More UK pensioners will get winter fuel payments this year, says British finance minister
British finance minister Rachel Reeves said on Wednesday more pensioners will receive winter fuel payments starting this winter, following the government's U-turn on the cuts in the payments to the elderly.
Cuts to the payments, which subsidise winter heating bills for millions of older people and are worth £200-300 ($270-405), were announced shortly after Prime Minister Keir Starmer's Labour government took office in July 2024.
They were cited as one factor in the party losing ground to Nigel Farage's right-wing Reform UK party in recent local elections
Reform also leads in opinion polls nationally.
Starmer signalled last month the government would reverse the cuts but there had been uncertainty around when more pensioners would begin receiving the payments again.
"People should be in no doubt that ... more people will get winter fuel payment this winter," Reeves told a press conference in northwest England on Wednesday.
"We have now put our public finances on a firmer footing. The economy is in a better shape. But we have also listened to the concerns that people had," she added.
Reeves had said last year the cuts were needed to repair public finances and to ensure the payments would not be made to wealthier people who do not need the help.
The government's U-turn means more pensioners will become eligible to receive the payments, but pensions minister Torsten Bell suggested wealthier pensioners would still not be eligible.
"Directly on (the) question of, 'is there any prospect of a universal winter fuel payment?' the answer is no," Bell told a committee of lawmakers on Wednesday, adding it wasn't a good idea to give millionaires the payments.
"But we will be looking at making more pensioners eligible," Bell said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Zawya
3 hours ago
- Zawya
Global sovereigns outlook revised to deteriorating on tariffs, uncertainty
London: Fitch Ratings has revised the 2025 global sovereigns outlook to 'deteriorating' from 'neutral' reflecting the increase in trade tariffs and policy uncertainty, which will weaken the global growth outlook and heighten the risk of more testing financing conditions. Public finance and political risks remain high. The escalation in the global trade war, uncertainty over the endpoint for tariffs and their impact on global trade volumes, supply chains, investment and international relations is a significant adverse global economic shock. Uncertainty over the extent and timing of the effects on prices and activity add to uncertainty over the path of US Federal Reserve policy rates and the risk of volatility in financing conditions. A fall in Brent crude oil prices to USD65 a barrel in 2025 from USD79.5 a barrel in 2024 will increase economic and fiscal pressures on major exporters. Cuts to US international aid add to risks facing some emerging markets. In contrast, a depreciation of the US dollar eases the burden on emerging markets with US dollar-denominated debt and gives some emerging-market central banks scope to cut interest rates faster. Public finances will remain under pressure in 2025 from rising defence spending, interest costs, demographic trends, weak growth and social pressures, particularly in developed markets. We expect median government debt/GDP to increase slightly to 54.5% at end-2025 from 54.1% at end-2024. Geopolitical risks remain high given the wars in Ukraine and the Middle East, US-China strategic rivalry, trade tensions, social discontent, and the flux in US foreign policy. Rating Outlooks are close to balance in mid-2025, with 13 on Positive Outlook, only slightly more than the 10 on Negative Outlook. Downgrades since 2020 have created headroom in some ratings to withstand a worsening in credit conditions. Policy responses will support ratings in some cases. 'Global Sovereigns Mid-Year Outlook 2025' is available at or via the link above. Contact: Media Relations: Peter Fitzpatrick, London, Email: Eleis Brennan, New York, Email: Peter Hoflich, Singapore, Email: Additional information is available on Disclaimer All Fitch Ratings (Fitch) credit ratings are subject to certain limitations and disclaimers. Please read these limitations and disclaimers by following this link: In addition, the following details Fitch's rating definitions for each rating scale and rating categories, including definitions relating to default. Published ratings, criteria, and methodologies are available from this site at all times. Fitch's code of conduct, confidentiality, conflicts of interest, affiliate firewall, compliance, and other relevant policies and procedures are also available from the Code of Conduct section of this site. Directors and shareholders' relevant interests are available at Fitch may have provided another permissible or ancillary service to the rated entity or its related third parties. Details of permissible or ancillary service(s) for which the lead analyst is based in an ESMA- or FCA-registered Fitch Ratings company (or branch of such a company) can be found on the entity summary page for this issuer on the Fitch Ratings website. In issuing and maintaining its ratings and in making other reports (including forecast information), Fitch relies on factual information it receives from issuers and underwriters and from other sources Fitch believes to be credible. Fitch conducts a reasonable investigation of the factual information relied upon by it in accordance with its ratings methodology, and obtains reasonable verification of that information from independent sources, to the extent such sources are available for a given security or in a given jurisdiction. The manner of Fitch's factual investigation and the scope of the third-party verification it obtains will vary depending on the nature of the rated security and its issuer, the requirements and practices in the jurisdiction in which the rated security is offered and sold and/or the issuer is located, the availability and nature of relevant public information, access to the management of the issuer and its advisers, the availability of pre-existing third-party verifications such as audit reports, agreed-upon procedures letters, appraisals, actuarial reports, engineering reports, legal opinions and other reports provided by third parties, the availability of independent and competent third- party verification sources with respect to the particular security or in the particular jurisdiction of the issuer, and a variety of other factors. Users of Fitch's ratings and reports should understand that neither an enhanced factual investigation nor any third-party verification can ensure that all of the information Fitch relies on in connection with a rating or a report will be accurate and complete. Ultimately, the issuer and its advisers are responsible for the accuracy of the information they provide to Fitch and to the market in offering documents and other reports. In issuing its ratings and its reports, Fitch must rely on the work of experts, including independent auditors with respect to financial statements and attorneys with respect to legal and tax matters. Further, ratings and forecasts of financial and other information are inherently forward-looking and embody assumptions and predictions about future events that by their nature cannot be verified as facts. As a result, despite any verification of current facts, ratings and forecasts can be affected by future events or conditions that were not anticipated at the time a rating or forecast was issued or affirmed. The information in this report is provided 'as is' without any representation or warranty of any kind, and Fitch does not represent or warrant that the report or any of its contents will meet any of the requirements of a recipient of the report. A Fitch rating is an opinion as to the creditworthiness of a security. This opinion and reports made by Fitch are based on established criteria and methodologies that Fitch is continuously evaluating and updating. Therefore, ratings and reports are the collective work product of Fitch and no individual, or group of individuals, is solely responsible for a rating or a report. The rating does not address the risk of loss due to risks other than credit risk, unless such risk is specifically mentioned. Fitch is not engaged in the offer or sale of any security. All Fitch reports have shared authorship. Individuals identified in a Fitch report were involved in, but are not solely responsible for, the opinions stated therein. The individuals are named for contact purposes only. A report providing a Fitch rating is neither a prospectus nor a substitute for the information assembled, verified and presented to investors by the issuer and its agents in connection with the sale of the securities. Ratings may be changed or withdrawn at any time for any reason in the sole discretion of Fitch. Fitch does not provide investment advice of any sort. Ratings are not a recommendation to buy, sell, or hold any security. Ratings do not comment on the adequacy of market price, the suitability of any security for a particular investor, or the tax-exempt nature or taxability of payments made in respect to any security. Fitch receives fees from issuers, insurers, guarantors, other obligors, and underwriters for rating securities. Such fees generally vary from US$1,000 to US$750,000 (or the applicable currency equivalent) per issue. In certain cases, Fitch will rate all or a number of issues issued by a particular issuer, or insured or guaranteed by a particular insurer or guarantor, for a single annual fee. Such fees are expected to vary from US$10,000 to US$1,500,000 (or the applicable currency equivalent). The assignment, publication, or dissemination of a rating by Fitch shall not constitute a consent by Fitch to use its name as an expert in connection with any registration statement filed under the United States securities laws, the Financial Services and Markets Act of 2000 of the United Kingdom, or the securities laws of any particular jurisdiction. Due to the relative efficiency of electronic publishing and distribution, Fitch research may be available to electronic subscribers up to three days earlier than to print subscribers. For Australia, New Zealand, Taiwan and South Korea only: Fitch Australia Pty Ltd holds an Australian financial services license (AFS license no. 337123) which authorizes it to provide credit ratings to wholesale clients only. Credit ratings information published by Fitch is not intended to be used by persons who are retail clients within the meaning of the Corporations Act 2001. Fitch Ratings, Inc. is registered with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission as a Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating Organization (the 'NRSRO'). While certain of the NRSRO's credit rating subsidiaries are listed on Item 3 of Form NRSRO and as such are authorized to issue credit ratings on behalf of the NRSRO (see other credit rating subsidiaries are not listed on Form NRSRO (the 'non-NRSROs') and therefore credit ratings issued by those subsidiaries are not issued on behalf of the NRSRO. However, non-NRSRO personnel may participate in determining credit ratings issued by or on behalf of the NRSRO. Copyright © 2025 by Fitch Ratings, Inc., Fitch Ratings Ltd. and its subsidiaries. 33 Whitehall Street, NY, NY 10004. Telephone: 1-800-753-4824, (212) 908-0500. Reproduction or retransmission in whole or in part is prohibited except by permission. All rights reserved. Peter Fitzpatrick Senior Director, Corporate Communications Fitch Ratings 30 North Colonnade London E14 5GN
Zawya
4 hours ago
- Zawya
KKR-Stonepeak raise bid in battle for UK's Assura to $2.3bln
Private equity firms KKR and Stonepeak Partners raised their offer for Britain's Assura on Wednesday to almost 1.7 billion pounds ($2.3 billion), topping a rival bid with their "best and final" offer for the healthcare real estate investor. The 52.1 pence a share offer, including dividends, trumps the 51.7 pence proposed by rival suitor Primary Health Properties last month. It represents a more than 39% premium to Assura's closing price on February 13, the day before KKR and Stonepeak's first approach. The stock has soared 32% since then, giving Assura a market capitalization of 1.6 billion pounds as of Tuesday. Assura manages over 600 healthcare properties with an investment value exceeding 3 billion pounds, and counts Britain's state-backed National Health Service as a customer. It joins a growing list of UK companies being bought out by overseas private equity firms or investment companies, attracted by comparatively cheap valuations. The latest all-cash offer "is lower risk than other alternatives" and requires no divestment, KKR Managing Director Andrew Furze said in a statement. In April, Assura had backed KKR-Stonepeak's previous cash offer, prompting a higher bid from PHP last month. Some analysts had said PHP's offer was more attractive as it comprised cash and stock, and provided ownership of social healthcare assets via a public limited company listed in the UK. PHP did not immediately respond to a request for comment. ($1 = 0.7415 pounds)
The National
5 hours ago
- The National
The UK version of the Trump-Musk clash, starring Nigel Farage
Politics is always about real ideas and policies, but it can also simply be just about personal animosities and feuds. The trick is to know the difference. The Trump-Musk feud dominates news coverage worldwide. There's plenty of froth but underneath there are also serious questions about the direction of the Trump administration's economic and tariff policies. In Britain, too, there are signs of huge political changes under way along with froth-filled personal animosities and rivalries. Nigel Farage, in his latest incarnation as leader of the Reform party, has seriously undermined support for the Conservative party. Mr Farage boasts of being the real opposition to the Labour government. But as with US President Donald Trump, his political history is full of personality clashes and internal rows. The latest came when Reform party chairman Zia Yusuf suddenly quit last week raising further questions about the Farage leadership style. Mr Yusuf is a successful businessman, a British Muslim of Sri Lankan heritage and a significant cash donor to Reform. He recently claimed the party could win 400 MPs and make Nigel Farage prime minister. Well, possibly. But Mr Yusuf then suddenly announced: 'I no longer believe working to get a Reform government elected is a good use of my time, and hereby resign' as party chairman. Splits, internal feuds and unpleasant battles with donors and others have for years dogged Mr Farage's many political reincarnations. British news organisations list rows and breaks with once prominent party names including Godfrey Bloom, Suzanne Evans, Ben Habib, Douglas Carswell, Diane James, Patrick O'Flynn and more recently Rupert Lowe and then Zia Yusuf. Rupert Lowe is still an MP but quit Reform and is in parliament as an independent. Zia Yusuf quit as chairman but then two days later is suddenly back in a new role. He blamed overwork and exhaustion for the temporary split, but that's only part of the Reform party story. Splits, internal feuds and unpleasant battles with donors and others have for years doggedFarage's many political reincarnations Mr Farage has considerable personal charisma. He is a media favourite. One of the BBC's most popular political programmes, Question Time, has featured Mr Farage an estimated 38 times causing opponents to criticise the BBC for pandering to populism. And now Mr Farage claims – and some fear – a significant Reform breakthrough. The party did well in recent English local elections. The opinion polls are looking good. Reform won an English by-election giving the party their fifth MP, Sarah Pochin. A former Conservative government adviser, Dominic Cummings, recently (perhaps mischievously) suggests Mr Farage could become prime minister at the next election. Anything is possible, but that would require Reform to add more than 320 new MPs to the current five, and a general election may not happen for four years. Yet, beyond the boasts, Mr Yusuf's resignation and surprising return is very revealing. He is one of the most prominent Muslim figures in British political life in a party that has very few notable Muslim members. Mr Farage has often built his appeal on opposing migration and trumpeting supposedly 'traditional patriotic' white Christian and working class 'British' values. Significantly Mr Yusuf resigned after the first parliamentary question by Ms Pochin, the new Reform MP. She asked British Prime Minister Keir Starmer if he would 'in the interests of public safety - follow the lead of France, Denmark, Belgium and others, and ban the burqa?' Even discussing a burqa ban is not high on the political agenda of most current MPs or the government, but the question was in the true Farage insurgent mould. It's potentially a very divisive issue affecting a tiny minority of Britain's very diverse Muslim communities. To some commentators, Ms Pochin's burqa question therefore sounded like an attempt to exploit cultural divisions, a headline-grabbing example of the old Farage style, potentially creating problems for the new Farage image. Mr Starmer ignored the question and instead made a political joke at Ms Pochin's expense. The Reform party later insisted that banning the burqa is not even their own party policy - so why raise the question? Critics often see the burqa question as 'dog whistle' politics, trying to exploit potential divisions for political gain. Mr Yusuf's resignation followed immediately after the question was asked. He bluntly pointed out that banning the burqa is not even Reform party policy, and so "I do think it's dumb for a party to ask the Prime Minister if they would do something the party itself wouldn't do.' Dumb, yes. Divisive, certainly. Damaging? Undoubtedly. And now reversed. Mr Yusuf is back in a slightly different role and it is clear that Mr Farage is trying to widen support beyond England. He undoubtedly recognises that the burqa row may energise a few existing Reform voters but probably turns off many potential converts to the party. Either way, Reform picked up a good showing (it came third) in a Scottish parliament election last week. Mr Farage is now campaigning hard in Wales. His previous political parties made headlines, attracted protest voters and were full of internal rows and divisions. He needs to change and widen his appeal. There is froth but Mr Farage is also very serious now about seeking power. Keeping Mr Yusuf in the party proves it.
