Winter fuel payment

[RONNIE W HODGEKINSON]

On 8/1/2024 at 8:49 AM, GMB said:

If you're lucky.  Apparently there is more pain to come allegedly. They think most pensioners are rich and can take the hit. How wrong they are.  Means testing here we come.  Look out pensioners and motorists pain is on the way. If you saved for a private pension and a nice home then you are a target. I am trying to think of something cheerful to say to avoid being called a whinger but I honestly can't think of anything - sorry!😬

Nothing Wrong With A good Old fashioned Whinge Now And Again !!!!!!

[Boomer54]

13 hours ago, Linas.P said:

Okey, let's think about it hypothetically...

1. You get into hospital and either there are no junior doctors or there are junior doctors, but they have not got their 200k training (also it is debatable that their training is worth that)... and you die.

or

2. You get into hospital and there are junior doctors who are trained, but get literal peanuts instead of salary... and you survive.

WHO benefits from this? Doctors who earn peanuts or you?

What is beneficial in that training for the person getting it if not the salary? Being trained to do job well is not a benefit if that job does not pay well. It is benefit to the society - sure... but what is benefit for them? 

Look - I 100% agree, NHS is completely broken, whomever we should blame is not relevant at this point, but I hope we both agree that system does not work, it does not work for society (waiting times) it does not work for doctors (shaite pay). It needs fixing, but it is not the fault on junior doctors... also - why the hell some stupid footballer is earning £46 million a year for kicking stupid ball, but people who actually matter, like doctors and teachers, and nurses and, fire fighters gets crumbs? We can argue that as a society we are rotten from the core, our values are rotten, not you specifically, but there is more fundamental problem when we can't even pay decent salary for a doctor and 200k training is apparently an issue, but some useless ball kicking brain dead kid gets more money per hour, than the entire doctor training costs...

And here I am not trying to imply that I know the solution, or that solution is obvious, I just see the problem and also it is strange that from all wrong in the society the doctor training was the thing which you thought was not fair, despite the fact that they don't even personally benefit from it... unless they quite and go contracting or emigrate (which every sane person MUST do). 

I can resolve the inequity of income between your examples at a stroke of a pen. Signature on paper that scraps 'free' heathcare and makes it over to an individuals personal responsibility. Now every football ticketholder that needs heathcare has to pay for it and cannot afford to buy tickets like they once could.  Others cancel their Sports subscriptions etc etc. Take it to the nth degree and footballers salaries fall as revenue falls and healthcare incomes rise as more people pay the real cost for it. In essence it is all economics (supply and demand) and politics that don't allow market forces to prevail by screwing with supply and demand.

However, underlying this whole argument is that of I , and WE. If I believe my life is richer when I is thinking WE then I pay into that form of govt intervention accepting I owe my fellowman some degree of help. If I think WE offends my sense of belief in Darwinism then I would wish to fire all , but one politician ,because I don't want to help as I think everybody should bear personal responsibility. The one remaining politician is simply retained as a sentinel to remind I that I don't want anymore than one.

Is there a right answer to this apparent conundrum? Not really, you take the viewpoint of 'right' from whatever stance you hold, and as far as I am aware there is no objective data that says one viewpoint is preferable to an another. Some people are at one end of the continuum ,or the other, and a lot of people fall between the two extremes. Obvious alignments between the various political party ideologues.

[Boomer54]

10 hours ago, Malc1 said:

WINTER FUEL PAYMENTS

PLEASE 

What’s the solution to this BLUNT cessation by this Govt and the Chancellor of the Exchequer specifically ? 

Malc

Oh come on you know I am paying you yours. Like GOD said to the guy looking to win the lottery, "help me out here send me your bank details" (sic(

[Malc1]

Heavens above  .  OMG  ........  simply do something good today that helps our fellow man ..  in the UK at any rate  ......  and I urge you to look at the

 

AGE UK  website to sign the Petition about the

WINTER FUEL ALLOWANCE 

Thank you

Malc

[Boomer54]

3 hours ago, Malc1 said:

Thank you   Well found 👍

I wasn’t aware this existed 

I have given this my support and advised my Co-aged Okdies too 

Malc 

Filled it in. Under the question "how will you manage this winter without fuel allowance", I answered I will have to buy cheaper wine on my cruise.

[Phil xxkr]

14 hours ago, Linas.P said:

Okey, let's think about it hypothetically...

1. You get into hospital and either there are no junior doctors or there are junior doctors, but they have not got their 200k training (also it is debatable that their training is worth that)... and you die.

or

2. You get into hospital and there are junior doctors who are trained, but get literal peanuts instead of salary... and you survive.

WHO benefits from this? Doctors who earn peanuts or you?

What is beneficial in that training for the person getting it if not the salary? Being trained to do job well is not a benefit if that job does not pay well. It is benefit to the society - sure... but what is benefit for them? 

Look - I 100% agree, NHS is completely broken, whomever we should blame is not relevant at this point, but I hope we both agree that system does not work, it does not work for society (waiting times) it does not work for doctors (shaite pay). It needs fixing, but it is not the fault on junior doctors... also - why the hell some stupid footballer is earning £46 million a year for kicking stupid ball, but people who actually matter, like doctors and teachers, and nurses and, fire fighters gets crumbs? We can argue that as a society we are rotten from the core, our values are rotten, not you specifically, but there is more fundamental problem when we can't even pay decent salary for a doctor and 200k training is apparently an issue, but some useless ball kicking brain dead kid gets more money per hour, than the entire doctor training costs...

And here I am not trying to imply that I know the solution, or that solution is obvious, I just see the problem and also it is strange that from all wrong in the society the doctor training was the thing which you thought was not fair, despite the fact that they don't even personally benefit from it... unless they quite and go contracting or emigrate (which every sane person MUST do). 

You sound like Kamala Harris 🙂

[Malc1]

11 hours ago, Tickedon said:

This is one way to make your voice heard: https://campaigns.ageuk.org.uk/page/154268/petition/1?ea.tracking.id=Website

The Age UK Petition is now up to 215k ............  keep going everyone ........  when I signed it 4 hrs ago it was at 208k 

Malc

[Linas.P]

17 hours ago, Tickedon said:

Glad we got there in the end. We can double doctor’s starting salaries to match the riches on offer elsewhere, but we also require them to pay for their own training. That puts us - taxpayers - on an even footing if they decide to work outside the NHS or go abroad. It’s the only way to do it.

And I’m afraid most people would be very happy to be in the top 5% of earners, and the rest of your post suggests how out of touch you are with the many hardworking taxpayers currently paying for the doctor’s salaries, pensions, and training costs.

It’s why the £200 or £300 winter fuel payments are so important to pensioners, but most definitely the two million or so with income just over £11.5k per year. 

Out of touch? Doubt it...

How can one justify covering heating for people who literally sit on 100s of thousands, maybe even millions of £ worth of real estate, when most of working people (tax payers) can't even afford homes. I think it is you who is out of touch, because you do not understand how absurdly unaffordable is the housing for current generation, and it is really annoying when people living in mansions are complaining that they can't afford the heating. 

You see... somebody who owns home, but can't afford heating have an option... they can sell, they can downsize... in fact they are in privileged position where even modest house costs £500k nowadays. Assuming both (if single even better) are retired and at 60 years old, then statistically speaking they only have 20 years to live, they can easily sell the house and live like lords for remainder of their life, with more disposable income than junior doctors that you are so upset about. ANYONE who has paid off home are rich, likely millionaires and therefore does not deserve any further support from government apart of state pension that they have certainly earned. 

People who actually need help are ones who do not have homes, ideally UK (or any country) should be able to workout both things - have suitable and affordable housing and have affordable "essential" services. It is not the winter fuel payments that are the issue, the issue is that profiteering energy companies makes billions, when people can't afford to pay for even heating (although as I said - perhaps they have too huge of the house). But if we are in position where we can't have both, then priority is to have people housed, only then having those homes heated. Roof above the head in my opinion is human right, having it warm is a luxury. Obviously, it needs to be said - when heating becomes luxury, then the country is in really dire situation, in normal times that shouldn't be discussion that people are having. 

In weird way labour is in good position from the perspective of their fundamental values - perhaps privatising energy companies is the way forward? 

[Malc1]

 

27 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

Out of touch? Doubt it...

How can one justify covering heating for people who literally sit on 100s of thousands, maybe even millions of £ worth of real estate, when most of working people (tax payers) can't even afford homes. I think it is you who is out of touch, because you do not understand how absurdly unaffordable is the housing for current generation, and it is really annoying when people living in mansions are complaining that they can't afford the heating. 

You see... somebody who own home, but can afford heating have an option... they can sell, they can downsize... in fact they are in privileged position where even modest house costs £500k nowadays. Assuming both (if single even better) are retired and at 60 years old, then statistically speaking they only have 20 years to live, they can easily sell the house and live like lords for remainder of their life, with more disposable income than junior doctors that you are so upset about. ANYONE who has paid off home are rich, likely millionaires and therefore does not deserve any further support from government apart of state pension that they have certainly earned. 

People who actually need help are ones who do not have homes, ideally UK (or any country) should be able to workout both things - have suitable and affordable housing and have affordable "essential" services. It is not the winter fuel payments that are the issue, the issue is that profiteering energy companies makes billions, when people can't afford to pay for even heating (although as I said - perhaps they have too huge of the house). But if we are in position where we can't have both, then priority is to have people housed, only then having those homes heated. Roof above the head in my opinion is human right, having it warm is a luxury. Obviously, it needs to be said - when heating becomes luxury, then the country is in really dire situation, in normal times that shouldn't be discussion that people are having. 

In weird way labour is in good position from the perspective of their fundamental values - perhaps privatising energy companies is the way forward? 
 

Linas hi ………. quite clearly those OAPs on the breadline and living in bitterly cold homes should move into tents and freeze to death over winter ,,,,,,, hey that solves the problem …….. frees up their overly sized homes for the unhomed …… all they need is a tent or a bed sit anyway …….. and no blooody need for that Winter Fuel Payment at all …….. it’s fine they can die sooner whatever …….ah yes ……. Govt induced premature deaths …….. gets shot of those old  buggers quicker  and saves paying out their State Pensions too ……. more for the State employees next pay rise demands ……. Should be able to increase the Rachel Reeves and hubby State paid income well above their paupers current income of £450/500k a year 

Clear out those pesky OAPs and free up the State budgets for more productive purposes eh ! 
 

jolly good idea 👏👏👍

Linas …… I despair 😩 

Malc 

[Linas.P]

@Malc1

You are kind of misrepresenting the situation here. People who are very poor, regardless of their age will have all sort of problems and will use foodbanks etc. Whatever other support they could get, can still get it - universal credit etc. nothing changed there. So that is first group - very poor people.

Second, group is those who are retired and who own their homes without any remaining debt - those are one of the richest people in our society, not 1 percentile, unlikely 5% (to be in 5% one needs ~£1.8 million, but if you own home in London that is doable), but they are doing better than anyone with the mortgage or without one at all (say renters). Does any of these people end-up in food lines paradoxically yes, because they are stupid and do not understand that they are sitting on the pile of money. I do understand that don't want to move, they love their home which they owned all their life, they love their neighbourhood, their neighbours etc. That is understandable, but that becomes CHOICE - one can live in the large house you can no longer afford to heat in winter and after paying for heating one can be short on money, but that is choice, they have choice, they can sell, but the house is too dear to them. Again - I understand them, not everyone is always rational, I can't understand why would anyone choose to live in UK and go to foodbank for watery soup, when they can sell their house and move to live in Spain, buy larger and nice house on the beach and have probably £300k in their bank account to live like lords until their death. So again - people can be irrational, but they are responsible for the choices they are making. 

So yes - that is correct, if more pensioners would sell, move into smaller properties that easier to maintain, manage, heat etc. (not tents) everyone will be better-off. Again - somebody on £100k a year salary today is worse off, than any pensioner with paid off home. They are complaining about few £100 heating bills, when working families have to pay £2500 A MONTH for rent... and then they also still need heating and all other things. 

People often look into income... income is irrelevant, that is why we have so many "working poor" in UK, what matters is what you can reasonably save after your reasonable expenses, and for somebody renting in today's market it is almost impossible to save anything. Worst of all, that is not the choice people make, it is not like pensioners who can sell, but doesn't, people just don't have any other choice but to work their asses off and pay over 50% of their income just on rent alone. They can't even start saving for deposit and mortgages are no less expensive, even after 20 years of saving they can put together some deposit.

What was "winter fuel payment?" - that was thinly welled tory bribe to pensioners, literally nothing else, it was disgusting policy based only on the age - "born before 1958, we know you are conservative, here you go £300, don't vote labour they will take it away". There was no justification ever for this form of subsidy to exist. 

[John Adams]

23 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

@Malc1

 

What was "winter fuel payment?" - that was thinly welled tory bribe to pensioners, literally nothing else, it was disgusting policy based only on the age - "born before 1958, we know you are conservative, here you go £300, don't vote labour they will take it away". There was no justification ever for this form of subsidy to exist. 

The Winter Fuel allowance was actually brought in by Labour in 1997. But don't let actual facts get in the way of your apparent  prejudice against pensioners

[Cotswold Pete]

22 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

So yes - that is correct, if more pensioners would sell, move into smaller properties that easier to maintain, manage, heat etc. (not tents) everyone will be better-off. Again - somebody on £100k a year salary today is worse off, than any pensioner with paid off home. They are complaining about few £100 heating bills, when working families have to pay £2500 A MONTH for rent... and then they also still need heating and all other things. 

Sometimes it is the emotions attached to a house you brought your family up in and lived your life in.  Just had a mate who had 6 bedroomed house with half acre of garden, and the heads said move, release capital and get a smaller house which is easier to heat and does not take every second of your retirement just to keep on top of the garden.

After 2 years he finally did, but his wife still not over the heartbreak of moving after 40 years in their home, but they know it means the house can be used to allow a new generation to experience while they can sit in a nice warm house rather than sit on top of a fire in one room with the rest of house being like the artic.

I am sure when this time comes to me and the missus when we only need 2 bedrooms (not 4) it will be emotion versus logic.

[Linas.P]

8 minutes ago, John Adams said:

The Winter Fuel allowance was actually brought in by Labour in 1997. But don't let actual facts get in the way of your apparent  prejudice against pensioners

In which case it was labour bribe to pensioners, which was kept by tories for the same reason... there is no reason for such thing to exist apart of political bribery to the voters.  Very same reason why stupid triple lock on pensions existed (still exists?)... simply said certain groups of voters are mor important for politicians than others. So there is clear favouritism. Pensioners vote a lot and are gullible, hence it is best to buy their vote by simply giving them more money. Other groups may actually vote on important policies and other government matters and can't simply be persuaded by few £100... hence they don't get such initiatives. 

1 minute ago, Cotswold Pete said:

Sometimes it is the emotions attached to a house you brought your family up in and lived your life in.  Just had a mate who had 6 bedroomed house with half acre of garden, and the heads said move, release capital and get a smaller house which is easier to heat and does not take every second of your retirement just to keep on top of the garden.

After 2 years he finally did, but his wife still not over the heartbreak of moving after 40 years in their home, but they know it means the house can be used to allow a new generation to experience while they can sit in a nice warm house rather than sit on top of a fire in one room with the rest of house being like the artic.

I am sure when this time comes to me and the missus when we only need 2 bedrooms (not 4) it will be emotion versus logic.

Which is exactly what I said... and I also appreciate that people would have such attachment to their homes... yet it is a personal choice for one to make. That somebody loves living in their home, despite not being able to heat it... it is on them. They choice to be cold in large home, rather than warm in smaller home. They absolutelly have a right to make that choice, but nobody else should be liable for it.

[wharfhouse]

Until one is faced with that situation no-one really knows how they will react. I've had a similar experience recently with my own home and it really surprised me how much it impacted me emotionally.

[Linas.P]

3 minutes ago, wharfhouse said:

Until one is faced with that situation no-one really knows how they will react. I've had a similar experience recently with my own home and it really surprised me how much it impacted me emotionally.

Again - no doubt it impacts people emotionally, it is hard choice, but it is a choice. 

[John Adams]

13 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

 Pensioners vote a lot and are gullible, hence it is best to buy their vote by simply giving them more money. Other groups may actually vote on important policies and other government matters and can't simply be persuaded by few £100... hence they don't get such initiatives. 

So you are now insulting us pensioners by saying we are gullible and easily bought.  You really don't like us do you?

[Linas.P]

20 minutes ago, John Adams said:

So you are now insulting us pensioners by saying we are gullible and easily bought.  You really don't like us do you?

It is up-to you if you chose to take the offence, but that was not my goal (to insult). 

If winter fuel payment or triple lock on pensions impacts your voting decisions, then you are gullible, easily bought... or simply selfish. If not then not. It is fact that pensioners as a group are more easily gullible, just think about it - when was the lest time fraudsters took money from working 30, 40, 50 years old telling them that their kids are in trouble, despite the person not even having kids... never happened. Yet it happens often to seniors. Also it is very clear that favourable policy towards pension and other retirement benefits buys votes. Whenever your vote was bought in the same way - I don't know, but many pensioners vote in such way. 

I would add - don't take it personally, I never said "John who is pensioner is gullible", but pensioners in general are more gullible. And winter fuel payment is stupid policy which clearly exists for only one reason and that reason is clearly political - such policy can be more broadly described as "pandering" or "vote buying" i.e. policy that clearly exists to win political support than to address any broader public needs. Or we can simply call it "electoral strategy" - all parties are at fault for it. Sad truth - almost ALL policies exists in some way to appeal to certain demographics. It is just happens to be the case that for politicians the key demographics is elderly people... be it because they are more gullible, or just because they are more likely to vote, or other reasons.

It is certainly not true that I don't like pensioners, it is inevitable that some part of my family are pensioners and I will be pensioner at some point, so this would be just if I didn't like pensioners specifically. However, I do not like pandering, I do not like vote buying, I do not like populism and certainly I do not like electoral strategies that buys votes of certain demographist at the cost of the rest of the society. Also I am idealist, which as far as I know is not curable disease, so I would ideally like for politicians to make hard decisions which may not be popular, but makes the country the better place to live for everyone. Scrapping stupid winter fuel subsidy is one such step. 

I understand that it means £300 less for you, and I understand you may be upset about it, but hopefully it will go to more worthy place... Unlikely, probably will be gobbled up by corruption and inefficiencies in our government, not specifically labour as parliamentary party, but overall governance which is not fit for purpose and very inefficient. Yet I still support scrapping of it in principle, because it was objectively bad policy.

[Malc1]

as I said earlier  ....  Linas ....  I just despair ......... you're thinking mode seems to be totally anti OAPs with any money at all, or living in a home that's too big in general ......but I'm not here to throw insults and prejudices around .......... simple fact, many OAPs will die this winter coz of the increase in energy costs upcoming and the breadline they live upon having that simple lifeline removed by the Govt of the ..........

Winter Fuel Payment 

..............Reeves and Starmer have simply and rapidly and bluntly set in train the Govt inspired deaths of many, possibly 000s of OAPs who have done nothing wrong other than to live too long and been too careful with their assets and reserves and worried incessantly about  " making ends meet " ........ and not claiming some entitled Benefits or not being eligible to, just not being eligible to .........with incomes so low they have to shiver and die in the cold at home ......  this will happen I have no doubt and the shame will be forever imprinted on the face of this Non-Social Caring Govt

Shame on them ...........  guys, take a look-in at your near neighbours this winter and try to ensure they are still alive afterwards eh !

Best wishes

Malc

[fourbanks]

 In my opinion, the old age pension ought to have been aligned with the rest of the EU years ago, eliminating the need for additional benefits like the winter fuel allowance altogether.

In the same way, pension credits would not be required. They have been saying for years that they will continue to try to reach out to individuals who do not claim it, so they assert.

I'm an OAP, and everyone in my age group that I've known would never ask for a handout like pension credit.

[John Adams]

12 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

 

I understand that it means £300 less for you, and I understand you may be upset about it, but hopefully it will go to more worthy place.

It won't mean £300 less for me because I am not over 80. As for going to a more worthy place it will probably go towards people who have never contributed anything in their life. But that's another story.  Anyway, have a good evening as I am about to be busy planning my next world cruise!

[Linas.P]

12 minutes ago, Malc1 said:

as I said earlier  ....  Linas ....  I just despair ......... you're thinking mode seems to be totally anti OAPs with any money at all, or living in a home that's too big in general ......but I'm not here to throw insults and prejudices around .......... simple fact, many OAPs will die this winter coz of the increase in energy costs upcoming and the breadline they live upon having that simple lifeline removed by the Govt of the ..........

Winter Fuel Payment 

..............Reeves and Starmer have simply and rapidly and bluntly set in train the Govt inspired deaths of many, possibly 000s of OAPs who have done nothing wrong other than to live too long and been too careful with their assets and reserves and worried incessantly about  " making ends meet " ........ and not claiming some entitled Benefits or not being eligible to, just not being eligible to .........with incomes so low they have to shiver and die in the cold at home ......  this will happen I have no doubt and the shame will be forever imprinted on the face of this Non-Social Caring Govt

Shame on them ...........  guys, take a look-in at your near neighbours this winter and try to ensure they are still alive afterwards eh !

Best wishes

Malc

Sorry Malc, I just can't see how this could be true. 

If as you say people were so careful with their assets, then they should see that their biggest asset, primary residence, is worth a lot of money. If somebody is so cold in their home that they are shivering and as you described even going to die from cold, then I just can't understand why they choose to sit on maybe £500,000 worth of property... and continue suffering. 

Almost reminds me the cartoon of duck shivering from cold and throwing $100 bills into the fire... Ironically that is quite accurate for many. 

Reeves and Starmer personal fortunes are irrelevant here, winter fuel payment was just fundamentally invalid policy to begin with, and ending it is good decision. 

[wharfhouse]

1 hour ago, Linas.P said:

Sorry Malc, I just can't see how this could be true. 

If as you say people were so careful with their assets, then they should see that their biggest asset, primary residence, is worth a lot of money. If somebody is so cold in their home that they are shivering and as you described even going to die from cold, then I just can't understand why they choose to sit on maybe £500,000 worth of property... and continue suffering. 

Almost reminds me the cartoon of duck shivering from cold and throwing $100 bills into the fire... Ironically that is quite accurate for many. 

Reeves and Starmer personal fortunes are irrelevant here, winter fuel payment was just fundamentally invalid policy to begin with, and ending it is good decision. 

But a lot aren't in £500k houses - away from the south (and even in some places in the south) they may well be in small / terraced houses only worth a fraction of that so they have limited opportunities to do anything. 

[Scotlex]

Annoyed pensioners should maybe join in with the rioting and looting 😀

[Boomer54]

1 hour ago, Linas.P said:

It is up-to you if you chose to take the offence, but that was not my goal (to insult). 

If winter fuel payment or triple lock on pensions impacts your voting decisions, then you are gullible, easily bought... or simply selfish. If not then not. It is fact that pensioners as a group are more easily gullible, just think about it - when was the lest time fraudsters took money from working 30, 40, 50 years old telling them that their kids are in trouble, despite the person not even having kids... never happened. Yet it happens often to seniors. Also it is very clear that favourable policy towards pension and other retirement benefits buys votes. Whenever your vote was bought in the same way - I don't know, but many pensioners vote in such way. 

I would add - don't take it personally, I never said "John who is pensioner is gullible", but pensioners in general are more gullible. And winter fuel payment is stupid policy which clearly exists for only one reason and that reason is clearly political - such policy can be more broadly described as "pandering" or "vote buying" i.e. policy that clearly exists to win political support than to address any broader public needs. Or we can simply call it "electoral strategy" - all parties are at fault for it. Sad truth - almost ALL policies exists in some way to appeal to certain demographics. It is just happens to be the case that for politicians the key demographics is elderly people... be it because they are more gullible, or just because they are more likely to vote, or other reasons.

It is certainly not true that I don't like pensioners, it is inevitable that some part of my family are pensioners and I will be pensioner at some point, so this would be just if I didn't like pensioners specifically. However, I do not like pandering, I do not like vote buying, I do not like populism and certainly I do not like electoral strategies that buys votes of certain demographist at the cost of the rest of the society. Also I am idealist, which as far as I know is not curable disease, so I would ideally like for politicians to make hard decisions which may not be popular, but makes the country the better place to live for everyone. Scrapping stupid winter fuel subsidy is one such step. 

I understand that it means £300 less for you, and I understand you may be upset about it, but hopefully it will go to more worthy place... Unlikely, probably will be gobbled up by corruption and inefficiencies in our government, not specifically labour as parliamentary party, but overall governance which is not fit for purpose and very inefficient. Yet I still support scrapping of it in principle, because it was objectively bad policy.

For a reasonably intelligent man you are showing a lot of naivety. Vote buying policy knows no bounds by age group, gender, or most criteria that have the ability to swing marginal votes. Would have thought you already knew that, but your posts above suggest not.

[Linas.P]

8 minutes ago, wharfhouse said:

But a lot aren't in £500k houses - away from the south (and even in some places in the south) they may well be in small / terraced houses only worth a fraction of that so they have limited opportunities to do anything. 

True, not all houses are £500k, but I would struggle to find one for less than say £200k, even in very rural areas they are expensive... sure there are some particularly depressed areas in North East England where homes are even below £100k... but even with £100k one can buy nice seaside bungalow in Spain and still have £50k left in the bank account... on top of the state pension. Basically, one can transfer their miserable life in UK to nice life in Spain + Lexus LC500.

Now sure... one may say - "but Linas - British pensioners can't go to Spain anymore"... and that is true - perhaps they should have thought better before voting for brexshaite.

Also one may say "but if life is so good in Spain, then why more people don't just go to live there"... and the answer to this is - because they are not pensioners, they need to work, they need to be at work, they can't live on the beach in Spain... but pensioners can, they don't need to travel to work, so they can take full advantage of going to the country with low cost living and take their use their assets from UK to fund literally lavish lifestyle there. Spain isn't even best value, it is even cheaper in South-eastern Asia.

In either case having £100-500k is much better than not having ANYTHIGN at all, and a lot of working families don't have anything at all nowadays, and not for lack of trying, but just because they simply can't even save for deposit to get the loan for their first home. That is real issue which needs to be resolved as priority.