Polly Toynbee (Battles loom over social care, but this fight must be won. At last, we have a PM who believes that, 29 July) is right that reforming England’s broken social care system will require winning the “attention, hearts and minds” of a public that knows little about it. Yet one of the biggest barriers to reform is that social care itself remains widely misunderstood, and public debate often reinforces narrow assumptions about who uses it.
Social care is too often equated with care homes and dementia services for older people. While these are vital, they are one part of a wider system. Demand has grown fastest among working-age disabled adults who are largely missing from the public and political narrative. As such, the assertion by Polly Toynbee that “the old must pay for the old” is incorrect. Social care is relied on by people of all ages.
Public debate not only misunderstands who uses social care, it often overlooks what social care makes possible. Social care should enable people to live independently, sustain relationships, take part in education and employment, and contribute to their communities. At its best, it is not simply about meeting needs but about creating the conditions for people to live full and meaningful lives.
Most people will need care, provide care, or both, during their lives. Only when society understands the scope, value and reach of social care will meaningful reform become politically possible.
Dr Louise Lawson
Lecturer in social policy, University of Glasgow
Polly Toynbee asks: “Why do we endure this barely regulated, barely inspected patchwork of confusion” that constitutes Britain’s social care “system”? There are two main reasons. First, care provision has been regarded by governments as a domestic responsibility, overwhelmingly women’s work.
This patriarchal assumption was built into the welfare state from birth. The strain that this has placed on generations of, again mainly women, has been documented. Yet, the state has held firm in believing that providing support risks the family giving up caring. Research, including my own, has shown this assumption to be entirely false.
Second, we live in a deeply ageist society. Ageism “others” older people and diminishes their worth. Ageism allows the endless annual toll of cold-related deaths, and now heat-related ones.
This scandal has persisted long enough, but now there is a prime minister who appears to understand why social care is so important and why it is in such a parlous state.
Alan Walker
Professor of social policy and social gerontology, University of Sheffield
I’m in my 70s and my one concern is being able to pay for care that I may need as I get older. I live in a modest house and have a small amount of savings, so I know that this money could soon run out if I ever needed care later in life. I would love to have the peace of mind knowing that I would get care even if it meant paying a percentage of my estate on death or increased taxes.
It would salve so many worries for people who don’t want to be a burden on their children and to know that they can at least pass on some inheritance. If for some reason you don’t need care then you’ll have been lucky, but at the moment it’s so unfair that your care depends on wealth, where you live and the type of illness you have. I really hope Andy Burnham gets this sorted.
Janet Touhey
Newark, Nottinghamshire
Have an opinion on anything you’ve read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication in our letters section.
