One of the first Parliamentary tests that Keir Starmer’s Government could face is a possible Parliamentary vote on the abolition of the Winter Fuel Payment. That would be a test of the loyalty of his backbenchers suddenly facing the reality of the tough decisions which governments have to take.
But it would also be a test for the Conservative Opposition. Rishi Sunak has tabled a motion that the statutory instrument delivering the cut should be annulled. That opens up important questions for the party going forward.
One theme running through much comment on this website since the election has been the importance of Conservatives being an effective Opposition. Tabling this motion could be seen as a vivid example of that.
The Conservatives have acted nimbly after the government tabled the Statutory Instrument only last Thursday and have got ahead of the LibDems. There is a legitimate argument as well that this is an important measure that deserves Parliamentary scrutiny and this motion is one way to try to secure that.
Moreover, Labour does face serious political problems if it looks as if benefits for pensioners are being cut to fund pay increases for their trade union backers. Above all, pensioners are struggling to make ends meet and this measure is already causing genuine distress. It is just plain unpopular.
Nevertheless, there are also very important strategic questions here for Conservatives. Having served in the Shadow Cabinet during the long New Labour years one of the lessons I learned was that a smart tactical manoeuvre every week does not necessarily add up at the end of the year to a strategy that voters understand and embrace.
So what would a vote against the measure say about Conservatives? Is it that Conservatives will protect welfare payments from Labour attacks? Is it that Conservatives are the ‘Pensioners Party’ and will always vote for benefits for them even if there are cuts everywhere else?
ConservativeHome regularly has a piece that assumes true Conservatism is fiscal prudence and tax cuts. Is voting against this cut compatible with that account of Conservatism?
Conservatives don’t have to oppose this measure. There is an argument that one of the effects of the Conservative commitment to the expensive triple lock for pensions has been to boost the incomes of pensioners compared to working-age families.
Once you allow for family size and their lower housing costs the median pensioner is now if anything slightly better off than the median working-age family. That could be seen as a triumph of social policy which Conservatives can share the credit. Now poverty looks very different than it did and we need to move on to fight new battles.
The name of Margaret Thatcher is bandied about often by people who did not know her but regard her as the lodestar of true Conservatism. The biggest single expenditure saving of her years in office was to link the basic state pension only to prices. She realised that pensioners could not be exempt from tough public spending decisions.
If Conservatives want to be able to argue for fiscal discipline and possibly tax cuts it will be very hard to do so credibly if the Official Opposition votes against the first actual public spending cut to come before Parliament. Labour will be able to ask what other cuts would be made instead or if instead borrowing or taxes are to rise.
So I hope that this motion is a smart procedural device to get Parliamentary scrutiny of an important decision. It is right for the official Opposition to use every tool at their disposal to ensure the measure is debated and voted upon.
But if it comes to an actual vote on the measure Conservatives should abstain and not join any Labour rebels in voting against it. It will be an interesting and important early test not just of Conservative tactics in Opposition but also of Conservative strategy.