Energy Price Guarantee No Longer 2 years just 6 months at current level

deano2099

It's only hard to target benefits because the government are scared of the optics of doing certain things. You don't need to track household incomes, you don't need to figure out who is on benefits, or any of that.
You do a universal scheme, however you want to do it: one off payment, energy price cap, discount on first X amount of units, whatever. You make it really generous. Say £2000 a year. Then you add a penny on every rate of tax, so it's clawed back at different amounts from those who earn more.

The problem with that is that it's more transparently taking from the rich to give to the poor. But that's also exactly what all the existing support systems do. It's the better off that'll end up paying for the borrowing we're doing to fund that. And unlike a simple tax increase, there will be interest on that borrowing too. But it looks better and the bill won't come due until a different government are in power so that's the preferred option.

deano2099

wittynamegoeshere said:

I think some are interpreting all my comments in some odd ways.  I'm just suggesting things that people could do for themselves, based on the worst case assumption that the govt will provide none or very little assistance and prices remain high.  This seems like a reasonable assumption, based on the fact that we as a nation are in debt up to our eyeballs and borrowing more has suddenly got much more expensive.  I 

I think as suggestions for individuals posting on this board, your advice is really useful. But there's a difference between those and the systematic issues we have. Solving the problem for one person is often fairly simple, but solving it for everyone impacted is much trickier. If everyone starts doing equity release, those offers will dry up as the companies offering those services get beyond a risk level they're comfortable with.
A universal solution has to either be backed by the government, or requires a huge change in the market - which would generally only come about if there were huge incentives in terms of profit for companies to offer certain services on a commercial basis.

There's a big difference that I've noticed often gets ignored on these forums, between people going "folks, I'm in a bit of a trouble here, what can I do?" and threads like this where we're discussing the broader issue. It's very rare that the answers to both are the same, as personal solutions are rarely scalable en masse.

ariarnia

deano2099 said:

It's only hard to target benefits because the government are scared of the optics of doing certain things. You don't need to track household incomes, you don't need to figure out who is on benefits, or any of that.
You do a universal scheme, however you want to do it: one off payment, energy price cap, discount on first X amount of units, whatever. You make it really generous. Say £2000 a year. Then you add a penny on every rate of tax, so it's clawed back at different amounts from those who earn more.

that's basically universal basic income. problem is youve just written a cheque for 134 billion quid (67 million people in the uk). ifs were criticising the energy price guarentee because it could cost 'up to 100 billion' and would mean drastic measures (taxes and cuts) to pay for it. the entire budget for the NHS for 2022 is only £153 billion. thats more than a penny on tax.  

i think thats the biggest problem now. after the last mini budget. anything they do will have to not spook the market. so it will have to be affordable and reasonable so the amounts will need to be minimal and property targeted. but targeting is expensive and difficult. so it almost has to be an existing database or a low level of support for all homes. 

deano2099

ariarnia said:

deano2099 said:

It's only hard to target benefits because the government are scared of the optics of doing certain things. You don't need to track household incomes, you don't need to figure out who is on benefits, or any of that.
You do a universal scheme, however you want to do it: one off payment, energy price cap, discount on first X amount of units, whatever. You make it really generous. Say £2000 a year. Then you add a penny on every rate of tax, so it's clawed back at different amounts from those who earn more.

that's basically universal basic income. 

Well yes, it is. UBI is essentially what all these schemes are heading towards. UBI is *exactly* what the £400 was, except by household rather than person. So a penny on tax, 5p, 10p, whatever is needed. If I earn 40k I'm paying tax on 27k of that at 20% so £5.4K. If I'm getting 2K back that means that you could up the rate to 27% before I start losing out.

It'd be unconscionable for the government of course. Because the headlines would be "basic rate soars to 27%". But that doesn't mean it's a bad way of doing it. The problem is it's *too* simple. It's a Conservative government, so every handout has to be dressed up to make it look like the well-off won't be paying for it. Even though they will.

EssexHebridean

wittynamegoeshere said:

EssexHebridean said:

ariarnia said:

wittynamegoeshere said:

ariarnia said:

or are you suggesting no one should get any help from the government to cope with the incredible and unforsseeable (hopefullyshort term) cost of energy?

I'm suggesting that you're not the government and neither am I.  If people are going to struggle next winter with what's likely to be a much higher bill then they might to want to take some action themselves to change this situation.

and your incorrectly assuming at least in this situation two things. first that someone in a too large houses isnt doing everything they reasonably and sensibly can to reduce their usage given their personal circumstances and abilities to improve their situation and that moving to a smaller house is a magic solution that would work for everyone. less patronising judgement and more understanding of individual differences would make a world of difference to actually coming up with helpful solutions rather than pushing your solution no matter how unsuitable it might be for that person 

I sympathise - not least as I can see my Mum being in a similar situation in times to come. She can currently afford her bills, but if prices go up as much as they could do, that situation might change. She currently lives in what an EA would market as a 3 bed terrace - in actual fact it's a 2 bed, realistically - the third room would literally just fit a single bed and nothing else, and contains the boiler so in the summer it gets quite unbearably hot. In our area, bungalows go for easily £100k more than her house would fetch, if sold. Then there are all the associated financial costs - legal fees plus disbursements would be an additional £1500. Add Stamp duty. Then agents fees. Removal costs. Then there are the personal costs on top - the house Mum lives in and loves is where she lived with  my Dad until he died a few months ago. It was bought by them with the thinking that there was the potential there that some modifications could be made if needed as they got older - indeed there was a stairlift that Dad needed for a few months - so we know that if needed again, that would work. Downstairs is all on the level. There is a small garden - easily maintainable and manageable. The bottom line though is that even if she was to want to move - it would realistically be at a cost of at least £110,000 that she simply doesn't have. Renting isn't an question - even if in her late 70s, she actually wanted to go back to what she would see as that level of uncertainty and feeling like the roof over her head isn't "hers" any more, the only bungalows local to us to rent realistically are still council stock. This isn't in any way "looking for excuses - it's cold hard facts. It's fabulous that some people live in areas of the country where this sort of dilemma isn't an issue, or indeed have relatives in a fortunate enough financial position that finding an odd £100k isn't going to prove a stumbling block - but those who are in that sort of position do need to bear in mind that a) their area might not be typical of what applies elsewhere and b) it's not everyone who just has the money in the bank to fund a house move in their old age. Also c) moving home is recognised as one of the single most stressful things a person can do - I certainly wouldn't want to see my Mum go through that level of stress at her age - but you know what, I wouldn't want to see anyone else's elderly relatives being made to feel they should put themselves in that position, either.  

(Insert heap of disclaimers here)  Have you looked at equity release?  If your mum is absolutely certain that she doesn't need to move ever then it could be an option.

My mum's done it, all without ever discussing it with me.  Obviously it will reduce the amount of any future inheritance, but I'm very happy to get less or even nothing if it means that she's comfortable.  I'm not counting on inheriting anything, I'd much prefer both lots of our parents to enjoy themselves and go out with nothing than be miserable so I can get a pile of money I've done nothing for.

Tread extremely carefully and get lots of advice, there are some shark-like companies about.

I think some are interpreting all my comments in some odd ways.  I'm just suggesting things that people could do for themselves, based on the worst case assumption that the govt will provide none or very little assistance and prices remain high.  This seems like a reasonable assumption, based on the fact that we as a nation are in debt up to our eyeballs and borrowing more has suddenly got much more expensive.  I don't think Ukraine and Russia are going to be hugging any time soon, and even if they did then Europe isn't going to be getting Russian gas for a very long time.

I'd suggest assuming that the government handouts will stop, prices will rise and assessing your options for yourself from there.  Not because I want this to be the case, but because I believe that this is a the reality of where our country is - we're in huge trouble financially.  Sorry if this isn't putting things delicately enough for some, but sometimes the truth isn't nice.

I haven't said that every suggestion is the answer for everyone.  I've suggested lodgers and moving house, I haven't suggested selling body organs, but you'd think so from some offended tones.

Mum has looked into that, and knows it is there as an option for the future, but right now she feels that she can afford to stay where she is, it's suitable for her, and she can make ends meet - and ultimately essentially being back to feeling as though she "has a mortgage" again (yes, we and she knows it's not quite the same thing, but ultimately it IS a charge on the property!) will lead to her feeling a degree of stress she'd rather not create for herself. The bottom line is that both she and Dad paid their taxes religiously and as they were expected to during their working lives - and I have to say that I do feel now that there should be help there for someone in her position if it was needed now, rather than the suggestion that she should just downsize - if she were living in a 6 bedroom mansion then I'd probably be the first to be trying to convince her that a relocation might be better for her on every level, but where she is is simply a small regular terraced home, which has space for me to stay with her in the short term if needed due to ill health for example. 

Re the reactions to your previous posts, I want to tread carefully here but certainly to me, some of your previous input on the subject has felt a little over-simplified. Particularly for someone in their 70's/80's the upheaval of moving house is a huge and massive thing - and most people wouldn't like to think of elderly parents going through that sort of stress, I hope you'd feel much the same. The problem is that while things like moving, or taking in a lodger are things that a lot of people COULD do, there are also a lot of reasons why it may not be practical for them to do so. Would I feel comfortable about the idea of Mum getting a lodger? No - absolutely not. If we personally were in the position of needing additional income, would I consider it for us? I'd prefer not to, certainly, and right now we're not in a position to in any event, but if we DID have space that would work for it, it would certainly be a line I'd go down if there were no pother viable options. If we were a differently structured family though - perhaps with a couple of children, I might very well not feel comfortable about the idea of having a stranger living with us. It's not always about putting things delicately - more about taking on board that there are more factors behind people's decisions than can even begin to meet the eye, and someone saying "that option doesn't work for us because..." isn't necessarily them being obstructive and failing to be willing to look at possibilities, but more because those possibilities have been looked at and dismissed for good reason. Also, for some people, the stress and upheaval both physical and mental of something like a house move would be akin to the impact of selling a body organ or two, as well, only with the net result of them actually being worse off, rather than better.

It's easy to fall into a trap on here sometimes of being keen to help, and so offering suggestions, and suggestions, and suggestions, and ending up with the person those suggestions are directed at feeling almost hounded. I suspect a history of posting on the DFW board means that an ability to see where the "I can't do that because..." replies are genuine, and where they are excuses becomes more honed. It can be very hard to read nuance in posts at times, however. 

ariarnia

EssexHebridean said:

The bottom line is that both she and Dad paid their taxes religiously and as they were expected to during their working lives - and I have to say that I do feel now that there should be help there for someone in her position if it was needed now, rather than the suggestion that she should just downsize - if she were living in a 6 bedroom mansion then I'd probably be the first to be trying to convince her that a relocation might be better for her on every level, but where she is is simply a small regular terraced home, which has space for me to stay with her in the short term if needed due to ill health for example. 

i think this is part of it for me. yes i understand support should be and has to be limited because everything is tight. i dont even think government departments can cut back that much more because i know people joke but i also know they have been cutting back and back since 2008 the same as everyone in the local councils and NHS and royal mail and the trains. everything is near breaking point with all the extra work for less people so we can't add to many more straws to the camel.

but that doesn't mean people who are genuinely everything they reasonably can to manage should be expected to take steps that are when you look at them fairly unreasonable in their specific circumstances (they might work for someone else in a different part of the contry or whatever) and will work out to harm their health or cause more problems down the line when they have never needed help before. this is what the welfare state should be about. being there when genuinely needed and not expecting people to done a hair shirt and crawl through glass before you prove you 'deserve' help. 

Ultrasonic

deano2099 said:

It's only hard to target benefits because the government are scared of the optics of doing certain things. You don't need to track household incomes, you don't need to figure out who is on benefits, or any of that.
You do a universal scheme, however you want to do it: one off payment, energy price cap, discount on first X amount of units, whatever. You make it really generous. Say £2000 a year. Then you add a penny on every rate of tax, so it's clawed back at different amounts from those who earn more.

Whilst apparently simple, that doesn't target benefits on the basis of need though.

The huge challenge is determining what real need is, as opposed to people making unwise prioritisations over how they spend their money, or indeed in the context of this thread over how their behaviour influences energy use.

PennyForThem_2

EssexHebridean said:

wittynamegoeshere said:

EssexHebridean said:

ariarnia said:

wittynamegoeshere said:

ariarnia said:

or are you suggesting no one should get any help from the government to cope with the incredible and unforsseeable (hopefullyshort term) cost of energy?

I'm suggesting that you're not the government and neither am I.  If people are going to struggle next winter with what's likely to be a much higher bill then they might to want to take some action themselves to change this situation.

and your incorrectly assuming at least in this situation two things. first that someone in a too large houses isnt doing everything they reasonably and sensibly can to reduce their usage given their personal circumstances and abilities to improve their situation and that moving to a smaller house is a magic solution that would work for everyone. less patronising judgement and more understanding of individual differences would make a world of difference to actually coming up with helpful solutions rather than pushing your solution no matter how unsuitable it might be for that person 

I sympathise - not least as I can see my Mum being in a similar situation in times to come. She can currently afford her bills, but if prices go up as much as they could do, that situation might change. She currently lives in what an EA would market as a 3 bed terrace - in actual fact it's a 2 bed, realistically - the third room would literally just fit a single bed and nothing else, and contains the boiler so in the summer it gets quite unbearably hot. In our area, bungalows go for easily £100k more than her house would fetch, if sold. Then there are all the associated financial costs - legal fees plus disbursements would be an additional £1500. Add Stamp duty. Then agents fees. Removal costs. Then there are the personal costs on top - the house Mum lives in and loves is where she lived with  my Dad until he died a few months ago. It was bought by them with the thinking that there was the potential there that some modifications could be made if needed as they got older - indeed there was a stairlift that Dad needed for a few months - so we know that if needed again, that would work. Downstairs is all on the level. There is a small garden - easily maintainable and manageable. The bottom line though is that even if she was to want to move - it would realistically be at a cost of at least £110,000 that she simply doesn't have. Renting isn't an question - even if in her late 70s, she actually wanted to go back to what she would see as that level of uncertainty and feeling like the roof over her head isn't "hers" any more, the only bungalows local to us to rent realistically are still council stock. This isn't in any way "looking for excuses - it's cold hard facts. It's fabulous that some people live in areas of the country where this sort of dilemma isn't an issue, or indeed have relatives in a fortunate enough financial position that finding an odd £100k isn't going to prove a stumbling block - but those who are in that sort of position do need to bear in mind that a) their area might not be typical of what applies elsewhere and b) it's not everyone who just has the money in the bank to fund a house move in their old age. Also c) moving home is recognised as one of the single most stressful things a person can do - I certainly wouldn't want to see my Mum go through that level of stress at her age - but you know what, I wouldn't want to see anyone else's elderly relatives being made to feel they should put themselves in that position, either.  

(Insert heap of disclaimers here)  Have you looked at equity release?  If your mum is absolutely certain that she doesn't need to move ever then it could be an option.

My mum's done it, all without ever discussing it with me.  Obviously it will reduce the amount of any future inheritance, but I'm very happy to get less or even nothing if it means that she's comfortable.  I'm not counting on inheriting anything, I'd much prefer both lots of our parents to enjoy themselves and go out with nothing than be miserable so I can get a pile of money I've done nothing for.

Tread extremely carefully and get lots of advice, there are some shark-like companies about.

I think some are interpreting all my comments in some odd ways.  I'm just suggesting things that people could do for themselves, based on the worst case assumption that the govt will provide none or very little assistance and prices remain high.  This seems like a reasonable assumption, based on the fact that we as a nation are in debt up to our eyeballs and borrowing more has suddenly got much more expensive.  I don't think Ukraine and Russia are going to be hugging any time soon, and even if they did then Europe isn't going to be getting Russian gas for a very long time.

I'd suggest assuming that the government handouts will stop, prices will rise and assessing your options for yourself from there.  Not because I want this to be the case, but because I believe that this is a the reality of where our country is - we're in huge trouble financially.  Sorry if this isn't putting things delicately enough for some, but sometimes the truth isn't nice.

I haven't said that every suggestion is the answer for everyone.  I've suggested lodgers and moving house, I haven't suggested selling body organs, but you'd think so from some offended tones.

Mum has looked into that, and knows it is there as an option for the future, but right now she feels that she can afford to stay where she is, it's suitable for her, and she can make ends meet - and ultimately essentially being back to feeling as though she "has a mortgage" again (yes, we and she knows it's not quite the same thing, but ultimately it IS a charge on the property!) will lead to her feeling a degree of stress she'd rather not create for herself. The bottom line is that both she and Dad paid their taxes religiously and as they were expected to during their working lives - and I have to say that I do feel now that there should be help there for someone in her position if it was needed now, rather than the suggestion that she should just downsize - if she were living in a 6 bedroom mansion then I'd probably be the first to be trying to convince her that a relocation might be better for her on every level, but where she is is simply a small regular terraced home, which has space for me to stay with her in the short term if needed due to ill health for example. 

Re the reactions to your previous posts, I want to tread carefully here but certainly to me, some of your previous input on the subject has felt a little over-simplified. Particularly for someone in their 70's/80's the upheaval of moving house is a huge and massive thing - and most people wouldn't like to think of elderly parents going through that sort of stress, I hope you'd feel much the same. 

 Also, for some people, the stress and upheaval both physical and mental of something like a house move would be akin to the impact of selling a body organ or two, as well, only with the net result of them actually being worse off, rather than better.

Please look at the individual - true, it is stressful moving etc, and for some it may not be right, but just because we are in our 70's or 80's does not mean we cannot cope with it - especially if we have impartial family help.  (I have edited this quote to focus.)

wittynamegoeshere

My point is basically a simple case of suggesting that people should first help themselves and also accept the reality that this government can and probably needs to ignore any pleas of poverty, whether genuine or not.

I'm pointing out that it's very likely that things are going to get very tough, but thankfully everyone's on a year's notice to do whatever they can to improve their situation, accepting that some will be able to do more than others.

I'd suggest that people have developed something of an expectation that the govt will always look after everyone.  This has probably stemmed from the covid response and ongoing help in various forms since then.  But before this and further back, the govt clearly and obviously did not care and left people to starve and freeze.  I remember the 80s pronouncements that pensioners should wear multiple jumpers and only heat one room.  This was the line then and we're probably heading back to that sort of attitude.

The wrongs, rights and political beliefs are irrelevant, I'm just pointing out what's probably going to happen.  The fact that I'm suggesting it doesn't mean that I think it's a good idea, but it's likely there won't be any other option available.

The years of plenty since 2000-ish have been an illusion, a bit of a con really.  It was all based on us borrowing more money every year.  Even borrowing to pay interest on the debts we already had.  That game's over, we're back to reality now, as the interest on any future debt has raised massively, to the point that it would spiral out of control if we carried on.  It may already be unaffordable, only time will tell whether we can reduce it, which means that the govt now needs to tax more than it spends, to try and reduce the interest bill.

Even if there's a change of party in 2 years they'll face exactly the same issues.  They'd need to tax more to spend more, so if someone wants help then someone else will need to pay more.  This reaches a limit, where it's not worth working any more or people just side-step the system or vote them out next time, and taxes are already historically high.  They can't do what they did last time and just borrow to spend to keep everyone happy - they started this but the tories definitely carried on with it, perhaps more so.

ariarnia

PennyForThem_2 said:

EssexHebridean said:

wittynamegoeshere said:

EssexHebridean said:

ariarnia said:

wittynamegoeshere said:

ariarnia said:

or are you suggesting no one should get any help from the government to cope with the incredible and unforsseeable (hopefullyshort term) cost of energy?

I'm suggesting that you're not the government and neither am I.  If people are going to struggle next winter with what's likely to be a much higher bill then they might to want to take some action themselves to change this situation.

and your incorrectly assuming at least in this situation two things. first that someone in a too large houses isnt doing everything they reasonably and sensibly can to reduce their usage given their personal circumstances and abilities to improve their situation and that moving to a smaller house is a magic solution that would work for everyone. less patronising judgement and more understanding of individual differences would make a world of difference to actually coming up with helpful solutions rather than pushing your solution no matter how unsuitable it might be for that person 

I sympathise - not least as I can see my Mum being in a similar situation in times to come. She can currently afford her bills, but if prices go up as much as they could do, that situation might change. She currently lives in what an EA would market as a 3 bed terrace - in actual fact it's a 2 bed, realistically - the third room would literally just fit a single bed and nothing else, and contains the boiler so in the summer it gets quite unbearably hot. In our area, bungalows go for easily £100k more than her house would fetch, if sold. Then there are all the associated financial costs - legal fees plus disbursements would be an additional £1500. Add Stamp duty. Then agents fees. Removal costs. Then there are the personal costs on top - the house Mum lives in and loves is where she lived with  my Dad until he died a few months ago. It was bought by them with the thinking that there was the potential there that some modifications could be made if needed as they got older - indeed there was a stairlift that Dad needed for a few months - so we know that if needed again, that would work. Downstairs is all on the level. There is a small garden - easily maintainable and manageable. The bottom line though is that even if she was to want to move - it would realistically be at a cost of at least £110,000 that she simply doesn't have. Renting isn't an question - even if in her late 70s, she actually wanted to go back to what she would see as that level of uncertainty and feeling like the roof over her head isn't "hers" any more, the only bungalows local to us to rent realistically are still council stock. This isn't in any way "looking for excuses - it's cold hard facts. It's fabulous that some people live in areas of the country where this sort of dilemma isn't an issue, or indeed have relatives in a fortunate enough financial position that finding an odd £100k isn't going to prove a stumbling block - but those who are in that sort of position do need to bear in mind that a) their area might not be typical of what applies elsewhere and b) it's not everyone who just has the money in the bank to fund a house move in their old age. Also c) moving home is recognised as one of the single most stressful things a person can do - I certainly wouldn't want to see my Mum go through that level of stress at her age - but you know what, I wouldn't want to see anyone else's elderly relatives being made to feel they should put themselves in that position, either.  

(Insert heap of disclaimers here)  Have you looked at equity release?  If your mum is absolutely certain that she doesn't need to move ever then it could be an option.

My mum's done it, all without ever discussing it with me.  Obviously it will reduce the amount of any future inheritance, but I'm very happy to get less or even nothing if it means that she's comfortable.  I'm not counting on inheriting anything, I'd much prefer both lots of our parents to enjoy themselves and go out with nothing than be miserable so I can get a pile of money I've done nothing for.

Tread extremely carefully and get lots of advice, there are some shark-like companies about.

I think some are interpreting all my comments in some odd ways.  I'm just suggesting things that people could do for themselves, based on the worst case assumption that the govt will provide none or very little assistance and prices remain high.  This seems like a reasonable assumption, based on the fact that we as a nation are in debt up to our eyeballs and borrowing more has suddenly got much more expensive.  I don't think Ukraine and Russia are going to be hugging any time soon, and even if they did then Europe isn't going to be getting Russian gas for a very long time.

I'd suggest assuming that the government handouts will stop, prices will rise and assessing your options for yourself from there.  Not because I want this to be the case, but because I believe that this is a the reality of where our country is - we're in huge trouble financially.  Sorry if this isn't putting things delicately enough for some, but sometimes the truth isn't nice.

I haven't said that every suggestion is the answer for everyone.  I've suggested lodgers and moving house, I haven't suggested selling body organs, but you'd think so from some offended tones.

Mum has looked into that, and knows it is there as an option for the future, but right now she feels that she can afford to stay where she is, it's suitable for her, and she can make ends meet - and ultimately essentially being back to feeling as though she "has a mortgage" again (yes, we and she knows it's not quite the same thing, but ultimately it IS a charge on the property!) will lead to her feeling a degree of stress she'd rather not create for herself. The bottom line is that both she and Dad paid their taxes religiously and as they were expected to during their working lives - and I have to say that I do feel now that there should be help there for someone in her position if it was needed now, rather than the suggestion that she should just downsize - if she were living in a 6 bedroom mansion then I'd probably be the first to be trying to convince her that a relocation might be better for her on every level, but where she is is simply a small regular terraced home, which has space for me to stay with her in the short term if needed due to ill health for example. 

Re the reactions to your previous posts, I want to tread carefully here but certainly to me, some of your previous input on the subject has felt a little over-simplified. Particularly for someone in their 70's/80's the upheaval of moving house is a huge and massive thing - and most people wouldn't like to think of elderly parents going through that sort of stress, I hope you'd feel much the same. 

 Also, for some people, the stress and upheaval both physical and mental of something like a house move would be akin to the impact of selling a body organ or two, as well, only with the net result of them actually being worse off, rather than better.

Please look at the individual - true, it is stressful moving etc, and for some it may not be right, but just because we are in our 70's or 80's does not mean we cannot cope with it - especially if we have impartial family help.  (I have edited this quote to focus.)

i think we agree that its all about the individual and not a blanket thing. but in that you have to really believe the individual about their ability to cope. my mil for example would be fine to move IF there was a suitable property that didn't require a lot of adjustments or work before she could move in (she can't sell and then wait 6 months to move in while its adapted or updated) thats not really something the government can make a blanket decision about so shouldn't be the basis for assessing 'need'. imo at least.