[Politics] The Labour Government

[Guinness Boy]

I think you’ve been too busy sheltering behind a rock somewhere to notice that most people not religiously attached to a particular party would have understood the withdrawal of the current system as times are apparently hard, if it were done in a way that still protected those in need NOW!….lets not forget that it was a Labour government who brought in this universal benefit in the first place and that at yesterday’s Labour conference there was a unanimous vote against this discredited policy …

NOW! IN CAPITAL LETTERS!

It's September. My heating isn't even on yet. I doubt Ethel's is.

 

[Bodian]

at yesterday’s Labour conference there was a unanimous vote against this discredited policy …

Not exactly unanimous!

 

[Is it PotG?]

NOW! IN CAPITAL LETTERS!

It's September. My heating isn't even on yet. I doubt Ethel's is.

In the north of the country it is considerably cooler than down here, and the elderly tend to feel the cold more. Rather strange to assume that because you don't, then others don't.

 

[Weststander]

Not exactly unanimous!
View attachment 189397

And now furniture's getting involved .

 

[Weststander]

In the north of the country it is considerably cooler than down here, and the elderly tend to feel the cold more. Rather strange to assume that because you don't, then others don't.

Some NSC'ers on the heating thread happened to mention that they've fired up the heating/woodburning stove. Especially true where there's a dampness issue.

 

[Bozza]

NOW! IN CAPITAL LETTERS!

It's September. My heating isn't even on yet. I doubt Ethel's is.

79-year-old Jennifer McKay's is. Well, it was yesterday anyway. I can provide today's update, if it's helpful, when I get there in about 20 minutes.

Old poorly people often feel the cold more than spritely and fit youngsters.

 

[Mellor 3 Ward 4]

I'm sorry if you can't come up with a response to that, but it's a perfectly legitimate question. I believe that everyone who needs the WFA should get it and those who don't need it shouldn't because that saves the Government money. There are many more that don't need it than do, and those who do will continue to receive it by and large. There is a little bit of tinkering to be done around the edges, but the policy itself remains sound outside of that.

Your starting point appears to be that because the policy needs a small amount of rework it should be scrapped entirely and everyone should continue to receive the WFA as they always have done. Fine, that's your opinion, but who else has to pay in that scenario? Pensioners are the richest demographic on average in the country and have been kept largely immune from the impacts of austerity for the last decade and a half (despite as a demographic voting for it repeatedly). Now they are being asked to contribute a tiny amount and you'd think the world is about to end.

Really?

I'm not so sure.

 

[LamieRobertson]

NOW! IN CAPITAL LETTERS!

It's September. My heating isn't even on yet. I doubt Ethel's is.

oh dear oh dear ....i guess it must be hard for you to accept all this ….have you tried therapy

 

[Bozza]

But in both cases only if Auntie Ethel is not deemed as needing it would she not get it. It is not a blanket withdrawal and the whole scheme is being scrapped, that's not what is being suggested and would (quite correctly) be described as outrageous. I agree with the poster above who says that the limit needs work, of course it should and those who need it should get it, but to suggest that the alternative are either (a) everyone gets it or (b) nobody gets it fundamentally misrepresents the policy and is just lazy commentary.

I'd like to think my commentary has been anything other than lazy.

I speak from both first-hand experience of those I know, and from extensive reading.

No one of right mind would suggest paying £200/£300 to wealthy pensioners is a good use of the nation's money.

However, there are literally hundreds of thousands, potentially a 7-figure number even, for whom the WFP is much-needed to help them get through the colder months.

It is estimated that c880,000 people due Pension Credits, a gateway benefit to other payments, including the WFP, have not claimed it. This will be for a number of reasons including ignorance - simply not knowing it exists, pride - not wanting to ask for a handout or inability to claim - those on the dementia curve may lack the mental fortitude to go through the application process.

Considerable effort has been made, for some years, to reach these people but the reality is many are all but unreachable.

Beyond that, there are people who sit just above the Pension Credit threshold, often by just a few quid, who will miss out. These people aren't wealthy by any stretch, often survive month-to-month and have little or no savings. £200/£300 is a significant sum to these people.

We're probably on the same page, to a degree, that some policy "tweaks" would fix this ghastly and cruel implementation, but the government has said, repeatedly, that it is what it is.

People are going to become seriously ill and, sadly, in some cases, will die if this proceeds as currently specified.

This is anything but faux outrage from those on the right looking to score cheap political points.

 

[LamieRobertson]

Not exactly unanimous!
View attachment 189397

Point taken……and from the same article

 

[Simster]

I think you’ve been too busy sheltering behind a rock somewhere to notice that most people not religiously attached to a particular party would have understood the withdrawal of the current system as times are apparently hard, if it were done in a way that still protected those in need NOW!….lets not forget that it was a Labour government who brought in this universal benefit in the first place and that at yesterday’s Labour conference there was a unanimous vote against this discredited policy …

Notwithstanding that your politics are much further right than mine, I have to say you are quite right here. What possible justification is there for binning off the WFA?

I think in the defence of Labour, they have boxed themselves into a corner because they are terrified of raising taxes after telling everyone they wouldn't be doing that - despite that clearly being the right thing to do to pay for all the mess the Tories have left. But I really was expecting far more justifiable taxes to be introduced. IHT would be my first port of call, as that is easy to explain away as it is not a tax on working people.

 

[Mellor 3 Ward 4]

I'd like to think my commentary has been anything other than lazy.

I speak from both first-hand experience of those I know, and from extensive reading.

No one of right mind would suggest paying £200/£300 to wealthy pensioners is a good use of the nation's money.

However, there are literally hundreds of thousands, potentially a 7-figure number even, for whom the WFP is much-needed to help them get through the colder months.

It is estimated that c880,000 people due Pension Credits, a gateway benefit to other payments, including the WFP, have not claimed it. This will be for a number of reasons including ignorance - simply not knowing it exists, pride - not wanting to ask for a handout or inability to claim - those on the dementia curve may lack the mental fortitude to go through the application process.

Considerable effort has been made, for some years, to reach these people but the reality is many are all but unreachable.

Beyond that, there are people who sit just above the Pension Credit threshold, often by just a few quid, who will miss out. These people aren't wealthy by any stretch, often survive month-to-month and have little or no savings. £200/£300 is a significant sum to these people.

We're probably on the same page, to a degree, that some policy "tweaks" would fix this ghastly and cruel implementation, but the government has said, repeatedly, that it is what it is.

People are going to become seriously ill and, sadly, in some cases, will die if this proceeds as currently specified.

This is anything but faux outrage from those on the right looking to score cheap political points.

This.

 

[Simster]

I was listening to Radio 4 on Tuesday morning, which featured a torrent of people who are having their WFA taken away because they are caught in the unfortunate financial bracket between being desperately poor and being not quite comfortable. It seems that if you contributed to a very small private pension that was barely worth having even for a matter of weeks, you are not deemed poor enough to qualify, despite the WFA being far more valuable than the pension payout in question - and that would be bad enough even if it wasn't the case that these people are effectively being penalised for trying to look after themselves in their old age.

As a policy, it's an absolute mess.

 

[Right Brain Ronnie]

NOW! IN CAPITAL LETTERS!

It's September. My heating isn't even on yet. I doubt Ethel's is.

Perhaps you could give Ethel your spare timber, you clearly have a bit.

 

[Weststander]

Legal challenge in Scotland to the withdrawal of WFP. The essence of the challenge is that the decision didn't meet a statutory requirement for a detailed equality impact assessment, regarding the elderly or disabled. If they're successful, it would postpone this by one winter.

https://govanlawcentre.org/2024/09/26/legal-challenge-to-the-winter-fuel-payment-cut/

 

[rippleman]

Notwithstanding that your politics are much further right than mine, I have to say you are quite right here. What possible justification is there for binning off the WFA?

I think in the defence of Labour, they have boxed themselves into a corner because they are terrified of raising taxes after telling everyone they wouldn't be doing that - despite that clearly being the right thing to do to pay for all the mess the Tories have left. But I really was expecting far more justifiable taxes to be introduced. IHT would be my first port of call, as that is easy to explain away as it is not a tax on working people.

I think they have boxed themselves into a corner with this policy. It was totally daft that the "flagship" policy after only a few weeks of Labour government was to put the boot into pensioners.

No doubt many pensioners are wealthy. I know two personally who haven't needed the WFA and both tried to return it to the DWP but were told "you can't" but probably many more pensioners do need the WFA to supplement their heating costs.

There could have been so many more policies that wouldn't have created such havoc. Starmer's policy has managed to ally the unions on the left and trad Tories on the right and that takes some doing.

Maybe going after all the covid fraudsters and the crooked PPE contracts or oil/gas companies or water company bosses might have been a better idea and would be far more likely to unite voters behind the new government. Just a thought.

 

[Simster]

I think they have boxed themselves into a corner with this policy. It was totally daft that the "flagship" policy after only a few weeks of Labour government was to put the boot into pensioners.

No doubt many pensioners are wealthy. I know two personally who haven't needed the WFA and both tried to return it to the DWP but were told "you can't" but probably many more pensioners do need the WFA to supplement their heating costs.

There could have been so many more policies that wouldn't have created such havoc. Starmer's policy has managed to ally the unions on the left and trad Tories on the right and that takes some doing.

Maybe going after all the covid fraudsters and the crooked PPE contracts or oil/gas companies or water company bosses might have been a better idea and would be far more likely to unite voters behind the new government. Just a thought.

This wouldn't have made much of a dent in the amount of money needed to be found, but frankly should have been done alongside raising taxes from the word go.

 

[A1X]

This is anything but faux outrage from those on the right looking to score cheap political points.

Please don’t put words in my mouth, I never said it was.

I have accused those who have chosen to make an issue out of Starmer’s son sitting his GCSEs in peace and being in a box after Arsenal moved him for security reasons so he could continue to watch games he pays to watch of faux outrage. Very different issues.

 

[Bozza]

This wouldn't have made much of a dent in the amount of money needed to be found, but frankly should have been done alongside raising taxes from the word go.

As much as I disagree with how they are implementing this, I believe the timing of the announcement was the right thing to do as...

1. It gave people an opportunity to see if they were able to access Pension Credits and, then, WFP before winter.
2. It allowed others some time to prepare and adjust knowing they were not going to be getting the payment.

Delaying the announcement until the end of October budget would have given almost no time for either of those.

 

[Mellor 3 Ward 4]

Notwithstanding that your politics are much further right than mine, I have to say you are quite right here. What possible justification is there for binning off the WFA?

I think in the defence of Labour, they have boxed themselves into a corner because they are terrified of raising taxes after telling everyone they wouldn't be doing that - despite that clearly being the right thing to do to pay for all the mess the Tories have left. But I really was expecting far more justifiable taxes to be introduced. IHT would be my first port of call, as that is easy to explain away as it is not a tax on working people.

Agree.

My personal fear is they will go for Corp. Tax (as they've said no increase to personal tax and NI)

Sure, they're are some big Cos making mega profits, but many SMEs struggling and a rise in CP will hit hard.