A vote on Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves’ plan to abolish winter fuel allowances for pensioners and raise the salaries for certain civil servants could lead to a split in parliament, according to The Guardian.
Earlier, The Telegraph condemned the government’s plan, now The Guardian reported on a likely stormy debate on Labour’s initiative to save money on British pensioners.
The House of Commons could vote to deny around nine million pensioners their winter fuel allowance. Prime Minister Keir Starmer and Reeves are struggling to plug a hole in the budget created by the previous government.
I understand the decision that this government has made on winter fuel is a difficult decision. [But] there’s a £22bn black hole in the public finances because of the mess created by the previous government.
Disagreement over the government’s plan to limit eligibility for the allowance has been a key issue in the first few months of the Labour government. The issue also highlights divisions within Starmer’s party.
The benefits under discussion are £200 (€237), rising to £300 (€355) for those aged over 80. The changes will save around £1.5bn (€1.78bn) a year, compared to an estimated £22bn (around €26bn) “black hole” in the public finances. The number of recipients would fall from more than 11 million to 1.5 million.
Unions and many Labour Party members disagreed. Sharon Graham, the general secretary of Unite, said:
It’s completely wrong. People do not understand how a Labour government has decided to pick the pocket of pensioners and at the same time leave the richest in our society totally untouched.
Foreign or domestic policy
While the wealthiest pensioners will barely notice the loss, many will feel a distinct change. The Resolution Foundation thinktank claims that around 1.3 million pension families living in poverty after housing costs will lose their payments.
Starmer stated that backbenchers should support the policy, as “every Labour MP was elected in on the same mandate as I was, which was to deliver the change that we need for the country.”
17 Labour MPs have already signed a parliamentary early motion calling for an impact assessment of the plan before it is implemented. Another question is whether abstention will be considered a severe enough to be punished.
The government could take other steps to keep wavering MPs on its side. For example, introducing a social tariff on energy bills to reduce costs for those who suffer the most, or extending eligibility for the warm homes discount, which is £150 per household.
However, in the face of domestic financial difficulties for British citizens, none of the MPs suggested saving money on military aid to Ukraine. This would have helped to channel huge funds to support their own pensioners.
