Well, you heard it here it first. The decision to cut winter fuel payments for most pensioners has proved toxic, as Labour MPs have increasingly been realising on the doorsteps and in their constituencies. This morning, George Eaton reported that the government too was coming round to the view, with whispers of a potential U-turn in the works.
That U-turn (if we can call it that – which we’ll come on to in a second) was the centrepiece of today’s PMQs. Answering a friendly planted question from Labour MP Sarah Owen before the main head-to-head with Kemi Badenoch, Keir Starmer delivered the news of the day.
“As the economy improves, we want to make sure people feel those improvements in their days as their lives go forward,” the Prime Minister told the House. “That is why we want to ensure that, as we go forward, more pensioners are eligible for winter fuel payments.” He continued that the decision would only be announced as part of a fiscal event. So mark your diaries for 11 June, when Rachel Reeves will deliver the government’s first multi-year spending review (though No 10 has hinted we might not get changes on this until the Autumn Budget.)
Quite what this means remains to be seen. No details were forthcoming in this session, despite attempts to get further answers out of the PM. Badenoch, clunkily pivoting from her pre-planned script, pressed Starmer for a yes or no answer on whether he was planning a U-turn. Ed Davey said the Prime Minister had “teased the House”, using one of his questions to ask if he would commit to reversing the winter fuel cuts in full. Unsurprisingly, Starmer simply repeated what he’d already said in both instances.
Nor did we get any clues from the Chancellor’s expression. In slightly awkward timing given the major announcement concerning her brief, Reeves is now en route to a meeting of G7 finance ministers in Canada. The Treasury is understood to be looking at changing the threshold at which winter fuel payments are withdrawn, ensuring it reaches more of the most vulnerable pensioners, rather than considering restoring it as a universal benefit. Whether that will be enough to undo the damage done to Labour’s popularity because of the policy isn’t clear, but expect the government to sell the announcement (whatever it is) as both proof that ministers are listening to voter concerns, and as something they are only able to do thanks to good economic management since the election, which has seen the country’s fortunes improve.
Starmer made a good start at this argument today, despite a barrage of questions from Badenoch – hooked off today’s less than ideal inflation figures – suggesting the exact opposite. It was a belligerent session, full of accusations of who had damaged the economy more. The Prime Minister got in his usual dig about the “disastrous Liz Truss mini-Budget” and seemed to be composing a new Labour version of the Twelve Days of Christmas with talk of four Bank of England interest rate cuts, three trade deals and a growing economy (catchy). He gleefully seized on the shock poll putting the Tories in third place (more on that from me here), saying Badenoch had “lost control of her party” and accusing the Conservatives of “sliding into oblivion”.
Badenoch was also feeling belligerent (the poll clearly hasn’t put her in a good mood). She leaned into reports of Angela Rayner petitioning the Chancellor for further tax rises, suggesting the Deputy Prime Minister was “on manoeuvres” and demanding eight new tax rises. (Rayner’s face at this moment was a picture.) Sharp observers will note the Tory leader’s trap of pressing Starmer to rule out any further tax rises in this parliament, and the PM’s evident failure to do so. There was some very scrappy back and forth, with Badenoch saying Labour backbenchers looked “sick” at the government’s decisions and asking for a show of hands of who had supported the winter fuel cuts, only for Starmer to quip back that his MPs “look in pretty good form, and there’s lots of them!”
But as is becoming increasingly commonplace at PMQs, the most dramatic moment was nothing to do with Badenoch. With Nigel Farage off on his holidays, it fell to Lee Anderson to lead the attack from Reform. The Tory MP-turned-Reform whip suggested Starmer had misled “gullible backbenchers” about the number and nature of migrant deportations and asked how many of these had been failed asylum seekers. Again, Starmer looked like he had prepared far more for this question than for anything Badenoch had asked. He pointed out that, for all that this is an obsession for Reform, the party had voted against the borders bill the government has brought forward to tackle this illegal migration.
“They don’t want to fix this problem because it benefits them,” Starmer declared, accusing Reform of putting “party before country”. Patriotism (or lack thereof) is one of Labour’s key attack lines against Nigel Farage and Reform – both in terms of Farage’s closeness to Donald Trump and past admiration for Vladimir Putin, and now with a domestic slant too. Starmer was ready for a jibe against Farage and his holiday too, saying he was “the first through the e-gates” (a reference to the EU reset deal the Reform leader had been absent for). “Nice work if you can get it,” he added, with a pun (Nice as in the French town – get it?) that really doesn’t work written down and, to be honest, did not sound brilliant in the chamber either, though it got a roar of predictable laughter anyway. No prizes for guessing who Starmer sees as Labour’s main opposition today.
[See also: The EU-UK reset exposes the limits of a “geopolitical Europe”]
Content from our partners
Related
