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

For anyone interested in the history of the Winter Fuel Payment, this document from 2019 is worth reading:

researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN06019/SN06019.pdf

I do think it highlights change that was already under consideration in early 2010 … and then we had a change of government - Labour to Tory - for another fourteen years:

Page 18 onwards in most relevant - Section 7 Criticisms of the Winter Fuel Payment

As a means of tackling fuel poverty, the case for Winter Fuel Payments is weak. Its payment is unfocused and not targeted on people in or near fuel poverty. However, as a universal means of supplementing pensioner incomes, which is easily understood and easy to pay, the political case for the retention of Winter Fuel Payments is strong. However, it would be more intellectually honest to rename the benefit; concede that it a general income supplement; and stop accounting for it as a fuel poverty measure.

(Obviously we can argue that, three years later, fuel poverty did become a real issue but for everyone and the government of the day took steps to alleviate that.)

It is worth noting (page 9) that when WFA was first introduced there was an additional payment for people in receipt of means tested benefits:

The Winter Fuel Payment was £20 (or £50 for those in receipt of means- tested benefits) when first introduced in winter 1997/1998.

Now I am wondering to what extent Reeves has gone back to the thinking expressed in this briefing to do arguable what was on the cards fourteen year ago.

I can draw an analogy between what happened with State Pension age equalisation. This was subject of an EU Directive in 1978 but there was a change of goverment soon afterwards - Labour to Tory who did not legislated for it until seventeen years later in 1995.

Echoing what Doodledog said: In RR's shoes I would not have done this the way she has done it …

I agree. Another year to allow people to budget would not have made a great deal of difference - but I would suggest that overall she is making a decision that the previous government had ducked.

We know that the Tories relied on the votes of older people. Despite fourteen years of mismanagement, 46% of older people still voted Tory earlier this month.

During the election, Sunak was trying to appease older voters but promising a tax age allowance to offset the effects of the fiscal drag that he had created by freezing tax personal allowances 2021. It’s worth remembering that a tax age allowance was introduced by Labour in 1975 but was phased out by the Tories from 2013/14 - so Sunak was only promising to reinstate what his party has previously taken away.

It remains to be seen whether Reeves may do something in the Autumn to address the difficulties that fiscal drag will create over the coming years - the possibilty that a substantial number of pensioners will have to self-assess as there is no mechanism to tax state pension at source in isolation.

Callistemon213

... you need an after tax (net) income of £49,700 in order to live comfortably in the UK as a couple, or £67,554 for a family with 2 parents and 2 children. This figure is based on studies conducted by the Pensions & Lifetime Savings Association and the Child Poverty Action Group.
3 Mar 2024

I was feeling comfortable, after a lifetime of working, bringing up children and penny-pinching, until I read that!

Same here. DH and I live very comfortably on a lot less than £49k. Who on earth are they including in their survey, you have to wonder!

As I said before, many who are defending this action, and were constantly telling us they were voting Labour for the poor, haven’t got the first clue about pensioner poverty, nor poverty in general actually because as has just been shown they don’t even know how much the WFA was.
Ignorance is bliss I suppose.

LizzieDrip the WFA is £200 per household, not £100. If you’re part of a couple, you got £100 each, but a single person would get £200. Or £300 if over eighty!

Labour is in no way a party for the poor. I would say it's become quite a middle class party.

LizzieDrip

There are 18 weeks between now and the 1st December. If you put away £5 per week, you’ll have saved £90 by then. The WFA was £100 (I realise it was higher for those over 80).

Next year you’ll only need to put away £2 per week.

Oh dear.

Do you really think Pensioners on the lowest incomes have £5 to put away each week?

LizzieDrip

There are 18 weeks between now and the 1st December. If you put away £5 per week, you’ll have saved £90 by then. The WFA was £100 (I realise it was higher for those over 80).

Next year you’ll only need to put away £2 per week.

Gee thanks🤬

maddyone

There were many on here claiming that they were voting Labour because they were voting for the poor. I wonder who those people thought the poor are, because it’s clear from this site that many of the poor are pensioners, particularly female pensioners. Even now we’ve got posters proclaiming they’re happy that much money is going abroad to help poor people abroad, forgetting that poor pensioners need our help too. Personally I think we should help poor people abroad, but absolutely not at the cost of people who have worked and paid taxes all their lives and will now suffer the cold this coming winter. We had stopped seeing news reports of elderly people dying of hyperthermia many years ago, but this is what we will be seeing again very soon. We were told by Labour that there would be hard choices, but up to now it seems to me, that the only group who have been singled out to suffer any hard choices are the pensioners. I don’t need to wait till the budget to see what Labour are like, I’ve seen it this week.

I know, and am grinding my teeth and hoping Labour will go back on this as being behind those with the least in society is part of what Labour used to stand for.
I realise that even the very well off got this benefit but there could be a cut off point in earnings say at £50,000 or £40,000 or even less over which pensioners don’t receive the WFA.

There are 18 weeks between now and the 1st December. If you put away £5 per week, you’ll have saved £90 by then. The WFA was £100 (I realise it was higher for those over 80).

Next year you’ll only need to put away £2 per week.

HattieTopper
www.channel5.com/show/supermarket-own-brands-the-big-taste-test

I will add that I do not starve and eat quite well with the food I buy but I know for certain that come winter, I will be cutting down on heating my home because without the WFA there is no way I can afford to have the heating on all day long. If I had a bus I could go on to the shopping centres, I could spend a few hours there and save having to put the heating on in my house but I don't have a bus as my bus route has been cancelled.

I refuse to cut down on my eating as I need food to survive but I will buy cheaper brands in future so that there will be more money in the pot for heating my home.

We will have to do our best to survive this coming winter.

growstuff is that the best you can come up with?

... you need an after tax (net) income of £49,700 in order to live comfortably in the UK as a couple, or £67,554 for a family with 2 parents and 2 children. This figure is based on studies conducted by the Pensions & Lifetime Savings Association and the Child Poverty Action Group.
3 Mar 2024

I was feeling comfortable, after a lifetime of working, bringing up children and penny-pinching, until I read that!

ronib

growstuff my son is perfectly serious regarding his concerns for us. He’s allowed to worry about us.
Why not be scared?

Buy him a copy of "Henny Penny".

Callistemon213

growstuff

Actually, maddyone most of the poor are working age people with families. Government statistics show that, after housing costs and direct taxation, they are, on average, poorer than the average pensioner.

But we aren't talking about the average person or family.

We're talking about those who Theresa May referred to as Just About Managing, ie those who have just enough income which means they aren't able to claim anything but not enough to live very comfortably without penny-pinching somewhere.

Working people are doing just that - working. They will be outside of the home fod part of the day, not home all the time like many pensioners.

The WFA was brought in because of steep rises in the cost of fuel. This is not discouraged by Governments, we are supposed to use less because we are supposed to become less reliant on fossil fuels. Taking away the WFA will force us to use even less.

Sticks, not carrots.
Carrots work better imo.

Hmmm...I have a feeling that the "average" and "just about managing" might be the same group.

ronib

HattieTopper do you look out for price reductions on supermarket food? I was surprised to see a loaf of bread reduced to 35p recently.

I do online shopping as it would cost me £25 return to get to my nearest supermarket. I am also in my mid 80's so there is no-way I could carry shopping on a bus even if I had a bus service that took me to the supermarket.

I do look for bargains, always have done but I am now going to double concentrate on saving money by cutting down and changing the brands of food I buy.

Many people with disabilities were/are happy to work and had employers who are sympathetic to the needs they may have. Employers have a duty to facilitate their needs in the workplace.
Remploy factories were excellent, where people could work in a safe and caring environment for people with disabilities.
The Coalition Government commissioned a report by a Disability Rights charity and acted on her recommendations, but many disagreed with her views.

The coalition government commissioned a report on the future of disability employment and training from a review team led by Liz Sayce, chief executive of disability charity Radar (now Disability Rights UK) and a known critic of sheltered factories. The report recommended winding down support for segregated employment, saying that each of the 2,800 Remploy factory workers was subsidised by an average £25,000 a year that could be better spent.

Jerry Nelson, national officer for Remploy at the GMB trade union, says: "This is devastating for the people involved, some of the most disadvantaged in society. For many, the factory has been their whole life – and their lives are being destroyed."

Whenever I got the WFP in my account I wondered what’s that for? I donated it to charity. Surely best to target those that actually need it.

AGAA4

Many of us didn't vote Labour because we knew that Labour would not be good for us and have been proved right.
The abrupt stoppage of WFA is cruel to many pensioners. They have alienated a huge group of people some of whom are the most vulnerable in society.

Many of us did vote Labour because we knew that they would be good for others, even if it meant taking a financial hit ourselves.

The government did not lie to anyone. They were criticised throughout the election campaign for not committing to spending plans, and they repeatedly said that they would have to roll back the financial mismanagement they inherited from the Tories before they could do many of the things they would like to do.

I do not approve of means-testing, and never have - in fact I have had jibes on here about how it is my 'hobby horse'. In RR's shoes I would not have done this the way she has done it, and I have every sympathy with people who do not qualify for PC and will miss out on a payment they need.

All the same (and not in any way to minimise that sympathy) there are many on here claiming outrage who have often said that they would happily scrap the WFP, free prescriptions, bus passes etc, and fully understand why people should have to pay for social care, even when it wipes out their savings and equity. They usually cite Mick Jagger as an example of someone who does't need a bus pass or a WFP, and point out that 'we' can't afford to pay for things that many people 'don't need'. Now that there is a Labour government, the same people are up in arms when what they have often advocated has come to pass. I wonder how many people now claiming to be angry were perfectly happy when the Tories cut benefits for families with more than two children, froze housing benefit and vowed to force the disabled into work on pain of losing benefits?

www.theguardian.com/society/article/2024/jun/13/tory-welfare-reform-cost-working-age-families-thousands-while-pensioners-benefited-report

There will be a budget before the winter. Obviously we don't know what will be in it, but there may be measures that will help those affected by the withdrawal of the WFP. I hope so.

Considering the Labour movement partly came out of the non conformist Christian way of life I am saddened that the first people they go for are the elderly widows and the elderly in general.

growstuff

Actually, maddyone most of the poor are working age people with families. Government statistics show that, after housing costs and direct taxation, they are, on average, poorer than the average pensioner.

But we aren't talking about the average person or family.

We're talking about those who Theresa May referred to as Just About Managing, ie those who have just enough income which means they aren't able to claim anything but not enough to live very comfortably without penny-pinching somewhere.

Working people are doing just that - working. They will be outside of the home fod part of the day, not home all the time like many pensioners.

The WFA was brought in because of steep rises in the cost of fuel. This is not discouraged by Governments, we are supposed to use less because we are supposed to become less reliant on fossil fuels. Taking away the WFA will force us to use even less.

Sticks, not carrots.
Carrots work better imo.

growstuff my son is perfectly serious regarding his concerns for us. He’s allowed to worry about us.
Why not be scared?

Callistemon213

growstuff

Even after pension contributions have been checked and all those eligible for Pension Credit have applied, there will still be many people who won't be eligible. After direct taxes and housing costs, I receive £13 a week more than the amount for guaranteed Pension Credit (which is less than the average for all single female pensioners). I've had my entitlement to Pension Credit checked a number of times and I'm just not eligible.

My SisIL was only a few £ per annum over the limit.
The pension age couple next door received every benefit going and seemed to lead a luxurious lifestyle in comparison. A caravan, lovely clothes, a trip planned to New Zealand.

Maybe the neighbours should be Chancellor because I'd find it very tough to afford all that if receiving benefits. They're obviously whizzkids with money.

HattieTopper do you look out for price reductions on supermarket food? I was surprised to see a loaf of bread reduced to 35p recently.

ronib

This is just the first step from the new regime. It is a worrying time for anyone who doesn’t have savings.
For the first time ever, one of my sons is wondering how to make substantial amounts of money to support us into old age. I managed not to laugh… but he has his own little ones to support. What is happening to this country?

That's scare-mongering.