warm places for the elderly to go to because they are not getting the winter fuel payment

Allira

Well, I'm sorry, but posters should be allowed to voice their concerns about something a government may do without being accused of using it as a convenient stick with which to beat the government, and nothing is going to wrench that stick from the hands of those who don't like them

It puts posters into a slot where they may not necessarily belong.

Well I'm sorry, but I think that posters should be allowed to voice their own concerns without (implicitly) called unreasonable, so maybe we'll just have to agree to differ?

Thanks, NotSpaghetti.

You don't have to read far to see that when it was the Tories' proposition people felt very differently. There was even an article in The Times about how 'Pensioners Approved the Scrapping of the WFP', based on GN threads, but as I'm not a subscriber I couldn't open it.

That is the crux of what I'm saying. I fully understand that people have different perspectives, but it has felt clear to me from the start that a lot of the complaints are politically motivated, and that protestations of balance and objectivity don't hold water. Obviously many of the personnel on the old thread are no longer members, and many current GNs weren't posting then, which is why I felt it was ok to post it. I'm not pointing fingers, but showing how the zeitgeist has shifted along with the shift in government.

Well, I'm sorry, but posters should be allowed to voice their concerns about something a government may do without being accused of using it as a convenient stick with which to beat the government, and nothing is going to wrench that stick from the hands of those who don't like them

It puts posters into a slot where they may not necessarily belong.

Doodledog I didn't think you were rude.
I nearly commented earlier (but actually thought it might be seen as stirring).

I'm not sure I can be bothered to read through eight pages of that but in answer to the OP there, this was considered in the 2019 Breiefing Paper:

8.3 Withdraw from higher income pensioners

Whatever the income/wealth threshold chosen, there is the question of how would identify those affected each year. In addition, one would have to decide whether income/wealth should be measured on an individual or household basis. Looking at income/wealth in an individual basis could result in, for example, partners of millionaires who have no income themselves receiving a Winter Fuel Payment. Basing entitlement on household income might be seen as fairer, but could involve introducing a complicated and expensive means-test, reducing the savings from the measure.

It always comes back to the same thing. Means-testing is not only unfair and divisive but very expensive to administer.

I don't know what it costs to means-test now but this is in the 2019 Paper:

And means-tested benefits are expensive to administer. In 2010-11 each new Pension Credit claim cost £351 and existing claims £47 compared to £91 for a new state pension claim and £14 for existing claims [Means testing National Audit Office, 2011]

Fiftten years later, I wonder what the cost is? A least £500, I imagine.

JenniferEccles

Oh my goodness 13 deg. That’s so cold.
I guess you are scurrying around during the day doing housework to get the blood flowing, and maybe you have one of those heated throws some have mentioned, for when you do sit down?

It is said though that breathing in cold air in an un-heated house is not good, especially for those with certain health conditions.

Yes, you are right. Although we all have acceptable heat standards which may differ, AgeUk etc. recommend not sitting in a room at lower than 18 degrees as there is a risk of the blood clotting. When we are busying about it is different of course

Ok. Here is a thread from 2017, when the Tories were proposing scrapping the WFA. Can anyone spot a rather different vibe?

www.gransnet.com/forums/legal_and_money/1237007-Loosing-winter-fuel-allowance

The sad irony is that had the Coalition Government listened to SNP’s Mike Weir and moved universal WFP to an earlier payment date (say July), so that people off-grid could buy in oil when it was less expensive, then what Reeves did last year could not have happened in the way it did.

Means-testing was an option that was always on the cards per the 2019 HoC Briefing Paper but Johnson’s government had other priorities so it was just shelved. Although I doubt whether any of the three options for reform would have been implemented as any of them would have alienated some proportion of the predominatedly elderly Conservative voter base. In 2024, 46% of people age 70 or over still voted for them, compared to 67% in 2019. The swing in 2024 was almost all to Reform.

Sunak calling the election when he did left Reeves with an open goal. Otherwise, she would have had to intoduce the withdrawal of universal WFP in her Autumn Statement - which was after the 16 September cut off date to pay WFP for 2024. It would have had to been done via primary not secondary legislation and so subject to full Parliamentary debate and detailed scrutiny by the Social Security Advisory Committee (SSAC) including a full impact report.

So if people are looking for sticks to beat Labour they should also consider the law of unintended consequences from Tory or Coalition actions or inaction.

If, in 2012, Steve Webb hadn’t treated pensioners like children - not trusting them not to spend a July-paid WFP on brandy and summer gloves and satin sandals, then there would have been a longer lead-in allowing people to budget for not receiving WFP in 2025.

It still wouldn’t have stopped an outcry and media frenzy. Nobody wants to lose a tax-free payment they may have had for decades but it would have prevented some of the genuine hardship being felt by those on the cliff-edge who were banking on the money this year but won’t now get any help.

Doodledog

Why is my comment 'rude' and yours about how only those who agree with you are realistic not rude, Allira?

We just have different viewpoints, is all. Isn't that ok? I don't see mine as any less 'realistic' than yours.

It's find to have different points of view, of course.
However, should we not treat others who may have a different opinion with some respect?

Yes, even some of those who voted for this Government think this was a hasty, well-thought-out move, one which has worried and upset many, even putting the Government at odds with the Trade Unions.

Saying that those who may be worried or upset or those who think it should have been introduced gradually are using this as a convenient stick with which to beat the government, and nothing is going to wrench that stick from the hands of those who don't like them. is simplistic.
And yes, rude.

IMO of course.
Others may disagree and that is their right.

Oh my goodness 13 deg. That’s so cold.
I guess you are scurrying around during the day doing housework to get the blood flowing, and maybe you have one of those heated throws some have mentioned, for when you do sit down?

It is said though that breathing in cold air in an un-heated house is not good, especially for those with certain health conditions.

PoliticsNerd

MissInterpreted

No, our heating has never been on at 'set times'. We only put ours on when absolutely necessary.

So presumably you prioritise other things.

It’s a hard decision to prioritise sometimes. the dentist, the chiropodist, the long bus journey and mile walk to hospital instead of the taxi,, the cleaner that keeps the bathroom hygienic, the non-prescription medication or aid.

And I’ve got a bit of SERPS n my State pension which is now dedicated to the £200 WFA gap.

JenniferEccles

MissInterpreted I wonder what you deem ‘absolutely necessary’ ?

I know you say that you really can’t afford to have your heating on, but how cold do you have to be before you do?

I accept that it must be hugely worrying for you but energy companies are well aware of the difficulties some customers are facing this winter so I am sure they would be able to work out a repayment plan for you, spread over the year.

From what you’ve said, you would be very frugal anyway so your bill is unlikely to be high.

It has been so cold over the whole country for the past few days, and to be sitting in a freezing cold house is so bad for your health.

Basically, when we can't stand the cold any longer! Just checked the thermometer and it's currently 13C. I think we've just grown accustomed to it, so we don't really feel the cold as much now. It's an old house and we can't insulate it any more than we already have. I don't have a pension yet, so I'm living off what little savings I do have. We manage. I appreciate that others would probably find our house freezing, but we've learned to cope.

I suppose we could stay in bed all day to keep warm like Grandpa George and Grandma Georgina, in Roald Dhal's Charlie & the chocolate factory but unless I am ill or recovering from an operation as I am now, I prefer my home to be comfortably warm and welcoming to visitors. I definitely prioritise heat over food which I'm very good at sourcing cheaply.

I had a new boiler 2 years ago through the Scottish Government's energy savings scheme and an interest free loan. It's far more efficient than my previous ancient one.

MissInterpreted I wonder what you deem ‘absolutely necessary’ ?

I know you say that you really can’t afford to have your heating on, but how cold do you have to be before you do?

I accept that it must be hugely worrying for you but energy companies are well aware of the difficulties some customers are facing this winter so I am sure they would be able to work out a repayment plan for you, spread over the year.

From what you’ve said, you would be very frugal anyway so your bill is unlikely to be high.

It has been so cold over the whole country for the past few days, and to be sitting in a freezing cold house is so bad for your health.

Why is my comment 'rude' and yours about how only those who agree with you are realistic not rude, Allira?

We just have different viewpoints, is all. Isn't that ok? I don't see mine as any less 'realistic' than yours.

The forecast I saw this morning showed next week as much warmer. Maybe have the heating on as normal this week and turn it off next week. Would that balance out?

December was warmer than normal as well so maybe savings were made there. I think it would be better to turn the heating off when it warmer than normal rather than waiting until it is a cold snap.

I’m trying to understand the reasons behind difficulties in affording heating. You mentioned you can't keep it on all the time—does your home require consistent heating for you to stay warm?

Is the state pension or pension credit too low? It seems to be closer to the Minimum Income Standard (MIS) than the benefits available to younger people.

Do older individuals typically live in less insulated homes? I recently learned about a charity called Green Doctors that provides impartial energy advice 'to help residents stay warm, save money, and live more sustainably'. They also seem to have information on grants and council assistance. I’m curious though — why haven’t I/we heard about them before?

www.jrf.org.uk/a-minimum-income-standard-for-the-united-kingdom-in-2024

PoliticsNerd

MissInterpreted

No, our heating has never been on at 'set times'. We only put ours on when absolutely necessary.

So presumably you prioritise other things.

Such as? Not sure what you're getting at here. We can't afford to have our heating on all the time - it's that simple.

MissInterpreted

No, our heating has never been on at 'set times'. We only put ours on when absolutely necessary.

So presumably you prioritise other things.

HousePlantQueen

I still don't understand why some have no heating on at all. I appreciate the disappointment of not receiving the £200 to help with additional costs of heating during the colder months, but surely people still have their heating on for the set times they did before the cold snap?

Please note that I think the withdrawal of WFA for those not on Pension Credit was ill advised. There should have been either a year's notice to allow people to put other plans in place, or it should have been paid universally and taxed for those in the higher tax bands

I agree.

I suppose if the heating is on twice a day, morning and evening, then the house will chill down quickly in this weather. The problem is that many older people can't move around as much as they did so can't stay warm.

I’m a carer for my adult son and although I have a small business we live mostly on benefits. I am worried about my bills too but there’s no way on earth I wouldn’t keep my heating on in this weather. Health is priceless. Not only that it’s really bad for the house to let it get too cold.

FlitterMouse

I’ve said this before but if people read the history of the WFP right from the beginning in 1997, it’s clear it was only meant to be a temporary allowance for two years while the Labour government of the day tried to encourage more people to claim Income Support. For the first two years, people on Income Support were paid WFP £50 while those not on Income Support received only £20. But take up of Income Support remained poor so the WFP was increased and made universal to at least get some help to the poorest.

From then on in there were always concerns that a universal payment was not targetting those in genuine fuel poverty.

Special concerns regarding those who were off-grid were raised on numerous occasions by the SNP’s Mick Weir (Angus). He wanted the WFP to be paid earlier to those off-grid so they could buy in oil when it was less expensive. Nothing ever came of any of his proposals. The Coalition Government of the day did not want to make universal payments earlier in the year (say July) as they believed people on-grid wouldn't spend the money on fuel. Nor did they have the administrative resources to run a two tier system where people off-grid received the payment earlier.

This debate from 2012:

www.parallelparliament.co.uk/mp/mike-weir/debate/2012-11-27/commons/westminster-hall/winter-fuel-allowances

it’s clear it was only meant to be a temporary allowance

We know, so there was no need for your rather rude comment about other posters, Doodledog.

I've pointed out, as have others, that these allowances are given and not incorporated into the State Pension so that they can be removed at any time. The TV licence, bus passes, the £10 Christmas bonus? Given like charity not as a right and can be withdrawn whenever a Government declares it has a black hole in its finances.

There should have been more notice give and more advide about what help (other than Pension Credit) was available.

This is a convenient stick with which to beat the government, and nothing is going to wrench that stick from the hands of those who don't like them.

Most of us are realistic and see that this was a hasty move and a U turn on what they were saying in Opposition.

No, our heating has never been on at 'set times'. We only put ours on when absolutely necessary.

I still don't understand why some have no heating on at all. I appreciate the disappointment of not receiving the £200 to help with additional costs of heating during the colder months, but surely people still have their heating on for the set times they did before the cold snap?

Please note that I think the withdrawal of WFA for those not on Pension Credit was ill advised. There should have been either a year's notice to allow people to put other plans in place, or it should have been paid universally and taxed for those in the higher tax bands

You (and others) are wasting your time, FlitterMouse. This is a convenient stick with which to beat the government, and nothing is going to wrench that stick from the hands of those who don't like them.

It is a mystery to me why it wasn't obvious that this was going to happen, and why the Labour Party's Comms team didn't get the messaging sorted out before the announcement. Do they have a Comms team? If so, it appears to be made up of interns and first year students.