Labour MP Graham Stringer has criticised the Government's Winter Fuel Payment policy and its communication strategy in recent comments to GB News.
The Manchester Blackley MP argued that there appears to be a lack of integration between policy decisions and how they are communicated to the public.
Stringer said: "It doesn't appear to me, the centre of Government that there is any integration between. This is the policy, this is how we communicate it."
He expressed concern that potential pitfalls in policies are not being addressed before implementation.
The MP highlighted the Winter Fuel Payment as an example of "bad policy very badly explained" and the Government had a "ludicrous justification" for the move.
Stringer dismissed the Government's justification for changes to the payment as "absolute balderdash and nonsense".
LATEST DEVELOPMENTS:
He stated: "Poor old ministers were sent out and told it would collapse the markets if we didn't do it. Well, it was absolute balderdash and nonsense."
The Labour MP emphasised that the Winter Fuel Payment represents less than 0.2 per cent of total public expenditure.
He argued that while the markets would not notice changes to the policy, pensioners certainly would.
Stringer called for stronger leadership from the Prime Minister to address these issues.
He said: "The only person that can sort that out is the Prime Minister. It's not about this office or that office or this official that official. There has to be central direction at the top."
Stringer's criticism comes amid growing controversy over changes to the Winter Fuel Payment scheme.
The Government has faced backlash for restricting eligibility, with only those on certain means-tested benefits now qualifying.
This decision has left approximately 11 million pensioners without support, according to recent reports.
A legal challenge has been launched by a Scottish pensioner couple, Peter and Florence Fanning, against the UK Work and Pensions Secretary.
The Fannings argue that the Government failed to conduct a proper equality impact assessment before implementing the changes.
Their case, supported by Govan Law Centre, could potentially delay the policy if successful.
Money-saving expert Martin Lewis suggests a win for the Fannings might postpone the changes for a year.
This would allow recipients to benefit from the £200-300 payout in 2024.
Find Out More...
The Manchester Blackley MP argued that there appears to be a lack of integration between policy decisions and how they are communicated to the public.
Stringer said: "It doesn't appear to me, the centre of Government that there is any integration between. This is the policy, this is how we communicate it."
He expressed concern that potential pitfalls in policies are not being addressed before implementation.
The MP highlighted the Winter Fuel Payment as an example of "bad policy very badly explained" and the Government had a "ludicrous justification" for the move.
Stringer dismissed the Government's justification for changes to the payment as "absolute balderdash and nonsense".
LATEST DEVELOPMENTS:
- Human Rights Lawyer claims migrant numbers are 'considerably more' than reported
- One dead and three rushed to hospital after massive explosion rips through flats
- Rupert Lowe hits out at Britain's police officers being 'treated badly' by the force
He stated: "Poor old ministers were sent out and told it would collapse the markets if we didn't do it. Well, it was absolute balderdash and nonsense."
The Labour MP emphasised that the Winter Fuel Payment represents less than 0.2 per cent of total public expenditure.
He argued that while the markets would not notice changes to the policy, pensioners certainly would.
Stringer called for stronger leadership from the Prime Minister to address these issues.
He said: "The only person that can sort that out is the Prime Minister. It's not about this office or that office or this official that official. There has to be central direction at the top."
Stringer's criticism comes amid growing controversy over changes to the Winter Fuel Payment scheme.
The Government has faced backlash for restricting eligibility, with only those on certain means-tested benefits now qualifying.
This decision has left approximately 11 million pensioners without support, according to recent reports.
A legal challenge has been launched by a Scottish pensioner couple, Peter and Florence Fanning, against the UK Work and Pensions Secretary.
The Fannings argue that the Government failed to conduct a proper equality impact assessment before implementing the changes.
Their case, supported by Govan Law Centre, could potentially delay the policy if successful.
Money-saving expert Martin Lewis suggests a win for the Fannings might postpone the changes for a year.
This would allow recipients to benefit from the £200-300 payout in 2024.
Find Out More...
