Peter Hain attacks Labour plan to remove winter fuel payments from wealthy pensioners

Former cabinet minister tells The Staggers that the move "raises the question of whether Labour is really going to offer an alternative".

I wrote earlier that Labour's pledge to remove the winter fuel allowance from wealthy pensioners wouldn't be well received by all on the left and even before Ed Balls has finished delivering his speech, the backlash has begun. 

I've just spoken to Peter Hain, the former Labour cabinet minister, who has criticised the decision, warning that it "opens the door to a wider attack on universal benefits, such as free bus passes" and raises the question of "whether Labour is really going to offer an alternative".

While shadow Treasury minister Chris Leslie insisted on the Today programme this morning that Labour had no plans to means-test other pensioner benefits such as free TV licences and free bus passes, the decision to break with universalism makes it easier to justify doing so in the future. It is also likely a signal that Labour would not prioritise the reintroduction of universal child benefit, which the coalition has removed from all those earning over £50,000.

I asked Hain, an early backer of Ed Miliband, whether he was surprised by the move given Miliband's long-standing support for universal benefits (as recently as January he described them as as a "bedrock of our society"), he replied: "Yes, I am. But I think it's a combination of the commentariat and the pressure within the party to show a sufficiently hairshirt approach". 

In a piece for the Guardian last month, Hain warned that "Cutting or means-testing pensioners' allowances risks turning young against old and rich against poor while making negligible savings for the Treasury." But Miliband, in perhaps his most significant rebuke to his social democratic supporters, has chosen not to heed his words.

Former Labour cabinet minister Peter Hain with Ed Miliband, who he supported for the leadership, in June 2010. Photograph: Getty Images.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

The US intelligence leaks on the Manchester attack are part of a disturbing pattern

Even the United States' strongest allies cannot rely on this president or his administration to keep their secrets.

A special relationship, indeed. British intelligence services will stop sharing information with their American counterparts about the Manchester bombing after leaks persisted even after public rebukes from Amber Rudd (who called the leaks "irritating") and Michael Fallon (who branded them "disappointing").

In what must be a diplomatic first, Britain isn't even the first of the United States' allies to review its intelligence sharing protocols this week. The Israeli government have also "reviewed" their approach to intelligence sharing with Washington after Donald Trump first blabbed information about Isis to the Russian ambassador from a "close ally" of the United States and then told reporters, unprompted, that he had "never mentioned Israel" in the conversation.

Whether the Manchester leaks emanate from political officials appointed by Trump - many of whom tend to be, if you're feeling generous, cranks of the highest order - or discontent with Trump has caused a breakdown in discipline further down the chain, what's clear is that something is very rotten in the Trump administration.

Elsewhere, a transcript of Trump's call to the Philippine strongman Rodrigo Duterte in which the American president revealed that two nuclear submarines had been deployed off the coast of North Korea, has been widely leaked to the American press

It's all part of a clear and disturbing pattern, that even the United States' strongest allies in Tel Aviv and London cannot rely on this president or his administration to keep their secrets.

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. His daily briefing, Morning Call, provides a quick and essential guide to British politics.

0800 7318496