Nine weeks into his new job as Britain’s prime minister, Keir Starmer suffered his first big parliamentary rebellion on Tuesday, in a vote that exposed unease about his center-left government’s austere tone and focus on belt-tightening.
Although the government ultimately prevailed, more than 50 of Labour’s 404 lawmakers did not support its move to restrict payments that help retirees with winter heating costs.
Under the initiative, an annual payment of at least £200 ($261) that is currently available to anyone over the age of 66 will be subject to a means test, available only to those with the lowest incomes.
Fifty-three Labour members either abstained or were absent, and one voted against the plan.
Mr. Starmer has a majority of more than 160 lawmakers, and the plan’s passage — and therefore his victory — was never in doubt. But the number of Labour members who did not support it underscored wider disquiet over a policy that surprised many when it was announced.
“It came out of the blue and it just dropped,” said John McTernan, a political strategist who was an aide to Tony Blair when he was prime minister. The new curb could have been justified on the grounds of fairness, since many wealthy pensioners do not need the payments, Mr. McTernan said. But instead, the government focused its explanation on the need to cut spending.
By failing to sell the policy effectively to the public or his party, Mr. McTernan said, Mr. Starmer turned it into an awkward early test of his authority.“I think it was mishandled and it’s a lesson, the lesson being: Don’t make a political decision that is not backed by a political narrative and a political argument,” he added.
Labour swept to power for the first time in 14 years with a landslide victory in July’s election, and a triumphant Mr. Starmer promised that “the work of change begins immediately.”
But last month the prime minister warned that “things will get worse before they get better,” blaming a disastrous economic inheritance from the previous Conservative government and the dire state of Britain’s public services.
Some critics accuse him of substituting the tone of hope on which he campaigned with one of undiluted miserabilism.
With the taxpayer-funded National Health Service and other public services badly frayed, the mood could worsen next month when the chancellor of the Exchequer, Rachel Reeves, announces her budget plans.
After coming to power, Ms. Reeves says she discovered a £22 billion ($28.77 billion) “black hole” in the government finances, prompting the move to curb winter fuel aid.
Around 11.4 million retired people currently qualify for the payments. Under the new plan, eligibility will be limited to 1.5 million people who receive other welfare support.
However, there is concern for people entitled to those benefits who fail to claim them, and critics warn of hardship for retirees whose incomes are just above the threshold. Mick Lynch, who leads the R.M.T. rail workers’ union, likened the government to the Grinch.
The opposition Conservative Party disputes claims of a £22 billion “black hole,” and argues that Ms. Reeves’s choices reflect her priorities.
While cutting the winter fuel payments, saving £1.4 billion ($1.83 billion), Ms. Reeves has also given pay raises larger than the rate of inflation to public sector workers. Labour says those pay deals were necessary to incentivize those workers, who saw their real wages fall over the past five years while the average pay of private sector workers rose.
Ahead of Tuesday’s vote, Mr. Starmer told a trade union conference that he made “no apology for the decisions we’ve had to take to change the country,” adding that he would not risk his government’s commitment to economic stability or dodge difficult decisions. “I owe you that candor,” he said.
Winter fuel payments were introduced under Mr. Blair after his election victory in 1997. When Theresa May, a Conservative former prime minister, considered curbing the payments in 2017, Labour said the plan could put thousands of lives at risk, and she retreated.
But Mr. Starmer’s supporters point out that for years Britain’s retirees have received generous financial protection under a policy known as the “triple lock,” which increases pensions annually by whichever figure is highest: 2.5 percent, the rate of inflation or earnings growth.
Labour has kept that policy and Ms. Reeves said that the basic state pension had risen by around £900 ($1,177) compared with a year ago — much more than the maximum £300 fuel payment in question.
“The winter fuel allowance came from a different time,” said Mr. McTernan, the political strategist. “We have now had 14 years of the Tories delivering a triple lock which has substantially raised the rate of the basic state pension.” Still, he argued, Mr. Starmer should have sugar coated the fuel benefit means test pill by explaining how sacrifices now would produce long-term benefits.
“If it’s going to get worse before it gets better — fine. I get the worse bit,” he said. “But what does the better bit look like or feel like? It goes back to the basics — you do need to tell a story about your politics.”
The post ‘You Do Need to Tell a Story’: Why U.K.’s Leader Faced Revolt Over Retiree Benefit Cut appeared first on New York Times.
