At the end of July, I wrote a column about the two-child benefit cap, which the new Labour Government at Westminster determined they had to keep.
A difficult decision, they said, but one that they were bold enough to make.
Six weeks later, here’s my second column, calling out the folly of another decision proposed by the new Labour Government at Westminster and voted through by parliament this week: the removal of the Winter Fuel Allowance for all but the very poorest pensioners across the country.
Another difficult decision. Another one that the new Labour Government are bold enough to make.
"Those with the broadest shoulders should bear the greatest burden," they say. I agree. I refute absolutely, however, that the broadest shoulders belong to families on benefits or pensioners living on £12,000 per year.
Yet again, as was the case with the former Conservative Government, it seems that the difficult decisions that the government are prepared to make affect poor families and pensioners, rather than bankers and tax-avoiding multinational corporations.
A £22bn black hole could be filled more readily with some attention in those corners, I would suggest. Close tax loopholes, reduce wasteful government spending, implement more progressive tax systems. Stop going straight to those who have the least, simply because they have the least power to stop the decision being implemented.
I urge the government to start making tough decisions to ruffle the feathers of the vast systems operating across our country that perpetuate and grow injustice and inequality. It seems that all the 1 per cent has to do is threaten to leave our shores, then the government leaves them alone, because heaven forbid…
Do I believe that it’s right for a billionaire pensioner to get a Winter Fuel Allowance? In my heart, no. But the consequence of removing the allowance from that cohort is that all the many, many more pensioners living on – let me repeat it – £12,000 per year, nothing remotely like billions, will then have no access to this modest support.
A support that is simply in place to help older citizens keep their home warm in our coldest months, particularly in the context of grotesquely increased fuel costs in recent years.
The consequences of the decision to remove the Winter Fuel Allowance from so many people could be significant: an increase in the number of pensioners falling into fuel poverty (currently around one million pensioner households); an increase in health risks due to cold living environments; knock on effects of this on the NHS; I could add many more semi colons to this list, but these are some of the stark realities.
Beyond any political arguments, there is a moral issue here too. The Winter Fuel Allowance is a demonstrable example of the responsibility we have to care for each other. Our societal values are being tested here, with this decision. Surely the long-term costs of removing the allowance, in terms of increased health spending, reduced economic activity and social impacts, far outweigh the short-term savings?
A Labour Government should not need me or anyone else to write a column, to point them in the direction of doing right by the vulnerable in our society. And yet, here we are.
I wonder, as time moves on, how many more of these columns I will need to write?
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here