U turn on winter fuel payments- is it a good move?

Doodledog

keepingquiet

Wonder how many people will post now they got what they wanted?

I will certainly be eligible if it's for those on less than £25 000 pa.

However, on the news now it's just more government baiting... seems they can't do right for doing wrong...

I think that in years to come this government's term will be used in schools as an example of how the media influence opinion. I've been interested in that sort of thing all my life, and have never seen things as bad as this. Maybe that's because there are more media sources than ever before, and because 'ordinary' people have access to them in ways that allow everyone to give their opinions, but it's been poisonous.

It isn’t the media that influenced the change. It’s what Labour MPs were hearing on the doorsteps when out and about in the run up to the council elections, together with the number of councils that changed from Labour due to the ill feeling caused by the previous policy. Labour back benchers were on mass shouting that they would end up losing their seats if the policy wasn’t changed.

If you are saying you can have a gross income of £35.000 and still get fuel allowance that is greedy and disgusting.,That shoukd not be allowed. You try and manage on what Growstuff has having no doubt worked all her life. Bet those on 35k don't donate allowance to less fortunate.
The majority of people live on half or less than that. They are the ones who should get fuel allowance.

Allira

However, I did say Votes!
That's really scary.

What puzzles me is that there isn't a similar number of people shouting about supporting the restrictions on WFA. People are are usually quite vocal about undeserving benefit recipients. What's so different if a pensioner with a generous pension uses her WFA to go and get her hair cut and dyed? Isn't that a waste of public money?

A couple earning just under £70k (and £35k each) will each get the allowance. Indeed, one could be making £100k and the other just under £35k and the poorer one would get it. Doesn't make sense.

Don't worry about me Allsorts. I'm quite content and can afford everything I need. In any case, my financial situation is about to improve quite drastically. Nevertheless, I do worry about those who genuinely struggle - whether they're pensioners or of working age. I can't help feeling that division between older and younger people is being encouraged.

I don't have strong feelings about the WFA, but I do feel the optics have been appalling. Whoever has been advising Rachel Reeves needs presenting with a P45.

RSALLAN2002

A couple earning just under £70k (and £35k each) will each get the allowance. Indeed, one could be making £100k and the other just under £35k and the poorer one would get it. Doesn't make sense.

Good luck to them! I'm sure the taxes on a couple of bottles of Bolly are quite high. The important thing is nobody falls through the net.

Bet those on 35k don't donate allowance to less fortunate.

You would lose your bet. What a petulant thing to say.

If it bothers you so much what have you been saying about it for the last 28 years because that's how long it was paid universally.

And for the hundreth time, the reason it was paid univerally was so that money could get to the people who won't claim Pension Credit.

Bowing to publuc pressure as it's costing votes! Plus RR been told by her boss to do it! Votes!!!

The timing last year was bad, no question not least that people had also had two consecutive years of receiving at extra £300 CoL payment with the WFP.

Energy prices had dropped substantially but for people on very low incomes they will have welcomed that £500 (or £600 depending on age). I wonder to what extent people hadn't realised it was going to drop back to £200 (or £300) for 2024 and that made it sting more.

As I have said before, most people on-grid are having their annual enegy costs spread evenly over the year now, building a spring summer credit toward autumn winter. Most energy suppliers now want to charge a higher tariff for variable direct debits so it’s less expensive to pay by fixed DD. Once that £200 lands around November it’s just being added to someone’s bank balace and can be spent on anything, probably something Christmas related. It matters not. It was never compulsory to spend it on fuel.

It amounts to just 55p or 82p a day. It’s peanuts but it’s the principle of taking away something that has been in place since 1997 and with such little notice. A woman in her late 80s now will have received WFP since in was introduced. I am sure it felt like a slap in the face to our most senior citizens.

There are all kinds of ways that someone can make up £200 or £300 quite easily. Switching bank accounts, cash backs for switching energy providers, referral discounts etc but that isn’t always easy for the very elderly.

You say growstuff Maybe the fuss about WFP was manufactured, so that people didn't look too closely at the ways women (and poorer people in general) are still at a disadvantage.

My gut tells me this is something Reeves wanted to do. She knew the Tories had wanted to do it in 2017. One can only assume she knew about the 2019 briefing paper and the options for reform in it that the previous goverment didnt act on as the timing want right. The PC one that has been tried and largely failed was one of them, as is this one to withdraw it from those with higher incomes. Sunak then presented her with an open goal calling the election when he did.

I dont think Labour are frightened of Reform in the way that some suggest. If Starmer called a snap election tomorrow and Reform won, it would be unable to form a government. Left to their own devices they would crash the economy in days.

You Gov polls show that young people really don’t like Reform and few Labour voters of any age age switch from red to any shade of blue.

Farage will naturally take credit for the J turn in the same way that he would take credit if my dog peed up a lampost. He’s a grade A narcissist. That’s what they do.

In other news: The latest figures from the Electoral Commission show Reform failing to raise as much money as the Conservatives, despite its claims to be capturing its rival party’s donors. The Tories raised £3.3m, Labour £2.3m, and Reform and the Liberal Democrats about £1.5m each.

A lot of the Reform money is coming from convicted fraudster George Cottrell’s mother. She’s donated £750,000. The other big donor to the party over the last quarter was a company called Tisun Investments, controlled by Tice. The company has given £613,000 since the beginning of the year in 33 tranches.

Nick Candy, Reform’s treasurer (although not according to latest Companies House records), had pledged to give about £1,000,000 but his donation was not in official filings published by the Electoral Commission on Tuesday.

www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/jun/10/fiona-cottrell-mother-of-nigel-farage-aide-reform-uk-donors

Chocolatelovinggran

Forgive me returning,Poppyred, but I did ask for some evidence to support your assertion that this change was due to Reform,other than your beliefs that "you'd be a fool to think otherwise " and " don't be fooled by them".
These are your thoughts, to which you are, of course, entitled, but with no back up in fact, that is all they are.
I might think differently, but I'm not sure that defines me as a fool.

I didn’t call you a fool Chocolatelovinggran. (Please read my previous post again.) Labour took away the WFP a few weeks after coming to power and have consistently stated that they would not reverse this decision. When the Reform party formed and became very popular in the polls and stated that they would reverse this decision if they came to power, it stands to reason that they had to do something! Politicians only care about their standing in the polls, that’s what I meant by ‘don’t be fooled’, and of course it is only my opinion. They’re not going to own up to that, are they? 😁

Quote from The Treasury yesterday.

"No pensioner will need to take any action as they will automatically receive the payment this winter, and for those with incomes above the threshold it will be automatically recovered via HMRC. The payment of £200 per household, or £300 per household where there is someone over 80, will be made automatically this winter. Over 12 million pensioners across the United Kingdom will also benefit from the Triple Lock, with their State Pension set to increase by up to £1,900 this parliament."

That is a far better thought out decision. I like it.

Poppyred

Chocolatelovinggran

Forgive me returning,Poppyred, but I did ask for some evidence to support your assertion that this change was due to Reform,other than your beliefs that "you'd be a fool to think otherwise " and " don't be fooled by them".
These are your thoughts, to which you are, of course, entitled, but with no back up in fact, that is all they are.
I might think differently, but I'm not sure that defines me as a fool.

I didn’t call you a fool Chocolatelovinggran. (Please read my previous post again.) Labour took away the WFP a few weeks after coming to power and have consistently stated that they would not reverse this decision. When the Reform party formed and became very popular in the polls and stated that they would reverse this decision if they came to power, it stands to reason that they had to do something! Politicians only care about their standing in the polls, that’s what I meant by ‘don’t be fooled’, and of course it is only my opinion. They’re not going to own up to that, are they? 😁

They haven’t actually reversed the decision, as the principle of WFA becoming a means tested rather than a universal benefit has been established. That means WFA is in future going to be subject to governments changing the eligibility criteria as they wish.

Poppyred

Chocolatelovinggran

Forgive me returning,Poppyred, but I did ask for some evidence to support your assertion that this change was due to Reform,other than your beliefs that "you'd be a fool to think otherwise " and " don't be fooled by them".
These are your thoughts, to which you are, of course, entitled, but with no back up in fact, that is all they are.
I might think differently, but I'm not sure that defines me as a fool.

I didn’t call you a fool Chocolatelovinggran. (Please read my previous post again.) Labour took away the WFP a few weeks after coming to power and have consistently stated that they would not reverse this decision. When the Reform party formed and became very popular in the polls and stated that they would reverse this decision if they came to power, it stands to reason that they had to do something! Politicians only care about their standing in the polls, that’s what I meant by ‘don’t be fooled’, and of course it is only my opinion. They’re not going to own up to that, are they? 😁

Nobody is being fooled. Labour is responding to a massive backlash, which is what democracy is supposed to be about - responding to the will of the people!

It is to be £35 k threshold on individuals. Everyone will get the money, but HMRC will take it back through income tax if you earn over the threshold. So if you only have a state pension but your partner is a billionaire his will be clawed back yours won't. Obviously an extreme example.

I think that’s fair. Some couples split bills, so the one on a low income will get help with their share, and the other will lose theirs in tax. The lower paid partner will have been taxed in his (or her) own right, so should get the allowance in their own right.

If they are happy to live with a billionaire who splits bills 50/50 that’s their choice 😉

Poppyred there is no publicly available record or credible statement indicating that the Labour Party in the UK explicitly stated they would "never" change the Winter Fuel Allowance. If you know of one you really should be quoting it to show your posts are not simply a biased rant.

Political parties often review and adjust benefit policies over time, and proposals or announcements regarding eligibility criteria—such as limiting the allowance to pensioners on Pension Credit—are typically communicated through official channels, policy documents, or campaign statements not through the view of biased media or biased opinion.

I hope they are going to use this method on tax loopholes too. First taking them away but, where it is relevent leaving them for the poorest. Then, after doing the work necessary, returning them in a way which helps those around middle/mean income.

We need to help this middle tier. This is where inclusive growth comes from, not the exclusive growth of the very rich. A flourishing middle class contributes to social and cultural vibrancy. It often emphasizes mobility, broad-based development, and societal stability. Just what we need.

RSALLAN2002

A couple earning just under £70k (and £35k each) will each get the allowance. Indeed, one could be making £100k and the other just under £35k and the poorer one would get it. Doesn't make sense.

That could be because we are beginning to recognise people as individuals, not accessories to another person.

Nobody other than in the occasional debate or think tank gave a thought to this issue for 28 years until Reeves opened the worm can.

£200 or £300 would drop quietly into the household bank account(s) around November time and we thought “that will help towards the gas bill or a few Christmas treats” - both of which would incur taxes.

And now it’s a hot button topic where anyone with income of more than £35,000 is deemed a pariah and people like journalist Lewis Goodall are having a wonderful time stirring up intergenerational warfare.

As I wrote upthread, someone with an income of £35,000 and an average house is already paying in the region of £7,000 of that back in income tax and council tax.

To have an net income of £28,000 after 50 years of work, paying into occupational pension schemes and NIC isn’t a huge amount when www.retirementlivingstandards.org.uk/ is saying a single person needs to spend over £31,000 a year to have a moderately comfortable retirement.

In a report on Fuel Poverty in March 2010, the House of Commons Energy and Climate Change Committee concluded that, as a means of tackling fuel poverty, the Winter Fuel Payment was unfocused and poorly-targeted.

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.

The Labour Government did not respond before the 2010 General Election, but in its response published on 25 October 2010 the new Government stated, in relation to the Committee’s recommendation:

We accept that the Winter Fuel Payment is not solely a fuel poverty measure - it also provides reassurance to older people that they can afford to keep warm in the winter months when heating bills are higher. Each winter the Winter Fuel Payment helps over 12.3 million older people in around 9 million households with fuel bills, at a cost of around *£2.7 billion. We therefore think that "Winter Fuel Payment" is an appropriate name for this benefit and there are no plans to change it.

* it is now less than that, around 1.8 billion since the equalisation of the SP age for men and women.

Would that they had changed the name, then it might now be accepted for what it really is, a general supplement to what is arguably the lowest State Pension in Europe.

www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/2025/06/winter-fuel-payment-criteria-confirmed/

An explanation on here, also a warning that the scams have already started.

Do not respond to any emails telling you to claim for the WFA.

Would that they had changed the name, then it might now be accepted for what it really is, a general supplement to what is arguably the lowest State Pension in Europe.
👏👏👏

And now it’s a hot button topic where anyone with income of more than £35,000 is deemed a pariah and people like journalist Lewis Goodall are having a wonderful time stirring up intergenerational warfare.
It is so unpleasant. Throwing your Granny under a bus seems to be quite a theme in the media now.

Allira

^Would that they had changed the name, then it might now be accepted for what it really is, a general supplement to what is arguably the lowest State Pension in Europe.^
👏👏👏

And now it’s a hot button topic where anyone with income of more than £35,000 is deemed a pariah and people like journalist Lewis Goodall are having a wonderful time stirring up intergenerational warfare.
It is so unpleasant. Throwing your Granny under a bus seems to be quite a theme in the media now.

Divide-and Rule basically.

Target one group or demographic that has been disadvantaged by a failing system, rather than deal with the system.

Then we can all fight among ourselves instead of questioning why there is such rampant economic inequality, stagnating wages, unaffordable fuel charges, and an inadequate state pension.

Pension adequacy is not just about the amount of the pension. Pension levels and benefits vary significantly across Europe due to differing economic conditions, social welfare policies, and cost of living.

To argue that it is the lowest State Pension in Europe you would need to look at far more than just the pension amount.

Exactly PoliticsNerd
According to the international comparison of pensions from the House of Commons Library:

‘However, the relative position of pensioners converges if income from all sources is considered. Income from occupational and personal pensions is a relatively important source of pensioner income in the UK, in contrast to many other countries where state provision (financed either through social insurance contributions or general taxation) is dominant.
OECD estimated that 14.5% of people aged 66 and over in the UK were living in relative income poverty in 2022. This was the 14th highest rate among 34 OECD countries for which data was available for 2019-2022.’

That’s why means testing is essential.

Of course there are other factors but even the Government’s own report shows the UK to be low on the list.

researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN00290/SN00290.pdf

Without private pension provision which many, particularly women, do not have, the State Pension alone is inadequate.

Private pension schemes are extremely vulnerable to market turbulence as we saw under Truss.

Our state earning related system was abolished in 2016. Younger people will not have the opportunity to build a second state pension.

One change I would like to see is that the cap on contribution years be lifted. I believe that if you work and pay NIC for 50 years you should be paid a State Pension which reflects that.

IMO all benefits should be taxed. AA, DLA, PIP, WFA, the lot. If ur under the personal allowance it wouldn’t affect u and children who receive benefits in their own name will be covered. Very high earners can claim AA and PIP on top of their income untaxed. Then the rich will have to pay some or all back. Simples.