There is a scene in that glorious BBC sitcom Yes Minister where the civil service suits are discussing how to dissuade eager politicians from interfering.

They mull over danger signals to deploy and conclude that the most effective warning of all is to advise that a policy would be “courageous”.

As Sir Humphrey Appleby notes, a controversial action will only shed votes while courageous moves will lose the entire election.

There is, as ever, more than a degree of truth beneath such drollery. Which is why politicians sometimes swaddle their toughest decisions in cautious cloth. Or, if pushed, they seek consensus with their opponents. It may attract satire but they are right to do so.

Down the decades, I have been struck by how often this has applied to policies affecting the elderly. Most notably social care.

Glancing back at data from the Blair and Brown years, I found it regularly suggested that it would be “politically courageous” for one government on its own to seek to reform social care. The “unloved child of the welfare state”, as one commentator noted.

That is true, in my experience, of each and every government. At Westminster and then Holyrood. To be clear, I attach no blame whatsoever for this.

Political decisions are tough, however much that may be masked by ministers exuding insincere certainty in order to convince a sceptical public.

That is particularly the case when dealing with the needs and rights of our older citizens. They are, of course, multi-faceted individuals but they often share two key characteristics. They retain grudges. And they vote.

Hence the caution displayed by Liz Kendall this week when she revived an independent commission to look at our inadequate system of saving for our old age.

Unless we act, the Work and Pensions Secretary warned, we........

© Herald Scotland