POLITICAL parties who are in opposition have the freedom to say basically whatever they like.
That’s why Scottish Labour are constantly spouting off about lack of funding for Scottish services – and just as constantly refusing to say where any new money should come from. No to tax rises, no to more borrowing powers.
But while Scottish Labour remain out of power at Holyrood, their UK counterparts have taken over at Westminster – and some of the things they said while in opposition are coming back to bite them.
Take David Lammy, the now-Foreign Secretary, who in March urged the Tory government to publish its legal advice on whether Israeli arms exports were unlawful. Now, he’s in government, and Lammy hasn’t published that legal advice.
READ MORE: 'Utterly unjustifiable': Economist reacts to Rachel Reeves speech
More of Labour’s willingness to talk but not act has been revealed by Rachel Reeves’s decision to cut back Winter Fuel Payments for people who don’t claim benefits.
Charity Age Scotland has said it is already receiving calls from people “distressed by the announcement and worried about what lies ahead”, and warned that the Labour cut will impact people who “are living on incomes just above the pension credit threshold”.
Perhaps that would explain why Labour used to be opposed to any cuts to the Winter Fuel Payment – and put a pledge to “slash fuel poverty” in their election manifesto.
But those words seem to have evaporated now they're in power.
According to Hansard, the official record of what was said in the UK Parliament, Prime Minister Keir Starmer has only mentioned the Winter Fuel Payment once, to warn the Tories off touching it.
Raising a potential £46 billion black hole in the UK’s finances if the Tories scrapped national insurance, Starmer said in May: “Last year, the prime minister was apparently drawing up plans to remove the winter fuel allowance from pensioners. His paymaster general went a step further, saying ‘these are the sorts of things I think we need to look at’.
“Will the prime minister now rule out taking pensioners’ winter fuel payments off them to help fund his £46bn black hole?”
Chancellor Rachel Reeves also condemned any suggestion that the Tories could bring in a means-tested Winter Fuel Payment when it was floated as an idea in September 2023.
"They should not be breaking those commitments,” she told Sky News, adding: "One thing I would be doing if I was chancellor today would be to have a proper windfall tax on the huge profits that the big energy giants are making and use that money to help people with their bills."
Aye, right.
READ MORE: 'Completely wrong' to say Labour knew cuts needed before election, Ian Murray claims
But it doesn’t end there. In November 2023, Darren Jones – who is now Labour’s Chief Secretary to the Treasury – similarly postured.
Sharing a letter he had penned to then chancellor Jeremy Hunt on social media, Jones wrote: “The paymaster general has suggested stripping some older people of the Winter Fuel Payment.
“I’ve written to the Chancellor asking him to clarify whether he is considering this for the Autumn Statement.
“Pensioners mustn’t be forced to bear the brunt of Tory economic failure.”
Except, now they must be forced to bear the brunt of Labour’s decisions, it seems.
The Paymaster General has suggested stripping some older people of the Winter Fuel Payment.
— Darren Jones MP (@darrenpjones) November 20, 2023
I’ve written to the Chancellor asking him to clarify whether he is considering this for the Autumn Statement.
Pensioners mustn’t be forced to bear the brunt of Tory economic failure. pic.twitter.com/Yn5eRE7XsV
John Hawksworth, the former chief economist in PwC’s UK business, shared Jones’s old post on social media and wrote: “In the letter below from Nov 2023, Darren Jones seemed adamantly opposed to limiting Winter Fuel Payments, but now it’s Labour policy.
“I guess he’d say fiscal circumstances have changed but that’s not really true. What’s changed is now we’re on the other side of the election.”
Tory ideas are now being delivered by a Labour government. Who could have guessed?
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel