Rachel Reeves has announced that winter fuel payments will only be paid to those on Pension Credit.nsion Credit

Well done to all those who voted LIEbour!! I just hope the people who don't get in now, are OK during the winter months. Maybe they will eventually stop sending money to foreign countries and put it where it's needed!!!

Oreo

Are you saying that the huge number of posters here who are horrified or worried by the cut off of the Winter fuel money are racists?
It has nothing to do with racism and is a very real concern to millions of pensioners.

They don't like the truth Oreo heads in the sand.

Having voted them in makes me feel even worse🤬
I find it shocking and worry what else is coming down the line if this measure is the first thing they choose to do.

I wonder if she will backtrack or at least amend this when she realises the anger she has unleashed.

Remember last winter's diary of power cuts? We were all told to expect them on scheduled days. That was scaremongering too, we had none here.

It is actually possible to be a labour voter, and not racist, and say there are many worrying issues in this decision. Well its possible if you dont see politics as 'supporting the right team'.

Whitewavemark2

callistemon I don’t expect Reeves to reverse her decision, nor put in mitigation measures, but I think we may have a better overall impression of the sense of direction after the budget etc, this is only giving us a tiny glimmer of where she is going.

I can tell you where she's going more tax rises.

Whitewavemark2

callistemon I don’t expect Reeves to reverse her decision, nor put in mitigation measures, but I think we may have a better overall impression of the sense of direction after the budget etc, this is only giving us a tiny glimmer of where she is going.

A tiny and horrifying glimmer! Easy to be complacent when you don’t need the extra money yourself.

Are you saying that the huge number of posters here who are horrified or worried by the cut off of the Winter fuel money are racists?
It has nothing to do with racism and is a very real concern to millions of pensioners.

callistemon I don’t expect Reeves to reverse her decision, nor put in mitigation measures, but I think we may have a better overall impression of the sense of direction after the budget etc, this is only giving us a tiny glimmer of where she is going.

vegansrock. Again, I think the answer to that lies in the research paper. When WFP started it was only £20 (and £50 for those claiming means-tested benefits). At the time it was a simple boost to pensioner income and easier to make it universal rather than identify those in genuine need using DSS systems that were far from joined up. Costs quickly rose from 759m in 1999 to over 2bn by 2016 which prompted government to start questioning the cost and who was genuinely suffering from fuel poverty. It was also seen as a fix to help those who were too proud to claim other benefits. We know that there are around 800,000 people eligible for pension credit who are not claiming. That's what Reeves is aiming for, to have those people getting the help they deserve but she needs to do something for those on the "cliff edge" as the paper describes.

Merion

A 28-page research paper commisioned by the Tory party in 2019 when Johnson was PM and which gave three options for change but were not acted upon is not an apology for Labour.

Do stop with your tiresome, repetitive anti-immigration rants and read the paper. These measures had been discussed for years before that before any small boats arrivals. The two are unconnected.

I'm fairly confident that the idea of removing the WFA from pensioners other than those on pension credit was one that was or would have been considered by the last Tory government.

That research paper is not rubbish - it exists, and it was commissioned by them.

The Tories have always wanted to make 'savings' in public expenditure because they believe in a 'small state'. If anyone really believes that this would never have happened under a Conservative government, I think they are mistaken. They have already, via fiscal drag, captured pensioners into a tax-paying bracket. Giving with one hand, and taking it back with the other.

That doesn't alter the fact that I think Reeves has acted immorally - by removing the WFA this year she has effectively condemned many just-about-managing pensioners, especially as the energy price-cap will rise by 10% in October, to impoverishment. These pensioners will have budgeted for that WFA, so to remove it immediately gives them little to no chance to save towards a cushion for when the bills come in.

And that is wrong. Wholly wrong.

Rachel Reeves will be forced to U-turn on the WFA as there is not enough manpower or up todate computers to make this happen in such short time. Read this.

uk.yahoo.com/news/rachel-reeves-forced-u-turn-100014744.html

ninamoore

Well this policy has brought the racists out

It doesn't take much.

ninamoore

Well this policy has brought the racists out

Doesn’t take much

Oreo

Whitewavemark2

Yes I think really that the time to really comment with any sense will be after the budget snd spending review.

Then I think we can criticise - or not- with greater knowledge.

Going off half-cock at the moment😊

Your insensitive comments get worse.

It will be too late to make changes at the end of October!
November can be damp and cold.
Perhaps they can hand out survival blankets before then.

Do all posters really understand how pensioners on very low budgets worry about a severe Winter and being cold?And if you do, do you just not care?
OF course RR ‘should have waited’ and even better, never done it at all. To do this just a few weeks into power and with Autumn, never mind Winter not too far away there is no time to save small amounts.
I realise that some in here are well off, some stupendously so from comments but there are millions who are certainly not and still count the pennies and are thrifty.

Whitewavemark2

Yes I think really that the time to really comment with any sense will be after the budget snd spending review.

Then I think we can criticise - or not- with greater knowledge.

Going off half-cock at the moment😊

Your insensitive comments get worse.

Merion

A 28-page research paper commisioned by the Tory party in 2019 when Johnson was PM and which gave three options for change but were not acted upon is not an apology for Labour.

Do stop with your tiresome, repetitive anti-immigration rants and read the paper. These measures had been discussed for years before that before any small boats arrivals. The two are unconnected.

So you don't think there is a link as to why we have a black hole, the thousands of illegals coming over on the boats costing billions to keep, you surely do have your head in the sand. Yes the Labour government are controlled by the Unions, give the Unions what they asked for ie big pay rises to the junior doctors and take the money from pensioners.

No one else to blame but Rachel Reeves, she's the Chancellor and she has taken WFA away from vulnerable pensioners. Billions for the asylum seekers, billions to pay for climate change. 11.6 million to pay for Union led pay rises. It's not rocket science to see where the money is going.

Yes I think really that the time to really comment with any sense will be after the budget snd spending review.

Then I think we can criticise - or not- with greater knowledge.

Going off half-cock at the moment😊

Thank you, WWM2. I agree. For the sake of an estimated 1.5 bn saving - which sounds huge but is small in the great scheme of things - I think she should have waited. It does at least show that she is not frightened to make unpopular decisions and face the flak. I hope there is some measure of taper relief in the Autumn Statement for those caught on the "cliff edge" of this.

Well this policy has brought the racists out

I voted Labour and don’t have a problem with not receiving this benefit. I always wondered why they didn’t just put up the pension by £5 a week instead of a burdensome extra admin task - the reason ? So they didn’t have to increase it with inflation. When I was a young parent everyone got child benefit not means tested - we seem to have forgotten how people were up in arms about changing that at the time.

Merion

I posted at 11:06:27 linking to a very informative research brief published in 2019 about the future of the WFP.

Nobody has commented on it so I might assume that nobody has read it but if you do you would see that this was always coming. Arguably the Tories didn't have the courage to do it for fear of the backlash from their own voter base. Note the paper was published on 5 November 2019, so just before the GE on 12 December 2019.

Options for reform were: means testing, taxing, withdrawal from higher income pensioners.

Note it says that withdrawal at a certain threshold would create a cliff edge problem that could be tackled by some kind of taper as had been done for the Child Benefit Higher Income Charge. Perhaps we shall see something of this in the Autumn Statement.

Much of the reasoning behind leaving WFP as a universal benefit was because of the poor take up in pension credit - which Reeves covered in her speech. There were also discussions around the money saved from removing WFP being channelled into adult social care.

My gut feeling is that it would have changed next year but faced with the financial hole that the Tories have left behind, Reeves saw it as a quick way to fill some of it, withdraw a universal benefit that would have had to be paid in the next few months so making an immediate saving.

Yes I have read exactly that.

However, I think it might have been sensible to put this to one side until the expected drop in energy prices hits in.

But I suspect that Reeves has decided to face the unpopular decisions head on and get them out of the way first. She is very determined, to get to grip with the economy.

Dickens

Reeves must be aware that those just above pension credit cut-off point are not well-off. How could she not know?

And because she knows, she - the government - will be expecting a revolt. So let's give it to them.

When a country's finances are allegedly in a crisis - it is always those with the least who pay the price - literally.

As Martin Lewis says, "The targeting of Winter Fuel Payments is too narrow with the winter we have coming. Pensioners were already due to get less as this will be the first time since winter 2022 they haven’t got the up to £300 extra winter fuel cost of living top-up."

... and continues...

"The Energy Price Cap is likely to rise 10% this October and stay high across the winter, leaving most energy bills nearly double those pre-crisis, at levels unaffordable for millions."

So - energy bills probably nearly double those pre-crisis - and she's removing the allowance this year?

I wonder who will next be hit with her "difficult choices"?

The economy is a long-term game - it would have made little difference if she'd deferred the cancellation of the WFA until next year and given those who are going to feel it the keenest a little time to possibly put away some money towards it.

Totally unacceptable. And yes, I did vote Labour, and I did anticipate the nation's finances would be a problem for them, but I am not above criticising them... this is just wrong. And yes, I am alright Jack, financially, but I do know what it's like to live hand-to-mouth as many pensioners are doing even though they are not in receipt of pension credit - but I was young and had the opportunity to earn money by taking on two jobs - pensioners, mostly, cannot do that, they must eke out the paltry pension.

So, any revolt, I'm in.

So, any revolt, I'm in.
What do you suggest?

How do we get into Parliament?
DH just bought some new glue ......

A 28-page research paper commisioned by the Tory party in 2019 when Johnson was PM and which gave three options for change but were not acted upon is not an apology for Labour.

Do stop with your tiresome, repetitive anti-immigration rants and read the paper. These measures had been discussed for years before that before any small boats arrivals. The two are unconnected.