Evidence on Andy Burnham's National Care Service proposals

This will be fun……..any other restrictions you would like to impose.

Sago

This will be fun……..any other restrictions you would like to impose.

🤣🤣🤣

Isn’t there anything more up to date? Things have changed radically in the past 16 years, so I doubt what was said in 2010 is terribly useful today tbh.

The Casey Commission is ongoing with a public consultation due to start soon so one would assume his policy is going to be built on those findings and eventual recommendations.

We shall see if he has anything specific to say on the subject in the speeches he is due to make later today:

caseycommission.co.uk/2026/07/baroness-casey-warns-social-care-reform-will-fail-without-public-consent/

7 July 2026: The Casey Commission will launcha national conversation with the publiclater this summer. It willengagewith hundreds of thousands of people across the countrythrough bringing together representative groups of the public, letting people have their say online andspeaking directly topeople whoget care and support.

Whitewavemark2

Isn’t there anything more up to date? Things have changed radically in the past 16 years, so I doubt what was said in 2010 is terribly useful today tbh.

There was a piece on "Today" where they quoted him Whitewave. This was outlining what he is expected to say as he takes over - the speeches expected next week.

Be interested how his biews have or not change

I am simply hoping for a good social care package, and it isnt just the elderly - it is the disabled and sick, child care and temporary care in times of crises We havd been promised one for decades - i suspect that the treasury has had its finger very firmly in that pie

Whitewavemark2

Be interested how his biews have or not change

I am simply hoping for a good social care package, and it isnt just the elderly - it is the disabled and sick, child care and temporary care in times of crises We havd been promised one for decades - i suspect that the treasury has had its finger very firmly in that pie

It will be interesting. So far when questioned on any of his previous statements he had been happy to dispense with as soon as it becomes politically expedient.

Take his offensive opinions on transgenderism – which, like his pro-Remain stance, he is now hastily sacrificing on the altar of political opportunity.

Having flip-flopped on rejoining the EU, realising that reversing the referendum might not go down so well in a seat that voted 65 per cent Leave, Burnham is now urging everyone to support new code of practice which confirms that many single-sex space facilities open to the public must be used based on biological sex.

What a staggering – scarcely believable – turnaround.

Isn’t that the law? Burnham is simply complying with the law as he is required to do.

The full Casey Commission is not due to give its full recommendations until 2028. The terms of reference include Baroness Casey working fully independently but with the Department of Health and Social Care as the lead-sponsor department and also working closely with relevant other government departments, including HM Treasury, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and the Department for Work and Pensions to discuss findings.

Who Burnham appoints to lead those ministries will be interesting because if we are going to see radical change it’s going to need ministers who are onboard with that.

Generally-speaking, it would be nice to see an end to the revolving door all governments have for ministerial positions c/f Rory Stewart’s book Politics on the Edge where he discusses how disruptive this is.

James Murray has only just been appointed for DHSC after Streeting resignation. Is he going to lose his job in the reshuffle? If Mahmood is appointed Chancellor will she be sympathetic to the funding challenges?

I understood that Burnham was intending to ginger up Baroness Casey’s review, requiring something tangible by the end of the year.
I’m all for that. The problems are well known as is the range of solutions. 2028 was always v disappointing.
But I’m not clear as to the purpose of this rather circumscribed thread.

It'll be lovely to see what he can do with 0.20p that all the others couldn't.

I don't seem to have respected the circumscriptions. Sorry It's Friday and I'm down three glasses of Crémant.

Yes, winterwhite. Burnham has pledged to overhaul social care in his first year. I suspect that overambitious but equally the current timeframe seems very long:

`^The Casey commission is being carried out on a phased long-term basis, with a first report due this year. The full review is not expected until 2028 and full implementation is estimated to take up to 2036. Charities and social care directors have criticised the timeline for being too long and not reflecting the urgency of the situation.^

www.theguardian.com/society/2026/jun/04/why-is-andy-burnham-talking-about-fixing-englands-social-care-system

There is very little up-to-date factual reference to go on at the moment until we see the full Casey Commission report.

The Casey Report does what any industry does when it everyone agrees the system is under pressure, but fixes have failed to be found. A "drains-up" investigation, an exhaustive, in-depth review of an organisation's financial or operational affairs is carried out. That's what this is.

The Commission was created because England's adult social care system is struggling. People are living longer, often with several health conditions, and more younger adults with disabilities are also need lifelong support. At the same time:

*Councils have less money than they need.
*Care providers struggle to recruit and retain staff.
*Many unpaid family carers are exhausted.
*Hospitals cannot discharge patients because appropriate care isn't available.

Everyone agrees the system is under pressure, but governments, just as some companies do, have repeatedly failed to fix it.

The fact is that this is how government works. Not that different from large businesses. Some businesses go out of business because they persistently fail to solve the problems - so do some governments. The first stage might well be to find out what questions the report is asking itself and to listen to how the new Leader of the party in power sees it.

DaisyAnne, do you not agree that the Dilnot enquiry was drains-up (I like the expression) and was set-up in the context of the circumstances you describe. Not so very much has changed since then. Do we really need the drains to be dug up all over again, at great cost and loss of time?

These things don't always work winterwhite. If they don't, you end up having to do it again, hoping you still have time to get it right. Just as companies succeed or fail on the outcomes, so do governments. Just as not everyone within a company agrees with suggested changes in a company, not everyone agrees with suggested changes in government policy. Most people in either cannot do anything about it.

Goverment is just a very large businesses and yes, change, and planning for change, is a constant although if things are going well, if the economy of a business or a company is strong you tend to need fewer change upheavals.

However, you still need to plan for the future even when things are good, but those changes can be planned forward and it should be possible to make them while protecting as many people, either in a business or government, as possible.

Though annual budgets make it hard for anyone to plan beyond the end of their nose.

Companies plan daily, quarterly and annually. It's really not impossible, just difficult.

Having said that, if you hear the chatter amongst people in a company who don't have any influence, although they know what they can see they rarely have an understanding of what is happening, what is possible, although the best companies will be as open as they can be. It's the same with the vast majority of voters,

Back to Andy Burnum facts ... Although we heard from him yesterday it was a speech in reply to him becoming Leader of his party. It seems it will be Monday before we get more information.

This care reform is to be decided by the end of this year, so far it seems that all estates will pay an IHT "Care Supplement", there will of course be thresholds at the top and bottom that will be decided later. Only 4% of estates paying IHTis not acceptable far too much is going to families of the deceased

The concept that everyone pays something gets my backing and will raise a lot of revenue to have a decent care service

Yes it would get my backing as well - on initial reaction.

We do need to ensure it works though and is sufficiently robust to provide the care people unlucky enough to need, it get it.

I am also thinking that I prefer a national care service and not one that gives money to private companies who make profit at the tax payers expense.

Whitewavemark2

Yes it would get my backing as well - on initial reaction.

We do need to ensure it works though and is sufficiently robust to provide the care people unlucky enough to need, it get it.

I am also thinking that I prefer a national care service and not one that gives money to private companies who make profit at the tax payers expense.

I don't think it will be possible to provide everything every person wants, there would have to be limits depending on care needed as we have now, it to a better standard, certainly to end bed blocking in hospitals.

David49

This care reform is to be decided by the end of this year, so far it seems that all estates will pay an IHT "Care Supplement", there will of course be thresholds at the top and bottom that will be decided later. Only 4% of estates paying IHTis not acceptable far too much is going to families of the deceased

The concept that everyone pays something gets my backing and will raise a lot of revenue to have a decent care service

That sounds like something to work on doesn't it. I don't know if we will get anything concrete on Monday but hopefully they will fill out with some facts fairly quickly.

Whatever AB plans it will be difficult to execute and implement- though I wish him good luck. He may have the plan in place by the end of the year- and that would be a huge achievement, but it won't be implemented by the end of the year.

Unlike NHS Healthcare- the majority of social care is currently delivered by private providers. A seamless State Care Service (health and social care combined) would take time to design and construct even if a funding model is agreed and put in place.

It would need well defined national entitlements and standards for social care, local delivery partnerships, pooled budgets for defined high risk populations, workforce reform to improve the lot of social care workers and staged funding reforms along the way. This monumental change alongside delivering NHS care under all its existing challenges and constraints.

I suspect it will be incremental implementation and change- not big bang change. The next GE is only 3 years away so AB and his Health Secretary (and Social Care- Rayner?) will need to be canny with priorities and secure some realistic early wins. The public will need to buy into those wins and the direction of travel- otherwise it will all unravel if the LP lose the next GE. So good communications are key

AB's style and ambition is to seek cross party collaboration- on this issue that is absolutely needed- I wish him good luck with that challenge also.

Historically it has proven very difficult/impossible to get the Treasury to agree to social care change funding. Not sure how that will pan out.