Both sides' best-rated arguments pointed at the same culprit: energy bills. Members voted comfortably to keep the Winter Fuel Payment, but the debate was less about the payment than about what it is compensating for.
The most-respected No case called the payment “vital for pensioners on low income” and insisted “Energy costs are the problem”, not the allowance. Others were blunter: one voter described pensioners deciding “whether to eat or heat”, another told Yes voters to “give your head a wobble”. One No voter added an administrative argument, that means-testing means spending “a lot of money on admin”.
Yet a good share of No voters came with caveats. Several said it “shouldn't be scrapped but it should be means tested”, which sits close to what Yes voters wanted. The Yes side's most-respected case argued for “better control of energy prices” so the payment would not be needed. Another Yes voter urged tackling the cause by building nuclear generation, while a third objected to universal benefits reaching the wealthy.
That overlap is the finding. Yes voters said they did not doubt poorer pensioners' need, and a good many No voters conceded the rich do not need the cheque. What separated them was whether to remove a universal payment before the energy problem was fixed.
One No voter put the bottom line in a single line: “Fix the system and then it wouldn't be needed.”
81 Opinions
We should live in a country where we have better control of energy prices. There would be no need to have the Winter Fuel allowance.
Voted Yes. Not because pensioners don't need it: those reliant on just the state pension often live in poverty and desperately need all the help they can get. But the current patchwork of benefits, payments, and exemptions is inefficient & hard to navigate, and many elderly are rightly too proud to apply for handouts. We should rationalise the system and give them some dignity in their old age: an pension they can get by on without having to hold up their hand for extras.
It is vital for pensioners on low income, and still woefully inadequate to allow many to stay warm in winter because of energy costs. Energy costs are the problem, a problem for everyone, not the winter furl allowance.
Yes. The answer to unaffordable energy is not another taxpayer-funded payment to compensate for high bills. Protect pensioners at risk of fuel poverty through targeted support, but tackle the cause: build reliable nuclear generation, including SMRs, and reform electricity pricing so domestic bills are less exposed to gas prices. Britain needs energy security, abundant affordable power and a long-term strategy, not an endless cycle of subsidies masking a broken system.
No, there are genuinely people out there who will yet again this winter have to decide whether to eat or heat and it's so wrong. We absolutely need to look after our pensioners as there is a large proportion that are vulnerable within our society. We really do need to do better as a country.
That and warm home grant , every year it's cold in winter and hot in summer. Save in summer ,when don't need heating ,use it in winter when you do !.
What fun! Patch this problem with a payment and get the money for it by another patch taxing something else. Help with fuel costs would not be needed if we pumped our oil and fracked our gas.
Not scrapped, no as some people really need it. It should be means tested based on tax code: nil or basic rate taxpayers get it in full: higher and additional rate tax payers don't.
People forget that by means-testing things we spend a lot of money on admin. And if rich people don’t also see the benefit then they are likely to get rid of it because it doesn’t affect them. Universal benefits are the way.
We need to guarantee a decent level of support for everyone and our current State Pension is too low. Removing a payment that makes most difference to the worst off is a regressive measure.