I suppose it’s because some of those who were making the most noise don’t actually care about pensioners and just wanted to use it as a political attack.
Which is most ironic because the question needs to be asked, why now? If it was unaffordable last year, what’s changed now? That said however, it’s not going to be a blanket restoration unlike the implication of the headline, just an expansion of qualification criteria.
I hope it’s extremely limited. People have massively kicked off about it, which only shows how ridiculously uninformed the public is. I saw a comment from a pensioner the other day saying that he was entitled to his winter fuel payment, because he had paid his national insurance for forty years.
I have no desire to see all the pensioners round me get public money to help heat their massive, detached and largely empty houses.
What? So these people who probably brought their homes whilst having a career and a family etc now because they have become old and retired should not have the winter allowance paid to them because their house is detached and in your opinion empty?
So are they expected to sell their homes in your view to downgrade to something like a 1 bed flat or bungalow because they have gotten older ?
They can do what they want, but I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect the tax payer to help them heat it.
You know I believe passionately in tackling poverty, which is why I don’t believe Labour should be funnelling public money to people who do not need it.
If you’ll let me flip that question around, do you think it’s efficient to have larger houses occupied by singles/couples when there’s apparently a housing crisis around the country, while also subsidising these people for the upkeep of these houses?
Wouldn’t it be better to let the free market coax them out of these houses and downsize into something else, and let growing families take those houses?
Not debating the housing market, but at the end of the day, people may want to stay in their family home for the sake of it being theirs and having memories of possibly better times.
Why should they have to sacrifice their personal dwellings to accommodate an issue that is not their creation?
Successive governments have failed in the creation of the housing markets, and it really is tragic that we cant even home our own citizens especially those younger people who cant buy in their locality, who are being priced out by ridiculous pricing , especially the areas where second home ownership is causing issues .
I’m not saying they have to “sacrifice their personal dwellings to accommodate an issue that is not their creation”, although that particular phrasing is pretty much applicable to so many things. Why should people have to have lost their homes to mortgage foreclosures from market downturns? They didn’t create that situation.
But it’s also rather different from having to subsidise such people. Why should the government pay them to enable them to do that? If they can’t afford the upkeep/operating costs of their houses anymore, then why shouldn’t they move to a smaller house/flat which may well be better insulated?
Just to add, not really arguing on the basis of the article per say, i think this is more my opinion on gas & electric etc is too expensive and this has been caused by governments allowance of the energy companies being allowed to fleece us.
Dont think half the issues would be an issue if the energy grid was nationalised with common sense being applied.
