Where you draw the line is the issue. Wealthy pensioners do not need it, but the way they have drawn the line is both stupid and is about to cost more than they wanted to save. An unintended consequence is that many pensioners may now be better off, which is excellent imo, but NOT what Reeves and Starmer expected or set out to do. As I say, they have gained nothing, upset tens of millions of voters and shown themselves up as being politically naive……
I broadly agree, it's where you draw the line.
However, there is another way to view it. The reality is, older voters don't vote for them, Labour wins votes on the under 65s. They are essentially asking voters who don't vote for them angry.
At a more complex level, there was some research that showed when Labour was tough on Refugees under Blair, the public liked it, because it kind of countered the perception. It was a nice synthesis. I wonder if this is how this played out.
Nobody views Labour as heartless, people think they aren't prepared to be tough/ruthless. Like they're not nice things, but they're not awful things for Labour.
I'm a sceptic, but just being nice isn't how you win elections. The Tories would never win, Blair would never have won etc if it's a competition of how you are nice.
I'm sure that would be thinking. Or maybe Reeves is just unimaginative.