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

Oh dear Peartree- " pearl clutchers" invoked again, and " get a life"?
Hardly the reasoned debate we would hope for amongst functioning adults.

Doodledog
One of the problems is that
those who haven't made provision
may genuinely have spent a lifetime with poor wages - in a hand-to-mouth existence. They may have been carers for parents, grandparents, aged aunts etc.
They may be pillars of the community.

You can't penalise them in "old age" too just because they weren't privileged enough to be able to save.

And yes, Doodledog it is indeed confusing but as you say,
it should be seen in the context of the Autumn budget when we've seen that.

I hope the Autumn budget brings bold and fair changes.
🤞

Rosie51

Declaring something not a problem because it isn't a problem to you personally is the very epitome of privilege. I'm not complaining, I'll manage to heat my home I have options to cut back elsewhere, but I can't casually write off those pensioners who will be severely affected as "there's always some who are caught by the cutoff point" I hope we have an exceptionally mild winter or else pensioner deaths attributable to cold homes could mount.

Well said.

What if you thought you had " made provision" and your life changed dramtically, through no fault of your own?

Has Ms Reeves volunteered to give up her winter fuel allowance? I was just informed they get over 2k ,hardly fair is it ? MP,s looking out for no one but themselves!

Rachel Reeves has scrapped the social care cap proposed by Dilnot. But Wes Streeting said on 16 June during the election campaign that he wanted 'to give the care sector “certainty” that the cap would be rolled out as planned from October 2025'. Pretty clearly his statement has been proved unreliable to say the least. Dilnot's recommendations have been kicked down the road several times and this is another one.

I understood that the Dilnot recommendation hasn’t been kicked down the road, but killed off completely. It will never be brought to fruition now.

Doodledog

I agree that when those who won't miss the money say so it must be hard to hear for those who will miss it. I feel the same when people talk about how well they managed as young mothers, or how they know people who are able to work but claim disability benefits. In all cases it is insensitive and proves nothing, as experiences are so different and norms change with the times.

People can be very uncaring about others. I remember when the Tories (MPs, not voters) cheered when they won a motion to deny nurses a pay rise - very unedifying. Yet now Hunt is suggesting that Rachel Reeves is lying about the £20billion and criticising her for taking money from pensioners. Luckily, Starmer has promised to ensure much more openness about finances, so the truth will come out and I hope that Hunt apologises (along with others who have made such accusations) , although I think it's unlikely.

HattieTopper I agree that it's only worth saving if you can afford to make a huge difference. If you are a small saver who just wants a rainy day fund it can seem pointless. Means-testing is invidious and I will never support it.

Excellent post.

And I learned a new word. I'll forget, but thank you.

NotSpaghetti

Doodledog
One of the problems is that
those who haven't made provision
may genuinely have spent a lifetime with poor wages - in a hand-to-mouth existence. They may have been carers for parents, grandparents, aged aunts etc.
They may be pillars of the community.

You can't penalise them in "old age" too just because they weren't privileged enough to be able to save.

It is so difficult to word things on here so that someone doesn't pick up on the phrasing.

Of course I know that not everyone has been able to save. Which is why I am not in a million years saying that anyone should be left out of benefits, whether they have contributed or not.

What I am saying, however, is that where people (who may be actual saints, if that really matters) have saved, or worked extra hours to put into a pension (or to have a 'rainy day fund', a summerhouse, money to give their grandchildren when they reach 21 or buy a life-sized model of George Clooney if that's their dream purchase) they shouldn't have their rights to pensions or benefits taken away because someone else thinks they 'don't need' it as a result.

Making provision/saving/call it what you will should be something that people can all do, on however small a scale, and spend it how they like. As it is, as long as there are means-tested benefits many people are kept on the breadline by having benefits refused because they have 'too much' coming in, or in the bank.

I want to extend universal benefits, not limit them.

Doodledog Jeremy Hunt has written to the Cabinet Office with his concerns regarding Ms Reeves statement to the house.

(I have posted the letter in a separate thread)

Grantanow

Rachel Reeves has scrapped the social care cap proposed by Dilnot. But Wes Streeting said on 16 June during the election campaign that he wanted 'to give the care sector “certainty” that the cap would be rolled out as planned from October 2025'. Pretty clearly his statement has been proved unreliable to say the least. Dilnot's recommendations have been kicked down the road several times and this is another one.

But there's also this:

However, after the Conservatives also pledged to keep to the October 2025 date, think-tank the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) pointed out that the current government had allocated no funding for this, with the originally allocated resource having been ploughed into day-to-day council budgets.

The Association of Directors of Adult Social Services (ADASS) agreed that this meant the likelihood of the policy being implemented in October 2025 was “quite low”.

www.communitycare.co.uk/2024/06/14/no-funded-social-care-commitments-in-labour-manifesto/

From November 2022

As widely trailed, Hunt used his autumn statement today to announce a two-year delay to the adult social care charging reforms, including the £86,000 cap on care costs, which are now due to come into force in October 2025, beyond the next election.

However, instead of retaining the funding allocated for the reforms in the Treasury, Hunt said it would still go to councils, with £1.3bn available in 2023-24 and £1.9bn in 2024-25 to spend on adults’ and children’s social care.

www.communitycare.co.uk/2022/11/17/hunt-announces-two-year-care-cap-delay-to-allow-councils-to-deliver-200000-extra-care-packages/

In short, the previous government had made no provision to fund the care cap. Without that it would fall to council taxpayers to fund.

Doodledog I want to extend universal benefits, not limit them.

Totally agree.

I'd be happier if all income counted, whether it be wages, pensions, interest payments, share dividends, benefits or whatever and then apply income taxes. Wealthy pensioners would have some of any WFA clawed back, those on very limited funds wouldn't. Why some 'income' doesn't count but wages and private pensions always do remains a mystery.

Cadeby

What if you thought you had " made provision" and your life changed dramtically, through no fault of your own?

And yes. Another reason why means-testing is so awful. People often want to have money put by 'just in case', but someone is sure to come along and say they 'don't need' one allowance or another because they have a savings account, and deny them that security.

I have spent most of any extra on one tooth. Happy Days.

Sycamore123

I should be careful in speaking for everyone, many pensioners are just outside the Pension Credit limit who are far from ‘comfortably off’, I doubt they will be very happy!!

I don’t think our posters are speaking for all pensioners. We can manage without it, and my late parents certainly didn’t need it.

I speak only for us, we (husband and I), would rather see the money going to those who genuinely need it to hear their homes and stay well.

I wouldn't presume to say what other people need.

I am not speaking from self-interest one way or the other, as I don't get a State Pension yet.

I’m dreading the winter now.

HattieTopper

People who are getting the new state pension won't feel the stopping of the WFA as much as we older people on the old state pension as people on the new state pension get much more a month than we do. The difference between the two is £52 per week that means people on the new state pension get £200 approx more every four weeks. See below.......

The weekly rate of the full new State Pension is £221.20 per week. The weekly rate of the full basic State Pension is £169.50 per week.

So before peope on the new state pension start saying they can manage, with the WFA they should realise that they can manage because they get a lot more per month than we on the old state pension receive.

However, you did get your state pension, or where able to claim it, at least 6 years earlier than many of us, plus if you did work after 60 you didn’t have to pay NI as many of us did.

Doodledog

I wouldn't presume to say what other people need.

I am not speaking from self-interest one way or the other, as I don't get a State Pension yet.

I too will never receive it as will be 66 in December

Callistemon213

If free bus passes were abolished, would this mean many companies, routes, would have to close down?

They do seem to be endangered anyway.
Good, affordable public transport should mean fewer cars on the road so it would be a shortsighted move.

In our area bus route have been cut already. We had very little notice.

We can no longer get to our county city by bus. People used it for school and college, work, hospital visits and the usual shopping/social visits. Buses still go to the nearest market town so we can still get to a bank. However the cinema is due to close. The buses are one an hour and the last one back is around 7pm. So having a free bus pass from age 66 is of limited use. I have never understood the need for free bus travel for pensioners. My grandparents paid when they used buses. Also free travel for the over 66s clearly doesn't keep the buses running.

I do not live in an hamlet but a large 'village' with a population of over 10,000. We have no bank, no secondary school, a library staffed by volunteers. Doctors are stretched to the limit and shopping is expensive because it can be. Thanks Tescos Express.

Our town centre would die a death if the bus pass was removed. It’s usually full of people my age. Not paying bus fare means there’s money to pay for coffee etc.

I think a better option would have been to tax the winter fuel payment.

I don’t really agree with these “add ons” to the state retirement pension because they can always be removed at the governments whim. Why isn’t there a state pension which is enough to live on without the stigma of means testing, which is lengthy to claim and many don’t?

I don’t like the way that Reeves has attacked the previous government for the “black hole” in spending forecast when as shadow chancellor she should have been aware. It’s just posturing.

I still maintain that withdrawing WFA at such short notice was indiscriminately cruel. For two winters we have had enhanced payments of £500 or £600 depending on age because of the cost of living crisis. If someone heats their home for six months then that was a very welcome £83 or £100 a month toward those costs. I think WFA was reverting to £200 or £300 this year but it would still have been £33 or £50 a month that people were budgeting on. Reeves would be the frst to day we need to budget responsibly. To take away WFA just a month before the cold weather sets in in some parts of the country seems heartless. How is someone on a limited budget meant to meet that shortfall? Yes, the Chancellor has some hard decisions to make but why this particular benefit? Because it was a quick and easy target? Warmth is at the very base of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs: food, water, shelter, warmth and rest. The 1.5 billion saving is a drop in the ocean. As, I said upthread, she should have left WFA alone until other measures were put in place to protect those who are entitled to but not yet receiving pension credit and the results of the Ofgem review of energy standing charges that are costing households £300 a year irrespective of how much energy they use.

Even Diane Abbott accuses Rachel Reeves of ‘renewed austerity’ today. The Veteran Left-wing MP takes aim at Chancellor’s spending cuts and warns of ‘more to come’!

Best hold onto our hats.

Himself just said “no wonder their manifesto was so ‘lite’ - little in the way of detail so it couldn’t be challenged afterwards!”