In this morning's video, I note that of all the groups in society anyone expected Labour to pick on when it came into office, pensioners were the least likely, excepting, perhaps, children in poverty. Now it turns out they are the two groups Labour thinks should pay the price for the mess that Labour claims it has inherited from the Tories. Political incompetence on this scale is hard to make up.
The audio version is:
The transcript is:
Why is Labour picking on pensioners?
What we know is that today, Labour MPs are going to have to troop through the lobbies in the House of Commons to vote to take away the winter fuel allowance of around 10 million pensioners in the UK, and the resulting saving will be little more than £1.5 billion, which in the overall context of government funding of nearly one trillion pounds a year, or a thousand billion, is what we might call neither here nor there.
Now we know that Lucy Powell MP, who is the leader of the House of Commons, has said that but for taking away the winter fuel allowance, the international financial markets would have thought the UK was about to suffer imminent financial collapse. But she was talking complete and utter nonsense. And so is any other Labour minister who makes a similar claim, including Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves.
Talking of Rachel Reeves, let's just imagine that meeting that she had with her advisers and maybe some officials in the Treasury, very soon after the election, when she decided that she was going to announce this policy of taking away the winter fuel allowance, of which no mention was made, of course, during the election campaign.
They sat around a table.
They said, we're in financial crisis.
There's something we've got to do.
Someone has to pay.
Who might it be?
And they picked on pensioners.
Why? Of all the groups in society, apart from children in poverty that is, who she has also decided should stay in the situation they're in, pensioners were surely the last people that she should have picked on when it came to punishing someone for the state of the UK's finances, if any such punishment was necessary. And I wonder whether it was.
But she chose to pick on pensioners.
The backlash has been predictable, and I am quite sure that about 95 per cent of those Labour MPs trooping through that lobby tonight will be exceedingly uncomfortable with having to vote for this measure.
We're told that maybe 50 might rebel.
I suspect it's very unlikely that 50 will really rebel, and rebellion in this case will, by the way, be represented by an abstention, not a vote against, because we've already seen that seven Labour MPs have had their whips withdrawn as a consequence of voting against the continuation of the two-child benefit cap.
So Starmer will still face a rebellion, we don't know how big, but it will be indicative of a much greater disquiet.
That disquiet is justified. Of all the people to pick on, pensioners were the least likely to have contributed to the crisis that we are in. There are plenty of others who should have made a contribution.
Large companies could clearly pay more and have had an absurdly low corporate tax rate and are going to continue to have an absurdly low corporate tax rate because despite the increase in the headline rate to 25%, they are now getting a 100% tax relief on all their capital expenditure every year, which means that their real rate of corporation tax pay will be much lower than that headline rate in most cases.
The wealthy are having a ball based upon the fact they aren't paying appropriate tax, either because they can shift their income into companies and pay no more than 19 per cent tax as a result, presuming that those companies are small, or they will be turning their income into capital gains and paying at about half the rate that is due on their income and that of everybody else who has to go to work for a living.
So, there are people who could pay tax now, easily, instantly, without there being any popular backslash, which Keir Starmer says he knows he's going to face for having picked on pensioners.
It's the weirdest political strategy of all time to choose to be unpopular by picking on the vulnerable in society.
And we know he is picking on the vulnerable in society. There are of course pensioners who do not need the £300 a year winter fuel allowance. I will put my hands up and say I am one of them. Because I am. I am a pensioner and I would get a winter fuel allowance if there still was one. But the answer to that is very straightforward. Tax the winter fuel allowance. In that case, I would at least pay part of it back. Why not?
But actually means testing this benefit is going to result in a great many, by which I mean millions, of people who are on the cusp of poverty not being able to meet their fuel bills this year. And we know that Keir Starmer is already nodding through a 10 per cent fuel price increases this winter, as if he has no concern about the fact that the oil and gas companies and electricity generating companies are making exceptional profits at our expense.
So, why did he do this? I don't know.
But it indicates that not only does he want to be unpopular, but he definitely knows how to be unpopular. And that is crass political judgment in play.
I wish I knew what Labour was doing.
I wish that everything I said about their incompetence before the election has not turned out to be true.
I wish they could deliver sound government for the people of this country, but right now it really doesn't look like it.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
What we never talk about of course is the financial costs of means testing.
Whatever else you think of it the administration costs of the State Pension is very low, it would be interesting to compare it with the cost of paying Pension Credit
Means testing really does make no sense here
It does if you want to normalise it, then apply it to the state pension and then NHS treatment etc. It does if you want to use it to shrink the welfare state in pursuit pf profit for private enterprise. Since means testing the WFA was announced by Reeves as being her intention ten years ago in the HOC, it would be logical to expect more will be coming in due course, and to understand what the ultimate aim might be too.
Is Starmer an idiot? Of course not. Then there can only be one answer. He is doing this intentionally, and that is deeply worrying.
A good blog. I can imagine the outcry if this was being put forward by a Conservative government – howls of rage from Labour, Labour supporters and voters up in arms. But no its a ‘Labour’ government and Labour supporters are being either as quiet as mice or coming up with weak excuses. I agree making it taxable would be the best thing to do. Government ministers are basically 4th or 5th rate in terms of ability and to keep blaming the previous Conservative government is getting a little tiresome. Yes we all know they were useless but the electorate have swapped one useless and uncaring lot with another!
Are we asking the right questions? Why is there a need for winter fuel allowance? Cos elec & gas prices do not reflect the cost of production.
Uk gets circa 50% of its gas from the North Sea. Extract costs? crica £3/MWh, current “market” costs circa £28/MWh (TTF RotterdamEuro37.7/MWh).
Wondered why gas companies are so vastly profitable? Now you know. (cue whining from gas companies: yes buts its a risky business etc).
Contrast with, for example: off-shore wind – there prices closely reflect cost of production plus a modest (5% – max 10%) profit – because of closely controlled gov auctions.
Compare the dividends of Shell and Orsted for futher confirmation.
& what sets UK elec prices? Gas.
UK serfs (and pensioners as a sub-set) are being screwed by LINO/Tory II – because either LINO is too stupid to understand “markets” or don’t want to (probably they get some nice bungs from the same). Pensioners by comparison to the oil & gas mafia are weak – that is why LINO does what it does. Election over, sit back & enjoy the spoils, enjoy the benefits of office & screw the UK & the Uk population.
Much to agree with
Not England or rather Britain but Bungland! What a shambles!
While I wholeheartedly agree that the pricing structure for gas and electricity is a disgrace, that is not the reason there is a need for a winter fuel allowance. That is needed because the level of state pension in this country is woefully inadequate and, I believe worse than most of Europe. If a reasonable state pension were paid there would be no need for the WFA.
A strange politician hill upon which to choose to fight. It’s using up political capital but it is proving an effective distraction (but from what?). Clearly it is being used to test backbench loyalty and strengthen discipline. The party Whips will be busy.
Number counting politician strategists will be aware pensioner support for Labour was low at the ballot box. YouGov analysis of voting at the General Election showed ‘around the same proportion of all age groups below 50 voted for Labour (41% to 46%). For the over 50s the proportion voting Labour decreases more steeply with 34% of 50-59s backing Labour, 28% of 60-69s and just 20% of those 70 or older’.
They are not going to win any pensioners over by removing the WFA.The problem is the old shibboleths, the reliable support of communities, is no longer there. electors are still adjusting to being savvy and react to political Party manipulation of voters in the digital age.
Labour is now winning on a low turnout, and pensioners turnout. The young do not. Labour is playing with fire.
Here is the IPPR analysis of ‘age’, turnout and the General Election, 2024:
“Constituencies where a large proportion of the local population are older had a considerably higher turnout rate than those where the local population is younger (figure 2.1).
Among registered voters, the turnout rate was 64 per cent in constituencies where one-quarter of the population is over 64 years old, compared to only 54 per cent in constituencies where one-tenth of the local population is over 64 years old. Those turnout estimates fall to 60 per cent and 43 per cent if one considers the voting age population rather than the number of registered voters (figure A.1, see appendix).3
The turnout rate among registered voters was 50 per cent in constituencies
where one quarter of the population is between 25 and 34 years old, compared to 63 per cent in constituencies where one-tenth of the population is within that age bracket (figure A.2, see appendix). Those turnout estimates fall to 35 per cent and 59 per cent if one considers the voting age population rather than the number of registered voters (figure A.3, see appendix).” (IPPR, ‘Half of Us: Turnout Patterns at the 2024 General Election’; Age, p.8)
The elderly – and we will all get old – have been portrayed as a huge burden to society by fascist political science used in our politics. They are a bigger group than the disabled – another group which has been portrayed as a burden or a problem, of which there is also a lot of crossover.
Therefore the only elderly worth a light are the rich ones apparently. Because they are ‘independent’.
Our politicians have turned the elderly in to third class persons. It’s as though they sit there playing the Game of Life twizzling the carousel and picking on the part of the society the arrow lands on when it stops turning.
But there is something much deeper at work here.
The elderly are a reminder of where we are all going in our life cycle and no one really likes to think like that and is part of our awareness of our death.
Out of sight, out of mind I’m afraid. Our own fear for our ultimate future blinds us to the unfairness and binds us to the politicians who need the funding from tax not paid to fund their parties because there is no way they are going to tax their funders more.
To say the whole thing is just cynical is an understatement.
Agreed
OK, so I’m just reading the Guardian today and Stymied is talking to the TUC?
So, he is banging on about markets:
‘I do have to make clear, from a place of respect, that this government will not risk its mandate for economic stability, under any circumstances.
And, with tough decisions on the horizon, pay will inevitably be shaped by that.
I owe you that candour because – as was so painfully exposed by the last government – when you lose control of the economy it’s working people who pay the price.’
So he’s saying that by not taking the niggardly approach to addressing the issues in the country, he would be encouraging economic Armageddon.
I mean – what can one say about this? Laboured are proposing NOTHING like which the Truss government put into action and created chaos.
So essentially he’s saying that to stop people being poor…………they must remain poor?!!! And controlling the economy is more important than mending it!!
Well blow me – I never knew that.
We know who is in charge now don’t we?
It’s the finance sector. And the latest fear trope is they are using the reaction to the stupid Truss budget to show how powerful they are.
Maybe Lucy Powell is right? Maybe that is the threat that has been made to Labour by the financial establishment? That if they step out of line – no matter how reasonably, the finance sector will rain down hell on them?
But it shows you one other thing: the absence of taxation along the lines of the taxing wealth report. If Labour did tax that and went ahead with improving things (evidencing an income to fund their policies, albeit unnecessarily ) then what would be the market’s reaction?
This indicates that Laboured are really in a difficult position; the Tories, their own lack of understanding of fiscal power, lack of bravery, Blairite factionism and the markets have got Laboured’s position triangulated and zeroed in by hostile fire all around and amongst them.
They are stuck in their fox hole trying to dodge bullets.
They have to attempt a break out for all our sakes.
But I don’t think they will. I really don’t. And people’s anger is growing all of the time.
Much to agree with
“OK, so I’m just reading the Guardian today and Stymied is talking to the TUC?”
The Commentariat of The Daily Fail is more upset about this “axe” to the Winter Fuel Allowance than the Commentariat of The Guardian based on comments I have read today. Then again, maybe the Commentariat of The Daily Fail just screams louder.
It’s a strange old world
MPs vote against the Government.
MPs have their whip removed.
MPs join the new Independent Alliance Party.
The Independent Alliance Party merge with The Green Party.
The Green Alliance Party becomes the new Opposition.
There are only so many times Starmer can be authoritarian.
Can someone tell me why losing the party whip is supposed to be a punishment for MPs rather than a welcome freedom for them to vote with their conscience (and a loss of power for their party)?
Financial support of party machine/Careerist opportunists
A part of me, the embittered, cynical one that looks at the awful politics bequeathed to us by the loathsome Tories, says that as pensioners are the most Tory and Brexit voting section of the population, and as they’ve been getting the triple lock ‘vote tory’ pension bribe, it serves a lot of them right for voting in their millions to get us into the mess we’re in.
However, a politics based on bitterness and negativity is not going to benefit anyone except the far right, so let me join with Richard and many others in condemning this absurd measure, which means my wife will lose the WFA (and she would never vote Tory!). And to note as others here have done that as we already have one of the lowest pensions in Western Europe, depriving some pensioners of the WFA will cause real hardship.
Which leads me to trying to understand how labour are so incompetent.
Reeves said the Tories left a huge hole in the finances, 22bn in fact. Ignoring for a moment the fact that the government could do QE to cover this why didn’t she simply say that this is due to Hunt’s grossly irresponsible NI cuts from 10 to 6% which have been in the last 12 months, and that therefore she would reverse them?But no, they come up with a deeply unpopular measure less than 3 months into the government’s term in office. Political incompetence of the first order.
Anyone here know what they’re doing?
Can it get any worse??? Even the State of Florida is not this bad their “Utility” grants for the needy.
The State of Florida gets that if you do not have “Utility” grants for the needy they will not be able to run their Air Conditioners in the summer and will end up at the Emergency Room with heat related health issues. Needed people with inadequate health insurance going to the Emergency Room cost the State of Florida more than “Utility” grants for the needy.
An experiment was run in the UK on ‘frequent flyers’ to GP surgeries in winter
They cost a lot in cash and time terms
So the NHS paid to heat their houses and saved a lot in GP costs
It’s obvious really – but ‘joibned up thinking’ is at best an idea in this country
The Florida authorities weren’t trying to destroy the ‘Merge system with a view to handing it over to private enterprise to profit from, which sadly is not the case with our state-supplied emergency services here.
All utility rates in Florida, public & private, are set by the Public Utility Commission as they are in almost all states.
Each state has a variation of a Public Utility Commission.
Rather than tax winter fuel allowance (because the marginal cases, with income near the allowance threshold cannot afford to pay the tax); it seems to me income tax allowance thresholds or higher tax rates should be adjusted to cover the cost. That means very slight tax increases for all, but if there are significant numbers of cases at the margin again badly affected (this applies especially at basic tax thresholds), that means the basic allowances are in the wrong place. They are in the wrong place, and it is deliberate. We know that already because the government already has a penal fiscal drag programme to capture tax from the poor by not increasing allowances. Given fiscal drag, it is the higher rate tax payers who should pay most of this WTF tax; because at the bottom end of the spectrum fiscal drag (with inflation at 11%) sucks very low earners into the tax paying bracket. The finger-pointers who claim they do not need WTF are generally higher rate tax payers; and if they say they can’t afford it either, this applies ‘a fortiori’ to basic rate tax payers. But we know the rates and allowances are in the wrong place, and they are there because Government insists the poor carry a relatively higher tax burden (note the word ‘relative’; higher rate tax payers insist it should only be ‘absolute’ tax that matters – but they want a regressive, not progressive system – their argument effectively is that the poor deserve to suffer hardship, and the well paid just don’t because they pay more tax, and are entitled never experience any hardship, even in a national crisis).
In any case the Conservatives set the current rates and allowances, so they must think the higher rate tax payers can pay, and that it will not materially change their life because of a slight increase in tax.(less than about £10 a month?); and the Conservatives don’t like fouling their own nest; Labour doesn’t mind fouling its own nest: for Labour the deserving poor are only the ones that will pay up and suffer, without complaining.
WTF tax = ??????
I sure “WTF” does mean what I first thought it meant! LOL! LOL!
Just noticed. I am a walking blooper. It happens all the time. I write in haste….. what can I say? Mea Culpa.
We’re all walkiing, talking, active bloopers
We should tax the rich “until their pips squeak” as suggested in the TWR. I’ve heard enough about “entrepreneurs creating the wealth”, let’s go after them big time.
I do not say that in the Taxing Wealth Report 2024
IMAO, all income (carried interest anyone) SHOULD be taxed at the same rate as wages.
The optics of picking on pensioners shows that Labour is no longer the party it used to be. If Starmer had wanted to signal to the markets, to the city, to the so-called red wall, that Labour has changed, then this is an obvious ploy. It may be as simple as that, given that intellectual and moral considerations are clearly beyond the current party leaders and managers,
All just a little bit of history repeating (first as tragedy, now as farce)
One of the first things New Labour did in 1997 was remove the single parent premium, another pontless political gesture (all about the optics, not about the “savings”) designed to show that New Labour were not the party of welfare whilst picking a fight with the left: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/38656.stm
The winter fuel allowance is about the same thing – picking a fight with the left to flush out the few that remain whilst putting clear blue water between New New Labour and the Corby period. It is purely performative (which in truth is all the neoliberals have given the adherence to Public Choice Theory and their hatred of the state)
Thanks
Single Parent Premium = ?????
Is this a tax deduction???
No
I also wish I knew what Labour was up to, if it could even be said that they were up to anything. I don’t understand this policy at all. It reinforces my view that Reeves is egregiously incompetent. When Starmer appointed her Chancellor, my jaw dropped, as I have had the view for some time that she has no idea what she is doing, in the economic sphere at least. I have the feeling that she is grossly incompetent in general. And Starmer appears to be in the wrong job.
Steve Keen perhaps obliges https://open.substack.com/pub/profstevekeen/p/watching-two-labour-parties-destroy
In simple terms, Reeves/Starmer and the current Oz govt too are following an outmoded unrealistic textbook model. This assumes they’re that stupid, of course, and that does seem entirely credible where Reeves is concerned at least. Not that I’m abandoning my own theory that there’s great evil afoot here, mind, but what Keen suggests here is of course itself entirely credible and given the complexity of the subject matter perhaps not surprisingly appears largely unsaid.
A couple of days ago, I made a response to a question posed here by the indefatigable Pilgrim Slight Return.
Part of my post was an epitaph written by Robert Burns that I felt appropriate to the life of late, great, Labour Leader John Smith.
Dipping (yet again) into the works of Scotland’s National Bard, I came up with this gem.
“Blow, blow, ye winds, with heavier gust!
And freeze, thou bitter-biting frost!
Descend, ye chilly, smothering snows!
Not all your rage, as now united, shows
More hard unkindness unrelenting,
Vengeful malice unrepenting.
Than heaven-illumin’d Rachel on brother Keir bestows!”
P.S. Richard:- Burns was prescient, but not to the extent of knowing the names of 21st century politicians.
Substitute ‘Man’ for forenames inserted by me… or better still… read the whole poem. ‘A Winter Night’ by Robert Burns.
Therein is many another verse appropriate for those wee, sleekit, cowrin, tim’rous beasties voting today in the Westminster Parliament.
Thanks
Apprreciated
You suggest making the WFA taxable, and that result in someone like yourself keeping 8/10ths of it.
You’ve also talked about the costs of administering the payment so:
Would you be in favour of abolishing the WFA for all income groups and just adding £6 a week to the state retirement pension and the applicable amount of Pension Credit. No-one who really needed the amount of the payment would be worse off.
That would be a better idea
On the face of it, increasing the state pension by £6 per week would be an answer but the level at which IT becomes payable would also have to be increased. Those on low incomes may well also be in receipt of housing benefit and with the present system, their HB would be reduced in proportion.
Pensioners still receive an extra (derisory) tax-free payment of £10 each December and perhaps this could simply be increased to £300. This would make funds available for the coldest months and Christmas etc. Those who do not need it can pass it on to their families or charities – or perhaps Ms Reeves intends to take away the £10 as well!
I would prefer to see a far better state pension amount, but that won’t happen as the WFA can be picked off and an increae in state pension would be a permanent increase. So make the WFA £360 and taxable.
‘indefatigable’ – I wish.
Well thanks Ron, but a I think our host deserves that accolade more than me – some days I just cannot keep up or I get fed up.
I seem to keep going
This blog is ever present in my life, my constant companion
@Richard,
You are the Energizer Bunny!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ILvVYpyP8U
Keep beating the drum of economic sense for all of us.
I run on Duracells (rechargeable, of course)
“This blog is ever present in my life, my constant companion”…. sad fucker
Go on, explain what is sad about that when you must lurk here often to make that comment? Who is having the better time?
Agreed that the Labour government is tying itself in knots over the Winter Fuel Allowance. There is no sense that it is the one item in all the government’s expenditure that needs changing to balance the economy.
If I remember correctly, the allowance was introduced during a particularly cold winter when it was clear heating costs – which for an average year might just about have been manageable with a standard state pension, low by international standards – would be unaffordable. In a sane world it would have been a one-off fix that would subsequently have been replaced by an uplift of the standard pension, but instead it remains as a standalone extra which is not taxable.
(Even less defensible as a standalone is the £10 Christmas Bonus, I think introduced as an election bribe to pensioners, but obviously the sums involved are much less).
As far as I can tell the only justification for removing it now is to make the point that the Conservatives had left Labour with an unbalanced budget and that needed correcting by raising more revenue. Assuming that is necessary the better solution would have been to reverse the most recent Conservative tax cut, the reduction in National Insurance, and create the link to previous “economic mismanagement”.
Discipline could have been maintained by an open debate to try to get to a common understanding of how the economy works – and how it could be rebuilt as the NHS was built after the war.
Even Simon Jenkins in todays Guardian – points to the political stupidity.
Pre-election, Starmer and Reeves showed they wanted none of this and were happy to impose their dysfunctional misunderstandng on the country and on their MP’s – and to double down by makinga ritual sacrifice of pensioners winter fuel and child benefits cap .
There is no room to grow the economy and rebuild services and the NHS within their self imposed ‘rebbuild the foundations’ straight jacket .
This is a crisis – its quite terrifying.
“The cheque will bounce” (Keir Starmer).
No, it won’t. It has never bounced, with one insane exception in 1672; and that was only because Charles II knew as little about money – as Keir Starmer. Charles II’s Stuart dynasty never recovered from the complete imbecility.
Keir Starmer, is a pompous Puritan version of Charles II; but with far less excuse for his ignorance.
Crass
@Richard
True! But John S Warren speaks a great quotable line making a great soundbite!
He’s totally ignorant about the economy and public finances.
From Robert Peston ITV 9th September: ” Treasury sources tell me that Reeves defining characteristic is she is more old-school “c” conservative Treasury than they are and the pensioners squeeze was all her”.
Says it all.
That really is grim
I am sure Peston is telling what he heard
Hi PSR. Got to agree with you Pilgrim; Richard is truly indefatigable, but over the long course of this blog, you have made a great contribution to the liveliness of debate here.
I wonder if Richard ever wishes there were a separate ‘Discussions’ forum for ‘Fans of Funding the Future’. I often refrain from commenting because I feel Mr Murphy must be too busy refereeing spats like Warren v Bruce on 8th inst.
Eventually, our host’s gracious statement & question was appropriate “I think you are both forthright in your opinions – and that’s fine. Can we move on?” Their grudge match was heading for a penalty shoot-out after extra-time!
Btw PSR, your comment “I think our host deserves that accolade more than me”. Did you know one of my companies is called Accolade?
Fire away
It sometimes takies time to get here (a lot of videos have been made today, not all for use here) but I always get to comments in the end
And I read them
MP’s are supposed to represent their constituents, particularly those that voted for them based on what they said. The whole idea of MP’s being able to abstain or having to follow a party diktat as guided by a party whip, goes against any idea of democracy. So one message to voters to get elected and pretty much the polar opposite action once they are elected.
https://x.com/i/status/1833307425673249181
If Labour are so concerned about public finances, instead of looking to impose callous and draconian cuts on pensioners that aim to ‘save’ the government £1.5 billion, maybe they should google Pareto and see where they could and should be targeting.
‘A landmark study has uncovered corruption “red flags” in government Covid contracts worth more than £15bn – representing nearly one in every three pounds awarded by the Conservative administration during the pandemic’.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/sep/09/tory-covid-contracts-worth-15bn-had-corruption-red-flags-study-finds
“MP’s are supposed to represent their constituents, particularly those that voted for them based on what they said. The whole idea of MP’s being able to abstain or having to follow a party diktat as guided by a party whip, goes against any idea of democracy.”
Is this not how Parliamentary System Democracy is supposed to work? (as opposed to a Republic System Democracy???)
The voters may vote for a specific candidate but is not the candidate chosen by the party (to stand for election) to carry out the wishes and mandates of the party?
‘The voters may vote for a specific candidate but is not the candidate chosen by the party (to stand for election) to carry out the wishes and mandates of the party?’
No. 53 Labour MP’s abstaining indicates that that is not the case. Although pitifully weak, is was at least something to try to keep democracy in check. Otherwise why bother having constituency candidates. Just have a vote for a party.
As for ‘mandates of the party’ – where is Labour’s mandate to cut pensioners winter heating allowance. Where was it in the manifesto? Let me guess. It wasn’t because a big black hole came out of nowhere, but instead of addressing wealth inequality, that Reeves had publicly highlighted before being elected, suddenly that gets dropped and winter heating jumps from nowhere to the top of the cuts queue. The stench from Westminster gets worse by the day and it’s got nothing to do with sewage in the Thames.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cyxx1lq50nlo
@Ian
As for ‘mandates of the party’ – where is Labour’s mandate to cut pensioners winter heating allowance.
My mistake: I was speaking in regards to a Parliamentary system of Democracy not the axing of the WFA.
I did not mean to imply that there was any type of voter “mandate” or whatsoever “mandate” for LINO to axe the WFA.
My concern, like Bill Kruse, is that the same argument will now be applied to pensions and the NHS, i. e. means tested. Massive opportunities for private health, insurance corporations etc etc
I agree
The political naivety is staggering. And the less said about the neo-liberal ‘rob Peter to Pay Paul’ fiscal economics the better.
There was always going to be a need for rhetorical air power cementing the blame for the mess the nation finds itself in on the Tories. But that only goes so far. Robbing pensioners of income is going too far. In fact robbing any poorer group of their income is the kind of reckless, discredited Tory political games we voted to see the back of.
I noted Starmer calling Sunak ‘the Prime Minister’ a couple of times in PMQs last week. Starmer needs to get a grip. And quickly.
I think I would prefer someone else to get a grip of Starmer in order to eject him and Reeves from their roles!
There is irony in all this. Labour has always been handed the baton with a great mess to clean up (post two world wars, and the dog days of the late/post-Thatcher era). It is usually very difficult, thankless and Labour has always ended paying a heavy price. This time we are in a peace time mess that seems as bad as a post-war situation; but without the upside, or optimism. It is understandable that Labour wants to blame the Tories, so they are making it obvious this time it is really, really bad; but there are two problems with the strategy: A) we already know only too well we are in a mess (lots of children, patients and pensioners are haunted by it, daily), and we can see the disasters being recounted (there are enough grim Public Inquiries telling us how rotten and corrupt everything is); and B) Labour have made it rather obvious that their only planned solution for the massive problem they are laying on with a thickly coated trowel – is to be the Tories we have just kicked out.
Labour seems a bit dense. I think they must be planning to leave Government before their five year term is up, the way they are going. Their 150+ seat majority looks stonewall; but two months in, they have already lost eight (?) MPs; and had maybe 40 abstentions. Let me think; at this rate of attrition, should we start laying odds on an autumn 2025 election? Do they last that long? Or is it four Labour PMs by 2026?
There is something else that is quietly going under the radar.
Angela Rayner, of all people, said recently that Lab had not yet decided on whether to remove the 25% discount on council tax for single people.
It goes without saying that many pensioners are single.
If Starmer and Reeves want to know where to get the money from, here’s a clue.
The wealth of the UK’s billionaires has skyrocketed by over 1000% between 1990 and 2022, ballooning by around £600bn.
https://equalitytrust.org.uk/news/press-release/equality-trust-finds-1000-increase-billionaire-wealth/
Austerity – we are all in it together. Yeah right.
53 Labour abstentions. More than many thought. Plus one Labour MP against, Jon Trickett
From Sky News
“Mr Trickett went on to say that he has been working behind the scenes to change the government’s policy, but “to no avail”, and said wealth in the UK “is not shared fairly”.
He concluded: “In my view the government should be looking to raise revenues from the wealthiest in society, not working class pensioners.
“I could not in good conscience vote to make my constituents poorer. I will sleep well tonight knowing that I voted to defend my constituents.”
Someone cannot add up – where does the figure of £1,300 come from?
BBC estimate the increase at £460.
Dr. Jeevun Sandher MP (Labour).
Today, I will be voting to means-test the Winter Fuel Allowance. The poorest pensioners will get *more* money. Because: 1) Large increase in Pension Credit enrolment (£4,000) 2) Household Support Fund extended (£100) 3) State pension increase (worth around £1,300 by April)
Weird….
And no one gets £4,000 from pension credit alone
They get at least £4000 because it is a gateway benefit. As a minor benefit they get free pet health care from the PDSA, free dental care etc. So they should be much better off than their pensioner neighbour whose income is 5p per week over the pension credit limit.
Agreed
From The Scotsman, Labor MPs who voted against the WFA Payment Cut:
https://www.scotsman.com/news/uk-news/labour-winter-fuel-payment-cut-sir-keir-starmer-4776516?utm_source=onesignal&utm_medium=push&utm_campaign=2024-09-10–Latest-News
There’s a piece in today’s Guardian – https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/sep/09/treasury-chancellors-means-testing-winter-fuel-allowance – which states that senior Treasury officials have tried to get former (Tory) ministers to cut the winter fuel allowance. They of course rejected the idea given the propensity of our fellow pensioners to vote Conservative. However, the article hints that Reeves, as a rookie chancellor, gullibly fell for the Treasury’s suggestion.
Peston says the initiative did not come from the Treasury, but from Reeves
Is Reeves REALLY that stupid???
Forget about the financial element as her actions are political suicide when both the commentariat of The Fail and The Guardian agree. It really takes a lot of effort and/or stupidity to tick off both the right and left side of the electorate with one action.
Apparently she is
Having met her several times, I think it possible
In my Yank opinion here is what really is stupid. Reeves may think not many people care about the vulnerable Senior Citizens freezing their way to A&E this winter and unfortunately she may be right but I can tell Reeves right now their voting children are going to care.
Take my hand and walk with me on this one while I explain one repercussion of a domino effect of axing WFA.
If pensioners in the UK follow the same demographics as the USA, then you are going to have some financially vulnerable elderly pensioners receiving financial assistant from their working middle class children to cover their energy bills. Of course almost all children will step in and do all they can to help their elderly parents but these working middle class children are going to be very ticked off that some pensioners get WFA and their pensioner parents do not get the WFA. They are going to say: Why is LINO forcing me to subsidized my elderly parents and not forcing everyone to subsidize their elderly parents?
This is very much a Yank point of view but I have no doubt this will be discussed around many UK dinner tables.
Reeves has now alienated both pensioner voters and their voting children.
Agreed
As does history.
If the winter fuel allowance is reduced, it will not save the money they expect as the recipients will have less money to spend so the tax take will reduce.
What the UK as a whole needs is a new political party.
Right wing fascist-oriented Reform nipped away at the Tories, and got a fair sized vote in July. Imagine what an entirely different new party—one that would have re-established the kind of citizen-centred government that Starmer’s Labour has totally abandoned—could have done. I know many people in England who were dying to have a decent party to vote for, but had to settle for this shower instead—or more Tories. Some difference.
We do have a governing party that cares about ordinary citizens in Scotland, but the media rubbishes them at every turn, so we lost votes to Labour’s empty promises (read my lips no austerity, etc.) Promises which Labour immediately abandoned, of course. We were warned, but we don’t learn—do we? What is it going to take?
There has occasionally been a new party on the scene, but they always come up against the reality of the electoral system. FPTP does not help new parties. The breakthrough to winning a substantial amount of seats is too high. The SDP couldn’t do it. The Lib Dems couldn’t do it. The Greens haven’t done it. And those on the extreme right, UKIP, Brexit Party and Reform, are essentially limited to those who think the Tories are not right wing enough. They won’t do it either.
We don’t need a new party, we need PR. It is only with PR that the chains of neoliberalism can be broken, because FPTP sustains it. Labour currently sucks up it, because their recent history of moving leftwards, Michael Foot, Corbyn, even soft left like Kinnock and Milliband, results in them getting a pasting in FPTP elections.
The last time a radical Labour Govt was elected was Attlee between 1945 and 51. IMHO, he was the greatest post-war PM that we have had, but things are different today, especially the media and their influence. I think someone like Attlee would stand no chance of winning now.
So, we need PR. The big question is, how to get it.
And, with PR, we wouldn’t have to vote tactically to get rid of an evil, only to see it replaced by something that is singing from the same hymn sheet.
Other than that, I don’t have an answer. All I do know is that the current system is a fraud, from top to bottom.
“We were warned, but we don’t learn—do we? What is it going to take?”.
The SNP messed up badly, but even with all their failings they endeavour to do Government in a devolved system designed to ensure they fail (their biggest mistake – they didn’t see it). There is no reason to vote Labour, for reasons you appreciate (they simply can’t be trusted, and they want you to believe in fairy stories); beginning with Brexit, and even downhill from there, to adopting Tory fiscal rules and doubling-down on austerity – the economics of the madhouse in the economic mess we are in; the Scottish Conservatives are an unelectable gerontocracy; the LibDems are essentially weak, and have fouled their opportunities too often (their period in coalition revealed their weakness – unsurprisingly revealed in excoriating detail in the recent Public Inquiry on the Post Office, with two of their leaders); and the Greens, with a co-leader like Patrick Harvie, shows that they do not really do politics, they are capable only of protest, and lecturing the electorate (and are outperformed – by Reform!).
The SNP is being excoriated in the media (almost universally Unionist) for not managing their Fixed Budget, in order to pay the WFA, even when it isn’t funded by Westminster. This completely misunderstands the devolution settlement; and the difference between Devolved and Reserved powers. The WFA is Reserved. It is not a Holyrood responsibility, and Holyrood’s tax raising powers were deliberately narrow, very limited, and not designed to be able to meet Reserved responsibilities – that was Westminster’s choice and decision*. Reserved matters are not in the Scottish Fixed Budget, they are excluded (as in, fixed i.e., no resources provided to fulfil reserved expenditure, and an inviolate rule the the fixed budget must be ‘balanced’ i.e., met with virtually no room for manoeuvre). Westminster’s Budget is not fixed, and is almost never balanced, i.e., met, and it can always pay its bills, no matter what; the real definition of ‘sovereignty’. But it is even more absurd than expecting Holyrood to pay for matter the devolved settlement was designed to prevent. Westminster has cut the WFA. This means the circa £160m to pay for the WFA in Scotland is not transferred under the Reserved power arrangements. In England and Wales the British Government in total saves around £1.5Bn in prima facie cash terms. In Scotland Labour and Conservatives demand that the Scottish Government pays an additional £160m for WFA in Scotland out of a fixed, non-negotiable Budget that was designed not to fund Reserved matters. In England they save £1,5Bn. In Scotland it has to find £160m it doesn’t have, was never intended to have, and deliberately provided with an insufficient range of tax powers to raise it, even if it had the time to do it. The Devolution settlement is being used for one purpose; to wreck any possibility that Scottish Government can achieve anything better than in England, and preferably makes things worse under any Scottish government (the SNP), Westminster doesn’t like.
Here are the taxes Scotland, broadly can use; with the exception of income tax (and it only one, very limited part even of income tax), the taxes open to Scotland’s government are generally second or third tier taxes, raising relatively small amounts of money compared to the first tier suite of taxes that the British Government can call on.
* Scotland only has control over relatively low revenue raising taxes, council tax (a local authority tax) and among first tier taxes, only one narrow part of income tax (the headline and difficult to move tax rate, but but not the critical determination of thresholds etc, the full scope even of income tax).
The list of Scottish taxes are second or third tier taxes, with relatively low yields; Land and Building Transactions Tax, Landfill Tax, Non-Domestic Rates. But not much of Income Tax and no power over VAT, NI, Alcohol Duties, Energy and petrol taxes, Corporation Tax, and on and on.
What the Labour and Conservative Party have done is design a system that does not allow for the payment of a Reserved matter out of the Scottish Fixed Budget; and then insist that the Scottish government pays for a significant Reserved matter, without the resources, or the ability to raise it. All for pure political advantage, at the expense of the Scottish people. The Devolution Settlement has become nothing more than a large political scam.
Because (referring to the headline of the post) this shower in government at present, believe that pensioners all vote Tory.
They know nothing.
Can’t even count.
In addition, it is worth pointing out that while the Labour and Conservative Parties are keen that Holyrood pays for WFA with money it doesn’t have, by intervening in a Reserved matter; when a British government doesn’t like Holyrood’s intrusion into a Reserved matter, it is quite ready to issue a Section 35 notice, go to the Supreme Court, and slap down Holyrood’s impertinance.
The devolution settlement is rigged. It is one-way street, a Unionist political plaything to dish the Nats; and they are going to dish them – by hook or by crook.