‘Too low, now too high': Rachel Reeves' winter fuel U-turn reignites fairness debate

Independent

2 days ago

As the government hikes the winter fuel payment threshold to £35,000, many Independent readers say the means test was too low last year – and is now far too high.
The sudden shift has sparked frustration, confusion and claims of political opportunism.
Many readers criticised the move as politically motivated, coming just days before a crucial spending review and following electoral losses and pressure from Reform UK.
Several argued the new threshold is too high, with one pointing out that a £35k salary should not warrant government support, especially when many working-age families and the unemployed receive far less help.
Others echoed the IFS and Resolution Foundation's concerns that the policy is poorly targeted and administratively messy, potentially creating unfair outcomes for households just above the income line.
Some welcomed the return of payments for lower-income pensioners but questioned why the government scrapped them in the first place without a clear plan.
Pensioners themselves weighed in too – some said they managed perfectly without the payments and felt younger families in poverty needed the support more. One commented: 'We are mortgage-free and have enough – give it to those who really need it.'
The overall feeling from our community was that the government had acted too late and without transparency. The move was described as a 'headless chicken' reaction, lacking clarity on implementation, repayment, and future policy direction.
Here's what you had to say:
I expect both the Tories and the Lib Dems are hoping everyone's forgotten that they have both, at one time or another, called for either means testing the WFA or restricting it to pension credit claimants only.
It was, in fact, in the Conservatives' 2017 election manifesto. For the Libs, it was one Paul Burstow MP, who had served in the coalition government. In both cases, the money saved was to be diverted to social care reform, which was a pretty good idea, I think.
RickC
Not a U-turn, just a high threshold
It's not a U-turn. They brought in the concept of means testing the WFA and now they've raised the limit. A U-turn would be going back to universal WFA. Personally, I think they've set it far too high. I know plenty of families that would love to be earning £35k and getting guaranteed pay rises every year, plus money towards their fuel bill.
KrakenUK
Means test still not right
Means test was too low before and is too high now – and should be based on household income.
We're both pensioners with a joint income of close to £50k, no dependent kids, no mortgage. Added to this, we've got the protection of the triple lock. There is no way we need this money, whereas many young families do.
WokeUp
4,000 lives at risk
The enduring problem is that the government's own estimate said that 4,000 people would die of the cold if this policy was introduced. The excess deaths figures will not be published for another year and, in any case, are now very complicated. The question for me is: would I ever vote for people who were prepared to allow 4,000 old people to die because they don't understand economics?
MrBishi
We manage, give it to those who need it
I've always said the same. We are mortgage-free, I'm on a state pension and get a small private pension. My wife, who is younger, still works part-time and gets around £600 per month. We manage perfectly. We know a lot of younger people who work and struggle with rents, children to keep, etc. Give it to them. Some pensioners out there are just plain greedy and want every penny piece they can grab.
Ian
Why should wealthy pensioners get it?
I barely earn £35K as a 45-year-old professional in the NHS and certainly won't get that kind of money for a pension. Why should so many get a £300 handout when they've more than likely paid their mortgage and don't have to spend money on children, etc., any more?
OnlyFishLeft
Social care funding was the original point
I expect both the Tories and the Lib Dems are hoping everyone's forgotten that they have both, at one time or another, called for either means testing the WFA or restricting it to pension credit claimants only.
It was, in fact, in the Conservatives' 2017 election manifesto. For the Libs, it was one Paul Burstow MP, who had served in the coalition government. In both cases, the money saved was to be diverted to social care reform, which was a pretty good idea, I think.
RickC
Help paying the gas bill on £35k?
Thirty-five grand coming in a year and you get help paying your gas bill?
Truly outrageous.
This suggests a person needs £35k a year, minimum, to live. So how about getting disabled people and the unemployed up to that rate then? Because they are far, far below.
BigDogSmallBrain
A compromise, but poorly communicated
This sounds a more sensible compromise rather than going back to the old universal payment, but the government should have made this announcement last year so people would have been prepared for it, and it wouldn't have looked so much as if they were frightened of Farage.
ruthmayjellings
What if one earns over the limit?
I suppose we will have to wait for the detail, but what happens if a couple claim the WFA (one per household) through the non-earning spouse, while the other has income over £35,000? That's not very clear.
SteveHill
Why not last year?
Last year there was no money so they cut WFA and they can blame it on the Tories. This year the economy is in an even worse mess and they reinstate it, against all logic, and then they put the level far too high.
No details as to how it will be paid for, how it will be recouped, nor how they will ID those who can get it and those who will have to pay it back. And if they suddenly found a system, why did they not use it last year?
And I do not suppose the shellacking they got in May has anything at all to do with it, has it?
Headless chickens, the lot of them — especially Reeves and Starmer.
ListenVeryCarefully