Angela
Rayner, the Labour Deputy Prime Minister and the MP for Ashton-under-Lyne, has
said that she supports scaling back the Winter Fuel Allowance (WFA), for
British pensioners and she's defended her government taking money off the
elderly. It has also been reported in the press that Rayner, may be planning to
scrap the single person’s council tax reduction of 25% for people who live in
their own.
During
a recent interview on BBC Breakfast, Rayner, was reminded by BBC Breakfast host
Naga Munchetty, of past tweets that she'd made attacking the Tories for
planning to hit pensioner benefits. In 2017, Rayner had criticised the then
prime minister Theresa May, for raids on pensioner benefits that were never
implemented. In the run-up to the 2017 General Election, the Conservative
government of Theresa May, had proposed making the WFA a means-tested benefit
and Rayner had defended the principle of universalism. At the time, Labour's
shadow chancellor, John McDonnell, had said the move risked killing around
4,000 pensioners.
This
unpopular policy has now been adopted by the Labour government and some 10
million British pensioners are now likely to lose their WFA. Many of these
would've been Labour voters. In defending her shifting stance on the WFA,
Rayner told BBC Breakfast that her government had to be "fiscally responsible" and that
because Liz Truss had crashed the economy, she has had to change her
principles. Rayner said that Labour had "protected the most vulnerable pensioners" by ensuring that
those claiming Pension Credit, would still get the WFA. She said that Labour
had also extended the household support fund which is provided by local
authorities.
Around
2.2 million households in Britain are eligible for Pension Credit but it's
estimated that around 880,000 don't claim it, because they're often unaware
that they are entitled to it. The process of claiming Pension Credit, can also
be daunting. Age UK, have said that completing the 22-page form to get Pension
Credit and answering 243 questions, would "pose a challenge for many."
As
for the Household Support Fund, most people will be unaware of it and won't
even know how to claim it. It's one of Britain's best kept secrets. The fund
which is administered by local authorities makes limited financial help
available to vulnerable people and each local authority, has different criteria
for eligibility.
Starmer's
Labour government haven't been in power very long, but already it's like watching
the dying days of the Roman Empire. Starmer-oid seems more concerned about the
price of Oasis tickets than freezing pensioners who will now have to choose
between heating and eating.
As
for Angela Rayner and her 'principles',
she reminds me of Groucho Marx, who famously said, "Those are my principles, and if you don't like them...well, I have
others." I always thought that Rayner had more faces than the town
hall clock and was completely disingenuous. The former care worker and trade
union rep for the trade union UNISON, who describes herself has being a
socialist but on the "soft left",
and who claims to have been dragged up on a council estate in Stockport and fed
dog food by her disabled mother, has finished up picking the pockets of
Britain's elderly pensioners. This is where the Parliamentary Road to socialism
leads to. You threaten to squeeze the rich until the pips squeak and then you
finish up shafting the poor. It's likely
that under Starmer's and Rayner's hideous Labour government, pensioners and
those on state benefits, are going to get a lot poorer.
Labour
have repeatedly said they're not a political party for people on state
benefits. They assert that they are the party for people who are in work. In
2017, Rachel 'Freeze' Reeves, who was then shadow minister for Work &
Pensions said that Labour would be far tougher than the Tories when it came to
cutting welfare spending. She claims that the country can't afford to pay the
WFA and it will save the government £1.5bn. Yet, Starmer's Labour government
have announced that they will be donating £11.6bn to developing countries to
help them cope with climate change.
Posts
2 comments:
I agree with all of this except the final sentence ' Starmer's Labour government have announced that they will be donating £11.6bn to developing countries to help them cope with climate change.'
Given we have been more responsible than most for climate change this would be very sensible. The real scandal is the tax breaks, the set aside grants, the covid frauds and of course the privatisations which are a means of transferring wealth from the poor to the rich... I doubt China is in receipt of our largesse. In fact China is now one of the largest producers of clean energy and is overtaking us. Charity begins at home is a stupid slogan not least because it's not charity and either charity is universal or its not charity.
The real problem is the neo-liberal transfer of vast chunks of wealth to the very richest, not small amounts doled out round the globe usually as bribes to corrupt regimes anyway
This whole matter of WFP needs to be put into context. The fact is that the SRP received in the UK is one of the lowest in Europe and it is based on a claimants NI contributions, so it is not given, but earned over a person's working life.. Furthermore, we now have to work for longer to actually receive it. The award of the WFA, travel passes, free prescriptions and eye tests for pensioners, should be seen as necessary supplements in recognition that most pensioners are on a fixed income. They are not in a position to increase the level of their income, which leaves them exposed to financial hardship when the cost of living increases. The discourse around universality of the WFP should be multidimensional, however, most uninformed people merely focus upon the lazy, tired and unthinking contention that some pensioners don't need it. There is a body of empirical evidence that informs us that once a benefit loses its universality status, it inevitably diminishes in value over a number of years. As means testing a benefit results in the middle classes losing their entitlement and therefore, a significantly politically influential group are taken out of the equation. Those who continue to receive it, don't have the same political power, which then allows politicians to diminish its value over time.
Post a Comment