The strange incident of the party reversal on pensioner payments - John McLellan

Anas Sarwar defended Rachel Reeves's winter fuel payment cuts, saying it made little sense for 'millionaires' to get the handout at a time of immense pressure on public services (Picture: Jeff J Mitchell/Getty)

I say happy because as I hope I’m still working when I get to the state pensionable age and won’t need an automatic £400 handout on top of the state pension. That’s the plan anyway.

Thanks to the triple lock, the state pension is about to increase by over £400 anyway, but the Labour Government’s decision to withdraw the winter fuel giveaway is, as many commentators have pointed out, a very Conservative decision.

We have a left-wing government claiming it can’t afford a universal benefit, and a right-wing opposition arguing a universal benefit should be retained, and how strange it was to see the likes of Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell voting with the Conservatives against Labour on a welfare issue.

In this back to front political argument, Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer is experiencing what Conservatives have known for years, that taking benefits away is difficult, and his popularity ratings are taking a hammering, putting him well into negative territory so soon after winning a landslide.

It is early days for his administration, but it hasn’t taken long to expose fragility of the vote which propelled him into Number 10. Presumably the calculation is that by the time of the next general election ─ and don’t bet against that being 2028, rather than the full five years to 2029 ─ the winter fuel row will have been forgotten about.

It’s the opposition’s job to make sure it isn’t, and it’s hard for Labour to escape the charge that the saving is being used to help fund outsized pay deals for public sector workers, contributing to the £22 billion black hole Labour has created for itself. The line that Labour is robbing pensioners to pay militant and already well-paid train drivers is effective, and for those pensioners on the margins who are not on benefits and will miss the money, entirely justified.

Putting the principle of taking previously universal benefits away from those who can afford them into action, also puts Labour in a tricky position in Scotland where despite ─ or perhaps because of ─ the honest endeavour of former leader Johann Lamont, the party remains committed to retaining a raft of giveaways which benefit higher earning families at the taxpayer's expense, like prescriptions, bus travel and university tuition fees.

Even the Scottish Conservatives accepted free university tuition fees for all Scottish undergraduates are here to stay and means-testing is not an option because of the feared electoral impact. Maybe the new leadership will take a different view, but it appears the only road to power in Scotland is paved with taxpayers’ cash.

For the SNP, giveaways, welfare increases, and tax rises are the hallmarks of its years in charge of the Scottish Government, and none of it was enough to encourage the majority to take the leap of faith needed to deliver independence and now it faces the consequences of its own profligacy voters are likely to give Anas Sarwar a shot.

But would he follow the Prime Minster’s lead and at least reexamine the way our universities are funded? That’s something else I wouldn’t bet on.