Labour’s U-turn on iciness gas cuts is simply too little, too overdue | Letters

While Keir Starmer’s U-turn is welcome, it’s most probably a ways too overdue – the wear has been executed and successful again strengthen is probably not simple (Keir Starmer confirms U-turn on iciness gas cost cuts, 21 May). I canvassed nearly day-to-day in my constituency and located that we had utterly alienated many former longstanding Labour citizens over the iciness gas allowance and private independence cost. On the door, their reaction used to be resigned anger, with many announcing that we had deserted Labour insurance policies they usually didn’t perceive why. Most didn’t pivot to Reform UK, they just didn’t vote.

To U-turn any coverage with out some acknowledgment of it being a dreadful mistake will most probably result in much more anger and deeper mistrust. We don’t seem to be simplest dropping citizens however birthday celebration activists as neatly. Members are resigning on account of their confrontation with executive insurance policies on a variety of problems.

We want greater than a U-turn. Instead, an entire reset is needed, however I’m now not conserving my breath. I doubt that the present management is able to doing the rest with out being compelled into it and, in the event that they do, that may permit the cheerleaders for Reform to make cynical political capital of the placement we discover ourselves in.
Ian Jenkinson
Newcastle-under-Lyme, Staffordshire

Finally, Keir Starmer reluctantly proclaims that the federal government is thinking about reinstating the iciness gas cost, no less than for some pensioners, even if the precise main points have now not been launched as but. He has executed so as a result of he’s been compelled into it via public call for and belatedly realises that the appallingly callous determination is in large part accountable for the truth that Labour polled so badly within the fresh council elections.

Starmer and Rachel Reeves won’t ever be forgiven for this. Their recognition is now indelibly broken, and fairly rightly so. Ruthlessly concentrated on the poorest, maximum inclined participants of society used to be indefensible.

In 2017, Labour itself cited analysis to argue that as many as 4,000 lives could be put in peril via Conservative plans to scrap iciness gas bills. So Starmer and Reeves would had been absolutely conscious about the prospective penalties of what they had been doing. But they went forward and did it anyway merely to avoid wasting a measly £1.5bn.
Linda Evans
London

There are ethical and pragmatic political causes for a U-turn on scrapping the iciness gas allowance. Merely tinkering with the means-tested eligibility standards will nonetheless depart some, probably many, aged pensioners at risk of the chilly this coming iciness, and the political fallout will proceed unabated.

It could be a ways wiser to make iciness gas allowance a common non-means-tested get advantages to verify all those that want it obtain it. Does it in reality make any important distinction to the exchequer if, as is continuously cited, a handful of millionaires used to be additionally eligible, given that they are going to have contributed extra source of revenue tax all the way through their lifetimes?
Dr Guy Spence
Bude, Cornwall

There is a straightforward approach of making sure that the ones pensioners who want the additional lend a hand with their iciness gas expenses get it, whilst those that are rich sufficient to not want it don’t – give it as a common get advantages after which claw it again throughout the tax device. That’s what taxes are for, amongst different issues.
Hazel Davies
Newton-le-Willows, Merseyside