Further thoughts on the removal of Winter Fuel Allowance.

A certain number of the braver Labour MPs and their more fanatical supporters have gone on the offensive to justify Labour's policy on the winter fuel payment.

A few of these have made quite offensive attacks on older people, must most have sought to justify what they describe as a decision to "means-test" the benefit.

One of the very few nuanced comments I have seen on either side of the debate came from Whitehaven resident David Morton, who tweeted back to me as follows:

"The real issues are Labour have 

( a ) used a cliff edge not a taper. 

(b) that cliff edge is far too low and will throw up millions of hard marginal cases. 

But that critique doesn't fit the political spectrum."

David's comments are very sensible, and if Labour had actually done what they are wrongly pretending to have done, and means-tested the benefit so rich people don't get it but those who need it do, then the criticisms being thrown at them from the press, the unions and the political right and hard-left alike would have much less force.

The letter below, with identifying details redacted, was recently sent by the relevant government department to a pensioner whose state pension was three pounds a week too high to enable the individual concerned to claim pension credit. So they won't get the winter fuel allowance either.

The letter says that "To get Pension Credit your income must be less than £218.15 per week."

Anyone who is trying to live on £218.15 a week at 2024 prices is certainly not rich. The Labour MPs who have been defending this policy are paid a great deal more that, and you can bet your life that most of the people who have been supporting them are too. 

You can also bet your life than none of them would like to live on that kind of money.