What is striking is not the margin but the shared premise beneath it: almost nobody here disputes that social care needs fixing, or even that Burnham means well. The dispute is about money, and on that the floor's most-respected voice was blunt: "Nope but we'll all end up paying more tax." That single line, endorsed more than any other argument on the page, set the terms for the whole No case.
The rest of the No side filled in the mechanics of that scepticism rather than contradicting it. One voter, in the second most-respected opinion, argued reform is structurally impossible either way — "there's no more money... but the government and backbenchers and civil service will never contemplate or implement the changes necessary" — while another distilled the political economy of the problem: "everyone wants high quality social care but nobody expects to need it themselves, so are unwilling to help fund it." Yes voters largely conceded the same ground rather than rebutting it. The top-rated Yes opinion called Burnham's pledge "another 'I hope so' rather than 'I'm sure'" but credited him for trying, while another agreed reform "will probably mean more taxes, but people want services and they means they have to be paid for" — a case for the goal, not really a rebuttal of the doubt.
That the argument the floor rated highest was a No, and that Yes voters mostly argued in a resigned, qualified register rather than a confident one, suggests this was less a verdict on Burnham personally than on the politics of paying for care itself — the same fiscal trap that has swallowed every promised fix since the Dilnot report a decade and a half ago.
The chamber's message reads less as a judgement on Andy Burnham than as a standing prediction about anyone who takes on the job: good intentions, no money, no deal.
8 Opinions
Nope but we'll all end up paying more tax
Same as benefit culture, lots getting social care actually do not need it and others are over diagnosed with 24 /7 care very expensive. Tax again!!
It's simple. There's no more money, and all the schemes to supposedly make more money available will only increase pain for all. So, you can't improve social care by throwing more money at it (and that wouldn't work anyway). So the only option is to reform social care. But the government and backbenchers and civil service will never contemplate or implement the changes necessary. So, no, Burnham has no actual room for manoeuvre and will not be able to effect any improvements.
He'll just throw money at the problem and think that's all he needs to do to solve it. That's all Labour does.
Another 'I hope so' rather than 'I'm sure'. Its a long job, but an essential one, and even if he fixes some of it, he will have done well. The generation (including me) who have done so well out of the housing boom need to be willing to use that to fund their own care at least, and we need to make sure that care workers are paid well in good secure and well maanged jobs, rather than the current exploitative arrangements
Everyone wants high quality social care but nobody expects to need it themselves, so are unwilling to help fund it.
Willingness to try is there first step. Yes, it will probably mean more taxes, but people want services and they means they have to be paid for.
If he's prepared to put his money where his mouth is yes he will.. The reason others in the past have failed is simple, talk is cheap & action is expensive.. In the past there's be plenty of talk by politicos, but very little money to follow.. It's that simple!