If Only Parliament Would Look to Their Conscience!
By Stephen Wilson, one of our reporters abroad
The new Labour Government in Britain has just voted in the Commons to pass through a highly unpopular law which will deprive the poorest pensioners of free fuel benefits which allow them to heat their homes. The law is being rushed through without any consultation of experts, charity groups, or consideration of the impact of such cuts on the lives of the old. What we are witnessing is a much more management-effective austerity than under the previous Tory Government. It is a continuation of austerity by other means.
More old people are likely to die from cold and poorly insulated rooms this coming winter.
It came as a shock. An unreal nightmare most relatives dread! Barbara Bolton, an 87-year-old pensioner from Bury, in England, was found slumped at her kitchen table by her grandson. She was unable to speak. She was suffering from profound hypothermia. The medics who were called into assist her found her body temperature was just 28 degrees compared with the normal 37 degrees centigrade. Mrs. Bolton was later admitted to Fairfield Hospital where she died on January 5th from a chest infection brought on by hypothermia. It later emerged that Mrs. Bolton, who had retired from her job as a pharmacy assistant complained to a local doctor about her anxiety about how she could not afford to heat her home. She was afraid of running up a high energy bill. Unfortunately, Mrs. Bolton's death is no exceptional case!
Her death happened around one year ago. It received widespread publicity in the media. But her death and that of others still fails to move some people. As many as 9,000 people die in cold homes in England and Wales each year. That works out as 24 on average every day! Instead of taking measures to prevent such deaths the new government is actually taking steps to exacerbate such a critical situation by depriving pensioners of free fuel bills! One dissident Labour member of Parliament Rachel Maskell, opposed to this new bill, stated. “We know that being cold leads to a stroke, heart attacks, pneumonia, hypothermia and so much more as the body wrestles to keep warm, and viruses prey on the frail. The fear is that, if we withdraw Winter Fuel Payment for those in fuel poverty, it will lead to excess deaths.”
The Fuel Poverty Coalition estimate 4,950 excess Winter deaths occurred from the cold from 2022 to 2023. A report of the Institute of Health Equity estimate 10% of those excess winter deaths are due to fuel poverty and 21.5% are attributable to cold.
Any foreigner who has stayed in the United Kingdom is often struck by how cold homes are compared to other countries. The hosts are reluctant to turn on the heating even when guests visit them…
It is as if heating your home is deemed a luxury! And homes in the U.K. are among the oldest and least energy efficient in Europe. Heat flows out of a home 3 times the rate of better insulated homes in Germany. Charities such as the Center for Ageing Better ask, “Why are 9000 annual cold deaths met with such a shrug of indifference?'”
The latest austerity measure seems mean and callous by any standard! So what is the bill about and why is it being heedlessly as well as recklessly pushed through?
The government previously provided a free non-means tested fuel allowance of between 200 to 300 pounds a year. As many as 11.4 million pensioners in the U.K. received this free allowance. The aim of this free fuel allowance was to help the old struggling to heat their rooms. The new bill would end this allowance and replace it with a means tested benefit. The reform will deprive 10 million pensioners of this allowance—bringing down the number getting this payment from 11.4 million to 1.5 million. This would save the government 1 billion pounds a year.
The government argues that many pensioners who receive this benefit are well off and don't need it. To the accusation that pensioners will be worse off, the Prime-Minister Starmer claims that other increases in benefits such as pensions and pension credit will compensate for those losses. Starmer stated, -
“We're taking this decision to stabilize the economy. That means we can commit to the triple lock. By committing to the triple lock we can make sure that payments of state pension are higher and therefore the money in the pockets of pensioners, not withstanding the tough action we need to take.”
He promised the full scale pension is set to rise by 460 pounds from next April. Starmer argues the government can't afford to not only scrap the two cap benefit on child benefits but also free fuel allowances. He keeps stating we have a black hole of 22 billion pounds. He condemned the previous Tory Government for not imposing more effective austerity and not being hard enough! But matters assumed a surreal air in the House of Commons when the Tories, staunch advocates of state cutbacks, began actively voting against ending free fuel allowance benefits. Yes, usually it's the opposite! The Tories who made speeches began to sound like Socialists, and the party of socialism, Labour, had begun to speak like Tories. Claiming that many pensioners are well off is what you'd expect to hear from a Tory and not from a party which claims to defend poor pensioners.
In the debate in the House of Commons, the ex-prime Minister Sunak, was in good form. Sunak asked why Starmer refused to publish the impact assessment for means tested Winter Fuel Payments. He argued that 'We know why he's hiding the impact assessment. The Labour party's own previous analysis claimed that this policy could cause 3,850 deaths. So are the number in his impact assessment higher or lower than that?'
Mel Stride, a Tory Member of Parliament, made a passionate speech against the new bill. He claimed that 2/3 of pensioners living below the poverty line would lose out on those changes. He stated that the new law has been rushed through without any thought of the impact on poor pensioners.
He stated, “It's impossible to justify.” He appealed to Labour politicians to 'Look to your conscience. You know it in your heart that it is wrong... It would spell untold hardship for the vulnerable.” He asked some Labour M.P's to stop it. By the way, Mel Stride is not a socialist but a Tory! Unfortunately, the bill was passed in the House of Commons by an overwhelming vote {348 votes for and 228 against}.
Starmer, who had previously made a speech expressing admiration for the late Tory Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, was unapologetic: “We will not risk our mandate for economic stability under any circumstances.” Against criticism he remained intransigent as a rock. He kept mechanically repeating his old mantra: “We have a black hole of 22 billion pounds inherited from the Tory Government.” In contrast to inconsistent and poorly planned austerity where money was wasted on ill thought out of refugee programs, he favors a more efficient and effectively run austerity program which is ruthless and some say, reckless…
If commitment to paying off debts means prolonging child poverty or old people dying from fuel poverty, so be it. Such measures will lead in the long-term to economic growth. Wait till then, and we can afford free fuel allowances again!
Looked at from a wider historical perspective, austerity does not necessary lead to more economic or political stability. On the contrary, it leads to a weaker economy and more political and social unrest. Cutting back on expenditure is as crude as weakening a sick person during the middle ages with blood letting. Instead of strengthening the patient it weakened him.
The results of imposed austerity in Germany during the 1920's and early 1930's led to a lot of political instability which helped fuel the rise of fascism. People in the U.K. will eventually lose patience with such a government and may turn to more extreme alternatives.
The government claims it has no alternative to such measures. This is far from the truth. They simply did not consult or take their time to examine the alternatives. The Fabian Society, a research body of the Labour Party claimed there was no need to end free fuel allowance. You could instead change other tax laws or impose taxation on the rich. They calculate tax breaks for the affluent amount to a staggering 66 billion pounds. There are many ways you could still aid the poor by say, a stronger inheritance tax and wealth tax on the rich. However, the government did not listen to so many other alternatives. And the rest was silence, or almost silence in the Labour Party.
Anyone unaware of the history of the United Kingdom would think things could never have been worse. But the Labour Government who was elected to power in 1945 were in a far worse predicament when they inherited a much bigger debt!
Due largely to Lend Lease where the Americans had offered financial aid to Britain to fight the Germans, the government had a debt of 4,198, 000,000 pounds. It was to be payable over 50 years but actually took over 70 years to pay back. In 1945 Britain's expenditure rate was running at 5 times the prewar level. British exports were down by 2/3 and the merchant fleet had been devastated. The debt was so huge that the last debt payment was made in December 2006!
In 1945, Attlee sought to pass very radical measures such as the nationalization of many industries, as well as the introduction of a free National Health service, and a welfare state. Attlee faced strong opposition from the whole business industrial and commercial community. He was told, “You can't afford those new reforms. We are up to our eyes in debt.” In fact, he was hearing the same arguments you hear now. The difference is this opposition came from the Tories and not his own politicians! However, he was not intimidated by any opposition from the city or the rich. He went ahead with his reforms.
If only we had another Attlee or someone with a similar stature of fortitude who defended the less well off ! If only they looked to their conscience!