The Best Way To Save £1.5b?

Labour have significantly reduced the eligibility for the pensioners' winter fuel allowance. This article in the Guardian summarises the issue quite succintly, pasted below.

What is the benefit, and how is it changing?

Introduced in 1997 by the then-chancellor, Gordon Brown, the winter fuel payment was intended to help older people with their heating costs during the colder months. Paid annually in autumn, it is £200 or £300, depending on age, and had always been universal – paid to everyone, irrespective of income or wealth.

But in a speech to the Commons in July, Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, announced that from now on the payment would be given only to older people who received pension credit, meaning only the very poorest pensioners. This is expected to reduce the number who get the money from more than 11 million to about 1.5 million.

Regardless of if this is the right decision (and it seems like a poor one in terms of political expediency because of the relatively small fiscal benefit whether or not it is the correct one, and it does seem like a pretty bad one to me too), it has highlighted our tribalism in a very stark way.

Labour are being lambasted by people on the right for this decision. People who spent roughly zero time complaining about any of the things the previous Tory government did to make other groups of people worse off. Cuts to the NHS, to the police, to local government, the greedy energy companies... Or wasting money through cronyism, dodgy contracts awarded to friends of government ministers.

The list is pretty much endless (and I know that I am being annoying by going on about the Tories like this. I saw a Fringe show a few weeks ago where the entire premise was 'Tories bad', and it felt a bit old hat. Like, we've already done all of the 'Tories bad' content. We did it when they were in charge. And I know the effects of their horrible governance have a long tail but shall we move on now? They are in charge no longer. But I only mention it in this case to make a comparison, so I'm sure you can forgive me).

But as soon as Labour are in charge, people who made no mention of (or at least didn't place blame on the Tory government for) child poverty or rising energy costs during the Tory years have suddenly grown a heart? Or are benefits only acceptable when they go to old people, rather than the regular poor? (Even if some of the old people are poor too).

Equally, there will be plenty of people who campaigned against the Tory bullshit who are being completely silent on the fuel allowance issue. Its just harder to spot the absence of something than it is to spot the something itself.

The problem, then, is that to many people it literally doesn't matter what someone is doing or saying. It only matters who is saying or doing it.

If the Tories announced this policy then the people who are up in arms now would be silent. And the people who are silent would be up in arms. It seems to me that the tribalism is worse on the right - but that's probably in part because my own bias is to the left.

But in order to actually prove that this is happening, I would need to both post the tweets I am talking about, and then search through the profiles of the people making those tweets to check that they hadn't been up in arms about any of the Tory policies.

Because otherwise I could just be basing this all on the general vibe of my Twitter feed, which is of course exactly what I am doing. All of this is just how it feels to me, given the posts that I am being shown by Elon Musk's engagement-farming algorithm.

Actually, I have found a perfect example of what I'm talking about. Farage is a opportunistic populist who is first on the list of people you'd expect to be complaining about the actions of a Labour government, regardless of what those actions are. But when you contrast this with the Reform parties tax policy, which was designed to disproportionately benefit the rich, it smacks even more as opportunism.

I'm rambling now, but I think the upshot is the fact that there is a clear difference in the way people are reacting to the ending of the winter fuel allowance than they do to the slashing of other kinds of benefits.

The WFA was a universal benefit, given to everyone over a certain age, regardless of income. But how many of those in favour of this would also be in favour of other benefits being similarly applied? How many would be in favour of regulating the energy companies so that everyone's bills are more than £300 less?

So what do we need to do, because treating politics like sport isn't conducive to societal improvement. A Celtic fan could never decide to support Rangers for a day, but a Tory supporter should be able to agree with a Labour policy, and vice-versa. But like the 'Tories bad' comedy show I saw, we all know this already.

But if we can figure out a way to retain this miraculous and newfound compassion for the elderly and extend it to other vulnerable groups maybe we'll be a bit better off by the time the next election comes around.

Didn't mean to write a 1000 word political treatise there, sorry. Let's move onto the episode which saw Wadham, Oxford taking on St Cath's, Cambridge. The first Oxbridge derby of the series (and the first of two in the first round).

If you want to watch the episode before reading the rest of my review you can do so here.

Here's your first starter for ten.

Worden kicks things off for Wadham with Motte-and-Bailey castle. They don't manage any bonuses, although Bellamy is very unfortunate not to get the points for giving A Funny Thing Happened To Me On The Way To The Forum rather than A Funny Thing Happened On The Way To The Forum.

Billore took the second starter, and they managed a single bonus this time, on physicists who appeared in the film Oppenheimer, guessing Richard Feynman for every answer and getting lucky on the third. Another for Billore extended their lead, before Bellamy won some picture bonuses with a replacement starter. They recognised Penzance and Aberystwyth to go 65 points clear.

Sardesai then got St Cath's off the mark with e, and Moharir kept up their momentum with the Phillipines. Their resident Canadian made it two on the bounce with Marsalis on the next starter, and they were only 10 points back going into the music round.

No one got the music starter, which continued the general low-scoring nature of the match so far. Indeed the teams would end with a combined score of 300, 65 points fewer than any other match so far.

Fluorescent Phosphorescence

Jarvis is unfortunate to lose five points with her first buzz of the evening, guessing fluorescence moments before the word is mentioned in the question. Billore is unable to pick up the points, guessing phosphoric rather than phosphoresence, but he grabs the next starter to put Wadham firmly in control.

He joins Jarvis in the negative when he guesses Shanghai as one of the destinations linked by the world's busiest air route. Sardesai is able to capitalise with Seoul and St Cath's win a bonus set on discountinued colours of crayola crayons, which was a big hit on Twitter.

Another minus five from Billore is picked up by Moharir, and St Cath's almost miss a bonus on Radiohead despite the clue of Karma Police. On first viewing I did think they'd missed it, but it was thrown in as a guess at the last second, fortunately.

Worden gets involved again with Michaelangelo on a picture starter, and then Jarvis takes her first with Daniel Deronda, much to her delight.

Once again they find themselves 10 points behind, but once again it proves a bridge too far, and this time it is Bellamy who shuts the door.

Myers loses 5 points by buzzing with fresco, after the word fresco had been given in the question, and you fancied that was the end of St Cath's chances.

St Cath's 120 - 180 Wadham

A compelling episode, if it was low-scoring. Wadham will have to do better if they are to compete with any of the teams who have won the previous matches.

Join me next week for a match between the two winning-est institutions in UC history, as Imperial take on Manchester.