Rachel Reeves did the right thing in ending winter fuel payments
It’s a rather unpopular take, isn’t it? Particularly among those on the left, but for many Conservatives as well, the notion of ending winter fuel payments has been met with some revulsion. But there are some good arguments for why we should.Firstly — and this seems to have been overlooked in the debate — winter fuel payments are a de facto fossil fuel subsidy. Instead of insulating houses, we throw money at pensioners so they can burn Putin’s (or Qatar’s) gas. Seems rather strange, doesn’t it?Secondly, it is a fact that we don’t have unlimited money. In an ideal world, perhaps we would give pensioners their winter fuel payments, but in reality, that money had to come from somewhere. That ‘somewhere’ has meant benefits for disabled people, child benefit, community services, and (the lack of) investment in social housing. Arguably, disabled people and kids are more vulnerable.Thirdly, and finally, pensioners are statistically the richest generation in history. And to the richest generation, we give money. Everyone under the age of 65 gets nothing. Rishi Sunak asked why Starmer would give a train driver on 65k a pay rise, but not pensioners their winter fuel allowance. There are several good reasons actually:
•
A pensioner has probably already paid off their mortgage; train drivers spend hundreds, if not thousands, on mortgage or rent.
•
A pensioner’s kids are probably grown up. Someone in their 40s probably has to still support their teenage kids.
•
The average wage of a train driver is 48K, not 65K, so Sunak is cherry-picking.
•
Speaking of cherry-picking, why doesn’t the pensioner sell their million pound 5 bed house to pay for their heating, anyway?
Scroll to see replies
The train driver average comes from including trainees. The vast majority of train drivers are on £65k+ basic on top of that there is overtime and "special bonuses" which were things like no strike agreements during major events, where they get hundreds per shift simply not to go on strike - essentially a blackmail payment.
It does seem really really odd that the hard left is defending train drivers - almost all of whom are high-rate tax payers earning considerably more than the median, and are employees of private companies. The only possible rationale for this is that its because they are unionised and in the most militant union possible.
It does seem really really odd that the hard left is defending train drivers - almost all of whom are high-rate tax payers earning considerably more than the median, and are employees of private companies. The only possible rationale for this is that its because they are unionised and in the most militant union possible.
I think that the winter fuel payment should not go to relatively comfortably off pensioners, like my mother.
I can see why Labour are using pension credit as a measure but pension credit is badly under-claimed.
It is easy to miss out on pension credit by a few pounds. So I can see how pensioners could be worse off in these kind of cases.
The Pension Service are taking many months to deal with pension credit. Their guidance is 6 weeks to process a claim and now 7 to 9 months is not unusual (I help people claim it). You wait an hour on the phone to be told the case has STILL not been processed. This is a shocking service. So there is an issue here for pension credit claimants trying to get pension credit to then get the fuel payment. It will be a long wait.
I can see why Labour are using pension credit as a measure but pension credit is badly under-claimed.
It is easy to miss out on pension credit by a few pounds. So I can see how pensioners could be worse off in these kind of cases.
The Pension Service are taking many months to deal with pension credit. Their guidance is 6 weeks to process a claim and now 7 to 9 months is not unusual (I help people claim it). You wait an hour on the phone to be told the case has STILL not been processed. This is a shocking service. So there is an issue here for pension credit claimants trying to get pension credit to then get the fuel payment. It will be a long wait.
(edited 1 month ago)
I agree with Labour, winter fuel payments should be means tested. The fact that we give them to very wealthy pensioners is an absolute farce.
Original post by Cotes1
I think that the winter fuel payment should not go to relatively comfortably off pensioners, like my mother.
I can see why Labour are using pension credit as a measure but pension credit is badly under-claimed.
It is easy to miss out on pension credit by a few pounds. So I can see how pensioners could be worse off in these kind of cases.
The Pension Service are taking many months to deal with pension credit. Their guidance is 6 weeks to process a claim and now 7 to 9 months is not unusual (I help people claim it). You wait an hour on the phone to be told the case has STILL not been processed. This is a shocking service. So there is an issue here for pension credit claimants trying to get pension credit to then get the fuel payment. It will be a long wait.
I can see why Labour are using pension credit as a measure but pension credit is badly under-claimed.
It is easy to miss out on pension credit by a few pounds. So I can see how pensioners could be worse off in these kind of cases.
The Pension Service are taking many months to deal with pension credit. Their guidance is 6 weeks to process a claim and now 7 to 9 months is not unusual (I help people claim it). You wait an hour on the phone to be told the case has STILL not been processed. This is a shocking service. So there is an issue here for pension credit claimants trying to get pension credit to then get the fuel payment. It will be a long wait.
One option would have been to continue to pay the allowance to all those of state pensionable age but make it subject to income tax, with a tapered withdrawal for higher-rate tax payers.
The problem is that the reason for withdrawing the allowance was purely to save money, not to make the system fairer. In that regard it is something of a sledgehammer to crack a nut, given that it only saves around £1.5 billion out of the alleged "£22 billion black hole". Bearing in mind the hugely disproportionate political fallout I imagine that, with hindsight, Rachel Reeves wishes she had never have chosen this particular cost-cutting measure.
Act in haste, repent at leisure!
(edited 1 month ago)
Original post by Cotes1
I agree. It needs targeting better.
I do think that Labour think it is an unfair system. They are right. It is unfair. It did need addressing. Child benefit was changed and an income test applied. Labour must have known it would be unpopular but probably thought they would brazen it out, and get it out of the way at the start.
Pension credit was an obvious measure to use. I see why they did that but the issue is that pension credit itself is not always enough to live off. When dealing with elderly people trying to keep warm, pension credit was too stringent a financial line to draw. It would have been better to taper it, in the way that housing benefit is tapered.
In terms of some working age people, and also disabled people, things continue to get tougher on Universal Credit. I would really like to see that kind of thing highlighted too, in the way that the winter fuel payment has been campaigned about.
The same applies to the waiting times to process pension credit claims - 9 months and longer to process a claim which should be done in 6 weeks. Holding on for an hour to get through to them on the phone! To be told nothing has been done. People dying whilst they wait for claims to be paid. That needs to be dealt with but it won't be.
Too use a Kamala phrase....
Understand this: my experience of it is that the pension credit processing system seems entirely ****ed and that needed sorting BEFORE making pension credit the measure of entitlement to the winter fuel payment, otherwise many new claimants won't get help to pay their fuel bills in time for winter.
(edited 1 month ago)
Original post by Cotes1
I didn't intend to reply to myself. 😃
Nothing wrong with that. It's a good way of reinforcing your original point.🙂👍️
No doubt the Labour Government will feel the allowance could be better targeted - but that wouldn't save enough money. The reason for limiting the payment to people on Pension Credit was to shave £1.5 billion off a £22 billion overspend, which is little enough as it is.
Politically this is a gift to the Conservatives (although they're currently so marginalised that it won't do them any good). They'll never let the OAP voters forget that it was Labour that scrapped their winter fuel allowance!
The really big battle is yet to come: disability benefits. There is a consensus that the bill for these is unsustainable.
I'm very supportive of the decision to change winter fuel allowance to a means test benefit.
Benefits should be based on need, not a sense that you deserve an automatic entitlement to handouts from the government. That this has proved so controversial just highlights how dependent on the state many have become.
Benefits should be based on need, not a sense that you deserve an automatic entitlement to handouts from the government. That this has proved so controversial just highlights how dependent on the state many have become.
Original post by Supermature
Nothing wrong with that. It's a good way of reinforcing your original point.🙂👍️
No doubt the Labour Government will feel the allowance could be better targeted - but that wouldn't save enough money. The reason for limiting the payment to people on Pension Credit was to shave £1.5 billion off a £22 billion overspend, which is little enough as it is.
Politically this is a gift to the Conservatives (although they're currently so marginalised that it won't do them any good). They'll never let the OAP voters forget that it was Labour that scrapped their winter fuel allowance!
The really big battle is yet to come: disability benefits. There is a consensus that the bill for these is unsustainable.
No doubt the Labour Government will feel the allowance could be better targeted - but that wouldn't save enough money. The reason for limiting the payment to people on Pension Credit was to shave £1.5 billion off a £22 billion overspend, which is little enough as it is.
Politically this is a gift to the Conservatives (although they're currently so marginalised that it won't do them any good). They'll never let the OAP voters forget that it was Labour that scrapped their winter fuel allowance!
The really big battle is yet to come: disability benefits. There is a consensus that the bill for these is unsustainable.
I agree, but I do think the winter fuel allowance needed reforming, regardless of the potential uproar, and perhaps Labour felt this too.
(edited 1 month ago)
Original post by Gazpacho.
I'm very supportive of the decision to change winter fuel allowance to a means test benefit.
Benefits should be based on need, not a sense that you deserve an automatic entitlement to handouts from the government. That this has proved so controversial just highlights how dependent on the state many have become.
Benefits should be based on need, not a sense that you deserve an automatic entitlement to handouts from the government. That this has proved so controversial just highlights how dependent on the state many have become.
What about those who are just over the threshold for Pension Credit? For example, I am aware of an elderly gentleman who lives on his own. He has a weekly income of £233. The threshold for Pension Credit is £218.15 and so he would not qualify.
The Government has stated explicitly that it did not want to limit the winter fuel allowance but needed to do so to save money.
Might there not be better ways to save the relatively small sum of £1.5 billion? If fairness was the issue they could have taxed and tapered the allowance - but they didn't.
Yet - rightly or wrongly - they felt able to pledge £3 billion a year in military aid to Ukraine until at least 2030. Could they not have halved this contribution as the Social Democrat (Labour) led government in Germany is doing?
Britain's public finances are in a dire state. Millions of pensioners on modest means would be entitled to ask whether the Government had got its priorities right.
Original post by Supermature
What about those who are just over the threshold for Pension Credit? For example, I am aware of an elderly gentleman who lives on his own. He has a weekly income of £233. The threshold for Pension Credit is £218.15 and so he would not qualify.
The Government has stated explicitly that it did not want to limit the winter fuel allowance but needed to do so to save money.
Might there not be better ways to save the relatively small sum of £1.5 billion? If fairness was the issue they could have taxed and tapered the allowance - but they didn't.
Yet - rightly or wrongly - they felt able to pledge £3 billion a year in military aid to Ukraine until at least 2030. Could they not have halved this contribution as the Social Democrat (Labour) led government in Germany is doing?
Britain's public finances are in a dire state. Millions of pensioners on modest means would be entitled to ask whether the Government had got its priorities right.
The Government has stated explicitly that it did not want to limit the winter fuel allowance but needed to do so to save money.
Might there not be better ways to save the relatively small sum of £1.5 billion? If fairness was the issue they could have taxed and tapered the allowance - but they didn't.
Yet - rightly or wrongly - they felt able to pledge £3 billion a year in military aid to Ukraine until at least 2030. Could they not have halved this contribution as the Social Democrat (Labour) led government in Germany is doing?
Britain's public finances are in a dire state. Millions of pensioners on modest means would be entitled to ask whether the Government had got its priorities right.
There will always be someone who is "just over" the limit, unless the allowance was given universally. The question should be 'is the limit reasonable'?
£233 a week is £12,116 a year without tax. Is that enough for a pensioner to live off? If it isn't, would an additional £300 seriously improve matters?
Original post by Supermature
What about those who are just over the threshold for Pension Credit? For example, I am aware of an elderly gentleman who lives on his own. He has a weekly income of £233. The threshold for Pension Credit is £218.15 and so he would not qualify.
The Government has stated explicitly that it did not want to limit the winter fuel allowance but needed to do so to save money.
Might there not be better ways to save the relatively small sum of £1.5 billion? If fairness was the issue they could have taxed and tapered the allowance - but they didn't.
Yet - rightly or wrongly - they felt able to pledge £3 billion a year in military aid to Ukraine until at least 2030. Could they not have halved this contribution as the Social Democrat (Labour) led government in Germany is doing?
Britain's public finances are in a dire state. Millions of pensioners on modest means would be entitled to ask whether the Government had got its priorities right.
The Government has stated explicitly that it did not want to limit the winter fuel allowance but needed to do so to save money.
Might there not be better ways to save the relatively small sum of £1.5 billion? If fairness was the issue they could have taxed and tapered the allowance - but they didn't.
Yet - rightly or wrongly - they felt able to pledge £3 billion a year in military aid to Ukraine until at least 2030. Could they not have halved this contribution as the Social Democrat (Labour) led government in Germany is doing?
Britain's public finances are in a dire state. Millions of pensioners on modest means would be entitled to ask whether the Government had got its priorities right.
For you elderly gentleman, £221.20 of his weekly income will be state pension. He has had his entire working life to build up a pension pot for himself.
part of my job involves financial assessments. I see a lot of people in their 30s and 40s who choose not to pay into private pensions. They are going to be in this situation when they hit retirement age and they’ll be turning to the government to help them.
Of course. I’m not beyond tapering or increasing the threshold. However that requires an administrative structure that will likely cost the government as much as it saves.
In these debates, people always bring up money spent abroad or on the military as if they think geopolitics is about unicorns and rainbows. The money spent on Ukraine or munitions for Ukraine is not just a hand out to support the Ukrainian people. There is a far broader geopolitical goal. Western hegemony retreating in the face growing authoritarianism is going to be a central theme of the 21st century. If Russia gets a whiff that it can expand without consequences, losing winter fuel payments will be the least of our problems.
Original post by Trinculo
The train driver average comes from including trainees. The vast majority of train drivers are on £65k+ basic on top of that there is overtime and "special bonuses" which were things like no strike agreements during major events, where they get hundreds per shift simply not to go on strike - essentially a blackmail payment.
It does seem really really odd that the hard left is defending train drivers - almost all of whom are high-rate tax payers earning considerably more than the median, and are employees of private companies. The only possible rationale for this is that its because they are unionised and in the most militant union possible.
It does seem really really odd that the hard left is defending train drivers - almost all of whom are high-rate tax payers earning considerably more than the median, and are employees of private companies. The only possible rationale for this is that its because they are unionised and in the most militant union possible.
Sorry but this is simply not true. The vast majority are not, or were not on £65k. The top franchises such as LNER, yes. But Northern, Greater Anglia etc nowhere near.
In terms of special bonuses for special events. Wrong again. Rest days can be changed for special events to suit companies needs, that isn’t blackmail.
It does really seem odd that once again the right is freely attacking train drivers when it is totally to blame for the wages they’re on now. When British Rail was ridiculously privatised by the Major government, incidentally at the time when it was just beginning to actually turn a profit, it led to a fight for labour between franchises which is why train drivers saw a massive pay increase. If you want to have a pop at anyone for train drivers being rightly on £65k for a job which has swathes of responsibility then have a pop once again at the Conservatives who set the house on fire than ran away.
I’m not going to even entertain the unions crack. Unions are the reason most British citizens have half decent working conditions. Calling them ‘militant’ sounds like something right off the front page of the Mail.
Original post by Supermature
What about those who are just over the threshold for Pension Credit? For example, I am aware of an elderly gentleman who lives on his own. He has a weekly income of £233. The threshold for Pension Credit is £218.15 and so he would not qualify.
The Government has stated explicitly that it did not want to limit the winter fuel allowance but needed to do so to save money.
Might there not be better ways to save the relatively small sum of £1.5 billion? If fairness was the issue they could have taxed and tapered the allowance - but they didn't.
Yet - rightly or wrongly - they felt able to pledge £3 billion a year in military aid to Ukraine until at least 2030. Could they not have halved this contribution as the Social Democrat (Labour) led government in Germany is doing?
Britain's public finances are in a dire state. Millions of pensioners on modest means would be entitled to ask whether the Government had got its priorities right.
The Government has stated explicitly that it did not want to limit the winter fuel allowance but needed to do so to save money.
Might there not be better ways to save the relatively small sum of £1.5 billion? If fairness was the issue they could have taxed and tapered the allowance - but they didn't.
Yet - rightly or wrongly - they felt able to pledge £3 billion a year in military aid to Ukraine until at least 2030. Could they not have halved this contribution as the Social Democrat (Labour) led government in Germany is doing?
Britain's public finances are in a dire state. Millions of pensioners on modest means would be entitled to ask whether the Government had got its priorities right.
He then has weekly extra income above pension credit x 52 = 772.20, I think, excuse my maths.
Arguably this compensates him for not getting 300 fuel allowance.
A pension credit claimant could be passported to full council tax support so we could factor this in.
On that level of income he would still get some council tax support if savings are below 16,000. He could still be better off, on a simplistic level, in theory, if we say the 772.20 covers 300 fuel allowance equivalent and some contribution to council tax. He is no worse off than the pension credit claimant who gets fuel allowance, and full council tax support, probably a bit better off (again without knowing full circumstances, just looking at it as a simple example).
If someone is 5 over the pension credit applicable amount cut-off, then they potentially lose out at that point. Their additional income is 260 a year, they may well still have to pay a small amount of council tax still as they may not get full council tax support, depending on savings and other factors. They have 260 additional income, a small amount of which may go to council tax, in comparison with the pension credit claimant on full CTS and fuel allowance. The pension credit claimant with the 300 fuel allowance is at that point potentially better off but not better off by a full 300 (a simple and very approximate guesstimate example only).
Thinking about it, it is when we move into the area of pensioners just, say, on a weekly basis, 2 above the pension credit cut off point, that there will be more financial impact, regarding the loss of the winter fuel allowance. They are still probably not worse off by the full 300 though as they get additional income above the pension credit cut-off point.
(edited 1 month ago)
& just to supplement what hermit's posted above - I don't know why the right has this obsession with bashing train drivers and most people making the usual slurs don't have any real knowledge of what the job involves.
Train driving isn't easy. It's a skilled job, with lots of responsibility. Namely operating a 10-20 thousand tonne piece of heavy machinery and being responsible for the safety of passengers or high value cargo. Constant awareness and concentration of what's up ahead because if there is any obstruction your stopping distance is measured in miles, stopping smoothly at stations is akin to parking a HGV on an ice-rink, keeping within strict and narrow speed limits on track where the gradient is often changing, constant focus and concentration and it's usually shift work which is never pleasant.
So yes train drivers are payed as skilled workers because it *is* skilled work.
Train driving isn't easy. It's a skilled job, with lots of responsibility. Namely operating a 10-20 thousand tonne piece of heavy machinery and being responsible for the safety of passengers or high value cargo. Constant awareness and concentration of what's up ahead because if there is any obstruction your stopping distance is measured in miles, stopping smoothly at stations is akin to parking a HGV on an ice-rink, keeping within strict and narrow speed limits on track where the gradient is often changing, constant focus and concentration and it's usually shift work which is never pleasant.
So yes train drivers are payed as skilled workers because it *is* skilled work.
Original post by imlikeahermit
Sorry but this is simply not true. The vast majority are not, or were not on £65k. The top franchises such as LNER, yes. But Northern, Greater Anglia etc nowhere near.
In terms of special bonuses for special events. Wrong again. Rest days can be changed for special events to suit companies needs, that isn’t blackmail.
It does really seem odd that once again the right is freely attacking train drivers when it is totally to blame for the wages they’re on now. When British Rail was ridiculously privatised by the Major government, incidentally at the time when it was just beginning to actually turn a profit, it led to a fight for labour between franchises which is why train drivers saw a massive pay increase. If you want to have a pop at anyone for train drivers being rightly on £65k for a job which has swathes of responsibility then have a pop once again at the Conservatives who set the house on fire than ran away.
I’m not going to even entertain the unions crack. Unions are the reason most British citizens have half decent working conditions. Calling them ‘militant’ sounds like something right off the front page of the Mail.
In terms of special bonuses for special events. Wrong again. Rest days can be changed for special events to suit companies needs, that isn’t blackmail.
It does really seem odd that once again the right is freely attacking train drivers when it is totally to blame for the wages they’re on now. When British Rail was ridiculously privatised by the Major government, incidentally at the time when it was just beginning to actually turn a profit, it led to a fight for labour between franchises which is why train drivers saw a massive pay increase. If you want to have a pop at anyone for train drivers being rightly on £65k for a job which has swathes of responsibility then have a pop once again at the Conservatives who set the house on fire than ran away.
I’m not going to even entertain the unions crack. Unions are the reason most British citizens have half decent working conditions. Calling them ‘militant’ sounds like something right off the front page of the Mail.
No. You're right.
The RMT aren't militant at all.
Here's Mick Lynch calling for RMT branches to affiilate with a Palestine Solidarity campaign, and bring flags and banners to a Central London protest.
https://www.rmt.org.uk/about/policies/political-circulars-and-submissions/israel-palestine130524/
Because obviously this is how you get "decent work conditions" for British workers.
The same RMT that staged walkouts over tube drivers sacked for failing drugs tests.
Original post by Gazpacho.
For you elderly gentleman, £221.20 of his weekly income will be state pension. He has had his entire working life to build up a pension pot for himself.
part of my job involves financial assessments. I see a lot of people in their 30s and 40s who choose not to pay into private pensions. They are going to be in this situation when they hit retirement age and they’ll be turning to the government to help them.
Of course. I’m not beyond tapering or increasing the threshold. However that requires an administrative structure that will likely cost the government as much as it saves.
In these debates, people always bring up money spent abroad or on the military as if they think geopolitics is about unicorns and rainbows. The money spent on Ukraine or munitions for Ukraine is not just a hand out to support the Ukrainian people. There is a far broader geopolitical goal. Western hegemony retreating in the face growing authoritarianism is going to be a central theme of the 21st century. If Russia gets a whiff that it can expand without consequences, losing winter fuel payments will be the least of our problems.
part of my job involves financial assessments. I see a lot of people in their 30s and 40s who choose not to pay into private pensions. They are going to be in this situation when they hit retirement age and they’ll be turning to the government to help them.
Of course. I’m not beyond tapering or increasing the threshold. However that requires an administrative structure that will likely cost the government as much as it saves.
In these debates, people always bring up money spent abroad or on the military as if they think geopolitics is about unicorns and rainbows. The money spent on Ukraine or munitions for Ukraine is not just a hand out to support the Ukrainian people. There is a far broader geopolitical goal. Western hegemony retreating in the face growing authoritarianism is going to be a central theme of the 21st century. If Russia gets a whiff that it can expand without consequences, losing winter fuel payments will be the least of our problems.
There's also an element of eternal demand with those sorts of points. Someone, somewhere, is always going to be in need of money. The trouble is that there is a finite amount of money a government is realistically able to spend, they will inevitably have to prioritise some things over others.
The government could cave to the demands of people wanting no military budget, no foreign aid budget, etc, but sooner or later that money will eventually run out. What then happens when a new problem arises that the government needs money for? Do they cut back education, health, transport, etc?
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Labour in Power: “Things Can Only Get Better.” “Definitely Maybe” – or Maybe Not?
- Should Starmer hand the Labour Party leadership to Reeves?
- 5th March 2025: ‘Labours’ Real first Budget– fiscal years 25/26.
- Possibly abolishing single persons council tax discount
- Reform UK favourites to win next election?
- Why Scrapping the Two-Child Benefit Cap Could Save the UK's Future – A Real Left-Wing
- What has made you decide to vote Labour in the 2024 GE?
- Have I got enough to write in my personal statement (Durham)?
- How much more Austerity can we take?
- [Official Thread] Chancellor Jeremy Hunt to deliver Autumn Statement on Wednesday
- Cant get a my refund back
- Postgraduate Student Finance
- A Day in the Life of a Nutrition and Health Student at the University of Roehampton
- Late uni submission
- Looking for criticism on my essay as I am a private candidate
- What do I do? Advice? (depression/social anxiety/uni worrying)
- What's on your uni bucket list? Share your must-do experiences!
- Should I make a Stocks and Shares ISA now?
- Your one stop shop for silly general election news stories
- At least six killed and several in critical condition after Westfield shopping centre
Latest
Trending
Last reply 8 minutes ago
Labour in Power: “Things Can Only Get Better.” “Definitely Maybe” – or Maybe Not?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Can Labour lose the next election over the Winter Fuel allowance?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Rachel Reeves did the right thing in ending winter fuel paymentsLast reply 1 month ago
[Golden Thread] - Which celebrity would you choose to become Prime Minister?Last reply 1 month ago
Should the UK introduce a mandatory working gap year for 18-year olds?Last reply 1 month ago
What do you consider as the best way for resolving the nationwide housing crisis?
