Political Kryptonite

In a comment at A K Haart’s place, Sobers points out that simply cutting the Winter Fuel Allowance for higher-rate taxpayers would not have raised enough revenue to justify the administrative costs:

‘It was always an all or nothing decision, total abolition raises a decent sum when you have pay rises for well paid 'public servants' to be paid for, the question really remains which bright spark in the Treasury suggested it, and what on earth made Reeves not dismiss it as obvious political kryptonite?’

Leaving aside the fact that Reeves appears so far out of her depth she should be addressing the House in a pair of inflatable armbands (this is the woman who ‘found it hard to manage’ on a salary of £94k and had to get professional help with her tax returns), I suspect that the numerous think tanks, pressure groups and lobbyists behind Labour’s policies have a lot to do with it.

We have repeatedly seen an apparent lack of concern for the facts or hard data in favour of campaign statistics and theorising; the WFA cut, VAT on school fees and the inheritance tax in farmers were all introduced within a few months, seemingly without any attempt to carry out impact assessments or even speak to the those affected by the measures (in the case of Bridget Phillipson, actually boasting of her refusal to visit any independent schools or meet their representatives).

This is, of course, standard practice in opposition, where it’s all hypothetical and no one checks your workings; it’s a very different matter when you are potentially harming real people. Unfortunately, I’m not entirely sure Reeves, Starmer & co have yet fully grasped the situation or fully shaken off the notion that they are now responsible for real people, not cyphers in the game of political rhetoric who can  be denounced for their presumed opinions (especially on Brexit) or attempting to give their children a head start.

In the case of the WFA, it is, I think, reasonable to conclude that the Treasury thinking was influenced by the statement, frequently repeated in news articles and comments that ‘one in four pensioners is a millionaire’ (a misleading over-simplification of ONS figures which assumes that couples with total assets worth a million or more are both millionaires while, at the same time,  grossly over-estimating house values). 

It took a while to track it to its source, which turned out to be a report from the Intergenerational Foundation - a high-profile campaign group calling for ‘an end to intergenerational unfairness’ and for pensioners to get out of the former family home to free up housing stock. A significant number of pensioners on low incomes are homeowners - many of them because of Right to Buy - and the foundation wants them to sell up and move to more ‘suitable’ accommodation; it’s easy to imagine the Treasury seizing on the opportunity to cut their WFA and effectively increase heating bills as an incentive to downsize.

At the same time, Ed Miliband’s net zero people must have been casting around for new and exciting ways to stop people using energy. Given the blinkered approach which has led to numerous target-driven initiatives with no thought for potential consequences (and the recent revelation that they were basing vital calculations on a notional optimal efficiency rate used for comparing energy sources rather than on real-world data), I find it worryingly plausible that some bright spark might have managed to convince the high-ups that paying pensioners to turn on their heating was a Bad Thing.

With both these angles being pushed - and, as theTavern’s wise woman has frequently observed growing contempt for and demonisation of the elderly in the media for their supposed outdated values and opinions (remember Ian McEwen blaming Brexit on ‘a gang of angry old men’?) - it’s easy to see how the WFA cut could, to those of a certain limited mentality, start to look like a golden opportunity; save the planet, free up lots of housing and give rich, racist grandma one in the eye to boot - what’s not to like?