Best Of

Yes keeping the WFA cut was so politically damaging Labour had no alternative but to abandon it for average income pensioners. So only wealthier pensioners saw a cut to their WFA

Not all wealthy pensioners. I am going to get it and I am definitely in the wealth category. Many of us live off of savings and investments so will now still get the WFA as there isn't a capital test. This is a mistake as was the U turn.

All pensioners with an annual income above £35,000 will get no WFA, savings and investment income could well be included in that

Yeah the income will but not the capital. It is easy to tie your capital up without generating £35k of income from it and live off the capital. Pension funds, ISA, capital growth shares, property, etc. Without going into detail I will be miles away from £35k income, but by anyone's measure I am very very well off. That will be true of many well off pensioners. It is how we prepared for retirement if we didn't have a DB pension.

Because of the benefit rules on capital even though I have a low income I lost the WFA as I should. Now, as for a lot of rich pensioners, who don't have DB pensions I will get it.

It is nonsense. I and others like me shouldn't get it. I will probably donate it.

Only if you sell the capital do you get any earnings from it, dividends from shares, rental income from property etc would still count for the £35k +

@hyufd you haven't a clue. I have over £5m invested nearly all of which is not revenue generating but capital generating or doing nothing. It is ISAs, property I don't rent out out but use and can borrow against, drawdown pensions I can control, etc. I will be long dead before I spend all of this. My sole income is my state pension and a few thousand in dividends and interest. I realise capital or savings to make up what I need to live which don't impact the £35k figure. I will be dead before it runs out. Consequently I now get the WFA which is nonsense.

Others who are a lot less well off than me but don't have DB pensions will be doing exactly the same. It is nonsense that I will get it. When tied into benefits I wouldn't.

While the header is undeniably bad for Starmer, this polling out today is more positive:

https://bsky.app/profile/yougov.co.uk/post/3lt5ldggzy22h

Not much love for the alternative either.

Given how shit the last Tory government was that's absolutely damning for Labour. To be rated the same as the Tories who were 14 years in and completely exhausted after just a year must be some kind of record.

I also think there's a lot of Tory voters who have realised how big of a mistake it was to stay home and sit on their hands. They could have got 50-80 extra seats and pushed Labour into a much smaller majority if they'd not been so selfish. It is going to be up to Kemi to try and harness that regret and turn it into votes for them. This poll should give them a target now. Find out who that 33% is made up of and ruthlessly target them with policies and ads.

Yes keeping the WFA cut was so politically damaging Labour had no alternative but to abandon it for average income pensioners. So only wealthier pensioners saw a cut to their WFA

Not all wealthy pensioners. I am going to get it and I am definitely in the wealth category. Many of us live off of savings and investments so will now still get the WFA as there isn't a capital test. This is a mistake as was the U turn.

All pensioners with an annual income above £35,000 will get no WFA, savings and investment income could well be included in that

Where is the government brave enough to say that those with an income in excess of £35k don't actually get the OAP, or at least a diminished share of it? We are so deeply in debt and we are borrowing outrageous sums. Radical approaches need to be taken or we risk catastrophe.

Given they will have paid in via NI and state pension eligibility is based on that that won't happen, WFA never depended on NI contributions.

Though the triple lock could be ended for higher earning pensioners

Not enough. Not nearly enough. We need to find £75bn of savings. We need to find £75bn of cuts and yet we need to increase defence spending. It is a hellish situation and I have some sympathy for Reeves and even Starmer although they were quite content to tell lies to win the election. We need to stop pretending.

Says it all really

But what does it say?

The WFA. Everybody knows it was a top top political gimmick from Gordon Brown. Rather than simply increase the pension, do this instead, create the impression of the government popping into the home of an elderly person freezing in winter and turning on the heater. "There you go, dear. All is well."

Such a brilliant gimmick that every government since has defied logic and all impartial advice in order to not mess with it. Too scared to do so. Gordon's conceit would be reversed and bite you in the bum. The government stops by that elderly person in winter and turns the heater off. Brrrr. Terrible optics. So let's carry on giving these annual lump sums to millions of people who don't need it. Bad policy, good politics.

Finally someone bites the bullet and changes it. Hang the politics let's do the right thing. £££ only to those who really need it. And what happens? Of course support from the public is an unrealistic ask since it is a takeaway. But it's well-known money is tight so do the public surprise on the upside by at least being a little bit sanguine about it? Do they hellers like! They are so pissed off it forms their entire view of the government. No other issue gets even a mention.

Sorry, 'customer always right' bla bla, but I find it kind of pathetic.