Reports suggest that there were Labour MPs crying in the lobbies of the House of Commons yesterday as they voted to remove the winter fuel allowance from approximately 10 million pensioners in this country, many of whom will suffer significant hardship as a consequence.
Let me be candid; I have not the slightest sympathy for those who were shedding the tears. If they had any honour at all, let alone an appropriate moral compass, they would have defied their party whips and voted with the Opposition on this issue. That is what natural justice, left-of-centre sentiment and political integrity demanded, and by voting with the government, they showed that they were possessed of none of these things.
I made a point on Twitter and on this blog yesterday afternoon that those who voted for this motion will have it forever on their Parliamentary record.
We know that it is highly likely that the number of people who will die as a consequence of hypothermia this year will increase unless we have a miraculously warm winter.
No doubt those who cried were aware of this fact. They knew that this vote was, in fact, condemning some people to die wholly unnecessarily because there is absolutely no economic justification for the action that Rachel Reeves has taken. All that she is seeking to do is to send meaningless gestures to the City of London, none of which they wish to receive, and nor do they require. As such, this action is entirely unnecessary, and so too, in that case, are the losses of life.
Tears of self-pity at having been put into what the MPs in question probably think was a difficult situation were wholly inappropriate.
Every MP had the right to make their own decision on this issue.
All of them owe a greater duty to their constituents than they do to their party.
Every one of them who thought that they were subject to intolerable pressure from the Whips not to rebel could have done so.
I hope that the failure on their part to di the right thing will rest on their consciences forever.
We will not forget 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!
MPs should be representing their constituents, and not doing the Government’s bidding.
There are only so many MPs that can lose the Labour whip.
“I made a point on Twitter and on this blog yesterday afternoon that those who voted for this motion will have it forever on their Parliamentary record.”
How will an MP campaigning for re-election explain at a husting (Town Hall) why she/he voted to axe the WFA?
I do not see a viable response.
I hope Lab MPs who obeyed the whips’ orders will all be asked by constituents “Who paid you to vote against us?”
Maybe they are crying because there is no choice.
Maybe they are crying because they have looked the Gorgon in the face – or maybe its reflection – called Rachel Reeves – who has made it clear that Labour are just another political party doing the bidding of who really runs the country.
And I say this not to excuse Labour – I am talking about this as a truth – that an engorged financial establishment is now calling the shots like nothing before, more emboldened more inculcated?
If the pitchforks are coming, then who should they be coming for? Our politicians are part of the problem. But they are not THE problem.
While the politicians may only be part of the problem P.S.R, surely, as they are facilitating the mechanism to enable this cruel, and as Richard says, unnecessary policy into action, then they are equally to blame.
Especially since they could do more than most to help thwart it. Imagine it: all Labour MPs actually standing up for Labour principles.
Correct.
But money is being used to pervert the potential creation of social justice by politics.
The money is where the problem is in my view. It is buying favours; it is buying priority over the rest of us.
We seem to tolerate the system that enables this so we are as much to blame as the politicians.
And that is the truth of the matter.
We need to ask – to demand – a better system that helps politics to do its job. Which is to rule by as much compromise and agreement as possible and taking political funding out of it would be a big step to securing that.
A year or so ago I wrote about the power of established ideas long after they ceased to be relevant. They become an article of faith to be defended e.g. the gold standard in the past or, today, the neo-liberal analysis and the ‘There is no alternative’ narrative.
You disagreed saying they-the ‘engorged financial establishment, people who really run the country- know exactly what they are doing. I think you have a point. Many of them do know how to game the system for their own ends and don’t care how it affects the majority.. We can’t know for sure how many are cynics and how many are fanatics or far they believe their own rhetoric. My impression is that Reeves really does believe what she says. A lot of of Johnson cabinet did not. Whatever they thought benefited them.
They endure because they have a following. There is a tipping point when their support collapses. We saw that in 1989 in eastern Europe.
I largely agree that the rank and file MPs are not the problem except in so far as they continue to support. But as MacMillan said in my youth, ‘events, dear boy, events.’ Neo-liberalism has been hollowed out. We may yet see the tipping point.
Sorry but I have to disagree. As a frequent visitor in the 1970s and 1980s it was clear the Communist governments never had majority support. They collapsed when it became clear that Moscow was going to withdraw its support. Poland was an exception and an example later.
It doesn’t matter whether Reeves believes her own garbage or not. If she is really that terminally stupid that is her problem and Starmer’s for appointing her.
Each and every Labour MP was elected. I cannot believe they are all terminally stupid as well. They made a choice yesterday. Hopefully they will never again have to make such a choice when they are thrown out of parliament. They are all, including the cowards who found an acceptable way of being absent, not worthy of their position in government.
How do we, the electorate go about getting them to face a vote of no confidence?
Candidly, there is no chance of that
@ Eric Walker
We were aware that support was very limited in that time but the power could not be safely challenged. The Soviet response to the Prague Spring was mild but they stopped it.
In Poland Solidarity were more open but they could not change the govt.
Only when Gorbachev made it clear that he would not send in the tanks to crush popular movements, it fell apart very rapidly.
The thing is Ian is that it is the Extreme Right that might benefit from the tipping point.
Maybe that is what our political shepherds will herd us towards because the link between wealth and Fascism is established?
The revolution will not be realised.
You’ll get the revolution the Establishment say that we can have.
And all of this can maybe summed up as just all about money.
The State essentially created money and the rich and poor have fought each other over it ever since.
And the rich are winning.
I recall other situations in which ‘lower ranking people’ said they were only following orders.
(Not to draw a direct parallel, of course: the moral case is not quite so clear-cut; but still there.)
No we will not forget! I wish those who vociferously supported Labour in the election campaign would now apologise! Also any news on the claim made by 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)
His claim e.g. re the pension increase was just wrong
Just wrong or just lies?
If, come the budget Reeves is as financially ruthless against the wealthy then I’ll recognise the resolute approach to Winter Fuel Allowance was considered necessary ground laying. And if much of the Treasury gain benefits is lost to an increase in those claiming pensions credits all well and good.
If the budget is soft on the many other areas you and others have highlighted for revenue raising we can conclude this fight was not really about the financial black hole.
The Labour leadership has just withdrawn a great deal of political capital from its backbenchers. A hefty deposit in the credit bank there will be required to prevent fracture.
ONS publish data regarding mortality rates related to the hottest and coldest days in England.
They’ve produced data for: relative risk of death associated with temperature for England and Wales from 1988 to 2022.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/articles/climaterelatedmortalityandhospitaladmissionsenglandandwales/1988to2022
The graph at Figure 3, clear shows between 1988 – 2022, more people die each year in cold weather than hot.
In excess of 175,000 have died during cold weather, and over 48,000 deied during hot weather. The data says your three times more likely to die in cold weather than hot.
What don’t Labour understand about the ONS data.
Do they really want more pensioners to die from cold. To me it looks that way given the decision they have made.
It is likely – based on past impact reviews on this issue – that more than 3,000 will die because of yesterday’s decision
Excess of 3000 deaths from infections brought about from cold weather.
A price in actual lives that reeves, starmer and their tawdry lot are prepared to pay for their neoliberal dogma.
Not their own lives, the lives of vulnerable and elderly folk this neoliberal lot are prepared to inflict death sentences on.
The grasping delusional haughty self importance arrogance of it all is staggering.
They really believe they actually have the right to kill people this way, that’s what it boils down to.
Crocodile tears of course. Perhaps they should read John Harris latest in the Graun: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/sep/10/keir-starmer-rachel-reeves-britain-pensioners-winter-fuel-allowance which rightly skewers the neoliberal idiocy of Starmer and Reeves the pensioner freezer.
Each day brings more evidence we are living through Gramsci’s morbid symptoms as the Neoliberal settlement circles the drain. Starmer continues to witter on about things getting worse before they get better – it seems the getting worse is going to include a Fartrage led Reform government in 2029 hopefully enough of us will survive to bring about the much delayed Kondratiev cycle change
John Harris has got this right
“Starmer continues to witter on about things getting worse before they get better”
Does Keir Starmer not realize that “things” have been getting “worse” since David Cameron and “worse” was why the electorate voted Labour…. to make the “worse” better immediately?
At least in 1997, the Blairite message was ‘Things can only get better’, irrespective of actual outcomes. A lot cheerier than ‘Things can only get worse before they get better’.
The selection process for this year’s Labour parliamentary candidates was unfair, and privileged certain candidates, favoured by the party management, over those supported in the consitutencies. I can speak personally about this if anyone cares to deny it.
The result is that many of those nodding dogs shedding tears in the lobby were deliberately chosen, precisely because they are biddable, and in most cases, will know that they owe their positions to party machinations, and not to their personal success in their constituency selection. They will do as they are told, are be grateful.
Helen Heenan – not least because of the magic of Anonyvoter, the in-house voting system that miraculously finds so many online votes that the candidate favoured by almost all branches gets defeated – e.g. Sam Tarry.
Not forgetting the situation in many CLPs where any lefties have been forced out (if they’re likely to win anything) or marginalised.
“Not forgetting the situation in many CLPs where any lefties have been forced out (if they’re likely to win anything) or marginalised.”
From my Yank eyes, it appears the MP represent their party and not their constituents.
Say anything bad you want to say about the USA, there is much bad to truly speak of, but the members of Congress (House & Senate) represent their constituents not the party.
Agreed
If only…
Exactly right. In our constiuency, left wing applicants (including a former candidate) were not even allowed onto the long list by the party managers, and at the selection hustings the winning candidate did so by a tiny margin, acknowledging that it was the (absentee) e-votes that got them over the line, despite not winning the room. Only one candidate, the winner, used the hitherto unknown e-voting system.
They’re lying to us now as well as treating us with contempt.
I’m very pleased to say that my own MP, Neil Duncan-Jordan, voted against the measure and even stood up in the Commons and spoke about it. I didn’t vote for him, but I am hoping I will finish getting what I did vote for – an indedendent MP. I have writen to him in support.
He was one of the brave ones
However, I see that Duncan-Jordan did not vote for the measure (which was a “no” vote). He abstained. Only one Labour MP voted “aye” (ie against). Sadly both Fanbulleh and Bell voted “no” (ie for).
UK government will stand firm on plan to cut winter fuel payments, says minister
Housing minister says policy will not be watered down day after dozens of Labour MPs abstained
It was horrifying to scroll through the list of MPs and see all those in the Labour Party voting against their constituents’ interests, whilst the Tories/Reform voted to stop this draconian, cruel and unnecessary action. Truly mind-boggling. I’m pleased to see my MP (one of those who lost the Whip recently for trying to fight against the 2-child benefit cap) voting to block the cut, although I would have expected nothing else, but those Labour MPs that fell in line, no matter how tearful they apparently were, need to grow a spine, and fast.
Spineless cowards is all I can say. If this is what the whip system leads to, it needs to be abolished immediately.
Apparently in Germany MP’s swear an oath to vote with their conscience and for the good of the country – and not to be influenced or pressured.
The whipping system is essentially a mafia arrangement and needs total reform along with getting rid of all the money buying up politics
So true Helen, I saw it too in 2017 when the snap general election was called. We had been asking to be allowed to select a candidate for over a year and we were caught off guard. Our candidate was then parachuted onto us, he had only a tenuous connection to our CLP through his wife. The CLP wanted to dispute the selection, but we were already more than two weeks into the campaign and as the then 17th Tory marginal we had to win for Labour to form a government.
Our CLP was very much Corbyn supporting, I asked the candidate if he had voted for Corbyn in the 2016 “chicken coup” and he said he hadn’t, then went on to add, that he was a team player and would never go against the whip. What choice did we have at that point other than to campaign for a win?
According to the Guardian politics blog, at PMQs today:
“Starmer says the government is having to take tough decisions. Because it is doing that, it can guarantee the triple lock, and the increase in the state pension will be higher than the winter fuel payment loss, he says.”
Does he not understand that any poor pensionsers who die of cold this winter will not live to see the increase in pensions (due in April!)? Or does he think this will reduce the pension bill?
Like all neoliberals, he assumes everyone is sitting on a pile of savings/capital and therefore payment delays do not matter.
We know that the budget will not do anything about the unnecessary £35bn paid in interest to the banks this year , nor change the ridiculously low rate of tax that hedge funds owners pay in the UK.
Why? Because Ms Reeves has already said so.
More cuts to services are on their way.
Local councils cannot meet the ever increasing costs of full filling statutory duties. The result more ill health, strain on the NHS picking up the pieces and so on.
It is impossible to see how making continued cuts promotes economic growth. Perhaps the BoE trained Ms Reeves can tell us how this is actually going to work?
“The Treasury” – faceless
Who are those that make the decisions (politicos and public servants (nowt “civil” about them) – names need to be attached to those that make decisions on “nope we don’t want to invest”, “cold pensioners are OK” , “there is a black hole, TINA to cuts” etc. Who, exactly are these talentless drones? Why is the UK media not persuing them (they showed enough vigor when Corbyn was in their sights)
I asked my MP to explain why, if the £1.4 billion was needed to fill a “black hole”, the party was doing its best to reduce this figure by encouraging people to claim pension credit and associated benefits and what he expected the net saving to be. I received back some waffle about putting the nation back on it’s feet. If the entirety of the £1.4 billion is wiped out by new PC claims plus admin costs within the DWP DEL then the (we cant spend what we dont have) fiscal justification maked no sense.
On the same day that MPs vote for the removal the winter payment at a time when energy usage is at its highest and charges are rising David Lammy and Anthony Blinken are considering the use of long range US/UK weapons on Russia. This without any parliamentary discussion of the effect such a move would have on energy prices.
Are these people sane?
I hate to say this so early on, but maybe it’s time for a change of Labour leadership?
It is
There is a long embedded economic orthodoxy and inertia in bureaucratic institutions like the Treasury, initially based on laissez faire and then neo-classical economic theory.
This has a theoretical, even ‘scientific’ base so the technocracy can pretend their decision making is simply following the economic ‘rules’.
It is amoral, ethically free and neutral in terms of the decision makers, as opposed to those affected, who are real people.
It is why the BoE can periodically claim there is no inequality in the UK, or its policies do not worsen that, as Carney did.
They are merely implementing the policies determined by conventional economic theory. These neoliberal nLaffer Curves, Monetarism, and Phillips Curves are all simplistic and highly qualified generalities, (often debunked) with class assumptions written in.
Thus oligarchic and plutocratic interests are served automatically.
We have a value free technocratic ‘problem solving’ process oriented Labour leadership for whom power was sought for itself during SKS’ progressive abandonment of substantive policies.
Just as there is no great vision or ethical message from Labour leaders in government, (as they had none in campaigning) then the Treasury bureaucrats are driven by their own conventional wisdom, and we know that is highly likely to be austerity V2.0.
It matters not that Alesina and the rest of the Bocconi Boys have qualified, if not fully recanted, since they heavily promoted austerity on ‘theoretical’ grounds, it is now embedded as the process to solve our current problems. . Expect nothing else.
I’ve now heard these 2 (insert own insult here) individuals say how much they didn’t want to do things that, in some cases, they spoke about doing years ago that I’ve come to think of them as the Walrus and the Carpenter.
It seems, after the vote, that it’s infectious.
“I weep for you,” the Walrus said:
“I deeply sympathize.”
With sobs and tears he sorted out
Those of the largest size,
Holding his pocket-handkerchief
Before his streaming eyes.
David Byrne says:
I have just ordered up the badges for Starmer, Reeves and the rest to wear proudly. They have a choice:
-I killed your granny
-Natural Born Killers
-Some Like It Cold
-Genocide Rules UK
They can wear their badges of courage through to 2029.
The milk snatcher, were she still alive, would be so proud of this lot!
Should get one for every labour mp and send them one.
We should all all be crying for the death of democracy in Britain because labour took 63% of the seats yet only 34% of the vote. The opposition might just go home as it is irrelevant
All credit to John Trickett; ‘country first, party second’ hasn’t lasted long for the rest of them
Andy Burnham and Steve Rotherham make this exact point in their recent book. The whipping system is broken and ripe for reform. Parties can’t advocate to retain FPTP because it maintains the link to local communities and then block local MPs from representing their communities effectively.