Freezing this Christmas

[mjd24]

“Starmers tiny brain” just devalues your arguements.

[scotchy1962]

Have to say that when i seen the pensioners in spain spending their winter fuel payments my sympathy went out the window, but then again i hope to be one of these pensioners in the next few years so maybe i should kick off stink.
Realistically it should only be going to the really needy and not just ad-hoc to all and sundry.
It was a vote winner for whoever brought it in and could well be their downfall as well by getting limits put on it.
As for housing it's again a never ending problem as nobody can get it right, in a free market how do you build affordable housing? People pay fortunes for broom cupboards so no matter what you build the price goes through the roof.
No idea what the solution is but me and my second home will retire and see what happens.

[menditsa]

^ have you heard of austerity?

No, can you explain.

[Barnacle]

Buy-to-let landlords, more single person households and the ever-increasing population push up demand and so increase prices.
Lord Ponsonby-Bigbucks isn't buying up terraces or even off-plan developments or pushing up demand.
As for the whole sorry saga somehow being driven by the Mail, let's see what happens if there's a cold snap in the coming Winter. That ought to refocus Starmer's tiny mind when A&E's and hospital start filling up even more than they currently are due to cold housing and hypothermia.

Those in need, still receive the payment.
People die every winter due to the cold. Even those who use their heating.
The way the supplement is paid is wrong because most pensioners don’t even use it for their energy bills. But if energy companies know that every pensioner household will be receiving £300 if the temperature dips, then they have no incentive to have a lower tariff option.

[Tman]

No, those desperately in need, apply using the complex application form and can prove that need will receive it.
For the remainder, whether they "need" it or not, FOAD.
That was the thinking behind making it a universal payment, namely that those who were slightly over the threshold, too old or tired or afraid of modern technology, or ignorant of what's available would still receive it too, hence "universal".
But there you go, clearly Starmer etc (and you) think too many of the country's oldies are living a high old undeserved life on that £300 so best reduce it to the bare minimum of recipients. Those train drivers etc need the money more, after all.
Even the useless Tories were never that heartless.
On a similar note it's great to see the Guardianistas tie themselves in knots defending the removal of this payment ("well, Kier and Rach say it so it must be correct") while happily abandoning any pretext of social compassion, something they usually love to portray themselves as having in abundance.

[Barnacle]

No, those desperately in need, apply using the complex application form and can prove that need will receive it.
For the remainder, whether they "need" it or not, FOAD.
That was the thinking behind making it a universal payment, namely that those who were slightly over the threshold, too old or tired or afraid of modern technology, or ignorant of what's available would still receive it too, hence "universal".
But there you go, clearly Starmer etc (and you) think too many of the country's oldies are living a high old undeserved life on that £300 so best reduce it to the bare minimum of recipients. Those train drivers etc need the money more, after all.
Even the useless Tories were never that heartless.
On a similar note it's great to see the Guardianistas tie themselves in knots defending the removal of this payment ("well, Kier and Rach say it so it must be correct") while happily abandoning any pretext of social compassion, something they usually love to portray themselves as having in abundance.

I assume you were equally keen to man the barricades when the child benefit cap was introduced and the reduction in housing benefit? Recipients for those also have to fill long complicated and intrusive forms, only to be turned down.

Please explain why you believe benefit entitlement should not be means tested for pensioners when it is for everyone else?

[Blickster]

I have not met a single person who agrees with stopping it.

I don't know anyone who does, perhaps in your little circle maybe?

[thefox]

No, those desperately in need, apply using the complex application form and can prove that need will receive it.
For the remainder, whether they "need" it or not, FOAD.
That was the thinking behind making it a universal payment, namely that those who were slightly over the threshold, too old or tired or afraid of modern technology, or ignorant of what's available would still receive it too, hence "universal".
But there you go, clearly Starmer etc (and you) think too many of the country's oldies are living a high old undeserved life on that £300 so best reduce it to the bare minimum of recipients. Those train drivers etc need the money more, after all.
Even the useless Tories were never that heartless.
On a similar note it's great to see the Guardianistas tie themselves in knots defending the removal of this payment ("well, Kier and Rach say it so it must be correct") while happily abandoning any pretext of social compassion, something they usually love to portray themselves as having in abundance.

Well said

[mjd24]

No, those desperately in need, apply using the complex application form and can prove that need will receive it.
For the remainder, whether they "need" it or not, FOAD.
That was the thinking behind making it a universal payment, namely that those who were slightly over the threshold, too old or tired or afraid of modern technology, or ignorant of what's available would still receive it too, hence "universal".
But there you go, clearly Starmer etc (and you) think too many of the country's oldies are living a high old undeserved life on that £300 so best reduce it to the bare minimum of recipients. Those train drivers etc need the money more, after all.
Even the useless Tories were never that heartless.
On a similar note it's great to see the Guardianistas tie themselves in knots defending the removal of this payment ("well, Kier and Rach say it so it must be correct") while happily abandoning any pretext of social compassion, something they usually love to portray themselves as having in abundance.

Not sure i am defending the policy, im trying to bring some nuance and sanity to this discussion. Cant stand this level of “footballification” of politics.

[Tman]

I assume you were equally keen to man the barricades when the child benefit cap was introduced and the reduction in housing benefit? Recipients for those also have to fill long complicated and intrusive forms, only to be turned down.

So what are you commenting on, the long intrusive forms or the fact that some apparently aren't entitled?
There may be many inequalities and iniquities but that doesn't excuse or explain why a nominally Socialist gov't chooses pensioners as the first to suffer when approaching the Winter period.
Classic diversionary argument there.

[Barnacle]

I assume you were equally keen to man the barricades when the child benefit cap was introduced and the reduction in housing benefit? Recipients for those also have to fill long complicated and intrusive forms, only to be turned down.

So what are you commenting on, the long intrusive forms or the fact that some apparently aren't entitled?
There may be many inequalities and iniquities but that doesn't excuse or explain why a nominally Socialist gov't chooses pensioners as the first to suffer when approaching the Winter period.
Classic diversionary argument there.

And you weren’t being diversionary by banging on about train drivers and Guardianistas?

What about the millionnaire farmers? Are you okay with them having to pay inheritance and capital gains tax?

The two child cap, that’s staying. Are you okay with that?

Or are you only bothered about pension aged people who have an income over the threshold and will therefore no longer receive a payment that was only paid if temperatures dipped?

[LouBarlow]

Remember when this was a forum about Royal Mail and working as a postie? There are plenty of other outlets for this goofy uneducated political shite.

[mjd24]

I assume you were equally keen to man the barricades when the child benefit cap was introduced and the reduction in housing benefit? Recipients for those also have to fill long complicated and intrusive forms, only to be turned down.

So what are you commenting on, the long intrusive forms or the fact that some apparently aren't entitled?
There may be many inequalities and iniquities but that doesn't excuse or explain why a nominally Socialist gov't chooses pensioners as the first to suffer when approaching the Winter period.
Classic diversionary argument there.

And you weren’t being diversionary by banging on about train drivers and Guardianistas?

What about the millionnaire farmers? Are you okay with them having to pay inheritance and capital gains tax?

The two child cap, that’s staying. Are you okay with that?

Or are you only bothered about pension aged people who have an income over the threshold and will therefore no longer receive a payment that was only paid if temperatures dipped?

The question should be, do farmers and in particular multi millionaire farm land owners deserve to pay half the rate of inheritance tax as everybody else who qualifies to pay it?

[mjd24]

Remember when this was a forum about Royal Mail and working as a postie? There are plenty of other outlets for this goofy uneducated political shite.

How is it uneducated?

Should politics be the preserve of only a certain set of people?

[thefox]

Millionaire farmers