No.
The government stepped in because poor people (and many not so poor) could not afford to heat their homes over winter.
It is (was) an emergency measure. The transition to green energy is well under way in the UK, regardless of temporary subsidies.
Saying "but the poor" while throwing money at the rich is pretty self-contradictory IMHO. If they'd at least made cash payments, even if it was the same per household, it would at least have incentivised people not to waste energy. But no, it specifically rewarded people for increasing their consumption.
I do agree the implementation of the scheme was very poor.....
....the reasons for which are down to our current governments unfortunate mix of poor competence and fruity ideology (thank $Deity Liss Truss wasn't around for too long!)
But is there any evidence that's been the case, that people have increased their consumption?
Anecdotally, I can't think of anyone I know that hasn't actively reduced their usage
And yes, some kind of flat cash payment that advantaged poorer people would've been better. And much as I loathe the Tories, I doubt they took the route they did because they wanted to give money to the rich in this case, or even encourage electricity usage growth. Assume incompetence before malice: they needed to do something to staunch the flow, and a price cap per unit was something they could do there and then without engaging extra bureaucracy, which a cash payment would've required.
It's a bad policy, but it's from the same government that paid people to eat out at restaurants during a viral pandemic, rather than a specific response to the war.
I'm not sure about here in the EU, but the UK has a cost of living crisis such that millions[0][1][2] are regularly skipping meals. People in that situation don't have the spare money be able to install PV or upgrade their insulation.
[0] https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/one-four-britons-skip-meals...
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/education/2023/jan/26/uk-student...
[2] https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/oct/18/millions-for...
- bread: £0.39 £0.05/100g
- chicken soup: £0.60 £0.15/100g
- 1KG rice: £0.48 £0.48/kg
- Baked beans: £0.50 £1.19/kg
- Kidney beans: £0.59 £2.46/kg DR.WT
- Tinned mackerel: £0.85 £0.97/100g DR.WT (sardines are half the price)
- Eggs: £0.20 / piece
- 500g pasta: £0.41 £0.82/kg
People are probably just used to eating take-out or buying £8 microwave dishes for the whole family and don't know how to cook on a budget.
If you're really desperate, markets usually put aside vegetables that are too old to sell but you can make soup out of them no problem.
This all isn't very appealing or even healthy (although compared to microwave or takeout ...), but at least you're not going hungry.
If you can only send your kid to school with 1 slice of bread, you have other problems than money.
It is when you consider many people simply don't know how to cook simple, healthy food. Our schools no longer teach basic cookery (and many parents neglected to pass on the skills).
Or more likely were never taught those skills, either.
Per calorie you can do similar with value brand digestives.
However, so far as I can see in the reporting, many people in the UK really are that short of money — It's not just not being able to budget right (dyscalculia is a thing, but not common enough to explain current observations by itself).
I also think that, just as pubs are required to supply free water on request[1], they should also supply free unflavoured lentils-and-rice on request, given how cheap it is.
> If you can only send your kid to school with 1 slice of bread, you have other problems than money.
They do indeed have other problems than money — money is also a problem, just not the only one.
I was going to add that a significant number can't even manage as much as one slice of bread, however all the news I can find specifically about schoolkids skipping specifically breakfast (and not the generic mass hunger I previously gave examples of) turned out to be reporting the same two studies by two different foods companies so I don't trust that factoid.
[0] 20 years ago: breakfast was Quaker oats with skimmed UHT, sugar, and whichever dried sultanas or raisins was cheaper; skipped lunch; dinner was Chinese instant noodles from Lidl at 13p per pack; total daily was about 50p
[1] I'm told the law is more complicated, but in practice this is observed
This isn't about money. We have 64% of the adult population overweight and obese, 22% at age 5, and 37% at age 10. All those numbers are growing.
The excuse often brought up is that it's "expensive to eat healthy". Absolute bollocks. It's far more expensive to eat ready-meals, order takeaway, and dine out than to buy ingredients and cook.
For snacks, a banana costs £0.15 and fills you up for longer than a £1.00 chocolate bar. But people want the chocolate bar!
I've lived in a city centre apartment block for the last few years. The frequency with which I've seen the people around me having McDonalds, burgers, pizzas, and other oily, salty, high fat, high calorie food delivered shocks me. For some people, it's upwards of 5 times a week!
If you go to a "local" or "express" supermarket, microwavable ready meals and junk food represent most of the aisles, and when you take a glance at the shopper next to you, they are buying mostly junk and inconvenience food.
If you go to a supermarket after school closing time, you'll see tens/hundreds of kids buying energy drinks (despite the age limit), multipacks of chocolates, biscuits, sweets, crisps, 1 litre bottles of pop. Evidently, they have the money for it (from their parents). University students across the country keep fast food and takeaways in business via their student loans and grants.
When people here do cook, it's:-
1) Stir fry 2) Spaghetti Bolognese 3) Pasta and sauce dish 4) Something on toast/jacket potato
Every meal that gets microwaved in my office for lunch is one of these 4 things. Basically just throwing a bunch of stuff in a wok and mixing for 10 minutes.
This is of course all anecdotal, but it's plain as day that it's about personal choice for many people, and not money. Our country has a serious problem with food and alcohol addiction, and an extreme aversion to exercise. Most people would wipe out their life savings/all of their income to eat slop as much as possible, at the detriment to their finances and health.
Every stage of British life, from infanthood, primary and high school, to university and beyond prepare the population for gorging on high energy, salty, oily junk food.
We will easily hit 75% overweight/obesity by the end of the decade.
I have panels too. But I also have friends that can't pay their energy bill this month.
https://www.lbbd.gov.uk/news/2021/free-solar-panels-barking-...
(there is now an income limit which I disagree with but whatever...)
I told my neighbours and enthusiastically recommended them.
They "weren't sure". Here we are 2 years later and they're concerned about energy prices.
The problem here is not and should not be money. I'd be all for free insulation, solar panels, better boilers, etc. And we rightly already do all that.
Then people say no because doing things is scary and why bother when you'll just be bailed out? That's the "small-c conservative" mindset we need to get out of. It causes 101 other social issues too but now I am just ranting.
I hope the link above inspires others to get them too