I won't have anything but old-fashioned incandescent light bulbs in the house, apart from maybe a couple of low-energy ones in areas where they are left on a long time e.g hallways.
Planet destroyer, I hear you screaming.................no, and here's why.
The amount of energy used by old style incandescent bulbs is almost negligible compared to the energy you use for other activities. One 100 watt light bulb uses 1 kW of electricity if it is left on for 10 hours, ie 1 unit costing around 15 p nowadays. So a 100W light bulb uses a tenth of a unit per hour. A 3 kW kettle would use 1 unit in a third of an hour, or 20 minutes. As a kettle takes around 3 mins to boil, it uses about 0.15 units per boil. You can leave the light bulb on for an hour and a half by comparison for each boil of the kettle. Boil the kettle 10 times a day and that's 1.5 units, enough to leave a light bulb on for 15 hours. Now think about your cooker, totals around 9 kW and left on for hours, each ring on the hob is probably a couple of kW, your immersion heater is on for a couple of hours and probably around 7 kW. A low-use household uses around 11 kW per day for cooking on electric cooker, fridges, electronics and lighting, heating and hot water probably easily add 20 kW to the total. Even five 100 W light bulbs left on for 4 hours would only burn 2 units, LESS THAN A TENTH OF YOUR TOTAL ENERGY USE.
So the maths doesn't stack up. The reason light bulbs have been banned by the EU is almost certainly due to lobbying by large manufacturers in Europe, like Phillips and Siemens, who make lights. Why would you want to sell incandescents at 50 p each when you can sell "low-energy" (which take more energy to make and dispose of, and the contents of which are highly hazardous) at £5 each, so more scope for profit. The low energy ones do not last anywhere near their advertised life.......mostly because our electricity supply is so noisy (ie variable voltage), which fries the electronics needed to drive the low-energy light. The variation on the supply will almost certainly break your expensive LED lights as well, because they have lots of complex electronics in them to drive them. They are also not as efficient as advertised judging by the heat dissipation required by the electronics. By the way, wind turbines add even more noise to the electricity supply, helping to fry all those low-energy bulbs adding to the toxic waste pile.
Halogen lights - in those useless unattractive ceiling pockmarks - are about 25 W each. People seem to put about 6 or 8 in a room whereas previously one 100 W light on a pendant would do. That's 200 W being used rather than 100 W. Crazy maths again. An incandescent bulb on pendant light the room more effectively and evenly due to the diffuse reflection of the white ceiling, giving a much pleasanter lighting environment.
The spectral content (wavelength range of the light output) of incandescent bulbs is ideally suited to our eyes and physiology, being broadband and towards the red end of the visible spectrum. We get good acuity, good colour perception, and the reddish output of incandescent bulbs mean they do not mess up our sleep rhythms and immune response when we use them in the evening. Light sources with a huge proportion of blue light may not be so safe, especially for children. Google blue light hazard.
Then there's the toxic contents - old type perfectly safe unless you cut yourself on the glass with no problem for disposal, the miniature fluorescents contain some real nasties, and the LEDs are full of rare earth metals, so the newer ones require special disposal otherwise will contaminate landfill.
And, to cap it all, changing a light bulb with those expensive modern fancy units becomes a maintenance job for an electrician involving tools, rather than just standing on a chair and taking the old bulb out with half a turn by hand.