With a binding vote scheduled for Tuesday on whether to axe the winter fuel allowance for all but the poorest pensioners, Ed Balls, a major Labour figure has now waded into the debate saying that he has major doubts about the decision.
The Guardian reports that confirmation of the vote comes amid growing unease within the party about backing the plans. They say it will take place next Tuesday after the Conservatives submitted a motion to annul the government’s change to regulations – a change that ordinarily would not be subject to a vote:
Balls said on Thursday he thought the government needed “an escape route” from the policy and described it as “a mess”.
“They need to find a creative way to do what they said they were going to do, close the in-year black hole, and find an alternative way to do it which could either be modifying what they’re doing on the winter allowance or finding some other way to close the black hole,” he said on the Political Currency podcast.
In a sign of unrest in the parliamentary party, a number of Labour MPs have signed an early day motion asking for the change to be reconsidered and given more time to be communicated.
The motion was submitted by the new Labour MP for Poole, Neil Duncan-Jordan, who previously worked for the biggest pensioner pressure group, the National Pensioners Convention. The Guardian understands that MPs have attended briefings given by Duncan-Jordan on the implications of the change.
Two other new MPs have signed Duncan-Jordan’s motion, which is not binding on the government and is essentially symbolic. They are the Stroud MP, Dr Simon Opher, a former GP, and Chris Hinchliff, the MP for North East Hertfordshire. Others who have signed the motion include leftwing Labour MPs such as Clive Lewis and Kim Johnson.
Remarkably, the MP for Swansea West, a former CEO of the Resoluton Foundation, who has been particularly vocal about poverty has gone to ground on this issue. We will see how he votes on Tuesday.
No comments:
Post a Comment
I am happy to address most contributions, even the drunken ones if they are coherent, but I am not going to engage with negative sniping from those who do not have the guts to add their names or a consistent on-line identity to their comments. Such postings will not be published.
Anonymous comments with a constructive contribution to make to the discussion, even if it is critical will continue to be posted. Libellous comments or remarks I think may be libellous will not be published.
I will also not tolerate personation so please do not add comments in the name of real people unless you are that person. If you do not like these rules then start your own blog.
Oh, and if you persist in repeating yourself despite the fact I have addressed your point I may get bored and reject your comment.
The views expressed in comments are those of the poster, not me.