To general surprise, the hung Parliament against which the major parties had warned in apocalyptical terms produced a coalition government after only a few days of tense negotiations. It is a source of wonder that politicians who for years had been at each others’ throats quickly established apparently friendly relations when power looked within their grasp. It remains to be seen however how long the Lib Dem lamb can survive cohabitation with the Conservative lion to which it has so cosily cuddled up.

For the social care sector, interest inevitably focused chiefly on the other Minister of State post, which carries responsibility for carers, adult safeguarding, end of life care, dementia, mental health, and physical and learning disabilities, as well as, crucially, long term care funding. This role is occupied by Paul Burstow, the sole Liberal in the Department of Health team.

Mr Burstow comes to the job he must have dreamed of getting from a background of active campaigning on social care issues. His appointment was generally welcomed within the sector and his contacts and expertise will give him a head start in tackling some formidable problems, but will the principles he espoused while in a minority opposition party stand up to the strains of government, particularly at a time of extreme economic pressure? It is encouraging that the care portfolio has retained its Minister of State rank – for much of the Labour government’s period of office it was at a lower level – but its being held by a member of the junior coalition partner could depress its status within the Departmental team when demanding decisions have to be made.

The choices will indeed be uncomfortable. The inescapable cuts in public expenditure will be on a massive scale and even Prime Ministerial promises of protection for “front line services” and for “the poorest and most vulnerable” are as yet too vaguely defined to be treated as bankable guarantees. Resources for social care come of course predominantly through local government funding allocations, and here there will be no protection except for schools. This exception will make it even more difficult for other areas to absorb the cuts in council grants of £780 million annually, which featured prominently in the Treasury’s initial list of £6.2 billion savings overall.

That organisational and financial gap between health and social care will continue to trouble this government as it did its predecessor. In a speech delivered on 9 June, for example, health minister Andrew Lansley addressed the problem of the rising number of emergency hospital readmissions, a particularly painful issue for older people, by floating the idea of penalties for clinicians responsible for apparently premature discharges. “Care”, he said, “does not end when patients walk out of the hospital door”, but his plans made no mention of the social care component in recovery and rehabilitation.

For at least three decades there have been attempts to transfer cash from the NHS to the councils responsible for providing personal care in the wider community, a prerequisite of a seamless service, but these have always been impeded by the overwhelming power of the acute sector with its insatiable appetite for resources. If Lansley and Burstow can crack that one, they really will have earned a place in history.

Which takes us of course to the lurking issue of long term care funding. The coalition took the early step of promising an independent commission on the issue and Mr Burstow has since said he hopes not only that it will report speedily but that legislation will quickly follow.

But can another high powered exploration of the well-rehearsed possible ways forward add anything much to the Green and White Papers produced by Labour? Although Mr Burstow intends that the commission should consider “all options”, we can be pretty certain that free social care, which is what most people would really like and which the Liberals backed until recently, will not be on offer. Nor is it likely that the coalition will act on the last government’s apparent preference for a comprehensive, that is a compulsory, scheme, even with the proviso that an individual’s contribution could be delayed until after their death. Before the election the Conservatives were proposing a voluntary insurance scheme, but if take-up were low – continental experience suggests little more than 20% – this is really no solution at all. Whatever the formula ministers eventually propose, they will have to persuade a cuts-obsessed Treasury, which is precisely where, back in the last century and in a much more auspicious public expenditure climate, Labour’s Royal Commission’s proposals ran into the sand.

For the rest, at this early stage there are no more than scraps of information to be garnered from sources like the two coalition agreement documents and early ministerial speeches. The Queen’s speech promised priority for dementia research, extended access to talking therapies, an extension of personal budgets, direct payments for carers, and more home adaptations and community support for vulnerable people living at home.

The voluntary sector is to be encouraged to take on more, though on a commercially-purchased rather than a grant-aided basis. The Care Quality Commission is to have an “enhanced role”, though the troubled General Social Care Council may not escape the coming quango-cull. The Health Bill, of which more should be known soon, will probably firm up some of these suggestions.

Meanwhile, in quite another part of the forest, front-runner leadership candidate David Milliband has acknowledged that the Labour Party came too late to the issue of social care. It seems unlikely to get another chance for a while, but coalitions are like children’s parties, inherently fractious and unstable – all smiles one minute, tears the next.

There are plenty of rocks on which the government could founder – care is one of more than 30 issues on which commissions have be asked to advise, presumably because the partners could not themselves agree on a way forward – so the next election may not in the event be as long as five years away. Paul Burstow is right to show a sense of urgency to resolve social care’s central problem; he may not have much time.