In the end, the vote to cut the winter fuel allowance passed easily. Hundreds of loyalist Labour MPs tramped through the lobbies to back the government’s controversial plan. No 10 will hope the heat has gone out of the issue.
But despite dodging a major rebellion, plenty in government were not taking much comfort from the result. Scores of MPs abstained in silent protest, fearful that they could be condemning vulnerable pensioners to a cold, hard winter.
Government sources argued that only a dozen of the 52 Labour MPs who were absent for the vote had not been authorised in advance. The others had legitimate reasons including medical appointments and official travel.
But what they did not acknowledge was that many of those who had permission to abstain were bitterly opposed to the cut. In the days running up to the vote, whips had been encouraging them to find urgent constituency business so they could legitimately be absent.
Inside government, advisers told each other that things could have been much worse. The first rebellion of Tony Blair’s government, they said, was significantly larger, with 47 backbenchers opposing his plans to cut benefits to single parents and 100 more abstaining.
The effectiveness of the Conservatives’ attack – with the shadow welfare secretary, Mel Stride, telling Labour MPs to “look at your conscience” over the move – was blunted by their own roll-call of deep benefits cuts, particularly during the austerity years.
They were also taking some comfort from private focus groups in which members of the public apparently concluded that while they don’t much like the decision to means test the £300 winter fuel payment, “somebody has got to clean up this mess” on the economy.
But there is no dodging the impact of the cut – which ministers argue was taken to help plug a £22bn hole in the public finances inherited from the Tories. It will leave 2 million poor pensioners even poorer, struggling to afford to keep warm just as energy bills are rising by 10%.
Many Labour MPs, whose email inboxes have been deluged by worried and angry constituents in the days running up to the vote, have been upset at the government’s handling of the announcement from the start.
They were alarmed by the failure to roll the pitch on the announcement, which Rachel Reeves delivered seemingly out of the blue in July. Despite claims the financial markets would have panicked had she failed to explain how the fiscal hole would be filled, there is little evidence that is the case.
They were also unclear why Reeves did not present the decision as part of a package – instead waiting almost a month to extend the household support fund, launch a campaign to boost pension credit uptake, and remind the public that Labour was standing by the triple lock.
Others questioned whether there might have been a less painful way to save £1.5bn. They suspected that the Treasury, which has long viewed the policy dimly, may have pushed Reeves into the decision.
Almost all Labour MPs, however, also blamed the Tories for the difficult decisions that they left the chancellor to take. “None of us wanted to do this,” said one. “But we wouldn’t have to if they hadn’t left us with such a mess.”
A number of them do not regard the fight as over – and are planning to push ministers to look at extra help for the most vulnerable as the months get colder, perhaps by expanding the warm homes discount or bringing in a cheaper social tariff for some pensioners.
The chancellor was said to be “up for talking” with MPs and campaigners. But there are currently no plans to offer more help. “The vote doesn’t change the context of this,” explained one Treasury insider. “Yes, it’s really difficult, but we have to get a grip on the finances.”
Yet while it may be getting a grip on the finances, some Labour insiders are worried the government may lose its grip on the politics. “It will just take one pensioner who couldn’t afford to turn on their heating to die this winter,” says one. “And it will be us who gets the blame.”
