UKH

So far over 46,700 people have died at home because they were too cold, in the last 5 years.

How can we as a nation allow people to die, not because of an illness but because they could not afford to keep themselves warm?

Who is to blame for this?

In reply to The Lemming:

Shouldn't the first question be "How do we stop this from happening?"

In reply to The Lemming:




Thatcher
God
Atheists
Jeremy Clarkson

In that order.

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

Agree, I dislike finger pointing but there is clearly a problem to resolve.

Neil

In reply to The Lemming:


Their families.

In reply to The Lemming:


That is a lot. But how is that figure reached? And what is defined as 'too cold'? Presumably most died from ailments exacerbated by low temperatures, rather than outright hypothermia

In reply to Removed User:

Oh do explain.

In reply to nufkin:

The number seems to come from this article http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/03/24/cold-homes-heating-deaths_n_6933... and it just assumes that 30% of all the extra deaths in the winter are due to cold homes, 30% apparently being the WHO figure for the whole of Europe.

In reply to The Lemming:

Short of giving everyone free heat I don't see how we can and why should we give free energy to people who can afford to buy it.
We could means test it but Joe public are already up in arms about people selling their homes (most people's biggest assets) to pay for care

In reply to Dax H:

The Big Society really isn't very big at all is it?

In reply to Removed User:


Exactly, in most nations the children look after their elders, here we seem to be okay with just leaving them to rot and leaving it to the state to deal with. If your grandmother is cold and hungry in her old age because she can't afford the basics then maybe those who are at least supposed to care about them the most should do something about it.

And at the same time they should be taking note of her state in old age and take some measures to insure they don't end up unable to support themselves in old age where possible. By which I mean getting a good pension, savings, investments or property built up between now and 50 years time.

In reply to kestrelspl:


I wonder how many of those would die within the next 6-12 months if the house was well heated? Is being cold at home [1] stealing much life, or is it just bunching up that year's deaths?

This may all sound harsh, but when there are many other causes of death in the UK that can take 20+ years of life away, there is a question of perspective and priority.

If I had to pull a way forwards out of a hat, I would reform the regressive tax that is subsidised solar-PV installations (taking money of poor, cold people through their electricity bills to create a guaranteed investment for people with sufficient capital) with the "green levy" on utility bills being based on a threshold so that those in fuel poverty do not pay it, and the money would go to insulating the houses of those in fuel poverty, not to swell the accounts of nice warm investors. Not only would this help warm up could people, it would increase the rate at which the existing housing stock is insulated, this being one under-active area with the potential to dramatically cut our fossil fuel requirements.

[1] (I won't say "fuel poverty" as it could also be "insulation poverty", "double glazing poverty", "almost fascist council won't let them have double glazing in a historic building that has been modernised with drains, heating, wiring, sash windows, carpets, etc etc")

In reply to Lord_ash2000:

Not everyone has families.

In reply to Lord_ash2000:
Thank you - Yes you either look after yourself, or you expect someone else to do it!!
Family or State.
Shock horror - we have responsibilities!
Not fashionable of course.
Brits want someone else to cover the tab, esp. socialists.
Spend your money - NOT mine!!

In reply to Removed User:

Congratulations. This surely one of the best replies ever on UKC. Shows absolutely no depth of understanding of the issue yet speaks from a completely self-assured position you are right.

Well done. Now get back in your vault and count your ill gotten gains.

In reply to kestrelspl:

Yeah that's what I found. I would dispute the validity given difference between countries, ie we do have a winter fuel allowance for pensioners.

It comes down to how far the state should or can interfere in peoples lives. I know of an elderly relative who would go without to be quite generous to her grand kids. Nobody could persuade here to do otherwise, and as she was of sound mind did anybody have a right?

In summary stats like that don't tell you anything, but it won't stop tribal types using them for political purposes. There has been a general reduction in the last 50years but it doesn't correlate with different governments.

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_241947.pdf

In reply to Father Noel Furlong:


First rules of socialism:
Deny the truth
Ignore reality
Abuse opponents
Deny free speech

Well done.

In reply to Removed User:

Eh! WTF are you on about?

In reply to Removed User:

I think you'll find that the first two rules of socialism are that you do no talk ab... I've said too much.

In reply to The Lemming:


Blanket manufacturers.

They no longer make their products to perform well for years on end like they used to. Obsolescence is now built into them so that 1 or 2 years down the line you are forced to upgrade to a new model as the old one can no longer perform it's function. How are vulnerable people supposed to keep up with the fast paced changes to blanket technology?

In reply to Removed User:


LOL. You're full of yourself (and s**t) today aren't you.
jk

In reply to kestrelspl:


It would be good to have some proper studies that don't make that sort of assumption. It's been shown that death rates for rich people also climb in the Winter, so what fraction of the Winter excess is caused by cold homes is fairly unclear. Just for example, flu rates peak every winter, and not just among the poor.

In reply to Removed User:







What are you waffling about?

In reply to Removed User:

I know a socialist, or a liberal voter more accurately perhaps, who earns more than 50K and is perfectly happy with the the idea of the wealthier paying more into society than those earning less, so that collectively society helps the poorest.

There's nothing political about selfishness, I would suggest. People of all political hues can be selfish.

In reply to Lord_ash2000:

Ah, yet more prissy homilies to morally good and prudent housekeeping skills from the self- named Lord ash. The cure-all for basically all of societies' ills it seems. Now the feckless poor are leaving their own to rot. Oh what a dreadful burden they all are to us, the parsimonious and the financially solvent.

In reply to Removed User:







Hmmm sounds like the editorial guidelines of the daily mail. Socialist rag that it is.

In reply to Timmd:

Not just me that thought that. It reminded me of the old woman on Father Ted ranting about being a racist - completely irrational.

Made me laugh though

In reply to The Lemming:

Motorists who increased the demand for fuel and increased prices beyond their reach.