Winter Fools and Fiscal Nimbys

The Tories are indulging budgetary hypocrisy

The row over Winter Fuel Payments was one that Labour never thought they would become involved in. When the benefit was introduced in 1997, it was designed as a political poison pill. Rather than adding money to the pension or pension credits, the benefit would be hard to repeal. For successive elections, Labour could accuse the Tories of eyeing it up for a cut. Indeed, the right did, occasionally, set sights on it – before worrying that the electoral cost wouldn't be worth the gain. Now, Labour themselves are going to have to swallow the poison.

The Tory response is an opportunistic one. Voting against the change will achieve little except a handy attack line for the election leaflets of 2029. It's unlikely the party will include restoring the payments in the next manifesto, being grateful for the savings even if they don't stress it now. Yet the line the party is taking shows the lack of realism and consistency in the approach to public finances. Defending this cut because it is unpopular, especially with older, Tory-leaning voters, might be a way to seize the advantage after a horrible reckoning with the electorate. Still, it highlights one of the problems the Tories have faced in office – neither they nor their supporters want the fiscal discipline they try to preach. As George Eaton put it on Bluesky, it's fiscal nimbyism.

For social democrats, there are arguments for the universality of benefits. To generalise, they believe in high taxes and lots of redistribution, even to those who don't need it. Generous offerings, even to the relatively wealthy, are part of their deal, as seen in some of the Nordic Countries. These are not, however, Conservative arguments. As a party and as a philosophy, the right looks to lower taxes when possible and reduce the size of the state. That is incompatible with badly aimed bungs to the rich.