Social welfare: People on the ground want politicians to talk about it

Brian, 59, is living a life quite different to the one he expected. He used to be a high-paying electrician. “Everybody needs electricians,” he says.

But Brian can no longer work; a Parkinson’s-like brain disease causes him to have tremors that cause his body to shake uncontrollably. In his south Manchester apartment, he sits surrounded by the model planes that he once painted as a hobby but can no longer paint. The curtains are drawn to give him privacy from the road outside.

He needs help with the simplest tasks like eating and dressing, yet the care system he and so many others rely on has been in crisis for years.

He says the tremors leave him exhausted, and he also has epilepsy.

Like most people, Brian probably never thought he would need social services, but with an ageing population and people living longer with complex conditions, many of us will need them.

Around one million people in England rely on care home and home support services, according to the think tank King’s Fund, and many who rely on the care system want to know why the major parties are not doing more to debate it.

An open letter signed by 24,000 people and more than 50 organisations has been sent to politicians warning that the new government would be a betrayal of the people if it neglects social care. A second letter from 20 other organisations, including parliamentary groups and care workers, urges politicians to use the remaining election period to push for reform.

And the care system is one of the issues most frequently raised by people contacting the BBC’s Your Voice Your Vote, where they can suggest stories that BBC News should investigate.

Some elderly and disabled people have to pay hundreds of thousands of pounds for their care.

Age UK estimates that a further 2.6 million people need help with everyday tasks such as washing, dressing and taking medication but are not receiving it.

In short, there is broad political agreement that the system is outdated, unfair and in dire need of reform.

But the two main parties have distanced themselves from detailed plans: in the first televised leadership debate of the general election campaign, Rishi Sunak and Sir Keir Starmer spent a combined 36 seconds on the subject, without either challenging what the other said.

Labour and the Conservatives are perhaps understandably nervous, as both parties unsuccessfully campaigned on social security issues in the last election.

In 2010, Labour’s universal long-term care plan was called a “death tax” by the Conservatives, and then the Conservatives’ 2017 social care budget was labelled a “dementia tax” by Labour.

Boris Johnson’s government has set out a timetable for imposing an £86,000 cap or limit on lifetime personal care costs, originally scheduled for 2023 but its introduction in England has been delayed until October next year.

Both Labour and the Conservatives have said they will go ahead with the care cap, but experts say the money allocated is already being used to prop up the existing system.

Both parties’ manifestos include plans to improve pay and benefits for care staff, with Labour also promising to create a national care service within ten years.

But few details have been released, particularly about how care will be funded.

Smaller parties are more ambitious: both the Liberal Democrats and the Greens have said they would make personal care free.

The care system in other parts of the UK is also changing somewhat: it is becoming more generous and Scotland already provides free personal care.

But any delay in tackling the deep-rooted problems in England’s care system will have negative human and economic consequences.

For example, Brian receives four care visits a day. Although the council covers the majority of this, Brian still has to pay £500 per month of the total bill. Brian is on welfare and is now in debt.

“The cost of care is so high and I’m behind on paying my gas and electricity bills and stuff. It’s stressful,” he said.

He says the stress has been keeping him up at night, making him feel unwell and giving him more tremors, and he now needs more care.

But the city council couldn’t provide it and he couldn’t afford to pay more anyway.

As things stand in England, anyone with savings and assets over £23,250 must pay the full cost of care, and if you’re moving into residential care, the value of your home is also taken into account.

Those paying out of pocket can pay between £1,000 and £2,000 a week to live in a care home – many of whom are far from wealthy – which eats into savings and can lead to the sale of family homes.

Imelda, 86, dances around her room at a care home on the Wirral with her daughter Nicola Hurst.

In the background, Frank Sinatra sings, “I’ve got you under my skin,” as they sway to the familiar music.

Imelda suffers from dementia and has been living at the facility for about four years.

She is part of a large, close family, and her daughter or some other relative visits her almost every day.

Imelda had no savings and did not own her own home, so in theory the city council would have to cover the full cost of her care.

But in reality the council grant does not cover the £1,200-a-week costs of care home care, so Nicola and her brother pay a monthly top-up of £2,200 to enable their mother to remain in the home she is familiar with.

“What keeps me up at night is the thought that if I ever need care, my savings won’t be enough,” says Nicola, who is retired. “And the financial burden would then be passed on to my children.”

She is involved with a group called Residents’ Rights, which campaigns for greater recognition of the importance of families in social care.

“Successive governments have acknowledged that this is a crisis,” she said, “and that this is an issue that needs to be addressed. But they do nothing.”

But money remains an obstacle, at least in England, according to Sally Warren, director of policy at the King’s Fund, a former civil servant who helped design the care cap.

“Political parties are very nervous about making any commitments to improving the system or raising funds,” she said.

During the campaign there was talk of bipartisan talks to agree on how to fund social services in the long term – something Sally Warren believes is misguided and will slow things down.

“What we need is a government that is ready to act, that will legislate when necessary and then implement it,” she said.