election result for Labour in 2029. Burnham will have his work cut out to woo pensioners back to Labour even if the scheme goes nowhere...he would have no chance of re-election if he proceeds with this. 

How then should he tackle the problem of Adult Social Care ?

Ultimately, the only way to fund social care properly in this country would be a scheme similar to our largest European neighbours, France and Germany, who have both fully integrated  their social care into schemes funded jointly by taxation and the insurance industry. As our UK NHS itself continues to fail, and continues to degenerate into a two-tier healthcare system, the realisation that a similar scheme will have to be introduced in UK will eventually dawn. Sadly, no government looking for re-election will be prepared to take the initiative until we actually reach crisis point, so anyone without the necessary funds to ‘go private’ should (literally!) be prepared for much pain to come before common sense prevails.

First Published 29.9.26