Play all audios:
THE INSTITUTE FOR FISCAL STUDIES SAYS ONE OPTION UNDER A REVERSAL COULD BE HANDING IT TO EVERY STATE PENSIONER RATHER THAN COUPLES. 08:33, 03 Jun 2025 Winter Fuel Payments may be reinstated
and given to INDIVIDUALS rather than households under a Labour Party government u-turn. The Institute for Fiscal Studies says one option under a reversal could be handing it to every state
pensioner rather than couples. Under its suggestion, the IFS says: "Make WFP an individual rather than household payment. This issue is difficult because WFP is paid to households, not
individuals. Paying it to individuals would allow the government to do an individual-level means-test, based upon the individual’s income that the government already records for income tax
purposes. "This would entail giving WFP to individuals who have a low income but whose spouse has a high income. It is less clear how it would work for those whose income is
sufficiently low that they do not pay any tax. READ MORE UK FACES 'SPANISH SCORCHER' HEATWAVE WITH 31C AS EXACT DATE IT STARTS ANNOUNCED "It would also represent a transfer
from singles to couples: currently singles and couples get the same total amount of WFP, but under this regime couples could get twice as much." Article continues below Sir Keir
Starmer's claim he is U-turning on cutting winter fuel payments for pensioners because he now has the money is not "credible", Harriet Harman has said. Baroness Harman said:
"It's always been contested and always been unpopular. But the final straw that broke the camel's back was the elections. The council elections and the Runcorn by-election,
where the voters were saying, 'this is not the change we voted for'. "At the end of the day, you cannot just keep flying in the face of what voters - particularly if
they're people who previously voted for you - wanted." Article continues below Baroness Harman is unconvinced by Sir Keir's claim he can U-turn because there is more money due
to good economic management by the government. "I don't think that's credible as an argument," she said. "It really is the fact that voters just said 'this is
not the change we voted for, we're not going to have this'."