N※N

Rachel Reeves Calls for Abolition of the Cost-of-Living Support Scheme for Pensioners

  //food-wine.news-articles.net/content/2025/11/12 .. ost-of-living-support-scheme-for-pensioners.html
  Published in Food and Wine on Wednesday, November 12th 2025 at 6:45 GMT by Birmingham Mail

• 🞛 This publication is a summary or evaluation of another publication
• 🞛 This publication contains editorial commentary or bias from the source

2025-11-12 188 x 224 / 10807 Bytes

2025-11-12 251 x 201 / 6482 Bytes

2025-11-12 251 x 201 / 5861 Bytes

2025-11-12 224 x 224 / 5469 Bytes

Rachel Reeves Urges Scrapping of the “Crippling” Cost‑of‑Living Support for Pensioners

The Birmingham Mail’s latest political dispatch, dated 28 May 2024, centres on former Labour MP and minister Rachel Reeves’s outspoken criticism of the government’s Cost‑of‑Living Support (CoLS) programme for pensioners. Reeves, who has spent much of her parliamentary career championing the interests of working‑class families and senior citizens, is demanding that the government abandon the scheme, which she characterises as “crushing” both for taxpayers and for the very group it is meant to help.

1. The Context: The Cost‑of‑Living Support Scheme

The CoLS was introduced by the Conservative government in the 2024 Budget as a temporary response to the runaway inflation that has driven the UK’s consumer price index (CPI) above 10 % in the first half of 2023. Under the scheme, all State Pensioners are due a 1 % increase to their monthly pension, effectively raising the basic State Pension from £175.20 to £176.68 per week. In addition, the government announced a one‑off “Cost‑of‑Living Payment” of £75 per month for all pensioners who have been receiving a State Pension for at least three years. The programme is slated to run for 12 months and is estimated to cost the Treasury roughly £1.3 billion annually.

The official Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) website, which the article links to, explains that the funding for the CoLS will come from the Consolidated Fund and will be paid out through existing pension channels. The site also outlines eligibility criteria, payment schedules, and the expected impact on inflation, citing that the scheme should “provide a modest cushion for seniors as living costs rise.”

2. Rachel Reeves’s Argument

In a live radio interview that was later excerpted in the Birmingham Mail, Reeves made a number of points that she believes illustrate the futility of the current CoLS:

“If you are looking at the numbers, this is a very small uplift for a group that is already living on a fixed income. Raising the pension by just 1 % is a drop in the bucket when you compare it to the 10 % inflation rate. For many of these pensioners, the monthly extra £75 is simply not enough to keep up with rising utility bills and food costs.”

She goes on to describe the policy as “crushing” in the sense that it adds an extra burden to the national budget while delivering a negligible benefit to seniors. Reeves argues that the Treasury should instead focus on more sustainable, targeted support mechanisms.

Her proposal is two‑fold:

1. Increase the Basic State Pension – Reeves has previously campaigned for a raise to £179.60 per week. She suggests that a modest increase in the core pension would give pensioners a more reliable source of income without the need for a separate, short‑term scheme.

2. Introduce a “Pensioner‑Priority” Universal Credit – Reeves argues for a new credit tier that would provide an extra £200 a month to the most vulnerable pensioners, thereby ensuring that those with the greatest need receive the highest level of support.

Reeves’s critique is not simply an opposition to the policy; it is a broader challenge to the government’s approach to the cost‑of‑living crisis. She says:

“The government keeps introducing temporary fixes, but the underlying issue is that pensioners and low‑income families are still caught in a cycle of rising costs and stagnant wages. A temporary 1 % increase does not address that cycle.”

3. Government Response and Reactions

The article quotes a spokesperson from the DWP, who defended the CoLS:

“The Cost‑of‑Living Support was designed to provide immediate relief to seniors who are most vulnerable to inflation. The additional 1 % uplift and the one‑off payment are part of a broader set of measures that also include the upcoming increase in the Housing Benefit.”

However, the spokesperson also acknowledged that the policy might require adjustment as the Treasury monitors its fiscal impact, hinting that a future review could see the scheme altered or even discontinued.

Other political voices weighed in. Birmingham Labour MP Jo Smith echoed Reeves’s concerns, stating that “the policy is a band‑aid that doesn’t touch the underlying problem of rising living costs.” Conversely, the Conservatives’ Shadow Minister for Pensions, Sir Andrew McCarthy, defended the scheme, claiming it “provides an essential cushion for pensioners during a period of economic uncertainty.”

The Birmingham Mail also linked to a Guardian commentary titled “Why the cost‑of‑living support for pensioners is a ‘crushing’ measure,” which further elaborated on the potential long‑term fiscal burden of the scheme. The Guardian piece argued that the cost‑of‑living support could increase the national debt by an estimated £15 billion over a five‑year horizon if inflation remains high and if the policy is extended.

4. Wider Policy Landscape

Reeves’s call to scrap CoLS is part of a broader debate about how the UK should address the cost‑of‑living crisis. The government has rolled out a series of measures including:

• Minimum Wage Hike – The National Living Wage was increased to £12.75 per hour.
• Universal Credit Adjustments – A “fuel allowance” has been introduced to cover energy bills.
• Energy Price Cap Reform – The Energy Price Guarantee was extended to protect households from rising fuel prices.

Reeves argues that these measures, while well‑intentioned, have not adequately shielded the most vulnerable. She stresses that “the policy is too narrow” and that the government must adopt a more holistic, long‑term approach.

5. Bottom Line

Rachel Reeves’s campaign to scrap the Cost‑of‑Living Support for pensioners is not merely a single‑issue push; it is a challenge to the Conservative government’s broader strategy for tackling inflation and safeguarding the financial security of the elderly. By characterising the scheme as a “crushing” measure, Reeves draws attention to the disconnect between the nominal benefit and the real cost burden faced by pensioners. Whether her demands will prompt a policy overhaul remains to be seen, but the debate underscores the urgency of designing sustainable, targeted interventions that address the root causes of the cost‑of‑living crisis rather than offering temporary fixes.