Could brutal Budget be the 'blindingly bleeding obvious' straw that broke care sectot's back?

WHO looks after those who cannot look after themselves? And who pays for it? These questions have faced different governments for decades, but all have ducked the issue.

Social care is arguably the most challenging issue facing Britain right now, so the public would rightly expect there to be a plan.

But sadly that is not the case. Instead, there is a lot of confusion, worry and some suggestions, but certainly no coherent strategy. And time is fast running out.

Across 30 years there have been two government commissions, one governmentcommissioned review, three independent commissions, five white papers and 14 parliamentary committee inquiries on social care reform.

And yet the one thing we are yet to see is any meaningful action on an issue that affects, or will affect, every one of us.

A good place to start in understanding why there has been such intransigence, and with it deep frustration, is Sir Andrew Dilnot, perhaps Britain's most authoritative figure on social care.

In June 2010, he was asked by the Government to chair the commission on Funding of Care and Support, which published its findings in 2011 It recommended limiting individuals' contributions to social care costs at £35,000, after which the state would pay.

His report was welcomed by then-Health Secretary Andrew Lansley, and both David Cameron and Ed Miliband called for crossparty talks on the issue.

Fast forward 15 years and, last month, the very same man appeared before a Parliamentary inquiry entitled Adult Social Care Reform: The Cost of Inaction.

That itself would be funny, except what he had to say was anything but.

In a blistering evisceration of the threedecade malaise, he said it was "blindingly bleeding obvious" that something should be done in an area which, bafflingly, remains "pretty invisible". What Sir Andrew was trying to get across is that while social care is a critically important issue, it is most certainly not an issue that dominates the agenda, and that is part of the reason it fails to get the traction it should, both in the corridors of power and among the public.