Energy prices to increase dramatically from April - but support will be targeted. How would you target it?

[cakeorwine]

The energy guarantee will go from April instead of for 2 years.

The support will be targeted on the most needy.

Personally I think we need to look at some kind of tiered rates. It would need to be based on your home usage, domestic needs but some system where you get a certain amount of KWH for a certain price and then pay more for KWH if you go over that usage.

I would also look at insulating houses and try to reduce usage so less subsidy is needed for energy as well.

Fuel poverty is defined in a much more complicated way nowadays.

It's to do with house efficiency AND the income you have left if you were to heat the house adequately.

"Fuel poverty is when people have to spend a high proportion of their income to keep their home warm due to a combination of poor housing with inadequate insulation and heating, expensive energy tariffs, and low incomes. One outcome for those in fuel poverty is poor physical and mental health. NICE, which provides evidence-based guidance for NHS and social care professionals, recognises that living in a cold home will make most health conditions worse – from childhood asthma to heart disease.

Under the new LILEE definition, households are considered fuel poor if:
They have a Fuel Poverty Energy Efficiency Rating (FPEER) of band D or below (low energy efficiency).
Were they to spend the required amount on fuel to heat their home adequately, they would be left with a residual income below the official poverty line (low income

www.cse.org.uk/news/view/2683

So if you had a house that was Energy C or above rating, then by definition, you won't be in fuel poverty.

No. It's a crude measure. And they're going about the whole thing wrong, anyway

So many jobs are poor quality
People talk about a 'labour squeeze' could do with recognising the relationship between proper renumeration and employment conditions and the likelyhood of a job getting filled.

The answer is simple, widen the criteria for UC to include the squeezed middle.

The wrong direction in my view, as it simply subsidies wages for business
, but it would not require a whole new army of admin. It might require being less intensely draconian towards UC recipients.

Erm, plenty of us who have noted the labour squeeze also know full well that when people have choices, they don't want the jobs with shit pay and conditions. It's not rocket science.

Indeed, but it has become trendy among the right to refer to it without this understanding.