Political Kryptonite

I’m afraid I have shamelessly stolen the title from a comment at A K Haart’s place in which 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?’

I agree with Sobers that it may be paving the way for future tax increases but, leaving aside the fact that Reeves appears so far out of her depth she should be obliged to address the House in a pair of inflatable armbands (this is, after all, the woman who ‘found it hard to manage’ on a salary of £94k - to say nothing of her husband’s income - and had to get professional help with her tax returns), I suspect that the input of the numerous think tanks, pressure groups and lobbyists behind Labour’s policies also has 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, theorising and figures seemingly plucked from thin air; the WFA cut, VAT on school fees and the inheritance tax for farmers were all proposed within a few months, apparently without any attempt to carry out impact assessments or in-depth research (take the case of Bridget Phillipson, who actually boasted of her refusal to visit any independent schools or meet their representatives while planning to impose VAT on the sector).

This is, of course, standard practice in opposition, where it’s all hypothetical and no one checks your workings. Unfortunately, I’m not sure Reeves, Starmer & co have fully grasped the fact that they are now responsible for the welfare of actual human beings rather than cyphers in the game of political rhetoric, fair game to be lavishly denounced for their presumed opinions (especially on Brexit) or castigated for attempting to give their children a head start.

In the case of the WFA, it is, I think, not impossible that 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 double-counts the shared assets of couples while, at the same time, grossly over-estimating house values outside the capital). It took a while to track it to its source, a 2022 press release from a high-profile campaign group calling for ‘an end to intergenerational unfairness’ (with, naturally, a vested interest in dramatically overstating the wealth of the elderly).

A significant proportion of pensioners on low incomes are homeowners still occupying the former family home - many of them because of Right to Buy - and the Intergenerational Foundation wants them to sell up and move to more ‘suitable’ accommodation, potentially freeing up tens of thousands of houses for young families; it’s easy to see how, encouraged by the strident campaign against under-occupancy and facing a massive housing shortage, the government might seize on the opportunity to cut their WFA and effectively increase their heating bills as a sharp 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 target-driven initiatives with no thought for potential long-term consequences (and rookie errors such as basing costings on maximum potential output instead of real-world performance), I find it worryingly plausible that a single-minded zealot in the ranks 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 persuasively 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 a certain limited mentality could entirely miss the political Kryptonite aspect and, instead, see cutting the WFA as a golden opportunity; gain £1.3bn, save the planet, free up housing and give rich, racist grandma one in the eye to boot - what’s not to like?

 

*Recent ONS figures for property ownership - some 80% of pensioner households with an annual income of £20k a year or less own their own homes - might also explain why Labour are now ignoring their own 2017 assertion that cutting the WFA would lead to extra winter deaths; if asset-rich elderly homeowners choose to turn off the heating to save money, adverse consequences can be attributed to their own miserliness rather than laid at the government’s door.