# Labour says curbs on winter fuel payments 'sick and sneaky'



## Northerner (May 19, 2017)

Plans to limit the number of pensioners who get winter fuel payments are "sick and sneaky", Labour has claimed.

Shadow chancellor John McDonnell said 10 million people would be hit by Tory proposals to means-test the allowance.

Labour, which says it will retain universal payments if it wins power, has suggested that axing them increases the risk of people dying this winter.

The Tories say help will go to those most in need but there is opposition to the policy from the party in Scotland.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-39972743

Yup, as I predicted, TM is already talking about the 'least well-off' pensioners. This is the same line as taken with the 'most vulnerable disabled people'. No doubt ATOS or similar will be brought in to assess at what point a pensioner starts turning blue when locked in a frozen meat locker - less than an hour and they take your cash away...


----------



## mikeyB (May 19, 2017)

Scottish conservatives say that they've ruled out this applying in Scotland (not that it's their choice, but SNP won't object to this naked electioneering point). They accept that with so many in rural areas with distinctly different weather conditions to cope with in winter, that means testing this benefit is not realistic.


----------



## trophywench (May 20, 2017)

What, and no bits of England - or indeed Wales , have the odd hill ?

Ever seen a photo of the Tan Hill Inn in the snow or observed the surrounding terrain in any weather?


----------



## mikeyB (May 20, 2017)

I think I covered your point in the naked electioneering comment. Scots Tories are desperate to distance themselves from the 'nasty' party image. Won't work, mind you.


----------



## Northerner (May 20, 2017)

mikeyB said:


> Scots Tories are desperate to distance themselves from the 'nasty' party image. Won't work, mind you.


I hope not. If ever a party deserved a good kicking for being massively overconfident, it's party TM (conservative)


----------



## ypauly (May 20, 2017)

Saying what you intend to do after an election is hardly sneaky, what is sneaky is Labours plan to take the money after death, with a hefty inheritance tax something they sneakily don't mention anymore.


----------



## Northerner (May 20, 2017)

ypauly said:


> Saying what you intend to do after an election is hardly sneaky, what is sneaky is Labours plan to take the money after death, with a hefty inheritance tax something they sneakily don't mention anymore.


They're not saying what they intend to do though, no details provided!  Duke of Westminster escaped £3.6bn  in inheritance tax, would have paid for the winter fuel allowance for everyone for two years, or plugged the gap in the schools budget. No-one needs that much money, especially when it is totally unearned


----------



## ypauly (May 20, 2017)

Northerner said:


> They're not saying what they intend to do though, no details provided!  Duke of Westminster escaped £3.6bn  in inheritance tax, would have paid for the winter fuel allowance for everyone for two years, or plugged the gap in the schools budget. No-one needs that much money, especially when it is totally unearned


He has not escaped any tax, he has paid all tax he has to pay. The politics of envy is such a strange thing, where do you get the money from once you have taken every penny off the rich? Oh yes it's that magic money tree Labour use isn't it.


----------



## mikeyB (May 20, 2017)

The Duke of Westminster was given his land by some king or other, as though it were the king's to give. The family have never worked for a penny. If you think that is reasonable, fair enough. It offends me.  I do have an interest- Savills look after his lands in the North. Or, more specifically my daughter does.


----------



## Northerner (May 20, 2017)

ypauly said:


> He has not escaped any tax, he has paid all tax he has to pay. The politics of envy is such a strange thing, where do you get the money from once you have taken every penny off the rich? Oh yes it's that magic money tree Labour use isn't it.


I'm not envious in the slightest, just making the observation that hoarding that amount of wealth is simply pointless, it doesn't improve his life in any way yet it could transform the lives of so many others. To me, that is obscene, I certainly wouldn't want it. And whereas the Labour Party have shown where they would get the money from for their proposals and thereby intend to address inequality, PartyTM (conservative) don't mention it. In fact, Labour have put forward a plan to tackle homelessness, the Tories have said they intend to 'halve' it - which would restore it to the level it was at when they took power in 2010


----------



## Amigo (May 20, 2017)

I find myself conflicted on this (as a Gucci Socialist with a raving Red flag waving mother). Truth is many well off pensioners find the Winter Fuel Payment more of a novelty than a necessity. My concern is the same as northerner's in how they will assess this. Bottom line though is many simply don't need it at all and will honestly say so (but they won't let you decline it of course).


----------



## Northerner (May 20, 2017)

Amigo said:


> I find myself conflicted on this (as a Gucci Socialist with a raving Red flag waving mother). Truth is many well off pensioners find the Winter Fuel Payment more of a novelty than a necessity. My concern is the same as northerner's in how they will assess this. Bottom line though is many simply don't need it at all and will honestly say so (but they won't let you decline it of course).


The implication of the suggested savings is that it will affect 10m pensioners, which will no doubt include a significant number for which it is not a novelty, but a very valuable benefit. Plus, it is taxable for those who take it and there's no compulsion to apply for it as far as I know. 

Something I am always surprised by, and haven't heard mentioned at all, is the fact that higher-rate taxpayers get higher-rate tax relief on their pension contributions - surely it would be very straightforward to set tax relief at basic rate for everyone and therefore save a huge amount of money?


----------



## grovesy (May 20, 2017)

Amigo said:


> I find myself conflicted on this (as a Gucci Socialist with a raving Red flag waving mother). Truth is many well off pensioners find the Winter Fuel Payment more of a novelty than a necessity. My concern is the same as northerner's in how they will assess this. Bottom line though is many simply don't need it at all and will honestly say so (but they won't let you decline it of course).





Northerner said:


> The implication of the suggested savings is that it will affect 10m pensioners, which will no doubt include a significant number for which it is not a novelty, but a very valuable benefit. Plus, it is taxable for those who take it and there's no compulsion to apply for it as far as I know.
> 
> Something I am always surprised by, and haven't heard mentioned at all, is the fact that higher-rate taxpayers get higher-rate tax relief on their pension contributions - surely it would be very straightforward to set tax relief at basic rate for everyone and therefore save a huge amount of money?


I believe it is paid automatically, and I heard a radio presenter wanting to not be paid it but the powers that be could not tell him how to send it back or have the system to do so. I have also heard in the past to means test it is in itself costly.


----------



## ypauly (May 20, 2017)

mikeyB said:


> The Duke of Westminster was given his land by some king or other, as though it were the king's to give. The family have never worked for a penny. If you think that is reasonable, fair enough. It offends me.  I do have an interest- Savills look after his lands in the North. Or, more specifically my daughter does.


Yes some people are offended by anything, but the simple fact that some distant ruler gave somebody some land, and they took the time to make it valuable creating jobs and wealth along the way, quite how anybody could be offended by that is a mystery, I think its more like jealousy.


----------



## trophywench (May 20, 2017)

I can assure you, you don't have to claim it in the first place - it simply appears in your Bank account, then a bit later you get a letter saying you're entitled to it.  Pete was first to be 60 which was the magic age - and he was still at work!  Ridiculous actually.  He was right hacked off when I was 60 though, cos his £200 was reduced to £100 and I got the other £100.  It's in the same category as the Tax Credits when you work and have kids.  So in 2007 ish my boss who earned approx 40k a year and married to a chap earning a bit more than her - they claimed their Tax Credits cos they could.  Whyever wouldn't you? - if the Gov are daft enough to pay em.

You'll never ever design a foolproof system where every single person is on a level footing - and personally I don't actually mind Freddie owning all that property - someone has to and at least he bloody well looks after the fabric of it properly - whereas if they dumped a terrace of Georgian Houses on me or you we wouldn't have a clue where to start - other than ringing up Savills and asking if they'd do it at the same rates for us too - pigs might fly!  LOL  And in the private ownership of the clueless - they finish up looking like the upmarket version of the council estate with the mattresses on the front garden which is in nobody's interests!


----------



## Amigo (May 20, 2017)

Northerner said:


> The implication of the suggested savings is that it will affect 10m pensioners, which will no doubt include a significant number for which it is not a novelty, but a very valuable benefit. Plus, it is taxable for those who take it and there's no compulsion to apply for it as far as I know.
> 
> Something I am always surprised by, and haven't heard mentioned at all, is the fact that higher-rate taxpayers get higher-rate tax relief on their pension contributions - surely it would be very straightforward to set tax relief at basic rate for everyone and therefore save a huge amount of money?



You can't give it back or refuse it northerner, there's no mechanism as Lord Sugar and other multi millionaires have discovered. It's paid automatically and it's estimated that £25 million is paid out to dead pensioners. My mother even gets it in a Care Home!


----------



## Northerner (May 20, 2017)

Amigo said:


> You can't give it back or refuse it northerner, there's no mechanism as Lord Sugar and other multi millionaires have discovered. It's paid automatically and it's estimated that £25 million is paid out to dead pensioners. My mother even gets it in a Care Home!


Fair enough, but the solution isn't to take it away from millions who may actually need it - I'd like to see the figures, which the Tories have conveniently failed to provide. I'm convinced that, like with PIP payments, they will err on the side of making more lives a bit more miserable, because that's the way they think.


----------



## mikeyB (May 20, 2017)

What amazes me is it's the people of England that suffer most from these policies, but it's the people of England that keeps voting the Tories in. Must be stupid, there's no other explanation. Wages stagnant for years, cost of living rising, NHS falling apart under the burden of unnecessary management, social care non existent. Don't you folk down there ever notice?


----------



## trophywench (May 20, 2017)

Yup we do Mike  - however when we get the MP for whom we didn't vote because we don't like his party's ideas ow way of going about stuff  - WTF do you expect us to do?  Yep we make our objections known to the bloke and ask him to at least get involved in something like diabetes - which is a cross party issue - and get utterly rebuffed.  In other words despite the mouth saying I represent you - in fact I don't.

Makes me wonder where he thinks he'll get his votes from this time in North Warwickshire (cos we got lumped in with them, see, when Maggie did the boundary changes - cos there are too many Labour voters in Nuneaton and Bedworth so by adding rural farming etc parts ....) seeing as he completely failed his promise last time to prevent HS2 going through the parts where the expensive houses are!  LOL


----------



## Amigo (May 20, 2017)

Northerner said:


> Fair enough, but the solution isn't to take it away from millions who may actually need it - I'd like to see the figures, which the Tories have conveniently failed to provide. I'm convinced that, like with PIP payments, they will err on the side of making more lives a bit more miserable, because that's the way they think.



As I said in my original post, that's my concern too northerner but I don't think the present system with Winter Payments is necessarily fair or sustainable. I just wish I could trust them to deal the hand fairly. I have an increasing unease that essential welfare benefits are being used more as a life choice than a safety net. There's a massive attitudinal problem, a culture that has crept in but in an attempt to try and redistribute money to those who need it, the task has been given to clueless assessors and too many casualties created. 
I hear all the arguments about this being a drop in the ocean in comparison with rich tax dodgers etc. etc. but in honesty my concerns hits more at the culture that's developing. The entitlement culture of being under the protection of the State. Whole generations who don't expect to even look for work. And I write that as someone who is and has been immersed in the social welfare system caring for the most vulnerable.

I only wish Labour had a more credible leader....


----------



## mikeyB (May 20, 2017)

The winter fuel payment is hardly the sort of money that could sustain a particular lifestyle. My Mrs gets it. We don't need it, indeed, it's neither here nor there.  Means testing it would cost a fortune, more than the benefit is worth. I don't see how it could foster whole generations who don't  expect to work.


----------



## Amigo (May 20, 2017)

mikeyB said:


> The winter fuel payment is hardly the sort of money that could sustain a particular lifestyle. My Mrs gets it. We don't need it, indeed, it's neither here nor there.  Means testing it would cost a fortune, more than the benefit is worth. I don't see how it could foster whole generations who don't  expect to work.



Come on Mike, my points were in response to Northerner's general points about welfare benefits including PIP not specifically winter fuel payments. 
I don't accept the view that we keep sending thousands of people who don't need them costly payments simply because it's too much hassle to revamp the admin. The welfare budget would surely go completely down the toilet if we took that approach to money that's supposed to be a safety net not an unnecessary perk.

They need to get their act together and allow people who honestly want to decline the winter fuel allowance to do so without hassle. They made us feel like bloody criminals declining my mum's winter fuel allowance when she went into Care.


----------



## mikeyB (May 20, 2017)

Flipping heck Andy, this is political thread. It's not the forum. What I wrote is standard political discourse up here. Sorry if there were translation errors. Certainly isn't grandstanding, it was a question.


----------



## mikeyB (May 20, 2017)

Amigo said:


> Come on Mike, my points were in response to Northerner's general points about welfare benefits including PIP not specifically winter fuel payments.
> I don't accept the view that we keep sending thousands of people who don't need them costly payments simply because it's too much hassle to revamp the admin. The welfare budget would surely go completely down the toilet if we took that approach to money that's supposed to be a safety net not an unnecessary perk.
> 
> They need to get their act together and allow people who honestly want to decline the winter fuel allowance to do so without hassle. They made us feel like bloody criminals declining my mum's winter fuel allowance when she went into Care.


I quite agree it's supposed to be a safety net, but the wrong people are being are thrown off the safety net by a careless government in its efforts to reduce welfare spending. The government should bite the bullet and just straightforwardly abolish these universal benefits. They could cheerfully sit that row out.


----------



## ypauly (May 20, 2017)

mikeyB said:


> What amazes me is it's the people of England that suffer most from these policies, but it's the people of England that keeps voting the Tories in.  Wages stagnant for years, cost of living rising, NHS falling apart under the burden of unnecessary management, social care non existent. Don't you folk down there ever notice?


Only the stupid think the state should care for all, it should not. We down here understand that people should be able to take care of themselves so the state can take care of those it needs to.

Scots fall for the the SN***P's line that they give free this and free that, they don't and it isn't free, it is paid for by the English.

Edited by Copepod - describing legitimate UK parties as being N**** I'd not acceptable.


----------



## mikeyB (May 21, 2017)

Aye, well we'd better get independent so you can save all that money. Sorry for being a burden. And thanks for raising the point, it's not one that Mrs May has ever mentioned.


----------



## trophywench (May 21, 2017)

Hey Paul - if Scotland gets what they want - ie independence from Englan, what's your suggestion about where we should re-site and berth the main tourist attraction of Scotland, ie the former Royal Yacht, Britannia?

Pete thinks on the Thames - but knowing how genuinely upset the Queen was about it ceasing service I think London might be a bit too close - and knowing the £billions of money it earned the UK in it's time, though not certain any purely Scottish industry deals were struck upon her,  it's equally important to all of us in England and Wales and Northern Ireland. 

How about Cowes - or maybe Buckler's Hard, for starters?


----------



## ypauly (May 21, 2017)

trophywench said:


> Hey Paul - if Scotland gets what they want - ie independence from Englan, what's your suggestion about where we should re-site and berth the main tourist attraction of Scotland, ie the former Royal Yacht, Britannia?
> 
> Pete thinks on the Thames - but knowing how genuinely upset the Queen was about it ceasing service I think London might be a bit too close - and knowing the £billions of money it earned the UK in it's time, though not certain any purely Scottish industry deals were struck upon her,  it's equally important to all of us in England and Wales and Northern Ireland.
> 
> How about Cowes - or maybe Buckler's Hard, for starters?


If they get what they want and take their £15 Billion deficit with them, they can keep the boat, we'll have saved so much we can build Lizzy a new one.


----------



## trophywench (May 21, 2017)

No love, you don't understand - she won't actually want another - it's THAT yacht and only that yacht - which is iconic to Britain during her reign.  What it represents - hence why it gets more visitors than any other attraction in Scotland.  But - it's OURS not theirs - so I reckon we'll want it back.  It's worth more than any amount of ££££.


----------



## Benny G (May 21, 2017)

Universal credit could well become normal for everyone in the western world. 
Governments are aware and are already preparing for the dark days ahead. 
Worst case scenario: automation and artificial intelligence drive unemployment to unprecedented levels. Think how Internet shopping is killing the high street,  soon cars, trains and planes will use AI to drive themselves,  putting lorry drivers and taxi drivers out of work,  telephone jobs will be replaced by AI. It is predicted that 95% of all jobs will vanish, the people who do work all on zero hours contracts or more likely zero minutes contracts. 
Universal credit would be the baseline to which you could add your 5 minutes work on Monday,  36 minutes on Tuesday. 
Sure,  it's a nightmare,  and it's not here yet. Welcome to the future.


----------



## Northerner (May 21, 2017)

I think this thread has run its course.


----------

