Keir Starmer aka Captain Flip Flop

One riposte I heard several times was that it would be more expensive to work out who needed it and who didn't than just to give it to all mothers. I'm talking history here! But I imagine the same argument could be made now with regard to sorting out who actually needs the winter fuel allowance and who doesn't.

This from Baggs. I remember hearing that argument too, and I think it has merit in relation to both the WFP and Child Benefit. I think both payments are significant in that they apply to the extremes of age - remembering why the welfare state was established in the first place, to safeguard the health and welfare of the most vulnerable in society.

I happen to think that a central tenet of a Labour government should be to take care of the youngest and the oldest who cannot provide for themselves. And I really don’t believe that the so called hole in the budget can be best addressed by taking from those who have relatively little, compared to the richest in society.

Baggs

*Do you disagree with the removal of WFP from those who can afford to pay for fuel, or just from those who can’t?*

I don't think it's that simple. As I tried to point out in a previous post, finding out who can/can't afford to pay for fuel is not an easy task. There are variables quite apart from income level, such as where someone lives (it's colder up north) and what kind of house they live in, how old they are, what health conditions they have which might affect how warm they need to be, etc.

Re that last, I was reading an article today about someone who has an arthritic condition, needs a warmer house than average, and who says he will really miss the WFA. The thing that struck me though is that in the photograph of him he only appeared to be wearing a T-shirt on his upper half. I need three layers of clothing most of the summer where we live, never mind during the cold months (which, actually, is most of them).

The salient point is that the cost of working out who needs what is usually very expensive so it makes more economic sense to give things like WFA to all older people.

I think we’ll have to agree to disagree Baggs, because I just can’t see the justification to give the WFP to everybody. My personal preference would be to raise the personal allowance, and not pay WFP to anybody who has enough income to be required to pay tax. Conversely, at the moment, many of us pay 40% tax on part of our incomes, but still get WFP. That can’t be the best use of the government budgets.

M0nica

As far as I am concernedd -and I have ever never voted Labour - . Keir Starmer stands head and shoulders above the shower he replaced.

As for the withdrawal of the Winter Fuel payment. I agree that the issue has not been handled well and they should have thought about those whose income is just above PC level, but as a confortabley off pensioner I am more than happy to manage with our the WFP and I see no reason why better off pensioners should get it.

I agree

We’ve only heard part A of the plan, aka the removal of the universal benefit. There will be a part B.

To any rational person, publishing the Part B you mention (if they’ve worked it out yet), at the same time as Part A would save a lot of heartache and upset.

Casdon you miss the point. The reports, wherever they come from show Starmer saying he is anti removal of the winter fuel payment when in opposition and for it when he is in charge?

It isn’t reported in writing in some dubious newspaper or social media site. It is actual video clips of Starmer saying it.

maddyone 👏👏👏

Up to now there has only been a Conservative Government since I have been on GN.

I am a Conservative, I have read thread after thread, post after post ridiculing, name calling and downright bullying from those who were/are not Conservatives directed towards the party I voted for, and in a lot of cases towards posters who like me admitted to voting Conservative.

Now there is a Labour Government, those supporting/voting for Labour must expect their party to be criticised, no politician or party is exempt from scrutiny…

He does flip and flop does he know what a woman is yet?

This thread is a perfect example of how division works. Someone (sorry, *HG - this applies to your OP, not to you personally) posts inflammatory content with cliches and slogans designed by others to inflame.
*People take issue and criticise.
*Others then criticise the critics and make generalisations, adding in accusations of censorship.
*The accused defend themselves and gain support from like-minded people.
*Sides are formed and line up on opposite sides, attacking one another, and the issue is forgotten. People are now talking about who is 'allowed'(?) to say what on GN, not the WFP, which we've done to death anyway.

We don't have to let it happen.

I am Gandhi

Doodledog

*Yes Galaxy, you are not allowed to criticise the new government at all. Follow that rule and you’ll be okay.*

Seriously, maddie? For the past few weeks GN has been all about criticising the Labour Party before the election, and the government since it won. Yes, there are those who disagree, but nobody is not 'allowing' anything.

I did not mean that literally Doodledog, but I’m sure you know that, and I’m sure that the post I was responding to was not meant literally either.

However I do mean that posters expressing any doubt or negativity about our new government has been treated to what others call a pile on and what I would call hostility. This thread alone is a perfect example of what I’m saying, and it’s most unpleasant in my view.

Someone has managed to get a poster banned who expressed a more right wing view. I thought it good to have different views reflected on here, but someone else thought not!

I think your point of view is perfectly reasonable, casdon. I am only putting forward an argument that I’ve heard being used to justify universal payments. It’s not something I hold close to my heart; I just think it also sounds reasonable.

Mollygo

^We’ve only heard part A of the plan, aka the removal of the universal benefit. There will be a part B.^

To any rational person, publishing the Part B you mention (if they’ve worked it out yet), at the same time as Part A would save a lot of heartache and upset.

Casdon you miss the point. The reports, wherever they come from show Starmer saying he is anti removal of the winter fuel payment when in opposition and for it when he is in charge?

It isn’t reported in writing in some dubious newspaper or social media site. It is actual video clips of Starmer saying it.

I do think there should have reassurance that there will be a part B Mollygo, rather than just a reminder to check eligibility for pension credit. We know there will be, but it would have reassured people if it was specifically said.

I didn’t miss the point, but I’m not bothered about pre-election statements being broken if they weren’t in the manifesto, because when any government comes into power it finds out issues it wasn’t aware of before and retracts them. It’s what they commit to in their manifesto being delivered that matters, because that’s what people vote for. This isn’t a Labour peculiarity, all governments do it?

Baggs

I think your point of view is perfectly reasonable, casdon. I am only putting forward an argument that I’ve heard being used to justify universal payments. It’s not something I hold close to my heart; I just think it also sounds reasonable.

I understand Baggs, I’ve seen a case for universal benefits being made before too. Perhaps I’m more (small c) conservative than I realised!

I mentioned this before the election that if Labour were elected they would be in the firing line. The party in power will be criticised and Labour supporters will get used to this as Conservatives had to.
I didn't see the link sent by The Happy Gardener so can't comment on it.
I think criticism is fine but I'm not keen on name calling by either party's supporters.

Doodledog

This thread is a perfect example of how division works. Someone (sorry, *HG - this applies to your OP, not to you personally) posts inflammatory content with cliches and slogans designed by others to inflame.
*People take issue and criticise.
*Others then criticise the critics and make generalisations, adding in accusations of censorship.
*The accused defend themselves and gain support from like-minded people.
*Sides are formed and line up on opposite sides, attacking one another, and the issue is forgotten. People are now talking about who is 'allowed'(?) to say what on GN, not the WFP, which we've done to death anyway.

We don't have to let it happen.

This thread has been a salutary lesson just as you describe. Thread titles use opening a difficult discussion - like the current one on immigration - need not contain divisive "borrowed" slogans.

What have we gained from this? Not a discussion on the issues, really. Just a lot of upset people mostly all round.

To clarify - I meant the discussion thread on immigration, which is very contentious, was opened with a genuine open question.

twinnytwin

TheHappyGardner must be fairly new to GN as they didn't realise that criticising the sainted Starmer and his party was going to bring out the keyboard warriers in force. It's been fairly quiet for them since the election without having the Tories to bash so I'm sure they're thrilled.

Having voted for Starmer's LP, I have absolutely no problem with criticising him nor for him being held to account.

But neither you nor the OP are after proper debate - calling Starmer sainted and Mr Flip-Flop are not good omens for a constructive debate.

I only drop in in Gransnet now and again but reading through this thread, wow, what’s happened? The vitriol expressed by some is appalling and the ‘how dare you’ comment made my jaw drop!

I have great admiration for those of you Conservatives who are brave enough to stay the course in the face of such unoleasantness. Good luck to you, but it’s not for me. Over and out.

I disagree with what KS has done re the heating allowance. My reasoning is that many pensioners are at home far more than those of working age. Personally, we can just about manage without the heating allowance but it certainly helped a lot not having to worry about the fuel bill especially as DH is on blood thinners and feels the cold badly. Also older people are slower to move around and get warm.

Skydancer I'm on blood thinners and thought they were making me feel the cold more. Having done some research apparently there's no link, however, if your DH is on other med it may be that which is causing the problem. I'm on Beta blockers and they give me cold hands and feet so I make sure I wear warm socks and I've some thin thermal gloves that I wear in the house and find they make a huge difference. I also have a heated throw which costs next to nothing to use which I tuck round me if I am sitting for any prolonged period.

Frankly, I’m not sure why we need yet another thread on WPF as it’s already been much discussed but I am going to repeat things I have already pointed out elsewhere because it adds perspective and balance to this argument.

a) WFP is not a contributory benefit.

b) the WFP has not been increased (other than temporarily) in 24 years since it was increased to £200 in the year 2000. The extra £100 for people age 80 and above was introduced in 2003.

Why do people think the payments have remained the same? Energy bills have risen over 20 years so why hadn’t the WFP been increased accordingly?

It’s because successive governments have been debating the WPF for years. All agreed that it was poorly targeted but there was always a reluctance to withdraw it, or rather at what level to withdraw it, because so many pensioners are not claiming other benefits to which they are entitled. It makes no sense to pay a universal benefit to those who don’t need it just because others don’t claim help that they could.

The Conservative government commissioned a briefing paper, published in November 2019 asking for options for reforming WFP. The options were:

1. Restrict WFP to those in receipt of pension credit
2. Tax it
3. Withdraw it from high income pensioners

There were difficulties of application in all three options. The effect of those on the margin of being able to claim Pension Credit was acknowledged. A measure of taper relief was suggested.

I have posted the link to the paper many times but it’s a measure of this site that few people seem to read things or will acknowledge that the previous government were considering doing this if they could find a way around the difficulties.

You can read the paper here:

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

I think we should also acknowledge that the former government knew that pensioners form a large core of its supporter base and would have been wary of alienating them. In election campaigning, Sunak promised a tax age allowance to mitigate the effects of the fiscal drag that he had triggered in 2021 by freezing tax personal allowances. This would have caught an increasing number of poorer pensioners in the tax net. He omitted to tell voters that there had been a tax age allowance in force since the 1970s, introduced by a Labour government but which George Osborne abolished in 2013.

As it happened, the time for reforming WFP in 2020 wasn’t right.

In late 2019, a pandemic was on its way. People were confined to their homes so were spending more on energy. Older people were more vulnerable to Covid and many needed to shield. The easing of Covid restrictions was swiftly followed by the war on Ukraine and the resulting cost of living and energy crises. These saw all households given help with energy bills through the Energy Bill Support Scheme and pensioners with temporarily increased WFP.

Psychologically, I think that is part of the shock of this for all pensioners - that we have received elevated levels of help for the last two winters. I received £900 of help in 2022, £500 WPF and £400 EBBS. Another £500 WFP in 2023. This year it would have been back to £200 but instead will be nothing. I can afford it but it’s still something I had become used to.

For the record, I think Reeves has handled this badly. It was never going to be a popular move but had she given people a year’s notice they could have prepared and budgeted. Removing it while acknowledging in the same HoC speech, the huge under take up of pension credit (and other benefits that this gives a gateway to) was an admission that some people will suffer. But the DWP are not going to be able to fix this before the cold weather arrives even if people do claim. For the sake of the estimated saving of 1.5 bn a year, it could have waited. We shall have to wait and see whether there are any measures in her Autumn Statement to mitigate what she has already announced.

Finally, it isn't unusual for a new government to introduce unpopular measures at the start of its period in office. Many of us born in the 1950s will be all too familar with the Pensions Act 2011 soon after the Coalition government was formed in 2010 and the further loss of anticipated income as a result of that.

Maerion thank you so much for such a detailed history and analysis that encompasses this troubled area.

So - it's been on the cards for a long time. (I agree it should have waited so there was a full picture).

I think the WFA did need overhauling, but not to the point of throwing the baby out with the bathwater! A lot of wealthy pensioners it is true, do not need it, so need weeding out. Perhaps the age when it's applicable could be raised?.Perhaps it could be taxable? Maybe cut back just for the over 80's and taxable? Who knows, but there must be a better way than a clean sweep. The bar is very low for pension credit and fairly complicated to apply for, and with this being announced relatively late in the year, leaves very little time for applicants to make a claim. Imagine the outrage and fury if a Conservative government had announced this benefit cut!! But as it's Labour, well, who cares!

maddyone

Doodledog

Yes Galaxy, you are not allowed to criticise the new government at all. Follow that rule and you’ll be okay.

Seriously, maddie? For the past few weeks GN has been all about criticising the Labour Party before the election, and the government since it won. Yes, there are those who disagree, but nobody is not 'allowing' anything.

I did not mean that literally Doodledog, but I’m sure you know that, and I’m sure that the post I was responding to was not meant literally either.

However I do mean that posters expressing any doubt or negativity about our new government has been treated to what others call a pile on and what I would call hostility. This thread alone is a perfect example of what I’m saying, and it’s most unpleasant in my view.

Someone has managed to get a poster banned who expressed a more right wing view. I thought it good to have different views reflected on here, but someone else thought not!

I disagree. There has been so much criticism of the government since before they even took power, and the '^pile ons^' have come from both sides of the debate.

I agree that this thread is unpleasant, but it's one of many.

Do we know that GSM (I assume that is the poster you are talking about?) has been banned? There is speculation about that, but we don't know that it's true, do we? Nor do we know that if it is true it was because 'someone' managed to make it happen. I certainly didn't have anything to do with it, if that's what you are implying? I agree that having different views on here is a good thing, and always have done.

Gnhq have pointed out that is they and nobody else who ban people.

I’m not bothered about pre-election statements being broken if they weren’t in the manifesto.
That’s the best excuse yet. Thanks

because when any government comes into power it finds out issues it wasn’t aware of before.

I’m sure I can find references to the black hole, that they knew existed.

This isn’t a Labour peculiarity, all governments do it.

I’ve been saying that for ages.

And all governments get criticised, for things they have said or claimed in the past. Just it is harder to deny it once it’s a video clip of them saying it.
People get fed up.
That’s why Labour was out last time.
That’s why the Conservatives were out this time.