Labour members at the party’s conference have voted in favour of a motion calling for ministers to reverse their cut to the winter fuel allowance, in an embarrassing blow to Sir Keir Starmer.
While there is nothing binding about the vote, it puts further pressure on the Labour leadership over its controversial decision to take away the benefit from millions of pensioners.
The motion was put forward by the trade union Unite, which has accused the government of embarking on “austerity mark two”.
Sharon Graham, the general secretary of Unite and outspoken critic of Sir Keir, moved the proposal by quoting Labour’s election winning post-war manifesto, which she said was “one of hope”.
She said: “The nation wants food, work and homes… It wants a high and rising standard of living, security for all, against a rainy day…”
“Friends, that’s a quote from the 1945 Labour Manifesto, written in the shadow of death, destruction and debt, caused by years of war. A manifesto of hope.”
Ms Graham said debt then was “nearly three times higher than it is now” but there was “no mention of cuts, no mention of austerity and certainly no mention of making everyday people pay”.
She added: "I do not understand how our new Labour government can cut the winter fuel allowance for pensioners and leave the super-rich untouched.
“This is not what people voted for. It is the wrong decision and needs to be reversed.”
I don’t think this winter fuel allowance cut is actually that bad but I think Labour are mega stupid to have announced it when they did and to have allowed it to dominate the news.
That’s it, their main problem is their messaging and the story they are trying to tell is dreadful.
It should have been about spreading the load, everyone doing their bit according to their means - so tax winter fuel payments so you get most of it back from wealthy pensioners but also take a big chunk off millionaires and companies not laying their bit. Then invest that in growth, a Green New Deal helping insulated poorer housing stock which would help boost the green energy industry bringing prices down for everyone while generating more skilled jobs.
At the moment they seem to think that, if they cause the pain now, people will forget about by the time of the election if we are out of the current economic dire straits. Which is foolish as the Tory press will just store this kind of thing up to use as sticks to beat them with later and people just don’t forgive or forget easily (especially if there is a cold snap and the papers fill with stories of pensioners dying because they can’t afford to turn the heating on).
This is a really sketchy phrasing of “if Labour cuts kill pensioners”. People remember when government policies kill their family members, it’s not just a matter of optics.
It doesn’t even have to be due to it. If a pensioner doesn’t turn on their heating then its Labours fault even if the pensioner could have afforded it.
Or if the pensioner did have the heating on but it hadn’t been serviced and they still died from the cold, you know the rags will spin it. Labour cuts fuel allowance and old dears die. Its not sketchy phrasing, its predictable Tory spin.
Are you honestly proposing that an increase in cold related deaths beyond expected levels during a cold snap is more likely to be explained by thousands of OAP’s just happening to forget to turn the heating on, rather than them not being able to afford it?
No, I’m suggesting that any death will be announced as an attempt of the government to murder the elderly.
As it always has, and always will be.
Ok, why aren’t the papers already full of those stories then? Old people die all the time. If the stories are guaranteed regardless of the governments actions, why are you bothered about the optics at all? They’re going to be the same no matter what.
Problem is that means testing often actually hinders many people who actually need help. Not every one is good with filling out forms and doing these applications. Not everyone knows how to apply and how to get assistance. And sometimes applications fail for strange reasons. Plus the cut off may screw people who were reliant on it but just don’t meet the right threshold.