The below content first appeared in Politics.co.uk’s Politics@Lunch newsletter, sign-up for free and never miss this daily briefing.
Labour Party conference voted today to condemn the government’s decision to cut the winter fuel payment for more than 9 million pensioners.
The motion, calling for ministers to “reverse” the removal of the allowance from all but the poorest pensioners, was passed by hand-vote in the conference hall, as per party rules. Initially, there was some confusion over whether the motion had carried, reflecting the tight nature of the poll. (This wasn’t, after all then, the symbolic mass uprising of activists that many on Labour’s left hoped for).
Moreover, the vote was non-binding, meaning the government is not obliged to change its position. Any U-turn on the policy remains fundamentally unlikely, therefore; as Keir Starmer said in his speech to Labour conference yesterday: “Our project has not and never will change”. (In any case, Labour has now sustained so much political damage over the proposal that it probably makes strategic sense to power through).
That said, even if the vote was effectively futile, the Labour leadership’s defeat makes for a downbeat finale to the party’s first conference in government for 15 years. It also suggests that Starmer’s implicit plea in his speech yesterday, calling on members to shun the politics of “easy answers”, went unheeded by delegates.
In this vein, I have some more thoughts on the significance of the vote this morning — and what it means for Keir Starmer’s authority. Find them below.
Keir Starmer’s budget dilemma
Already the Conservative Party is on the offensive. “Starmer has lost [the] support of the Labour Party, his MPs and paymasters”, a Tory source blasts via The Telegraph. In truth, the attack lines write themselves — a curious position for such a fledgling government to occupy.
Of course, the fact that the conference vote was non-binding drastically lowered the political stakes. But Labour delegates’ decision to ignore the PM’s instructions, stressed at pains in his keynote address yesterday, lends some credulity to the Conservative caricature that this is a frail prime minister whose authority is already ailing.
And even when one cuts through the politically motivated distortion, the reality is far from pleasant.
Notwithstanding the media furore over Starmer’s penchant for accepting “freebies” or internal anger at the influence and pay of Sue Gray, the vote today served as a stark reminder that the winter fuel controversy is currently Labour’s defining predicament.
Simply put, the decision to cut the winter fuel allowance for over 9 million pensioners is empowering the charges of hypocrisy that now surround (the otherwise petty) Labour freebies row. And it is these difficulties, taken together, that are bolstering Labour’s internal sniping — both at Gray and Labour’s alleged lack of strategic nous.
The end result is this: Labour’s winter fuel woes are inflaming disenchantment, which is itself sustaining and/or prompting further taxing headaches. This dismal formula, suffice it to say, will only deepen following the conference vote.
What is more, this assessment starkly problematises the decision of Labour apparatchiks to push the winter fuel vote to this morning, when it was meant to be held on Monday.
This move, ultimately, will leave a bitter taste in the mouth of already rebellious delegates — activists forced to mill around far longer than anticipated in many cases. But also, and rather more crucially, the defeat will colour the conclusions of outside observers.
One unfortunate slip of the tongue aside, Starmer’s speech to Labour conference went down rather well on Tuesday, both within the hall and beyond. The prime minister mounted a fierce defence of the “tough decisions” taken by his government and injected a healthy (and much-needed) sense of optimism into proceedings.
Notably, Starmer stressed that the “cost of filling that black hole in our public finances” left behind by the Conservatives “will be shared fairly”. It was a message to discontented delegates that the budget might, after all, contain the progressive tax rises they so crave. Pensioners alone, Starmer stressed, will not bear the brunt of Labour’s fiscal responsibility. (Of course, if this is indeed the case, it begs the question as to why such a controversial measure as a winter fuel cut was unveiled months before the budget).
Now, had Labour’s winter fuel vote occurred on Monday as planned, Starmer could have responded to the outcome in his address. It would have underlined, for the audience beyond the hall, Starmer’s willingness to stare down his opponents and embrace unpopularity in the pursuit of fiscal rectitude.
Ultimately, the decision to delay the vote — like Starmer’s no-show on the BBC’s Sunday politics programme — can only really be interpreted as weakness.
***Politics.co.uk is the UK’s leading digital-only political website. Subscribe to our daily newsletter for all the latest news and analysis.***
That said, the big question underpinning the row over the winter fuel payment is this: will the controversy compel Starmer to reevaluate his budget proposals — or will Labour move ahead as planned, risking further rows with already-recalcitrant MPs and members?
The prime minister’s hint at progressive tax rises in his conference address was, no doubt, part of a bid to cool feelings within the party. On top of this, reports in recent days have indicated that Reeves could amend the government’s fiscal rules to allow for further capital investment at the budget.
Together, these revelations suggest Reeves’ raft of measures — to be unveiled on 30th October — could go down rather better among MPs and activists than we have hitherto anticipated.
But whether such moves were always intended, the wider optics are unlikely to prove pleasant for Starmer. Rebel MPs and opposition parties will view a budget less “painful” than promised as a tacit confession that the government made a political and/or strategic error with its winter fuel cuts.
Even more significantly, if Labour holds back on the “pain” in the budget, it would send a signal — to all the wrong people as far as No 10 is concerned — that Starmer can be pushed around. For a government with such a substantial majority, this would prove an awkward allegation indeed.
But maybe not quite as awkward as further Labour Party rows over the government’s fiscal plans. This, in the end, is the calculation Starmer must make.
Whatever happens next, therefore, Starmer must ensure that the all-consuming furore over winter fuel payments isn’t a sign of things to come. If it is, the prime minister will learn to fear what his government could devolve into.
Subscribe to Politics@Lunch
Lunchtime briefing
Keir Starmer: No apology needed for accepting ‘freebies’
Lunchtime soundbite
‘I hope that, even at this late stage, the leadership listens to ordinary Labour Party members.’
— Labour MP Diane Abbott urges the government to reconsider its winter fuel payment cut after conference vote.
Now try this…
‘Labour MPs say there is a “Strange” mood at conference despite historic election victory’
From PoliticsHome’s Tom Scotson and Alain Tolhurst.
‘Michael Gove is the new editor of The Spectator’
Via The Spectator’s Fraser Nelson, the magazine’s outgoing editor. (Paywall)
‘Our new ‘Iron Chancellor’ already looks rusty’
Via ConservativeHome.
On this day in 2023:
PM remains ‘committed to levelling up’ but refuses to comment on HS2 ‘speculation’
