- Lib Dem MPs back motion to block Winter Fuel Payments cut
- Swinney should launch new term by ending support for Heathrow expansion
- Cole-Hamilton speaks ahead of SNP conference
Lib Dem MPs back motion to block Winter Fuel Payments cut
- Ed Davey announces plan to force vote on government’s cut to Winter Fuel Payments for 10 million pensioners
- Analysis reveals pensioners facing a £670 hit this winter from rising energy bills and slashing of support
- Liberal Democrats call for a “rethink” so that poorer and vulnerable pensioners continue to get the support they need
Liberal Democrat Leader Ed Davey has announced his party is tabling a motion to block the government’s proposed cut to Winter Fuel Payments as soon as Parliament returns from recess next week.
All 72 Liberal Democrat MPs have backed the party’s ‘prayer motion’ to block the cut to Winter Fuel Payments and ensure MPs are given a vote on the changes before they come into force on 16th September.
It comes as analysis by the Liberal Democrats shows that pensioners are expected to take a £670 hit this winter due to the rise in the energy price cap, the end to the Pensioner Cost of Living Payment, and the government’s cuts to the winter fuel allowance coming into effect.
The Liberal Democrats are urging the government to “think again” about the proposed cut to Winter Fuel Payments which will impact 10 million pensioners. Of these, the charity Age UK has said two million will find paying their energy bills a real stretch and will be seriously hit by this cut.
According to the government’s own figures, 800,000 of the lowest-income pensioners are eligible for Pension Credit but do not get it, meaning they will lose their Winter Fuel Payments.
Liberal Democrat Leader Ed Davey said:
We have heard from countless pensioners worried about how they will afford their energy bills this winter. Stripping support from many of the poorest pensioners, just when energy bills are set to rise again this winter, is the wrong thing to do.
That is why the Liberal Democrats are tabling a motion to reject these plans as soon as Parliament returns, and give MPs a chance to vote on this issue on behalf of their constituents.
We recognise that the government faces difficult choices given the appalling mess left by the Conservative Party. But a rethink is urgently needed so that poorer and vulnerable pensioners continue to get the support they need.
Swinney should launch new term by ending support for Heathrow expansion
Scottish Liberal Democrat leader Alex Cole-Hamilton MSP has today called on John Swinney to launch the new parliamentary term by ending the SNP government’s support for expanding Heathrow Airport, as he stated that the expansion is incompatible with tackling the climate emergency.
In October 2016, former Economy Secretary Keith Brown signalled the SNP government’s support for the building of a third runway by signing a memorandum of understanding with Heathrow Airport. Heathrow subsequently hosted receptions at SNP conference.
On 27th October 2021, SNP MSPs voted against a Scottish Liberal Democrat motion calling for the Scottish Government to “withdraw from its written agreement with Heathrow Airport to support the building of a third runway.”
In July of this year, the SNP Government published their Aviation Statement and Key priorities, which completely dodged the question of the government’s longstanding contract with Heathrow supporting the airport’s expansion.
Mr Cole-Hamilton said:
It’s been clear for some time now that expanding Heathrow is simply not compatible with Scotland’s climate change commitments.
The SNP’s declaration of a climate emergency rings utterly hollow for as long as they help pave the way for more flights from an airport that is already the UK’s biggest polluter. This expansion alone would produce more emissions than some small countries.
Scottish Liberal Democrats are clear that we should be focussing on cheaper, better and faster rail services instead, and spreading the benefits of international connections to regional airports rather than centralising yet more of our economy in the South East.
John Swinney should launch this new parliamentary term by ripping up the Heathrow deal and finally putting some muscle behind Scotland’s pledge to tackle the climate emergency after years of missed targets and opportunities.
Cole-Hamilton speaks ahead of SNP conference
Speaking ahead of the SNP’s autumn conference, Scottish Liberal Democrat leader Alex Cole-Hamilton said:
I feel a bit sorry for John Swinney. He seems incapable of levelling with his party that it is their own scandals, divisions and poor management of public services that have got them into this mess.
The only medicine for the stinging rebuke the public gave them at the election that anyone in the SNP is proposing is to spend more time focused on independence. When I am out knocking on doors, no one is interested in wasting more time on constitutional clashes. They want to see action on long NHS waits, rising violence in schools and our disappointing economic performance.
While the SNP navel gaze, I will be joining Scottish Liberal Democrat campaigners trying to win more council seats and convert our stunning general election victories in the Highlands into Scottish Parliament seats. The election showed we are a growing force north and south of the border and we are determined to be part of what’s next.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Mystery at Witchend is Went the Day Well? and Seven White Gates is A Matter of Life and Death
The long role of the Jewish community in Liverpool
Labour's post-election (non-)honeymoon: The Week in Polls
September now
Farron photos
Joe Bourke
Peter Martin
Mick Taylor
Michael BG
Jennie
12 Comments
It is pretty ironic that with spending growing in other areas this is one cut back.
Good move. Get in before anybody else. Should cause a few Labour MPs a problem. No doubt there will be some sort of walk back by the Government, their easiest simplest course would be to just return to the £200 per household figure not the £600. Cost effective to introduce and saves a lot of money.
Looking at local by elections the last three weeks it is noteworthy that Reform are standing and polling in the region of 20% wherever they are. They have the protest vote? Life going to be more difficult for ourselves over the next few months, that is why we should be strongly opposing the government especially if the Tories elect a right winger as leader..
@ Theakes “Looking at local by elections the last three weeks…………… ”
I gather there were council byelections in Scotland and Northumberland last week…. yet we have not heard any results from ALDC on Lib Dem Voice. Does anybody know what happened ?
@David Raw – blame it on the holidays.
The London Mayor’s own data on air pollution (https://maps.london.gov.uk/EconomicEvidenceBase/NO2/index.html) shows that Heathrow is already a major source of NO2 in the capital and that it will get proportionately worse in the outlook period to 2030 as road traffic emissions decline. It is time for the Party to advocate closing Heathrow with Gatwick, Stansted and Luton airports expanding to maintain capacity. Paris did this successfully many years ago when they opened Charles de Gaulle airport and connected it with fast train links including TGV. It is time for London to follow suit; the land freed up for housing and industry by closing Heathrow would go a long way to solving the housing problem in the South-East as well as improving air quality for Londoners.
What on Earth has expanding Heathrow Airport got to do with the SNP or the Scottish Government in the first place? Last time I checked, Heathrow was over 250 miles from anywhere under the Scottish Government’s jurisdiction.
I actually think there is a lot of merit in Laurence Cox’s idea of closing Heathrow and using the land for much-needed London housing, though I’d prefer it to be Stansted that expands to absorb the capacity, since that’s the only London Airport that won’t pollute a large population centre. It would certainly be a brave and distinctive stance for the LibDems to take. It would entail a lot of short term problems: The cost and disruption in building all the new infrastructure plus what happens to all the people who work at Heathrow, but would be very beneficial in the long run.
Simon R
As I understand it, the lack of capacity at Heathrow impacts on the ability of Scottish airports to secure new routes to Heathrow for which there is a demand. The Scottish Government obviously feels that securing more connections to Heathrow will support economic growth. Clearly a case of putting economic growth ahead of environmental considerations…
Ah, thanks Mary, that makes sense. Yes that is putting growth ahead of the environment. A much better approach would be for the Scottish Government to call for better rail links. As I recall, about 8-10 years ago Network Rail did have a serious plan to upgrade the East Coast Railway to allow a badly needed 4tph London-Edinburgh. That sadly fell by the wayside, which means trains on that route are now often very full, and fares are very expensive because demand is so high and there’s almost no spare capacity. I’d suggest reviving that plan would ease pressure on flights, deliver just as much, if not more, for the Scottish economy, and should be deliverable in a similar timeframe to Heathrow capacity.
The Scottish Government could also put more pressure on the UK Government over HS2, which was originally planned to eventually run to Scotland before the Tories kept cutting it, but that’s a much more long term aspiration.
“Liberal Democrat Leader Ed Davey has announced his party is tabling a motion to block the government’s proposed cut to Winter Fuel Payments as soon as Parliament returns from recess next week.”
and
10 million pensioners. Of these, the charity Age UK has said two million will find paying their energy bills a real stretch and will be seriously hit by this cut.
So 8 million or so people will not find paying energy bills “a real stretch”.
Why, why when public debt is so high, taxes historically high, when we need to get to net zero, clean up rivers and make sure children have enough to eat, are we prioritizing giving money to people who don’t need it?
“Life going to be more difficult for ourselves over the next few months, that is why we should be strongly opposing the government especially if the Tories elect a right winger as leader”
I agree, but with the proviso that there is no future in opposing the government from the tax and spend left. Labour MPs will do that, and so will the Greens, and those factions have that political space sown up. Meanwhile there is a huge space in the radical centre/centre right that Liberal Democrats ought to be well placed to fill.
Can someone please explain to me why, at a time of huge public debt, historically high taxes, when we need to get to net zero, clean up rivers and make sure poor children have enough to eat so they can pay attention in class, paying money to 8 million people who don’t really need it is sensible policy?
@Tristan Ward
If paying winter fuel payment as a universal benefit is not sensible policy…what next?
Is it sensible policy to give free prescriptions to people over 60 in England who can afford to pay for them?
Is it sensible policy to give free bus travel to those of retirement age who can afford to pay the fare?
Is it sensible policy to pay State Pensions to people over retirement age who don’t need it?
Is it sensible policy to give free NHS treatment to people who could afford to pay privately?
You either believe in universal benefit or you don’t.