How's the government doing?

[SteveH]

Now that the election's over, I thought a thread to keep tabs on the new Labour government might be a good idea.
I must say, I'm a bit disappointed in some ways: whipping all Labour MPs to keep the two-child benefit cap, and restricting the winter fuel allowance. Re. the former, my MP, David Taylor, said that the government has other plans to end child poverty; well, I dare say it does, but I'dn't've thought they were mutually incompatible.
Otoh, an above-inflation pay rise for public sector workers sounds good, though it's not a firm promise yet,

[jeremyp]

Now that the election's over, I thought a thread to keep tabs on the new Labour government might be a good idea.
I must say, I'm a bit disappointed in some ways: whipping all Labour MPs to keep the two-child benefit cap,

I have no opinion on that.

and restricting the winter fuel allowance.

This is a good thing, I think. My parents, for example, think it is ridiculous that they receive the winter fuel allowance. Obviously, it is a welcome addition for some pensioners but the richer ones don't need it.

Otoh, an above-inflation pay rise for public sector workers sounds good, though it's not a firm promise yet,

I agree that public sector pay has been eroded over recent years, but there always a downside to anything expensive like this.

[Aruntraveller]

his is a good thing, I think. My parents, for example, think it is ridiculous that they receive the winter fuel allowance. Obviously, it is a welcome addition for some pensioners but the richer ones don't need it.

I'd agree on this. It always felt like a very blunt hammer to solve a problem that arguably needed a needlepoint approach. I think Jeremyp and I discussed this last year or the year before. It is ludicrous that I get a winter fuel allowance when I can manage perfectly well on my pensions.

[Harrowby Hall]

Aruntraveller describes my feelings about this matter accurately.

[SteveH]

I don't, in general, like the idea of any universal benefit becoming means-tested. inevitably, ,the ceiling will be set too low.

[Nearly Sane]

I don't, in general, like the idea of any universal benefit becoming means-tested. inevitably, ,the ceiling will be set too low.

Worth reading Age UK's comments


https://www.ageuk.org.uk/latest-press/articles/2024/age-uk-responds-to-the-chancellors-announcement-to-means-test-the-winter-fuel-payment/

[Nearly Sane]

George Osbourne on Rachel Reeves


https://x.com/StephenFlynnSNP/status/1819454077539176626

[Nearly Sane]

Approval ratings dropping

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/news/content/ar-AA1pzNei?ocid=sapphireappshare

[ProfessorDavey]

Worth reading Age UK's comments


https://www.ageuk.org.uk/latest-press/articles/2024/age-uk-responds-to-the-chancellors-announcement-to-means-test-the-winter-fuel-payment/

This seems to me to be key:

“A big reason for this disastrous outcome is that more than one in three pensioners entitled to Pension Credit, the qualifying benefit for WFP under this proposal, don’t receive it, a proportion that’s been roughly constant for many years."

So the argument seems to be that you need to give WFP to everyone (including many very wealthy pensioners) because a lot of people who are on more restricted incomes don't get the benefits they are entitled to. So surely the focus should be on ensuring all that are entitled to pension credit get it rather than maintaining WFP for all. Those people would doubly benefit, both from retained WFP and pension credit. That would involve clear redistribution from those most wealthy to those most in need.

[Nearly Sane]

This seems to me to be key:

“A big reason for this disastrous outcome is that more than one in three pensioners entitled to Pension Credit, the qualifying benefit for WFP under this proposal, don’t receive it, a proportion that’s been roughly constant for many years."

So the argument seems to be that you need to give WFP to everyone (including many very wealthy pensioners) because a lot of people who are on more restricted incomes don't get the benefits they are entitled to. So surely the focus should be on ensuring all that are entitled to pension credit get it rather than maintaining WFP for all. Those people would doubly benefit, both from retained WFP and pension credit. That would involve clear redistribution from those most wealthy to those most in need.

Yes, but given the issue you don't withdraw it until that work has been substantially done.

[ProfessorDavey]

Yes, but given the issue you don't withdraw it until that work has been substantially done.

Not necessarily as the process of withdrawing the universal WFP can be used to shake out those people who are eligible for pension credit but don't apply.

This seems analogous to the removal of child benefits from wealthier parents. That affected me and it was actioned by writing to all those who were getting the payments asking them to confirm whether their income was above the threshold and therefore would have the benefit withdrawn (there was an appeal process). If the same approach was applied to WFP you could also ask pensioners whether their income was above the threshold, and a supplementary question on whether the individual receives pension credit - join up those that are below the threshold but not currently receiving pension credit and ensure they get both pension credit and WFP. Job done.

[Nearly Sane]

Not necessarily as the process of withdrawing the universal WFP can be used to shake out those people who are eligible for pension credit but don't apply.

This seems analogous to the removal of child benefits from wealthier parents. That affected me and it was actioned by writing to all those who were getting the payments asking them to confirm whether their income was above the threshold and therefore would have the benefit withdrawn (there was an appeal process). If the same approach was applied to WFP you could also ask pensioners whether their income was above the threshold, and a supplementary question on pension credit - join up those that are below the threshold but not currently receiving pension credit and ensure they get it. Job done.

Writing job done isn't getting the job done. There was no move to get the uptake on credits up, and the rationale for the withdrawal of the winter fuel allowance was the cost not the lack of uptake ob credits. What's tge net figure of savings if tge credits are fully taken up?

[ProfessorDavey]

Writing job done isn't getting the job done. There was no move to get the uptake on credits up, and the rationale for the withdrawal of the winter fuel allowance was the cost not the lack of uptake ob credits. What's tge net figure of savings if tge credits are fully taken up?

It seemed to work for the child benefits so don't understand why it wouldn't work for WFP.

It would clearly be in a person's interest to respond if their income is below the threshold (as that would trigger retained WFP). All HMRC would need to do is join up those that reported that they are below the income threshold but not receiving pension credit to allow them to receive the benefits they deserve.

By doing that not only would you ensure those eligible for WFP continue to receive it but ensure those people also get pension credit if they are entitled to it.

[Nearly Sane]

It seemed to work for the child benefits so don't understand why it wouldn't work for WFP.

It would clearly be in a person's interest to respond if their income is below the threshold (as that would trigger retained WFP). All HMRC would need to do is join up those that reported that they are below the income threshold but not receiving pension credit to allow them to receive the benefits they deserve.

By doing that not only would you ensure those eligible for WFP continue to receive it but ensure those people also get pension credit if they are entitled to it.

  Which is work that wasn't announced up front. Rather as already covered it was in the context of the 'black hole' and wasn't announced as part of a reform merely a saving.

Again, if the credits are fully taken up, what is the overall saving ?

[ProfessorDavey]

  Which is work that wasn't announced up front. Rather as already covered it was in the context of the 'black hole' and wasn't announced as part of a reformed merely a saving.

Again, if the credits are fully taken up, what is the overall saving ?

I don't know what the saving would be, but presumably the issue of fairness and redistribution would be a factor too. So by aligning the process of withdrawal of WFP from wealthier pensioners with ensuring that the poorest pensioners (those eligible for pension credit) both retain WFP and get pension credit where they haven't previously you'd effectively be redistributing from those that simply don't need the WFP to those that are the poorest, but currently not getting what they are entitled to.

Sure the saving would be less than if you don't use the withdrawal of WFP to ensure those entitled to pension credit get it, but there would surely still be a considerable saving given that there are over 12M pensioners and from the article you linked to there are about 800,000 people who would (if the scheme works) now receive pension credit.

[Nearly Sane]

I don't know what the saving would be, but presumably the issue of fairness and redistribution would be a factor too. So by aligning the process of withdrawal of WFP from wealthier pensioners with ensuring that the poorest pensioners (those eligible for pension credit) both retain WFP and get pension credit where they haven't previously you'd effectively be redistributing from those that simply don't need the WFP to those that are the poorest, but currently not getting what they are entitled to.

Sure the saving would be less than if you don't use the withdrawal of WFP to ensure those entitled to pension credit get it, but there would surely still be a considerable saving given that there are over 12M pensioners and from the article you linked to there are about 800,000 people who would (if the scheme works) now receive pension credit.

So the work wasn't done. It wasn't part of the calculation. In terms of this action by the govt, it ignored those on pension credit, it made it purely about saving money from something they defended vociferously in the past, and means the claim that everything was fully funded at least incorrect if not necessarily a deliberate lie. It's hugely unpopular, see the approvals rating post this morning because it was badly done.

[ProfessorDavey]

So the work wasn't done. It wasn't part of the calculation. In terms of this action by the govt, it ignored those on pension credit, it made it purely about saving money from something they defended vociferously in the past, and means the claim that everything was fully funded at least incorrect if not necessarily a deliberate lie.

I've no idea what calculations on the level of savings were used by the treasury on this, and I suspect nor do you. So it is perfectly possible (and obviously sensible) that they have also factored in an increase in pension credit costs as those pensioners eligible, but currently not claiming may recognise that they need to claim benefits that they are entitled to. 

It's hugely unpopular, see the approvals rating post this morning because it was badly done.

Oh dear NS - category error - did the polling on approvals ratings specifically ask about the WFP proposals.

To see whether or not it is popular you need to ask a specific question about it, just as yougov did:

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2024/07/30/65187/1

Strongly/tend to support - 47%
Strongly/tend to oppose - 38%

Seems that the public are broadly supportive of the proposals.

[Nearly Sane]

I've no idea what calculations on the level of savings were used by the treasury on this, and I suspect nor do you. So it is perfectly possible (and obviously sensible) that they have also factored in an increase in pension credit costs as those pensioners eligible, but currently not claiming may recognise that they need to claim benefits that they are entitled to. 
Oh dear NS - category error - did the polling on approvals ratings specifically ask about the WFP proposals.

To see whether or not it is popular you need to ask a specific question about it, just as yougov did:

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2024/07/30/65187/1

Strongly/tend to support - 47%
Strongly/tend to oppose - 38%

Seems that the public are broadly supportive of the proposals.

Yes, they are specifically referenced in the link as -33, didn't you read it?

As to whether they've done the work, wouldn't they announce that at the time of withdrawing, and cover the 'disastrous outcome' in terms of the inadequate pension  credit uptake? Or are they just so incompetent, that they've done the work, and had plans to deal with that but forgot to announce thar at the time? Perhaps having said everything was fully costed, and then on denying that they got confused?

[ProfessorDavey]

Yes, they are specifically referenced in the link as -33, didn't you read it?

Without seeing the actual data and, critically, the wording of the question it is rather hard to comment. I typically only comment on polling where I can see the question. The question on the YouGov polling which had a +9 support is linked, clear and seems to me to be completely unbiased (simply setting out the proposals). Come back with the details on this -33 polling, including the question and we can discuss.

But generally if there is a +9 vs -33 difference in polling it suggests that the question on one, the other or both isn't very neutral.

[Nearly Sane]

Barking


https://news.sky.com/story/economy-could-have-crashed-if-winter-fuel-payments-for-pensioners-werent-cut-labour-minister-claims-13207619

[Nearly Sane]

Opportunistic bunch of hypocritical slugs

https://x.com/Conservatives/status/1833470886269145212

This entire mess gives me the dry boak when I think of either lying toerag parties.

[Nearly Sane]

Not very well

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cr54n3r0l50o

[Nearly Sane]

Not very well

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cr54n3r0l50o

And some Labour MPs agree


https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c5y3dgvzy6do

[Nearly Sane]

Not great according to the poll.

But then getting rid of money for pensioners without an impact assessment while getting your wife's clothes paid for and getting thousands of pounds of tickets to see your football club will do that.


https://archive.vn/AG99b

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Not great according to the poll.

But then getting rid of money for pensioners without an impact assessment while getting your wife's clothes paid for and getting thousands of pounds of tickets to see your football club will do that.

Freebies never seem to raise much consternation with Conservative governments.

Economic assessment of Labour in the polls is a bit premature.
The voters still look a bit fuckwitted not having learned their lessons from the debacle they unleashed from Brexit although
Starmer and Reeves look a pair of fuckwits.