The details will follow in the budget this fall. But don’t be mistaken, it’s a U-turn.
The decision to test the means to test the winter fuel allowance was one of the first announcements made by Sir Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves almost a year ago.
It was intended to demonstrate both the disastrous state of the government’s economic heritage and the will of the new regime to make difficult decisions in response.
It did not quite advance this way.
The first mumps of the MPS generally on the work left quickly spread quickly in more unexpected games of the party.
Even the deputies who made a decent fist to defend the political law at the end admitted that it was the most frequently raised question by public members when they campaigned.
He was largely blamed for a bad set of local electoral results and the glow of reform glow in the partial elections of Runcorn and Helsby on the same day.
Now the Prime Minister has announced that the government would again examine the threshold to allow “more retirees” to qualify for payment.
There is an interesting debate even among the deputies who demanded a turn of this kind of knowledge if politics was always intended to be a failure.
Some believe that it was intrinsically inept to target an advantage paid to retirees. Others believe that the threshold should have been higher so that fewer retirees have lost. Another group says that if the budget – with a sharp increase in tax and an increase in the financing of public services – had come at the same time, this would have made the winter fuel policy less isolated and, therefore, less controversial.
And yet another group believes that the government’s failure was neglecting to argue in favor of politics.
Instead of saying sadly that they had been forced to test the means by conservative errors, this argument goes, Sir Keir and Ms. Reeves should have argued that there were many retirees who simply did not need money.
All this is now interesting. A consensus had formed through the Labor Party that politics was a colossal political misstep and from that moment on the logic confronted with this Prime Minister – who is not quite sentimental to pass old political posts – was without remoirs.
Why now?
One of the reasons may be that rumors had reached overdrive that an announcement was in sight. Since the remarkable non-denials of ministers became non-stop, there may have been a calculation that it was more logical to recognize the inevitable now.
But it is also worth considering the broader context. Winter fuel was in no way the only controversial element of the economic policy of this government.
There is a rebellion that is preparing for the government’s social cuts. These are likely to face a vote in the municipalities next month, although estimates for the size of the rebellion can vary wildly.
The government is not in the mood to concede on this question – as demonstrated by the speech of work and Liz Kendall pensions this morning. Apart from anything else, they cannot afford. Social assistance reforms collect much more money than winter fuel means.
But Sir Keir and his festive whips will now be able to reassure the anxious work deputies that they listen to their complaints, even if they cannot resolve them in all areas.
Basically, this is embarrassing for Reeves. She made a big call, daring and early and reversed her in the 10 months.
His economic and political judgment is increasingly questioned within his own party – as demonstrated, just as an example, by the note of the department of Angela Rayner splashed the first page of the telegraph this morning.
The most important verdict of this reversal will come from the public.
Is it a sign of force of a pragmatic government ready to listen to criticism and act quickly in response? Or a sign of weakness of an ideologically uncompromising government which does not know what he believes?
