Winter Fuel Vote

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...could-rebel-over-cut-to-winter-fuel-allowance

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...k-unpopular-plan-to-cut-winter-fuel-allowance

The PM without saying it is letting it be known that any NO voters on Tuesday will lose the whip. He's blackmailing people to go against what they personally believe in to tow the party line.

It's going to be an interesting day to see how many rebel.

 

Wrongun..

 

I dont think its in Starmers DNA to back down on party discipline. He's backing himself into a corner imo though and he's making enemies when he doesn't need to.

 

Starmer’s policy on winter fuel payment is correct. What isn’t acceptable is where the cut off level is set. There are millions of pensioners that don’t need this payment.

 

Agreed. My mum is a case in point. Comfortably off but very far from being rich, she told me this weekend that she's never even noticed the payment. However, for other pensioners it really is the difference between switching the heating on and freezing to ill-health or worse.

 

I've said same mate. I'd rather mine be used to help all those on benefits even beyond pensioners.
But his biggest issue will be if all those eligible claim, that don't already do so. It will wipe out any savings apparantly. So back to sq 1.

 

My elderly parents are just above the threshold to be able to receive pension credits and I mean it's literally a couple of pounds they receive in pension.
So I was discussing this with my dad when the government announced the withdrawal of the winter fuel allowance and how it will effect them and they are truly worried.

 

So many other things he could have gone for to get money in.

 

He's not blackmailing anyone. The commons has never been a place for constant free will. It's a party system and if you defy your party on key votes, you'll be kicked out.

It's forever been thus.

 

The big problem is high energy prices so why does he not target those energy companies who are taking in countless millions.
Properly tax them and then no need to persecute pensioners.

 

I agree that many (including myself) don't need it but the problem lies with the cut-off point. Personally I think it should be a sliding scale where everyone gets something but tge better off only get a small amount. There's long been a debate about universal benefits and I'm not sure where I stand on it to be honest.

 

Quite right mate. Tax the energy companies to pay for the winter fuel benefit. I don't think many would be against that.

 

They have, the windfall tax will be expanded.

I suspect one of the practical issues they've had is where to draw a cut off line that is actually measurable that doesn't incur huge admin costs that eat into the savings they hope to make.

The wider difficulty they have is trying to make significant savings all at once rather than over years, but that was the tory strategy to salt the earth for them.

I suspect it will go through but with abstentions and I'd very much expect something in the budget to soften the blow. But the notion of stopping paying wealthy people for nothing, I'm very much supportive of.

 

I thought we had a change of government after the last election, but no just a continuation and back to BAU.

Also their plans on VAT on private schools now faces a high court challenge on the basis that it undermines human rights, specifically for pupils with special educational needs.

I'm quite sure this party were elected on their message of growth not cuts and austerity but have now seemingly changed their minds or should I say basically lied to take power.

Nowt will change without a course change.

 

Four things wrong with what he's done:
Best estimate is 880,000 pensioners who could claim pension credit don't. The system can be "puzzling" for older people, so that's 880,000 who should get the winter fuel payment who won't be getting it anymore
Pension credit itself is weird. A very small private income can prevent you getting it and being worse off. My Gran spent three years earning less than a fiver too much to qualify (for an extra £40 per week). It has a cliff edge that hasn't been catered for and needed to be done first.
There are other things they could have cut back on/taxed more instead.
It's emotive, you judge a civilisation on how it looks after its old people. A Labour study a couple of years ago suggested axing WFP could contribute to 4,000 deaths a year.
As a separate point...I would have liked to have seen this board's reaction if an incoming Tory government had done this.

 

At least it would show we have a governing party with MPs who will not toe the party line if they disagree. We’ve just had 14 years of quite the opposite to put it mildly

 

With al due respect HF that doesn’t make sense. That implies that most pensioners currently are in need of the payment and that only a few don’t need it

 

There would have been a nuclear style meltdown on the Labour front bench if this had been Tory policy.

Until those in Westminster decide to behave like elected MP's are expected to to rather than playing political point scoring, then we just have this every week.

 

On the last point, pensioners were never in their austerity crosshairs as thats their rump of voters.

But if they had, I'd have welcomed it. The problem we seem to have with many things are how poor or slow our information systems are to apply cut offs.

And let's not forget that the increase in pension payouts and the extremely generous triple lock far out weigh losing a couple hundred pounds.

The question will be how those that don't claim what they are due do so in future and how those only above the cap are protected.

But a millionaire pensioner losing a few hundred quid... I'm all for that and I'd hope everyone else is too.

 

Yes. Perhaps the super rich, with Mr Sunak first in the queue to shed a few shekels and experience a bit of levelling down.