By Mike Padgham
AT THE beginning of a new year it always feels right to try to speak with optimism. As we step into 2026, most of us working in social care want to believe that this will be the year when progress finally gathers pace.
We want to start with a glass-half-full mentality, because frankly, without it, the job we do would be impossible.
But optimism in social care is not naïve. It is hard-won. And in these early weeks of the new year, it is already being tested.
Once again, it feels as though we are going round in circles.
The big story dominating the headlines is corridor care. The fact that people are being treated, assessed, and left waiting for hours – sometimes days – in hospital corridors should shame us all.
Organisations such as Age UK and Alzheimer’s Society have published stark figures showing the scale of the problem and the devastating impact this has on older people and those living with dementia. Corridor care is not just uncomfortable or inefficient – it is undignified, unsafe, and completely unacceptable.
And yet, watching a recent piece on national television, I heard the familiar response from government: we’ve put more money into the NHS; we’re doing our best.
But they still don’t get the point.
Despite all the rhetoric, there remains a fundamental failure to understand — or perhaps acknowledge — the inseparable link between health and social care.
You cannot simply keep pumping money into the NHS while leaving social care underfunded and overstretched. It does not work. It has never worked. And it is one of the main reasons corridor care exists in the first place.
If hospitals cannot discharge people safely into the community because the care simply isn’t there, then beds remain occupied by people medically fit to leave, corridors fill up, and the whole system grinds against itself.
We hear encouraging words from ministers about shifting resources from hospital into the community. Wes Streeting has spoken repeatedly about prevention, neighbourhood services, and care closer to home. If we are to believe that vision, then we need to see it actioned — not just discussed. That means real investment in social care, not just warm words about integration.
The government points to increased funding and says, look, we are investing more. And yes, more money is going in. But the truth is uncomfortable: that funding is not enough even to stand still. It does not keep pace with rising costs, workforce pressures, or increasing demand. It certainly does not repair years of underinvestment.
If only the Chancellor and the Secretary of State could truly see the bigger picture. Money spent properly on social care is not a drain on the economy — it is an investment. It would save the country money in the long run by reducing unnecessary hospital stays, avoiding crises, and supporting people to live independently in their own homes for longer. Right now, vast sums are being wasted because people are stuck in hospital who simply should not be there.
Alongside this, there is another issue that deserves far more attention: the need to protect choice and diversity within the care sector itself.
We must be absolutely clear — a healthy social care system depends on a range of providers. We do not want to see a future where care is dominated by just a handful of large organisations. The public is best served when there is genuine choice: large national providers, medium-sized organisations, and small, often family-run businesses rooted in their local communities.
Each brings something different, and all are vital.
Smaller providers, in particular, often deliver deeply personalised care, built on long-standing relationships and local knowledge. Yet they are also the most vulnerable. They do not benefit from economies of scale, they feel funding pressures first, and they have far less resilience when costs rise or fees fail to keep pace. Without action, we risk seeing these providers quietly disappear — not because they are failing in care quality, but because the system has failed them.
And when smaller providers go by the wayside, it is the public who lose out. Choice narrows. Flexibility disappears. Local solutions are replaced by one-size-fits-all models that cannot possibly meet everyone’s needs.
Those of us in the sector will keep making these points, because we have no choice.
Organisations such as the National Care Association, Care England, and Providers Unite are all doing their utmost to speak up, campaign, and challenge the status quo. But one of the biggest lessons we must take forward into 2026 is this: we need a stronger, more united front.
When other sectors shout loudly enough, they get listened to. We have seen U-turns for farmers. We have seen sudden reversals on policies affecting fuel and pubs. Again and again, government shows it can change course when pressure becomes impossible to ignore
So why is social care always left out in the cold?
The answer cannot be that social care matters less. It matters to every family, every community, and every one of us who may one day need support ourselves. What we lack is not evidence or moral argument — it is political urgency.
That is why we must continue the battle. We must keep telling the truth, even when it is uncomfortable. And we must unite — providers of all sizes, staff, families, charities, and representative bodies — to say clearly that enough is enough.
The people who need care deserve better than corridor waiting, system gridlock, and shrinking choice. They deserve dignity, stability, and a care system that values diversity, sustainability, and fairness.
So yes, I will start 2026 trying to be optimistic. But optimism in social care is not passive. It is active, determined, and collective. And if we can carry that forward together, then perhaps this will be the year when change finally stops being talked about — and starts being delivered.
Mike Padgham is a care provider who is honorary president and former chair of the Independent Care Group.