Tricks to keep FULL £300 winter fuel allowance: JEFF PRESTRIDGE's guide to Labour's U-turn
What a bugger's muddle.' That is the term my late mother would have used to describe Labour's decision on Monday to unravel last year's clampdown on winter fuel payments to pensioners.
And it is a phrase that keeps crashing into my mind as I get to grips with the financial mechanics behind Labour's decision to rip up last year's rules governing who does and who doesn't get the payment – and start all over again.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Record
13 minutes ago
- Daily Record
New call for full State Pension for half a million older people after Winter Fuel Payment U-turn
Around 453,000 pensioners are living in a country which does not have a reciprocal agreement with the UK Government. Pension Credit – Could you or someone you know be eligible? Earlier this week the UK Government announced Winter Fuel Payments will be reinstated for over 9 million pensioners later this year. The U-turn and Chancellor Rachel Reeves Spending Review on Wednesday have prompted calls from the 'End Frozen Pensions Campaign' for the annual State Pension uprating to be reinstated for around 453,000 retirees living in countries which do not have a reciprocal agreement with the UK Government. The campaign said it would cost the UK Government just under £60 million per year to end this 'historic wrong'. The policy, which prevents State Pensions from being increased annually - to counteract the impact of inflation for UK pensioners living in certain countries - means some are receiving as little as £60 per week, far below the current £176.45 rate for the Basic State Pension for those living in Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland. John Duguid, Chair of the End Frozen Pensions Campaign, said: "The Government's U-turn on Winter Fuel Payments shows there is a common consensus that the most vulnerable in our society rely on such payments as essential lifelines during times of need. 'Victims of the Frozen Pensions scandal, who receive only a fraction of their full UK State Pension because they live in some countries overseas, should not be excluded from this rationale. Yet the Government's continued refusal to address this longstanding discrimination means they continue to suffer from often negligible levels of state support. 'These British pensioners, many of whom spent their working lives in the UK, receive on average just £60 per week compared to the more than £170 per week they would be entitled to in the UK, or a non-frozen country.' He added: 'Ending this historic wrong would cost just under £60 million per year. This would barely register in the overall State Pension budget. But this isn't only about cost, it is about the principle of treating British state pensioners fairly and equally. 'Similar to the Government's decision to reinstate Winter Fuel Payments, ending this scandal is the correct and morally just action to take. The Government should do right by those who paid fairly into the system, and ensure they have dignity in their retirement.' Last month, cross-party MPs united to intensify pressure on the UK Government over its refusal to reform the so-called 'frozen pensions' policy. Only British overseas pensioners living in specific countries - mostly within the Commonwealth - are impacted, in what Rebecca Smith MP described as "the ultimate postcode lottery'. Those in the USA see the same annual increase as British pensioners living in the UK or France, while those in Australia or Canada, see their State Pension remain 'frozen' and effectively fall in value. For example, 100-year-old Second World War veteran Anne Puckridge, who lived and worked in the UK until the age of 76 and served in all three of the RAF, Navy and the Army, has received just £72.50 per week since 2001, the year she moved to Canada to be nearer her daughter. Jim Shannon MP similarly questioned the logic of the policy applying in only some countries and not others, arguing 'the arbitrary distinction between countries with and without an operating agreement lacks logic and smacks of red tape and bureaucracy gone mad." The Minister for Pensions, Torsten Bell MP, was mostly notably challenged on the estimated cost of ending the policy, which is estimated at £60m per year - 0.04 per cent of the annual State Pension budget - rather than the £950m per year quoted by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP). The difference explained by the fact the DWP are quoting for uprating and backdating payments to account for the years affected pensioners have been frozen. However, campaigners are instead asking to receive the annual increase from this point onwards. Douglas McAllister MP stressed that campaigners and supportive MPs are 'not seeking a full backdating, but for the Government to introduce some form of yearly indexing to answer that injustice'. Longterm critic of the policy Sir Roger Gale MP argued the policy is 'not a matter of cost. It is a matter of moral responsibility and duty.' The Minister was also reminded by a number of MPs that 'the vast majority of impacted pensioners still report having no knowledge of the policy's existence prior to moving overseas'. State Pension payments 2025/26 Full New State Pension Weekly payment: £230.25 Fortnightly payment: £460.50 Four-weekly payment: £921 Annual amount: £11,973 Full Basic State Pension Weekly payment: £176.45 Fortnightly payment: £352.90 Four-weekly payment: £705.80 Annual amount: £9,175 Future State Pension increases The Labour Government has pledged to honour the Triple Lock or the duration of its term and the latest predictions show the following projected annual increases: 2025/26 - 4.1% (the forecast was 4%) 2026/27 - 2.5% 2027/28 - 2.5% 2028/29 - 2.5% 2029/30 - 2.5% Article continues below Recent analysis released by Royal London revealed only around half of people receiving the New State Pension last year were getting the full weekly amount - and around 150,000 were on less than £100 per week.
The Independent
19 minutes ago
- The Independent
Poundland faces restructure after being sold for ‘nominal' fee
High street discount chain Poundland is set for a 'restructuring' process after it was sold to investment firm Gordon Brothers. The parent firm, Pepco Group, which has owned the brand since 2016, said it has completed the sale of the business for a 'nominal' fee. It comes after an auction by Poland -based Pepco to sell Poundland after a sharp downturn in trading over the past year. Poundland's more than 800 stores and roughly 16,000 employees will be transferred to the ownership of Gordon Brothers, which owns brands including Laura Ashley, as a result. However, as part of the deal, Poundland is set to undergo a restructuring plan. Poundland said the details will be communicated 'in due course'. Stephan Borchert, Pepco Group chief executive, said: 'This transaction will strongly support our accelerated value creation programme by simplifying the group and focusing on our successful Pepco business.' The company had previously said it is looking to offload the brand amid a wider shift away from food and drinks, with a deal expected before the end of its financial year in September. A number of investment firms and private equity groups were understood to be among those to have tabled proposals to buy the business since it was put on the market earlier this year.
Daily Mail
22 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Reeves pours cold water on Nato demands for more defence spending making clear it WON'T go over 2.5% of GDP before 2029 and hinting 3% will be the limit in the next Parliament
played down the prospects of ramping up defence spending today despite mounting pressure from Donald Trump. The Chancellor stressed that Labour had only committed to hitting 2.5 per cent of GDP in the current Parliament. And she suggested the 'ambition' after 2029 remains to reach a level of 3 per cent - even though Nato states are being asked to agree a target of 3.5 per cent at a summit later this month. The blueprint being pushed by Mr Trump and the military alliance's secretary general Mark Rutte would see countries pledge to hit the higher spending by the early 2030s. A further 1.5 per cent of GDP would be required for 'defence-related expenditure'. A timetable could be set for gradually increasing their allocations. However, there are questions about how the UK would fund such an huge increase - roughly equivalent to an extra £30billion annually. Britain allocated 2.33 per cent of GDP to defence last year, and is set to reach 2.5 per cent by April 2027. The Labour Government has an 'ambition' of increasing that to 3 per cent in the next parliament - likely to run to 2034. In a round of broadcast interviews this morning, Ms Reeves said the Spending Review she laid out yesterday included the 'biggest sustained increase in defence spending since the end of the Cold War'. 'The commitment on defence in our manifesto was 2.5 per cent… we've said 3 per cent in the next Parliament,' she told Sky News. The Chancellor said the spending plans only covered this 'this Parliament'. She said: 'We will set out costed and funded plans in due course, but in this Parliament the commitment was to get to 2.5 per cent.. ' The generous fiscal envelope set by the Chancellor last Autumn has been put under massive pressure by the economy slowing down and Mr Trump 's trade war. That has led analysts and political rivals to argue that more tax increases are 'inevitable' - although the funding gap will not crystalise until the next fiscal package. The US itself missed the proposed Nato target by spending 3.38 per cent of GDP on defence last year - although the sheer size of its economy meant that dwarfed contributions from the rest of the alliance. Countries such as Germany face finding upwards of $60billion a year more for the military. The increase in Italy would be equivalent to around $46billion, Canada $45billion, France £44billion and the UK roughly $40billion. Spain - which has not invested heavily in defence up to now - could need to allocate an additional $36billion despite its economy being much smaller. The UK's Strategic Defence Review, published last week, recommended sweeping changes, including a greater focus on new technology, including drones and artificial intelligence based on rising budgets.
