Letter from Mark Langabeer, Hastings and Rye Labour member
The Labour Leadership must have some worries about the proposed cut in winter fuel allowance for most pensioners. Before the vote in the House of Commons, there was what was described as a members briefing and that was an accurate statement, because it was very brief. Apparently there were few opportunity for members to ask questions or give opinions.
Alison McGovern, the Employment Secretary, gave a short account of the reasons for the removal of the allowance, that there was a “£22bn deficit” which needed to be covered. McGovern described the cuts as “painful but necessary” because it was important for future growth. Britain needed investment and growth, she said, so that we can improve public services. She also reminded members what happened with the “unfunded tax cuts” of Liz Truss.
McGovern also claimed that the government was protecting the most vulnerable, on the grounds that fuel payments would still be available for those receiving pension credit. She admitted, however, that many pensioners who would qualify don’t claim that credit. In fact it is thought that as many as 800,000 non-recipients are eligible McGovern said that the government would conduct a campaign to increases the take-up in Pension Credit.
She argued that state pension increased by £900 last year and forecasted to rise by another £1000 within the next five years. On the one hand, the Labour leadership are saying that we are entering hard times and “tough choices” will have to be made. Then they try to justify the cut because pensioners are doing all right due to the triple lock.
There are many unanswered questions about the cuts in fuel allowances. I’m no expert in financial matters but I’ve read that it would save £1.5bn, nowhere near £22bn. No doubt there are some exceedingly wealthy pensioners, but most are not.
Charities are worried about the impact that the cut could have. Energy prices are due to rise by 10% this winter. For many, it is often a choice of eating or heating. Age UK estimates that around one million are vulnerable this winter. Should excess deaths occur as a result of this policy, the blame will be directed at government, and not without justification .
It is also questionable that these kind of policies actually do save money. More ill health means more cost and means-testing is an expensive way of ensuring that those who need the benefit are actually getting it. Universal benefits are based on the idea that we all pay taxes, NI, etc, and should all receive benefits that we have paid for.
Kier Starmer said that those with the broadest shoulders should bear the biggest burden. He and his Cabinet team will face a choice. They will either serve the interests of big business, or the millions that are desperately seeking a real change .
[Top picture from Wikimedia Commons, here]
