Martin's suggestion for winter fuel allowance

MattMattMattUK

Scot_39 said:

wrf12345 said:

Surprised Martin has not made the connection between balancing out removal of the WFA by abolishing the s/c's - there is marvellous simplicity to such an action and a certain fairness. The other point, many people refuse to hand over ever increasing amounts of money to energy companies, whether or not they are loaded up with "excess" dosh, the easiest way out radical reduction in gas and electric usage that would be helped along by removal of the s/c's. Helps Ukraine and saves the planet, too.

Without the govt paying the SC - say by EPG style payment direct to suppliers - and that if happened would only be say for a social tariff for those on pension credit - you have the same cross subsidy.

It is interesting that many seem to like the idea of a social tariff, especially if it benefits them, where as it is probably one of the worst solutions that could be implemented. Social tariffs create cliff edges, distort market, hide the real cost of things and mean people no longer eligible can have a hard time adjusting etc. If benefits are not enough for people to live on then the solution is not social tariffs, it is increasing benefits, or the minimum wage. 

Scot_39 said:

As Ofgem iirc discussed in their SC options - they were not able to presume any such additional money was forthcoming. When doing likes of their appendix a2-a7 sc to unit shift analysis.

And that only went up to £100 - but still saw all electric couple with kid losing to shift just £38 - around 20% of average SC.

Unfortunately WRF and their ilk do not think that this should be paid, they think that it should either come out of profit as they are under the delusion that energy suppliers operate huge profit margins, or they believe that "someone else" should pay, so long as it is not them having to pay for their own grid connection and own energy usage. 

Brian3357

There have been strongly opinionated views from both sides of the debate on stopping WFA.. mainly anecdotal. However for a new government (a Labour one at that) to choose this relatively inexpensive benefit to flagship their response on public spending cuts is politically a nonsense. Regardless of the rationale, to target pensioners as your first step, not the rich, for a relatively small gain is not good. Plus there is a real danger that borderline pensioners could suffer in the winter months. 

MattMattMattUK

Brian3357 said:

There have been strongly opinionated views from both sides of the debate on stopping WFA.. mainly anecdotal. However for a new government (a Labour one at that) to choose this relatively inexpensive benefit to flagship their response on public spending cuts is politically a nonsense.

It is not nonsense, it is a rational move to get rid of a benefit that should have never existed in the first place. Something should not be retained due to it having already existed, that is an incredibly bad way to decide policy. 

Brian3357 said:

Regardless of the rationale, to target pensioners as your first step,

You seem to keep repeating that you feel pensioners are being targeted, they are not. An bad policy is being amended, that is not targeting anyone. 

Brian3357 said:

not the rich

The "rich" are already targeted, they already pay the vast majority of tax, they are also the ones making a net contribution. Now I do agree that they should pay more, then then everyone should pay more (and yes for clarity, that would include me).

Brian3357 said:

Plus there is a real danger that borderline pensioners could suffer in the winter months. 

More emotive language, "suffer". The reality is that there will be very few if any who will not be able to suitably heat their homes because of this, but do not let reality get in the way of hyperbole. 

Emmia

This is getting all quite political, I'm surprised it's not been closed and deleted.

mmmmikey

Emmia said:

This is getting all quite political, I'm surprised it's not been closed and deleted.

Yes indeed. This is really a discussion about pensions and benefits rather than energy - hardly surprising it's so contentious! Perhaps we should move on to something easier like the pros and cons of Brexit....

MP1995

Decent pension rise, no wfp, net result not as bad as it could have been.

Scot_39

When Labour in opposition opposed suggestions the Cons were going to cut the WFA  - during the 2017 GE campaign - their "own study" reportedly estimated 4,000 additional deaths.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jun/05/tory-winter-fuel-allowance-cuts-puts-4000-lives-at-risk-claims-labour

Perhaps it was wrong - political - hyperbole if you like - or perhaps Reeves et al should read it again now.

And I suspect you'll find over last 7 years energy costs have risen far higher than pensions - they certainly have since 2020 pre Ukraine crisis level pricing..

But it's by no means the first to link the two - as that article itself makes clear - credited with saving 10,000.

The universal WFA was estimated to have saved even more in other reports -  about 12,000 of the 25,000 estimated such deaths in another study cited by age uk.

Those may not be huge numbers out of say now 12m pensioners.   But age demographics have also shifted - more surviving longer - more over 80s, 90s etc.

No one disputes wealthier pensioners will survive.  They always did.

[But the PC threshold for this change screams at best ill thought out - at worse demonstrating age bias compared to other far higher thresholds benefits paid.
Like far higher child benefit today - £1300 1st child +£900 others  -  HICBC claw back was £50-60k, now from April £60-80k for highest earner if couple - a max £160k total.  Compare that to PC £11.3 or £17.3k top up thresholds.]

It's what happens to the poorest thatscat stake here.

The NHS doesn't recommend 18-21 C as a nicety - below 18C and real physiological impacts start to impact body even in the young. Peripheral circulation closes down to protect core, blood thickens, blood pressure and heart rate increases, respiratory tract impacts for asthmatics etc all well documented by medical science.

Literally decades of reports linking cold in the home to poor health, some specifically looking at NHS costs to taxpayers - as have some small - heat prescription trials - and ultimately as above risks to premature death.

wrf12345

"As Ofgem iirc discussed in their SC options - they were not able to presume any such additional money was forthcoming. When doing likes of their appendix a2-a7 sc to unit shift analysis.

And that only went up to £100 - but still saw all electric couple with kid losing to shift just £38 - around 20% of average SC."

Personally, I would not believe a word from Ofgem, they have more than doubled standing charges in a few years, the unit rate would have to go up but not by the whole amount as some of it would have to be absorbed by the retail energy providers, the ones who buy electric for less than 10p a unit and sell it for 22p and pay accountants incredible salaries to make sure their "profit" never exceeds three percent.

MattMattMattUK

wrf12345 said:

"As Ofgem iirc discussed in their SC options - they were not able to presume any such additional money was forthcoming. When doing likes of their appendix a2-a7 sc to unit shift analysis.

And that only went up to £100 - but still saw all electric couple with kid losing to shift just £38 - around 20% of average SC."

Personally, I would not believe a word from Ofgem,

The issue is that you seem to not trust anything that does not agree with your preconceived ideas, regardless of supporting evidence. 

wrf12345 said:

they have more than doubled standing charges in a few years

They have, because network costs have increased, there were things like SoLR to account for and also there needs to be a lot of investment to account for distributed generation within the network.

wrf12345 said:

the unit rate would have to go up but not by the whole amount as some of it would have to be absorbed by the retail energy providers

It would not "have to be", equally you have demonstrated before that you believe that energy suppliers operate on large margins, when the facts are that they do not, their margins are very slim, you continue to believe this no matter what evidence you are presented with. The reality is that if the costs are not on standing charge they have to go on unit rates, which would create a subsidy from average and high users to low users. 

wrf12345 said:

the ones who buy electric for less than 10p a unit and sell it for 22p

You again ignore transmission costs which they are charged by the grid, transmission losses which have to be accounted for etc. The cost of the energy itself is not the only cost involved in delivering energy to the end user. 

wrf12345 said:

and pay accountants incredible salaries to make sure their "profit" never exceeds three percent.

That is not how employee or board remuneration are accounted for. Costs are only allowable at a certain level, above that they would reduce profit not allow the energy supplier to charge more. If they increase their wage bill or operating profits they are not allowed to increase their sale price to maintain a 3% margin, those additional costs would eat into their profit. 

MattMattMattUK

Scot_39 said:

When Labour in opposition opposed suggestions the Cons were going to cut the WFA  - during the 2017 GE campaign - their "own study" reportedly estimated 4,000 additional deaths.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jun/05/tory-winter-fuel-allowance-cuts-puts-4000-lives-at-risk-claims-labour

Perhaps it was wrong - political - hyperbole if you like - or perhaps Reeves et al should read it again now.

It appears wrong, it appears hyperbole, indeed it was written by a very different group of people to the current economic pragmatists in the Labour party.