Lisa Nandy ‘No pensioner will be worse off this year’

[IwantToRetire]

So many threads this could have been added to, but on one level you have to admire the sheer bravado on LN making this statement. So thought I would acknowledge her grasp on facts by giving her a headline!

The culture secretary has defended Labour’s winter fuel payment cut, insisting “No pensioner will be worse off this winter”.

Lisa Nandy insisted the government is taking “tough decisions to stabilize the economy”, when she appeared on ITV’s Peston show on Wednesday evening (9 October).

Ms Nandy insisted: “We haven’t taken £300 from pensioners

“There are many hundreds of families paying hundreds of pounds more in rent or mortgages because of the economic chaos caused by the previous government.”

Ms Nandy said the government is working hard to ensure the poorest pensioners are on pensioner credit.

She said: “No pensioner will be worse off this winter than the last winter.”

Culture secretary defends winter fuel payment cut: ‘No pensioner will be worse off this year’ (yahoo.com)

“We have to accept - you have to accept - there will be hundreds of thousands of the poorest pensioners under the £11,400 income you will not reach this year,” Lewis said passionately.

“You are taking money out of their hands. Do you accept the truth, the reality is that's what will practically happen. I'm saying it, Age UK are saying it, others are saying it.

"So let's be honest, you're willing to accept the collateral damage of hundreds of thousands of the poorest pensioners, many on dementia, not getting the winter fuel payment."

Nandy, visibly taken aback, responded that she was “not willing to accept that” (clip of exchangevia link below).

https://www.thenational.scot/news/24640552.labour-minister-squirms-martin-lewis-grills-live-tv/

Lewis is not a nice man and Nandy is a huge disappointment and idiot since she said that rapists would get to choose the prison of their liking.

Why is Lewis not a nice man, what's he done?

More importantly is Lewis wrong? I doubt it, quite frankly I don’t care if he isn’t‘nice’ at least he is holding the Government to account on this. There is no denying he knows what he is talking about and cares passionately.

I can’t believe a Labour Government is defending this. Make WFA means tested if need be but get it right and ensure it is focused at all those who need it (not just those in receipt of benefits but those above the current cut off who don’t get support) and they are getting it before you cut it to all. If the Conservatives had done this they would be rightly shouting about it.

Good on him Labour are so blind on this.

I mean how to gaslight people, why is she this dim?

If the reality of this was not so awful, her statement would almost be funny.

I have a relative impacted by this. They do not qualify for pension credit but only just. They live rurally and have done all their life, so don't have the benefit of mains connections. The WFA helped the cost of buying in fuel. Family are now chipping in to help.

Applying the cut-off to those on a 40% tax rate would have been fairer.

I've always thought Martin Lewis was a stand up guy. He is absolutely cuts through the government script on this nonsense.

I don't think she's dim. She's just too cowardly to do anything but churn out the approved lines on this topic.

My over 80 year old Dad is £300 worse off being just over the threshold. He's dreading the prescription charges threat.
Our family have all chipped in to soften such a huge blow.
Lisa Nandy is gaslighting us all and considers us too stupid to notice.

"No pensioner will be worse off this winter than the last winter.”

That's an outright lie.

Last winter all pensioners got a sum of money in the form of the Winter Fuel Payment. This winter pensioners who aren't claiming pension credit will not get any WFP and will therefore be worse off.

I can see literally zero reasons why the winter fuel payment should not be means tested. Can you? Really?

We can argue where the line for testing might be, but it really SHOULD be means tested.

Mean tested to the bar of pension credit? Pushing swathes of pensioners into fuel poverty? Are you okay with that?

Because this is what is happening, not some theoretically higher level most wouldn't mind about.

Don't be stupid. I literally said "We can argue where the line for testing might be, but it really SHOULD be means tested."

DO you think millionaire pensioners should get it? When we have so many kids below the poverty line?

I assume no.

So, where would YOU put the means test line exactly? And how would you implement it?

No, I'm not stupid. I'm aware that the bar for the wfa is set incredibly low and so a theoretical arguement if where it should be is entirely redundant and a tactic to distract from the cruelty of the policy.

One reason for not means testing is that means testing administratively costs money and therefore you might just as well give the allowance to everyone.

Well thats right, of course people who dont get it are now worse off

Some, like my parents who I would say dont need it, arent badly off, but they're still worse off to the tune of £300

At least if she is going to make an argument she needs to make a logical argument, you cant take 300 quid away from someone and say they're not worse off!

I agree with another poster, take it from those on 40% tax rate and leave it as it was for the rest. Simple and effective

I didn't see the interview but I think the full new state pension has gone up about £20 a week since last year? The basic one increased too but not as much. So I assume that's what Lisa Nandy means.

Though if that was what she meant she probably should have explained it better.

That lower end pensioners will be impacted badly as Lewis says is the whole issue

The same means testing could be used for a whole bunch of policies though (and most likely will - prescriptions, buses, all sorts of things). Also, "means testing costs money!" only seems to get rolled out when it's pensioners' benefits being discussed. The rest of the population has dealt with means tested benefits for decades.

I've said this before, but the Tories could promise to bring universal WFA back when they next get into power. They aren't, because we all know perfectly well that they are not going to. Because they know as well as the rest of us that the country can't bloody afford it.

Sorry to those who are having a hard time, but the fiscal reality of the UK in October 2024 is really bad. And it isn't fair that only young people have to suffer the fall out from that. Everyone is going to have to tighten their belts.

But that's not what this thread is about. It's about Nandy saying no pensioner will be worse off which isn't true.

Btw I agree WFA should be means tested.

I think that what she means is that state pension went up by more than the winter fuel allowance.

However the pension increase is because of rising prices so in real terms many pensioners will be worse off.

Definitely some pensioners do not need the winter fuel allowance. My DM's teachers pension is more than my salary. But it is where to draw the line. Means testing is expensive so would possibly end in no net tax gain which would defeat the object. The pension credit is already there so it can just be tagged on.

I don't know the details of the change in child benefit but that could be a model. Base on household income.

Where would YOU draw the line then?
And how would YOU implement it?

Its very simple to draw the line at the 40% tax rate, simple

there's nothing "cruel" about the policy - it's a realistic one

Most pensioners - do not need the payment - some do - so the government have chosen the ones on pension credit

We have kids going hungry every single day - where is the money to feed them going to come from?

Where would YOU draw the line?

How would YOU fill the gap in finances?

Why the shouting?

This thread is about Nandy and her gaslighting against Lewis’ statement

I’d tie it to a higher mechanism, I’m sure Lewis is good at suggesting which one, tax rate for example as in pp

Going back to the thread title. Do you see she is wrong?

Nobody is shouting I am making a point

the point being that people who piss and moan but don't come up with a viable alternative are a waste of space.

Is that you, Rachel? 🧐

I think setting it at the 40% tax rate would be best. I don't think it would need to be that high if you were just having a discussion about who needs it but it's a logical point for the ease of admin.

I think that means you'd cover all those in fuel poverty. Given the health consequences for the elderly who live in fuel poverty and the cost that demands from the NHS, over winter when it is at its most squeezed, I think that would be a sensible point.