The Mail on Sunday recently published a front-page article decrying the WhatsApp messages sent by Andrew Gwynne, in particular some dating back to 2019, relating to a local pensioner. A second MP was suspended by Labour for messages sent within the same group. While actually sent some years ago, the messages were egregious and led to Gwynne’s prompt sacking by the prime minister. The Independent quoted Nigel Huddleston, co-chair of the Conservative Party, as saying: ”There is a clear contempt for pensioners in the Labour Party.”
My first reaction on reading Huddleston’s comment was to think: “Well, he would say that.” My second was to ask myself: “Is there any truth in it?”
So I started to examine this issue, and would like to present some thoughts on the question: “What is the reality of Labour’s policies affecting pensioners?”
The effect of the “Triple Lock” on pensions
Let’s begin with pensions themselves and the situation for pensioners.
The first and possibly the most important item is that before the election, Labour promised to maintain the triple lock on state pensions.
The triple lock is a mechanism for deciding by how much state pensions are uprated each year.
State pensions are uprated in line with a) the previous September’s inflation rate, b) the average rise in wages, or c) 2.5%, whichever of these three numbers is the highest. In April 2025 pensions will rise by 4.1% or £360 per year for those on full State Pension (but there are some exceptions for those who reached pension age before 2016).
Campaign to increase uptake of pension credit
The government launched a campaign in September 2024 to encourage more pensioners to apply for pension credit. Government estimates suggest that up to 880,000 pensioners could be missing out on pension credit benefits worth up to £3,900 per annum. A government press release in November 2024 claimed that 42,500 additional households were now in receipt of pension credit. This clearly leaves considerable room for improvement and it’s not clear what else the government has planned to target the 800,000 plus people who are still potentially eligible.
WASPI women
WASPI (Women Against State Pension Inequality) women are a group of women born in the 1950s most severely impacted by a government change some years ago to equalise the state pension age by making it the same as for men. This meant a delay of a minimum of five years for the oldest women affected, causing severe financial hardship for those close to the previous pensionable age when the goalposts were moved without warning.
In a 2022 interview, Sir Keir Starmer said: “All your working life you’ve got in mind the date on which you can retire and get your pension, and just as you get towards it, the goalposts are moved and you don’t get it, and it’s a real injustice. We need to do something about it. That wasn’t the basis on which you paid in or the basis on which you were working.”
In January 2025, however, Department of Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall announced that WASPI women would receive no compensation for the change.
Some might argue that this is evidence of the reality of the government overriding easy promises that can be made in opposition. Others report it as a “betrayal”. Overall, perhaps, not a good look.
Labour government’s pensions review
The Pensions Investment Review 2024 aims to increase productive investment in the UK economy, enhance pensioners’ security in retirement, and improve the final outcomes for savers and pensioners. Part of this initiative is intended to increase productive investment in the UK economy.
The Labour government instituted a call for evidence in July 2024, and published its interim findings in November 2024.
The press release argues that “pension funds begin to return much greater productive investment levels once the size of assets they manage reaches between £25-50 billion. At this point they are better placed to invest in a wider range of assets, such as exciting new businesses and expensive infrastructure projects. Even larger pension funds of greater than £50 billion in assets can harness further benefits, including the ability to invest directly in large-scale projects such as infrastructure at lower cost.”
A key finding cited in the interim report states that “the future of the workplace DC
(Defined Contribution) market lies in fewer, bigger, better run schemes, with the scale and capability to invest in a wide range of asset classes, such as private equity and infrastructure, that can deliver better returns for savers long-term and boost investment in the UK, which benefits savers and their communities.”
The official report goes on to state (on page 10) that changes “will not be achievable without a sufficient lead-in time” and proposes that phasing in of initiatives to drive this consolidation “would not apply before 2030 at the earliest.” If this is when implementation begins, we can perhaps reasonably expect that we will not see any benefits for a decade, if they are realised at all. In addition, this will have no impact on those in receipt of state pension only. Hence this measure will not have an impact for many years to come, and then only affect some pensioners. In fairness though, the intent is positive.
Winter Fuel Payment
The change which has generated the most heat and light (metaphorically speaking) is to make the Winter Fuel Payment means-tested. This, according to the BBC, means that 10 million pensioners will not now receive the payment because of the changes. Proponents claim that this is a valid change, arguing that many pensioners do not need the allowance and it can be much better targeted. Detractors argue that this is true but that the targeting has been too crude and has excluded too many impecunious people. More vociferous critics have lambasted the change. The Daily Express mentioned Age UK starting a campaign to save the allowance – no doubt a popular move with its readership. In examining my question, one might conclude that this is a change with good intentions, possibly poorly targeted, and open to ruthless criticism by determined detractors. It’s arguably a black mark on the Labour report card.
Raising the bus fare cap
Another area where opponents have attempted to criticise Labour is the rise in the cap on one-way bus fares from £2 to £3. This looks large as a 50% rise. As ‘The Banker’ on the Money Saving Expert Forum commented: “50% is quite a hike, but I don’t think the scheme was ever intended to last as long as it has.”
Others were more critical. The transport pressure group Bus Users UK described the increase as “extremely disappointing”.
I could not find a reliable figure of how many pensioners are adversely affected by this change. Furthermore, many will have bus passes which will make their travel free or reduce the standard fares, so this is possibly a further example of the “optics” looking worse than the reality.
A mixed report card
Trying to take a balanced perspective, I would suggest that the Labour report card is mixed. The removal of the winter fuel payment for so many pensioners has attracted enormous criticism. One could argue that the pension increase in line with the triple lock offsets this to some extent, although that increase is intended to cover inflation in an average shopping basket, not to replace another benefit. The review of the pensions landscape is years away from us making a judgement on its efficacy.
The campaign to increase take-up of pension credit can claim some early success, though there are a large number of pensioners still to be targeted. I am personally disappointed by the volte-face on WASPI women; in my view this is reneging on a principle, but politics is an ugly art. The rise in the bus fare cap is arguably overdue and still maintains an upper limit to curb profiteering.
In summary, my feeling is that Labour is not “guilty” of contempt for pensioners as claimed by the Conservatives. In doing the research for this article, my perception of their stance has become more positive. However, as with many other policy areas, and with a largely hostile mainstream media, Labour might be wise to radically improve their media relations activity. A PR manager friend of mine described their media approach as “inept”. With both the policies relating specifically to pensioners and with many other policy areas, there will be much work for them to do in perception management.
