Look if you will at the two pictures above. One shows what a pensioner might hypothetically look like with her heating on at a modest 19 degrees Celsius, happily knitting and in relative comfort. 

The other shows a pensioner who has hypothetically been forced to decide whether to heat her home properly or to eat, she has set her heating to 10 degrees Celsius in order to stop any pipes freezing in her home; this will save greatly on her heating bill but is not an adequate temperature to prevent such an elderly person from becoming hypothermic. 

As she sits cradling a mug of warm tea she feels frozen, her bones ache, her windpipe and lungs are chilled from taking in cold air; she shivers miserably, her teeth chattering. Her eyes gradually close and her body shuts down. In her final few moments of life her only real comfort comes in knowing that the Chancellor, the Prime Minister and all those M.P.s who shamefully voted in favour of the the winter fuel payment cut will be able to claim thousands to heat their second homes this winter, and will be snug and warm.

Hypocritical

When Theresa May's Conservative government proposed cutting the winter fuel allowance for pensioners in 2017 Labour warned that their own research projected an increase in excess pensioner deaths of around 4,000 during that winter. At that time many Labour MPs including some who are now in top cabinet positions spoke out most passionately in favour of keeping this essential payment.

Yet once in government Labour happily removed the winter fuel payment from the majority of pensioners, many of whom are not wealthy by any means and who in some cases will be too afraid to use their heating this winter. Labour claim that by means-testing the payment in order to 'target' those most in need payments to wealthy pensioners who do not really need the additional cash can be stopped, thus saving some money. However, in reality many pensioners who are on very low incomes, just above the means-tested limits, will suffer miserably, possibly require hospital treatment and may even (according to Labours own 2017 research) die. In principle the idea is good because there is no point in giving millionaire pensioners an extra £200 - £300, however the thresholds for means testing needed to be revised upwards prior to bringing in the cuts.

Cruel and vindictive?

The Labour leader (Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer) reportedly said in his Rose Garden speech of 28/08/2024 that "those with the broadest shoulders should bear the heaviest burdens". Surely he cannot have been referring to pensioners as having the broadest shoulders can he? Is it not cruel to take away such a relatively small benefit from a demographic that in many cases are already on  pitifully low fixed incomes and can do nothing to regain such a loss? Particularly when the removal of that benefit may result in their suffering great discomfort, illness and possible hospitalisation (at great cost to an already overwhelmed NHS), or death.

Some have suggested that hitting pensioners with such mean policies may be a punishment because older people are statistically more likely to vote Conservative and/or to have voted for Brexit. Others have suggested that perhaps the government is attempting to effectively cull pensioners. 

My comment here is that I personally voted Labour at the last general election because I always have; I believed that Labour would be a welcome change from the lies and corruption that we had seen from the previous government, and that from their intimations prior to the election would be a fair and caring government rather than a bunch of uncaring bullies. Unfortunately so far I have seen nothing to reassure me that I made the correct voting decision, but have seen much to worry me greatly (I will become a pensioner myself during 2025). As far as I am aware there was nothing in the 2024 Labour manifesto suggesting that they would be targeting pensioners with such measures, and therefore I do feel that although I have been a loyal Labour voter most of my life, I was mislead regarding their intentions and may have voted for another party had this been clearer.

I firmly believe in workers rights, fair pay, and unions (I was a proud Union member for much of my working life); but I also believe in a proper NHS, access to an NHS dentist for all, a proper care system (funded by those with the broadest shoulders), and a benefit system which not only guarantees that it pays to work; but also encourages and assists those who are fit and able to work, but reluctant to do so, to become productive members of society.    

Unspiritual 

As I repeatedly state in other website pages, it is important to consider our personal spiritual and moral belief systems, and not allow others to dictate what we should think. Only by using our own free will can we truly believe what is correct and worthy of our belief.

I therefore find it of great concern that so many Labour MPs voted against the Conservative motion on 10/09/2024 to prevent the removal of the winter fuel allowance, others did not vote at all preferring to abstain. This may be due to fears that they might be suspended from the Labour party if they voted against the government; as  had happened to seven Labour MPs who dared to vote with their conscience's during the 'two-child benefit' vote earlier in the year. 

The 'party' system of politics that we have here in the UK can only work properly in my opinion if MPs vote with their conscience to best represent the wishes and needs of the people  in their constituencies. In other words, to use their free will and not feel threatened to follow the party line. To my mind forcing MPs to vote as instructed by the prime minister and not as they feel is right is a Dictatorship rather than a democracy.

The difference between a democracy and a dictatorship is that in a democracy you vote first and take orders later; in a dictatorship you don't have to waste your time voting.

Charles Bukowski (2013)

What could be done differently

The UK needs a reset! We need to begin 'levelling up' between the richest and poorest in society, we need to clear the national debt and we need to properly fund public services. It is not the poor pensioners who need to pay for all this, but those who truly have the metaphoric 'widest shoulders' financially. 

Instead of scraping around to pinch the odd billion here and there, largely from relatively less well off people, the government needs to start collecting a fairer amount from those most able to contribute, and those who have gained financially from the woes of others. This is the fair way to level up, and the way that I would expect the Labour government to act.

A few ideas:

• A Spanish style wealth tax. Say 2% annually on assets over £10,000,000. This would affect around 20,000 obscenely wealthy people. 
• Recouping all money made during the Covid emergency by suppliers providing unsuitable or unusable PPE or medical supplies, and those who overcharged for these.
• Recouping all bonuses paid to Post Office executives after the Horizon scandal was first suspected for their inaction and apparent cover up.
• Making large multi-national companies operating in the UK pay fair and full taxes.
• Stop all tax avoidance schemes and crack down on tax evasion.
• Set limits on the amount claimable by MPs for second homes.
• Ensure that all public schools, hospitals, emergency service premises, etc are run efficiently. Does it really cost £60 to change a light bulb?
• Pay nurses and other staff properly so that 'Agency' staff are never required. The use of agency staff is a massive additional cost.
• Cut down NHS waiting lists so that long term sickness absence from work becomes a thing of the past.

Well that would be the sort of start I would expect from a Labour government, rather than punishing those who are already struggling.

If wealth is your God, then greed is your religion

Faizel Sayed