When interested parties sit down at Andy Burnham’s “care consensus” conference, most likely to be this Friday, the Tories’ absence will send out a dangerously negative message about there stance on a pivotal electoral issue.

Eighteen charities wrote to The Times yesterday imploring politicians to end the squabbling and point-scoring, and the criticism was, for the most part, aimed at the Conservatives.

“We are in danger of seeing this most important of debates become reduced to election soundbites and poster slogans,” they wrote, emphasising that all must engage in a serious debate.

They will be at the talks table this week, as will local government representatives and the social care directors – who have offered fierce criticism of some of Labour’s more slapdash calculations on free home care for those with critical needs. So will Norman Lamb for the Liberal Democrats. As things stand, the one empty chair will be that of Andrew Lansley.

Such isolation will send out as negative a message as the advertising campaign warning people of the likelihood of a Labour “death tax”. As Mr Burnham and Mr Lamb have both pointed out, in the clearest show of consensus so far, the debate on the best funding options had yet to close. These were proposals under discussion – alongside other funding formulae involving state and insurance contributions – and should remain so.

That Mr Lansley has now vowed publicly not to attend unless the inheritance levy is removed seems mighty strange for someone who was the insitigator of behind-the-scenes talks between the three party spokesman.

He was aware months ago that the levy was a funding option, yet sought consensus. Now, overnight, his position has changed — or been changed by Tory high command — and he is left frozen out of the debate he was so keen to engineer. As Mr Lamb observes, he is “not being straight” on how the matter was being discussed privately by the three men.

The positioning is damaging for the Conservatives and unfortunate for Mr Lansley. His claims that the gravestone billboard posters “was not a negative campaign” is plain wrong, and all know it.

His absence from the consensus conference will only underline this further, and enhance the impression for key stakeholders on care and the wider public that the party is now not prepared to enter sensible discussions on this most important of policy issues.

Times Recommends

• You can work for nothing, but it'll cost you
• All about my mother and Alzheimer's