Solving the country’s care crisis is one of Andy Burnham’s overriding missions.

Though he has skin in the game – his father is in a care home battling Alzheimer’s – I give the Prime Minister little chance of succeeding where those who have gone before him have failed.

Especially, given his preference for a new death tax – or failing that higher income tax bills – to fund reform. I just don’t think the public will buy into it.

They have had their fill of higher tax bills under Labour. And with the imposition of inheritance tax on unused pension funds and higher taxes on savings income kicking in from next April, there is no appetite for yet another tax grab. It’s time for Labour to leave alone our wealth and income – and tackle the UK’s frightening welfare bill that has driven the national debt past £3 trillion.

Only if Burnham is brave enough to take on this challenge (it should form the heart of October’s Budget) can he then seriously start to look at putting in place a social care system fit for purpose yet which doesn’t impose more taxes on our wealth (the approach Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch prefers).

Of course, the Prime Minister is right to say the funding of care is a dog’s dinner. Since 1997 there have been 22 attempts to reform it. All failed, either on cost grounds or fierce public opposition.

Indeed, in 2009, as Secretary of State for Health, Burnham had his first go at reform. He wanted to bring in what is likely to be his preferred choice second time around: a new levy on estates (a death tax). But it met with hostility and was binned. And there is no indication the public’s distaste of a dedicated death tax to pay for care has diminished in the intervening 17 years.

As things stand, councils don’t have the financial resources to pay for those eligible to receive free care, while the point at which people start paying for care in England remains at the same level as it did in 2010: a measly £23,250. Have assets worth this sum or above and any care costs will start decimating your wealth (the threshold in Northern Ireland is the same but higher in Scotland and Wales).

Stay in a care home for a while and it’s likely your property will need to be sold to fund the costs. Care bills average around £1,350 a week (far more in the South East) with many people racking up lifetime costs in excess of £100,000.

The system is a lottery. For a start, as already mentioned, help varies widely according to where you live – with those living in Scotland benefiting from ‘free personal care’ if their local council approves it.

Then, as my colleague Rosie Murray-West recently highlighted, there are horrible inconsistencies in the way people with ‘complex healthcare needs’ – such as dementia – are assessed for care support.

In theory their care costs should be met by the NHS, but most applicants are rejected as a result of incorrect assessments. Rachel Hutchings, of healthcare think-tank the Nuffield Trust, says access to this vital funding is ‘unfair and inconsistent’. What a scandal.

The need for care is not universal. Only one in four of us are likely to need it, though many of this cohort will end up handing over most of their wealth to fund it.

The remaining 75 per cent will not require it – or refuse it – and prefer instead to live on in their own home, primarily depending on the love of their family to keep an eye on them. It’s an approach my mother Helen adopted.

Only in the last few days of her life did she end up in a care home, where she died with great dignity at the age of 88.

Burnham seems intent on reform before 2029 and has asked Baroness Casey, chairman of the Independent Commission on Adult Social Care, to speed up her report into the future of social care so it sees the light of day by the middle of next year.

At best, this could pave the way for Burnham to introduce stop-gap changes. For example, following Scotland’s lead in providing free ‘personal care’ for those requiring it, either at home or in a residential nursing home. Yet anything more will have to wait until post 2029 when we could (should) have a change of Government.

My view is that no one should be stripped of their home or wealth to pay for care costs. That should be Burnham’s starting point. And fund any reform by cutting welfare spending.