The Guardian view on Ed Davey's mission: build politics around care. If not, cruelty will define it
Did last week mark a sea change in British politics? For many, it did. The government's U-turn on winter fuel payments signalled a welcome retreat. But the deeper shift may lie in the terrain that ministers are now forced to fight on: cuts hitting disabled people and their families. In the Commons, Sir Ed Davey raised the case of Ginny, a carer for her husband with myotonic dystrophy. He described the human burden of responsibility, exhaustion and love. Under the government's planned cuts, he warned, her family stands to lose £12,000 a year. The prime minister replied with managerial platitudes. Sir Ed, by contrast, spoke of duty, dignity and the very real consequences of policy.
The Liberal Democrat leader isn't trading in ideology; he's drawing a line based on human decency. Caring has been a constant theme of his life, even more than politics. When he was a teenager, Sir Ed spent three years looking after his mother who died of bone cancer. Later he helped care for the grandmother who brought him up. Every morning at 6am, Sir Ed wakes up his severely disabled 17-year-old son, John, then cleans his teeth, bathes him and gives him his morning massage. In his new book, Why I Care, he frames this both an act of love and a foundational political insight.
The Lib Dem leader wants to rewrite British politics – not with the language of crisis, but that of care. In a Westminster hooked on 'tough choices' and resistant to compassion in policy, he offers something rare – moral clarity rooted in lived experience. He understands that care is not a luxury to be considered after the economy is 'fixed'. It is, he says, the core economy. His new book is both memoir and manifesto, containing a call to abandon parliamentary introspection and recentre politics around mutual support.
Critics might call it earnest. Cynics may spy sentiment in search of power. The Tory leader, Kemi Badenoch, says Lib Dems are just 'good at fixing church roofs'. But Sir Ed leans in. His paddle‑boarding, Zumba-thrusting 2024 election campaign delivered his party's best result in a century, winning 72 seats – 60 from the Conservatives. The latest YouGov polling has his party ahead of the Tories and snapping at Labour's heels.
Rooted in real life and years helping constituents through a broken system, his authority on care is hard-won. The UK has 6 million unpaid carers – 1.7 million work more than 50 hours a week. The NHS would collapse without them. Yet many carers are met not with help, but hurdles – denied adequate respite and treated as invisible. This paper's investigation into the scandal over carer's allowance payments revealed a brutal bureaucracy punishing vulnerable people. It's not just neglectful. It's insulting.
Sir Ed's proposal – to assign every family in need a named carer and social worker – is modest, sensible and overdue. He's also had enough of the care reviews. Who can blame him? Since 1997, there have been 25 commissions, inquiries and white papers. Now ministers want Louise Casey to take three more years for a review into adult social care. He says it's enough to make you cry. Sir Ed's not point-scoring, just asking how family, community and state can equitably share the load. And urging the government to get on with it – as quietly and steadily as the carers it routinely ignores.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
ANDREW NEIL: No future UK government has a hope of making things better if it can't reform our incompetent Left-wing, WFH civil service
Former Tory Cabinet minister-turned-magazine editor, Michael Gove, this week revealed that, as Education Secretary, he had to overrule civil servants who wanted to suppress newspaper revelations about in Rotherham. The local council requested the government join it in legal action to prevent The Times from publishing details of its ground-breaking investigation into the scandal. Some senior civil servants in his department advised Gove to join in this bid to muzzle the press.
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
BEL MOONEY: Why is it called ‘infanticide' to kill a newborn child, yet it will soon be legal to end the life of a baby when it's fully formed in the womb?
There are times in life when you shake yourself hard, as if wishing to awaken from sleep, only to find that the nightmare is all too present and frighteningly real. So I felt when our representatives in His Majesty's Government, elected MPs in the country we like to call the 'Mother of Parliaments', gave a resounding 'Yes' to making it legal for any woman to pop a pill at any time in a pregnancy – and terminate the baby in her womb.
The Independent
2 hours ago
- The Independent
Palestine Action to be banned after vandalism of planes at RAF base
The Home Secretary is preparing to ban Palestine Action following the group's vandalism of two planes at an RAF base. Yvette Cooper has decided to proscribe the group, making it a criminal offence to belong to or support Palestine Action. The decision comes after the group posted footage online showing two people inside the base at RAF Brize Norton in Oxfordshire. The clip shows one person riding an electric scooter up to an Airbus Voyager air-to-air refuelling tanker and appearing to spray paint into its jet engine. The incident is being also investigated by counter terror police. A spokesperson for Palestine Action accused the UK of failing to meet its obligation to prevent or punish genocide. The spokesperson said: 'When our government fails to uphold their moral and legal obligations, it is the responsibility of ordinary citizens to take direct action. The terrorists are the ones committing a genocide, not those who break the tools used to commit it.' The Home Secretary has the power to proscribe an organisation under the Terrorism Act of 2000 if she believes it is 'concerned in terrorism'. Proscription will require Ms Cooper to lay an order in Parliament, which must then be debated and approved by both MPs and peers. Some 81 organisations have been proscribed under the 2000 Act, including Islamist terrorist groups such as Hamas and al Qaida, far-right groups such as National Action, and Russian private military company Wagner Group. Another 14 organisations connected with Northern Ireland are also banned under previous legislation, including the IRA and UDA. Belonging to or expressing support for a proscribed organisation, along with a number of other actions, are criminal offences carrying a maximum sentence of 14 years in prison. Friday's incident at Brize Norton, described by the Prime Minister as 'disgraceful', prompted calls for Palestine Action to be banned. The group has staged a series of demonstrations in recent months, including spraying the London offices of Allianz Insurance with red paint over its alleged links to Israeli defence company Elbit, and vandalising Donald Trump's Turnberry golf course in South Ayrshire. The Campaign Against Antisemitism (CAA) welcomed the news that Ms Cooper intended to proscribe the group, saying: 'Nobody should be surprised that those who vandalised Jewish premises with impunity have now been emboldened to sabotage RAF jets.' CAA chief executive Gideon Falter urged the Home Secretary to proscribe the Houthi rebel group and Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps, adding: 'This country needs to clamp down on the domestic and foreign terrorists running amok on our soil.' Former home secretary Suella Braverman said it was 'absolutely the correct decision'. But Tom Southerden, of Amnesty International UK, said the human rights organisation was 'deeply concerned at the use of counter terrorism powers to target protest groups'. Mr Southerden said: 'Terrorism powers should never have been used to aggravate criminal charges against Palestine Action activists and they certainly shouldn't be used to ban them. 'Instead of suppressing protest against the UK's military support for Israel, the UK should be taking urgent action to prevent Israel's genocide and end any risk of UK complicity in it.'
