It was late July last year when I was among a bunch of reporters called into the Treasury to question the then new chancellor about her out-of-the-blue policy to take the Winter Fuel Payment from millions of pensioners.
Rachel Reeves limited the payment to only those pensioners in receipt of pension credit or other means-tested benefits – around 1.5 million – saving up to £1.5bn a year.
The issue sat like a giant toad on the political news agenda all summer, hundreds of those newly elected Labour MPs deluged with complaints.
For many within Labour, this whole debacle was the single biggest misstep of the party’s first year in office.
As for the winter fuel payment, it will forever likely to remain in the biography of this government – with questions asked of Rachel Reeves about it.
It’s the last act of this slow-motion U-turn.
This row’s arc extends to nearly a year. I was one of several reporters summoned to the Treasury in late July of last year to question the then-new chancellor about her sudden decision to withhold millions of pensioners’ Winter Fuel Payment.
Rachel Reeves restricted the payment to only those pensioners who were receiving pension credit or other means-tested benefits, which saved up to £1.05 billion annually.
Labour Members of Parliament have been under fire for their complaints ever since.
Throughout the summer, the issue dominated political news, with hundreds of newly elected Labour MPs receiving a barrage of complaints.
And it didn’t really go away.
It was brought up repeatedly at the English local elections and the parliamentary by-election held in Runcorn, Cheshire, last month.
Next came the U-turn, which was divided into three sections.
The prime minister announced two and a half weeks ago that the threshold would be shifting.
The chancellor announced last week that the new beneficiaries would receive it this winter.
We now know who will be eligible and who will be responsible for repayment.
A few questions: was this something the government could have done in the first place?
Some say in private: sure.
Others claim that Treasury officials felt compelled to take action to lower so-called in-year costs because they had legitimate concerns about the condition of the books.
Second, after making the decision to move, they did so rather swiftly, albeit by announcing the U-turn week after week in incremental steps.
Instead of keeping us waiting until the autumn budget or even Wednesday’s spending review, the new threshold is here.
It is estimated to cost £1.25 billion, so how will the government pay for it?
There will not be a “permanent” increase in borrowing, according to ministers.
What other budgets might be squeezed as a result, and how much and for how long will borrowing be done?
What taxes might need to be raised?
For a lot of people in Labour, this entire mess was the party’s worst mistake during its first year in power.
On the surface, it restricts the scope for implementing broader benefit cuts, but it also gives confidence to those who want them to be diluted.
The so-called triple lock, which ensures that the state pension will rise by the greater of inflation, average earnings growth, or 2.5 percent, is likely to face increasing scrutiny in the medium run.
Although ministers are dedicated to it, the rising expense will eventually force a future government to make changes, if it so chooses.
Rachel Reeves will probably always be questioned about the winter fuel payment, which will probably be included in this government’s biography.
Labour supporters will be hoping that this has caused them as much distress as any other hostage to fortune when the Spending Review is held on Wednesday.
