The details will follow the budget in this autumn. But do not make any mistake, this is a U-turn.
The decision to mean winter fuel allowance was one of the first announcements made by Sir Kire Stmper and Rachel Reves about a year ago.
Its purpose was to showcase both the desire of the new regime to take strict decisions in the serious state of the government’s economic heritage.
It did not come out like this.
Generally, MPs on labor spread rapidly into the more unexpected parts of the party.
Even those MPs who had made a good fist to defend the policy to the end of the policy admitted that this was the most frequently raised issue by the members of the public when they were campaigning.
It was widely Convicted for a bad set of local election results And in a single day, a disappointing defeat to improve the runcorn and Halesby by -elections.
Now The Prime Minister has announced that the government will see again at the threshold To allow “more pensioners” to qualify for payment.
There is also an interesting debate among those MPs who were chlams for such a U-turn whether the policy was always fixed for failure.
Some believe that it was internally disqualified to target the benefits paid to pensioners. Others believe that the threshold should be set more so that less pensioners lose. Another group says that if the budget – came at the same time with a large tax growth and promotion of money for public services, it would have reduced the winter fuel policy less isolated and less controversial as a result.
And yet another group believes that the government’s failure is in neglect to make a positive case for policy.
Instead of sadly saying that they were forced into means-testing by conservative misunderstandings, the argument goes, Sir Keer and Ms. Reeves should have argued that there were many pensioners who did not just need money.
Now all that is of academic interest. A consensus was formed at the Labor Party that the policy was a huge political misunderstanding and on the logic in front of this Prime Minister from the point – which was completely unnatural about moving beyond the posts of old policy – repentance.
However, why now?
One reason can be this Rumors reached overdrive that an announcement was in offingGiven that the specific non-deals of ministers were becoming non-stops, there may be a calculation that now it was more understandable to accept unnecessary.
But it is also worth considering a comprehensive context. Winter fuel was not the only controversial element of this government’s economic policy in any way.
There is a rebellion there Government’s welfare deductionThose people are likely to face a vote in Commons next month, although it is estimated how big the rebellion may be.
The government is not in the mood to accept that issue – as is displayed by the speech of Kama and Pension Secretary Liz Kendal this morning. In addition to anything, they cannot minimize their main tax plans or their borrowing rules – at least. Welfare reforms used to raise more money than winter fuel.
But Sir Kir and his party whip will now be able to assure the eager labor MPs that they listen to their grievances, even if they cannot address them in every field.
Fundamentally it is embarrassing for Reeves. He made a big, bold and initial call and reversed it within 10 months.
His economic and political decisions are rapidly being questioned within his own party – as displayed, as an example, by Memo from Angela Rener’s department This morning, the Telegraph’s front page was printed.
The most important decision on this reversal, however, will come from the public.
Is this a sign of strength from a practical government that is ready to listen to criticism and work rapidly in response? Or an ideologically unrelated government who does not know what it believes?
