Science5 mins ago
No Impact Assessment On Winter Fuel Payment Cut
https:/
Why not? Because they already knew? In 2017 Labour claimed to have carried out an assessment, the result of which, they said, meant that cutting the Winter Fuel Payment would cause 4000 deaths. They now claim that the rise in the State pension will compensate but as far as I'm aware that doesn't kick in until April 2025 so no help at all this coming winter. Duplicitous as ever.
Answers
1 to 11 of 11
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by naomi24. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Talking about future increases is deliberately misleading anyway as not everyone gets the triple lock and it's to cover inflation, and some will pay tax on it so will only get 80% of it. (Okay maybe they get a smidgen more than inflation under the triple lock but it's not enough extra to cover the loss of WFA and rising fuel bills.)
i do find it remarkable how conservatives have miraculously understood that cutting benefits and public investment causes deaths and real harm to vulnerable people. i did not vote labour in the last election precisely because i disagree with austerity and rachel reeves doesn't. it is quite exasperating to see tories turn a blind eye to devastation caused by their own spending policies and then suddenly understand the implications when another party does it. extremely hypocritical.
State pension isn't rising any more than it is scheduled to, so can not possibly compensate for anything.
Unsurprised they didn't spend time analysing the possible consequences as that would delay things, and allegedly the financial cost (not the cost to people) dictated that it wasn't compulsory. I can understand that maybe the existing welfare system could catch some in greatest need, but it still shows a hasty unthought through action, and won't cover all hardship.
What they needed to do was roll the payment into the normal pension amount instead. It wouldn't have saved them anything but would have been a fairer move.
Consolidating it into basic pension would have saved them something because the consolidated amount would have become taxable for many pensioners who were close to or already over the tax threshold of £12570, and those with big private pensions could have repaid 40% or 45% (a bit more in Scotland).
I don't think this was really about saving money to fill blackholes- there were much easier ways to save similar amounts, and of course if they were to be successful in getting all those entitled to pension credit to claim it, it would seriously offset/wipe out the savings from removing WFA
The triple lock bit is more lies from Robber Reeves along with the 22Bn "black hole". Duplicitous is being too generous, liars and Nasty Party.
This is very badly thought out and may even end up costing them more money if more ne claim the benefits they are entitled to.
This was simply a labour grab at what they thought were Tory voters but they have ended up with hitting their own more.
I'm pretty sure the Tories/ TINO's) never said they would cut it, and I can imagine the furore if they had even suggested it.
Labour scum.
1 to 11 of 11
