The Chancellor yesterday confirmed that the Government would be reversing in large part their policy of means-testing Winter Fuel Payments. Millionaires won’t get it, they say, but the assumption is that low-to-middle income pensioners will by this winter, not just the poorest in receipt of Pension Credit.
This is a political response to the Labour Government’s drop in popularity over the past year and a deluge of public polling suggesting a majority of voters want the policy reversed. It’s been raised on the doorstep, Labour MPs say.
Well, frankly, the Government is wrong to back down on this. Yes, it could have managed the announcement better: rather than separately, alongside a raft of tough policies in the Autumn Budget last year, which – in fairness – should have also been done much earlier just after the election as an emergency Budget. Regardless, there is plenty of state support available to pensioners on modest incomes through the State Pension, the value of which is protected by a generous triple lock on its uprating. If pensioners are really struggling with energy costs, they can get the Winter Fuel Payment or the Warm Homes Discount.
We need honesty from politicians. They have to be able to make difficult decisions for the national good. Candidly, the state can neither afford nor justify near or fully universal cash transfers to people. As I wrote in the FT recently, that also includes universal free school meals for reception, Year 1 and Year 2 schoolchildren as well as free bus passes for retirees. Universal benefits direct precious fiscal resources unnecessarily from measures that will enhance growth and better protect the poorest. We have to slim the state or we will burden future generations with grotesque levels of public debt.
And, as I said at Bright Blue’s recent Spring Reception, which included guest speaker Alex Burghart MP – the effective Deputy Leader of the Opposition who is overseeing the Conservative Party’s new policy commissions – we have to make the argument that the government alone cannot and should not provide security and prosperity for us. All of us now have to play a greater role in raising living standards: businesses, communities, families and individuals too. The state should always be there to provide for people who, through bad luck, really need and deserve financial support: but all of us should be seeking financial self-sufficiency. A good life doesn’t come easily: it should be worked for, not given.
More honesty, but more conviction too. Politicians need to spend less time reviewing and reacting to polling. It does provide a useful spotlight on public attitudes, but it only gauges opinion at a given specific time, subtle changes in language can make big differences to answers, and it rarely communicates the full trade-offs involved with policy decisions. I think that political discourse – including speeches, reports, news from a range of individuals and organisations – is now saturated by polling. It is contributing to inconsistency and inertia from politicians.
Take climate change. The environmentalists keep flagging polling which suggests that the overwhelming majority of the public back achieving net zero emissions by 2050. The sceptics respond that once you poll people if they would pay more or make changes to the way they live to achieve net zero, they are more reluctant. As the journey to net zero becomes more personal – affecting the way we heat our homes, travel around and even eat – the sceptics seem to be gaining ground. Indeed, there has, in recent years, been a cooling towards net zero by politicians, especially – but not exclusively – on the right of the political spectrum. Even the former PM Tony Blair, who usually preaches that politicians should lead rather than just follow public opinion, has said that the public are increasingly sceptical of mitigation efforts because people are being asked to make big changes when the UK’s contribution to global emissions is tiny.
Well, he’s wrong. As I argued in The Observer, there will be much higher and frankly unsustainable costs to both our environment and economy if we do not achieve net zero emissions by the middle of this century. Already there is increasing damage and costs, especially with more flooding here in the UK. There are significant long-term economic benefits from green growth, especially in coastal and industrial areas, and we should prioritise passing on a better environment to the next generation.
And the UK should be proud – not reluctant – of its global leadership on emissions reduction, just as it has led the world on other life-enhancing measures, from free trade to human rights, as former Chancellor Jeremy Hunt MP writes in his new book. Again, we cannot rely on someone else to do all the heavy-lifting to improve our condition: we must play our role too, however small.
But environmental groups and campaigns need to reflect on their tactics too. The focus of their work has been on work that uses and unearths positive public attitudes towards climate action. I think there is a limit to this. They can’t pretend there won’t be any sacrifices associated with the shift to net zero. To sustain cross-party support and action on climate, there needs to be a focus on winning by delivering, rather than winning by arguments. More of a policy rather than a communications job, basically. Look no further than our library of reports on how to support people on modest incomes with the costs and changes of the transition.
This article first appeared in Bright Blue’s bulletin. To receive it, you can sign up our to mailing list here.
Ryan Shorthouse is the Executive Chair of Bright Blue. The views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Bright Blue. [Image credits: Leopoldo Fernandez]
