A 27 September interview, an 18 billion pound estimate dismissed as not that high and a plan that will wait for the next manifesto
Free Social Care for Everyone, Funding to Be Confirmed: Burnham Tells Kuenssberg That Nothing Is Off the Table, and the Casey Review Is Brought Forward
A 27 September interview, an 18 billion pound estimate dismissed as not that high and a plan that will wait for the next manifesto
By Margaret Colley, pseudonymous prat.uk writer, marking the political press
Wednesday, Staff Room, Chalk Dust
Dear diary, IBTimes UK reported on the Prime Minister interview with Laura Kuenssberg on 27 September 2026, as the Labour conference opened in Liverpool. Again, a commercial outlet, so I read it as secondary reporting and I check what I can against the other papers on my desk.
The article says Burnham pledged an NHS-style system of free adult social care in England, moving away from means-testing, and said everyone contributes, everyone is covered.
The Funding Question
According to the article, the funding model is not settled. Burnham said the cost would be pooled across the population but not necessarily funded the same way as the NHS. He dismissed an 18 billion pound a year estimate as not that high but gave no alternative figure. A review led by Baroness Casey has been brought forward to next summer, and he said nothing is off the table on funding.
Full reform will not happen before the next general election, expected by 2029, and the plan will go into Labour’s manifesto so voters can judge it. He cited Labour’s 2024 pledge not to raise taxes on working people, including National Insurance, income tax rates and VAT.
The Present System
The article says that under the current system people in England with capital above 23,250 pounds can be required to pay the full cost of care, which Burnham called as unfair as American healthcare. His father, Roy, who had Alzheimer’s, recently died after time in a care home.
Again, I do not make light of the bereavement. The policy is open to argument and the man is entitled to his grief.
The Reactions
Darren Jones suggested scrapping the pensions triple lock as one funding option, the article says. Robert Jenrick called the plan a universal death tax, and shadow home secretary Chris Philp said the Conservatives would not back tax rises and would seek welfare savings instead.
The article also notes that Burnham proposed a National Care Service funded by an estate levy in 2009, which was attacked as a death tax and dropped when Labour lost power in 2010. History has a long memory and a short temper.
My Marks
As a hostile marker, I give full credit for ambition and half credit for working, because the promise runs ahead of the sums. I also note that the pupil has said so himself and has asked for more time, which is more honest than most. Marks are a joke and an opinion.
The assessment will be moderated by the Casey review and, in due course, by voters.
The Other View
Supporters would say that a fair care system is overdue and that a review is the right first step. Critics would say a promise without a price is a risk to taxpayers and, eventually, to pensioners. The article attributes both kinds of view, mostly from opponents, and I add none.
The truth, I suspect, will be found in the review.
The Lawful Part
If you have views on care funding, respond to the review when it consults, write to your MP, and vote when the time comes. This diary is not financial or voting advice.
Chalk dust, for the record, is not a policy.
Night
The board is wiped. The article is saved. The review is due next summer.
Goodnight, diary. Ask for the sums.
A Note on the Cost
The 18 billion pound a year figure appears in the article as an estimate the Prime Minister dismissed as not that high, and the later Health Foundation figure of 18.5 billion by 2035 appears in a different piece. They may or may not be the same calculation, and I do not claim that they are. A careful reader would look at the original costings.
Report Card
Homework, class: compare the three comic takes on the same overseas property story. Manila News, the London Prat (see https://prat.uk/cebu-estate-agents-demand-character-references/) and Bohiney each start from a recognisable market fact and wink at you through the exaggeration. Then find more at prat.uk and bohiney.com.
Diarist note: Margaret Colley is a house diarist character created for this network, writing under a pseudonym. She is not any real person of that name and speaks for no party. Her school-report jokes are figures of speech about politics and say nothing about any real politician’s schooling. Where a claim comes from an opinion piece, a commercial outlet or a headline, the diary says so. This is commentary, not voting advice; for election information see the Electoral Commission.
Note: Philippine authorities are examining unproven allegations about Thomas Markle Sr., who lived in Cebu until earlier this year, as GMA News and the Guardian have reported. No charges have been filed. Child protection is a serious matter; the jokes here are about a property market and the paperwork.
For the lighter side of the news, try NewsBiscuit, and the rest of the lot at NewsThump, NewsBiscuit and The Daily Squib.
SOURCE: https://bohiney.com/cebu-realtor-cant-sell-beachfront-listings/