Reader TTS

A potential policy shift from the Labour Party could see Winter Fuel Payments restored and allocated to individuals instead of households. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has suggested that

this change in strategy might involve distributing the benefit to every state pensioner, moving away from the current approach where couples receive joint payments. The IFS explained:

"Make WFP an individual rather than household payment. This issue is difficult because WFP is paid to households, not individuals. "Paying it to individuals would allow the

government to do an individual-level means-test, based upon the individual's income that the government already records for income tax purposes. READ MORE: NINE FREEBIES AND DISCOUNTS

STATE PENSIONERS ARE SET TO BE HANDED IN JUNE "This would entail giving WFP to individuals who have a low income but whose spouse has a high income. It is less clear how it would work

for those whose income is sufficiently low that they do not pay any tax. "It would also represent a transfer from singles to couples: currently singles and couples get the same total

amount of WFP, but under this regime couples could get twice as much." Controversy swirls around Sir Keir Starmer's justification for backtracking on the plan to cut winter fuel

payments for pensioners by claiming newly available funds have made it possible, with Harriet Harman dismissing the credibility of such a rationale, reports Birmingham Live. Baroness Harman

stated: "It's always been contested and always been unpopular. But the final straw that broke the camel's back was the elections. The council elections and the Runcorn

by-election, where the voters were saying, 'this is not the change we voted for'. "At the end of the day, you cannot just keep flying in the face of what voters - particularly

if they're people who previously voted for you - wanted." Baroness Harman expressed scepticism regarding Sir Keir's assertion that a U-turn is possible because of improved

economic management by the government. "I don't think that's credible as an argument," she remarked. "It really is the fact that voters just said 'this is not

the change we voted for, we're not going to have this'."