A winter of discontent for pensioners?

Published: Posted on

A radiator temperature gauge set to 1.

By Professor Martin Powell
Health Services Management Centre
Professor of Health and Social Policy

‘How we treat our old people is a crucial test of our national quality. A nation that lacks gratitude to those who have honestly worked for her in the past while they had the strength to do so, does not deserve a future, for she has lost her sense of justice and her instinct of mercy.’ 

David Lloyd George, PM 1916-1922

‘The language of priorities is the religion of socialism’

Aneurin Bevan at the Labour Party Conference, 1949

Last week, Chancellor Rachel Reeves defended her decision to scrap winter fuel payments for around 10 million pensioners, citing a £22bn shortfall in public finances.

In restricting winter fuel payments to only those on means-tested benefits, Chancellor Reeves seems to have ignored the wisdom of both Nye Bevan and David Lloyd George. She said countless times in her speech in the House of Commons that ‘tough decisions’ needed to be made. Many people were in ‘fuel poverty’ last winter. However, with the price of fuel set to increase, the really ‘tough decisions’ may be for many pensioners this winter who may have to decide between spending money on heat or food. This was not the only assault on older people, who also discovered that the planned cap on long term care costs (postponed by the Conservative government) was also to be abandoned.

Those who consider themselves on the left of the Labour Party were strangely quiet, clearly instructed by the whips to remember the ‘Fawlty Towers’ line of ‘don’t mention the winter fuel payments’. It was left to the SNP’s Pete Wishart to ask, ‘does cutting winter fuel payments to all pensioners not seem and feel like Tory austerity?’ At least, Rachel Reeves didn’t resort to the adapted (disputed) Marie Antionette line: ‘let them wear blankets’.

The decision on winter fuel payments effectively turns a ‘universal’ benefit (available to all those over pension age) into a means-tested benefit. Historically, the Left has broadly preferred universalism to means testing, partly due to the latter’s association with the hated Poor Law, which ended in 1948. However, means-testing always presents a ‘boundary problem’ being felt most by those with incomes just above the line. Supporters of the decision point out that rich pensioners do not ‘need’ this benefit. This may be true, but the same logic has not (yet) been extended to child benefit or the NHS. Another reason that the Left favoured universalism was that it conferred a ‘badge of citizenship’ on all, binding citizens together rather than dividing them.

Critics smelling a touch of hypocrisy were soon on the trail, finding that the current Treasury chief secretary Darren Jones (then in opposition) insisted in November 2023 that older people should not bear the ‘brunt’ of efforts to balance the books, and during the election campaign gave an assurance that Labour had no plan to do this in government. Similar arguments to defend the benefit were given in 2017 by…. you’ve guessed it…. Rachel Reeves. More recently, when it was claimed that Rishi Sunak planned to end the winter fuel payment in September 2023, Shadow Chancellor, Rachel Reeves, argued that Ministers should “not be breaking those commitments” that they made to older people in the last election.

A spokesperson for the End Fuel Poverty Coalition, said that any such move would be a “death sentence” for pensioners. The ‘End Fuel Poverty Coalition’ estimated that 4,950 ‘excess winter deaths’ in the UK were caused by living in cold homes during the Winter of 2022/23. This figure is clearly influenced by the severity of the Winter, but perhaps lawyers might consider the charge of ‘corporate manslaughter’ or political scientists may be reminded of Friedrich Engels’ concept of ‘social murder’.

The financial position may change, but principles or priorities should not. While it is highly unlikely that the charges above will stick, ignoring the advice of Nye Bevan is a serious charge for any Labour politicians.



The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the University of Birmingham.

Share:

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *