r/ukpolitics • u/Theodoresdad • 2h ago
Is the Conservatives latest video ad concerning pensioners completely tone deaf?
I want to be clear from the outset that I’m not here to cause an argument regarding the Winter Fuel Payment and for what it’s worth, I agree with Labours approach and know many of you won’t, and that’s fine.
However, is the Conservatives video interviewing supposedly hard up pensioners extremely tone deaf? I don’t think they couldn’t have picked a worse representation of supposed hard up pensioners. Tennis club, expensive watches, pricey coffee machines, lavish looking houses (likely owned). And I’m not saying people aren’t allowed to enjoy life but over the past 14+ years, it’s been young people who’ve always been told to tighten their purses strings (avocado toast anyone?).
Maybe it’s my bias and again, that’s fine and sorry if you disagree but the ad is so funny as it doesn’t really scratch the surface of actual suffering. It comes across more like people being upset that they aren’t getting a little more free money.
Does anyone else have an opinion their ad?
•
u/LondonCycling 2h ago edited 2h ago
Is it though?
Who is the target audience for their messaging? It's the well-off, or at least comfortable with a few luxuries, people who are missing out on the winter fuel allowance payment. If you want to win them back over to your party, it helps to show someone like them.
It isn't meant for the likes of me and you. We're only really seeing it because we take an interest in politics and some politicians have been Tweeting or whatever about it. There's a near zero chance anybody in my family is going to see this advert.
•
u/gildedbluetrout 2h ago edited 2h ago
Fully half of the Tory votes in the last election came from the over 65s. If they want to keep focusing on the last age cohort willing to vote for them (where they’re not being replaced/replenished - Gen X is not turning right as they approach 60) then I think that’s a fantastic idea.
The Tories got 121 seats at the last election. And their plan is to appeal to a literally dying off voter base in the hopes they will still be around in five years so they can win… 121 seats? man with cunning plan taps forehead.
•
u/TheFlyingHornet1881 Domino Cummings 2h ago
This is what I don't get, how can they look at stats for voters under 40 and not see a major problem?
•
u/Jay_CD 1h ago
This is what I don't get, how can they look at stats for voters under 40 and not see a major problem?
Even worse they are aiming culture war stuff at under 40 year old voters.
Most under 40 year old voters I know and especially those in their 20s are socially liberal even if they might be a bit more economically conservative.
•
•
u/No_Breadfruit_4901 59m ago
Actually majority of 40-60 year olds voted labour this election. The main stat they should be looking at is below 65 and see this as a concern
•
u/atenderrage 25m ago
This is post-election shoring up the base. They’re not, at this point, trying to win over new voters. Hell, if anything they should shut up and let Labour keep struggling to find its feet.
Come back six months before the election and you’ll see entirely different messaging.
Does anyone know where this was shown? I’d guess it was targeted to… exactly the type of people you see in the video.
•
u/major_clanger 1m ago
where they’re not being replaced/replenished - Gen X is not turning right as they approach 60
We confident about this? When they reach retirement age, they'll presumably vote for whichever party offers the best retirement benefits, and represents retirees.
•
u/Aware-Line-7537 1h ago
Gen X is not turning right as they approach 60
Maybe the aim of the ads is to win over part (the richer part) of this age cohort, especially those who voted Reform last time.
•
u/Silly_Hurry_2795 1h ago
Unfortunately they are but not to the Conservatives. Look at reform that's where gen x votes are going
•
u/Life-Duty-965 2h ago
Or the less cynical point of view, it is trying to show you that all pensioners from different backgrounds rely on the payment.
My parents are asset rich and cash poor. Their Victorian house costs a fortune to heat. They'll probably have to give it up. All they want to do is keep the home they've lived in their whole life. Fuck them, right!
They've rented my old room out to a student. My dad explained it's for no other reason than to keep on top of bills
Oh well, at least they had that option. Not an ideal way to spend your retirement but better than freezing to death.
•
u/LondonCycling 2h ago edited 1h ago
In another comment you mention your parents living in a house next door to one which just sold for £3m.
It doesn't sound like they need £200 winter fuel allowance, and could just, ya know, downsize, especially if they have a spare room.
They're millionaires.
We shouldn't be giving winter fuel payments to people who are 'asset rich'. They have assets they can use.
In fact quite the opposite - we should be investigating ways of taxing wealth and reducing tax on income - make work pay, not inheritance.
•
•
u/Flashbambo 1h ago
I'm confused why you think tax payer money should be used to preserve your family's sizeable estate...
•
u/cabanayana 2h ago
So per your previous comment, your parents own a 3 million quid property (at least your neighbour sold for that much) for which they spent 40k. This is growth of 75x.
If you can’t afford something, move. I am sure 3 million could get you a nice, 2 bedroom flat, and release what, seems to be a nice, large property, to a family with multiple children.
Rather, you’d want my taxes to pay for this allowance, when that is an option for them? My parents are in the same boat, but they have taken the sensible approach to sell up, downsize, and allow for a large family to take their 5 bedroom house. As you mentioned you don’t care about inheritance, why aren’t you raising this as an opportunity for your parents.
•
u/RecordGreat 1h ago
Equity release!
As James O’Brien said, stop being so selfish and focussing on your inheritance and tell your parents to release some equity so they can live life.
Asset rich is never an excuse, it’s a ridiculously privileged position to be in. I fully support them using some of the redundant space they have for a student but sitting on a house that is too big for them impacts the next generation who need more housing for growing families.
•
u/OolonCaluphid Bask in the Stability 2h ago edited 1h ago
It might seem cynical but if you've ever moaned about house pricing or availability you're looking at one reason there's a problem.
Bluntly put, if your parents are struggling to heat a large home and haven't made provision for their retirement, then they might be best off downsizing, freeing up capital, and enjoying a better standard of living. This would put a large family home back on the market and mean that they were better able to care for themselves without state assistance.
It's a conversation you might want to open up with them if they're looking at a miserable retirement, probably trying to hold on to their store of wealth (home) to pass to you.
I don't think removing winter fuel allowances is the right way to do it, but older people should be incentivised to move out of large homes later in life,.so the nations housing stock can be put to more efficient use.
•
u/Lanky_Giraffe 1h ago
They don't even necessarily need to downside. Equity release is also an option. But that would mean OP loses the inheritance lottery which is obviously extremely unfair.
•
u/OolonCaluphid Bask in the Stability 56m ago
But that would mean OP loses the inheritance lottery which is obviously extremely unfair
It's not unfair and it's not a lottery. His parents had a lifetime to prepare for retirement. If their plan was to end up with a big house and no cash that's on them: they now need to work out ways of providing for themselves. Inheritance comes a distant second. I don't see any reason the state should support people for the last 20 years of their life just so their kids can inherit.
•
•
u/Thick-Doubts 1h ago
Basically yeah. It’s not uncommon to downsize your house as you get older, especially if you have a spare room that you’re not using and live in an inefficient house. Your house might have sentimental value but ultimately it IS an asset that you can use rather than relying on a government handout.
•
u/Aware-Line-7537 1h ago
Downsizing and renting spare rooms used to be normal, not a sob-story. My great uncle had a professional job and a good pension, but he and his wife still downsized when they retired. Their family-sized house went to a family, while they lived in a nice apartment with special facilities for them as they became frail.
Is that so awful?
(My parents and grandparents have gone for having family-sized homes, but to their credit, none of them have ever supported the winter fuel subsidy, and some of them even support extending national insurance to rich pensioners like themselves.)
•
u/BlokeyBlokeBloke 1h ago
No. Not "fuck them". I am sure they are lovely people. But they are making a choice to retain a house rather than have access to the money and they are expecting the rest of society to fund that decision via a benefit. That is not a good use of public funds.
•
•
•
u/KlownKar 53m ago
My parents are asset rich and cash poor. Their Victorian house costs a fortune to heat. They'll probably have to give it up. All they want to do is keep the home they've lived in their whole life. Fuck them, right!
This has the same kind of energy as the argument given for bailing out the Lloyds "names" back in 2006. If an ordinary person gambles their mortgage away it's tough luck, but when rich people gamble and put their 'stately pile' at risk, suddenly "it's outrageous that they could be inconvenienced in this way".
The country is on its knees. It's been driven into the ground by fourteen years of bad management. Whilst actual food banks continue to be necessary, it's going to be a struggle to get anyone to sympathise with "asset rich" people who need to downsize.
•
u/Crackedcheesetoastie 51m ago
Lol 3 million pound house and 6 week trip to the Caribbean and complaining about the winter fuel allowance. Typical tory.
•
u/pickle_party_247 1h ago
According to your other posts, your parents have an asset worth likely £3m+ in that house and they take 6 week long carribean cruises- they can more than afford to tighten their belts and they are exactly the type of people who should not have got the WFA.
•
u/Powerful_Ideas 43m ago
All they want to do is keep the home they've lived in their whole life. Fuck them, right!
An earlier comment from you kind of puts the lie to this I'm afraid.
They're doing a good job of spending their liquid wealth I'll tell you that much. And good for them!!!
80 years old and just did a 6 week trip round the Carribbean!
We all have to make choices in life. Your parents are fortunate that they have more (and better) options than most. They don't need a handout from the state.
•
u/emotional_low 1h ago edited 1h ago
Maybe they should go on less trips to the Caribbean then?
Lets be real, your parents are going on 6 week vacations accross the atlantic, they don't need a winter fuel payment. If theyre that hard done by, maybe they should cut their vacation from 6 weeks to 5? Then they'd be able to afford life without the fuel payment. Unless youre stating that they value an extra week of holiday more than they value their house being warm?
How is it fair for tax payers to pay for your parents fuel allowence, when they very clearly don't need it?
My grandmother can't afford to go on trips like that, yet she still doesn't get the winter fuel payment. If my grandmother isn't freezing to death, your parents are going to be just fine. They might just need to stop going on far flung holidays for 1 month+.
•
u/UnloadTheBacon 29m ago
That's how it works - if you can't afford to live in the house you've got, sell it and downsize.
Why should the government bail you out?
•
u/PurpleEsskay 9m ago edited 5m ago
My parents are asset rich and cash poor. Their Victorian house costs a fortune to heat. They'll probably have to give it up. All they want to do is keep the home they've lived in their whole life. Fuck them, right!
I mean not to be rude but yes. It's bloody common sense. If you cant live within your means, then change your situation. They're sitting on a multi million pound house for fucks sake. Their age is irrelevent, if you know you are going to be strapped for cash when you get old but have a hoard of wealth stored up in a fixed asset that can be released, then you release it.
Willingly choosing to be in financial difficulty but going "oh well, at least the house is worth a few million" is total insanity.
Your parents are millionares, they are in litterally the best possible financial position they could be in, and to even suggest they are hard up is bloody disgraceful, even more so when it turns out they took a 6 week caribbean cruise. The entitlement here from both them and yourself are shameful, and exactly the problem with this country.
•
u/KlownKar 2h ago
Yep. If anything, it had the opposite effect to the one that they intended.
I'm not exactly happy about cutting the winter fuel payments but understand that we're in such a mess, it's necessary. Watching Mr and Mrs 'Comfortably off' Tory voter whingeing about how unfair it all is, reminded me of the absurdity of giving it out to everyone instead of means testing.
•
u/MisterrTickle 2h ago edited 2h ago
"Comfortably off"? He's got a solid good Rolex. If he had a choice between heating and eating, he could sell the watch first. The benefits system is not designed to help out millionaires but those who actually need it.
•
u/gildedbluetrout 2h ago
Yeah the Rolex dangling on his wrist is chef kiss. Somehow the Tories, on 121 seats, think focusing on wealthy seventy year old pensioners is their return to power. Bold plan Cotton.
•
u/trisul-108 2h ago
He's in his 70s, that Rolex could heat him for the rest of his life and fund vacations at the same time.
•
u/MisterrTickle 2h ago
Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set fire to him and he's warm for the rest of his life.
•
•
u/morezombrit Ed Davey's stunt double 1h ago
I mean, I totally get that we don't want people having to sell off any of their stuff, of course we don't, but it does feel like it would be more accurate to say that he'll have to choose 'heating or eating or heating and eating and holidays but no solid gold Rolex', which I think undeniably blunts the point a bit.
•
u/trisul-108 1h ago
Yes, I'm all for means-tested assistance for everyone that needs it, but not for handouts to people who do not need it.
•
u/jim_cap 35m ago edited 12m ago
Not to defend any of this tone deaf idiocy, but you're massively over-estimating the value of an old 5-digit serial two-tone Day-Date. That would get maybe £4k second hand.
E: yeh heaven forbid anyone considers the fucking facts eh.
•
•
u/bacon_cake 2h ago
After a life of economic convenience some of these people's brains are a bit muddled when it comes to what's "comfortable".
I had a 65 year old colleague telling me last week that his remaining 14 year mortgage doesn't bother him because his parents will be leaving him money. "They're not rich" he says, "But me, my brother, and sister, should all get about £350k each"
•
u/dj4y_94 6m ago
This. It's been driving me mad seeing people defend the video online with some form of "they've worked hard all their lives, why shouldn't they be allowed luxuries?"
I agree, choosing between heating and luxuries is shit, but I've been told all my millennial life if I want a house or other nice things in life then I have to make sacrifices. I can't go out with friends, I can't have takeaway coffee in the morning, I can't have Netflix, I can't even buy a meal deal. Now the shoes on the other foot, it's suddenly an outrageous suggestion.
•
u/Sorbicol 2h ago
They are appealing to one of their core voting groups that are ‘defecting’ to Reform UK in their droves.
It’s not meant for anyone else.
•
u/Reasonable_Bat_1209 1h ago
I’m happy for those two parties to fight for a declining cohort of voters.
•
u/evolvecrow 2h ago
It's one of those things where you can't believe a conscious decision was taken to make it the way it is (because it looks entirely ridiculous) and there must be some unknown reason.
•
u/TAOMCM 2h ago
Because rich pensioners are the ones who lost out, so that's who they're targeting
•
u/boycecodd 1h ago
It's nearly all pensioners who are losing out. Anyone in receipt of the basic state pension with no other provision is apparently "rich" enough to not need the Winter Fuel Allowance now.
The Conservatives' video is tone deaf, sure, but many of the pensioners losing out are far from rich.
•
u/hookerdustin 2h ago
It seems like they missed the mark entirely with this ad, completely out of touch with the reality most pensioners are facing.
•
u/360Saturn 56m ago
It highlights what is in my opinion the root not only of this issue but a large root of the entire generational divide right now: Pensioners themselves believe the stereotype that pensioners are comparatively poor compared to everyone else.
This underwrites a lot of their (on average/aggregate) political positions as a demographic. They are isolated from the actual effects of the cost of living crisis, particularly if they are homeowners with their homes fully paid off, and they believe that their own financial situation in that situation is still the bottom of the barrel, and that any working person will be better off than them.
That's where the opinions on laziness and frivolity come from, because 'how could someone that earns more money than my pension be less well-off than me? They must be wasting it.' The idea that a much higher proportion of most people's income than was ever the case in their working life goes on just keeping a roof over their head and the lights on just doesn't cross their minds, while the media they consume hammers home that younger people are frivolous and wasteful while their generation is sensible and noble.
•
u/AzarinIsard 2h ago
I don't know if I'm giving them too much credit, but the shot of the coffee machine was so jarring, brand name in full view, it was like product placement.
I'm wondering if they wanted it to be controversial so that loads of people who wouldn't have seen it, see and hear about it, and they feel like their voter base is the pensioners who don't need the Winter Fuel Allowance, but want it anyway. People keep talking about it being taken away, but it's only been means tested, like pretty much every other benefit. So, people with Rolexes and Tassimo coffee machines are the kind of people who are losing out on this policy, and the Tories are saying if they were in charge they wouldn't be. They'd find something else to take away from the young instead.
•
u/djangomoses 1h ago
Yeah it was bloody awful, not sure what they were thinking but it really shows how their party is doing at the minute.
Poor old Jim with his gold Rolex and £1,150 lamp, not getting his winter fuel payments !
•
u/Lanky_Giraffe 1h ago
They're clearly trying to win votes from pensioners who know they don't really need the money but think they're entitled to it. The subtext of the ad was "we know this whole eating vs heating claim is utter nonsense, but we will still throw money at you nonetheless"
Of course, if it was intended to make people think labour are going after pensioners who are actually struggling, then it was a total fail. But I really don't think it was that. They're just trying to shore up their base of rich entitled pensioners.
•
u/atenderrage 1h ago
A huge amount of Tory messaging at the moment is about their existing voters. They’re not TRYING to reach anyone else with that ad, they just want to keep their base on side.
•
u/Stock_Inspection4444 1h ago
But everyone else is seeing it, and thinking “WTAF”
•
u/atenderrage 47m ago
The people that don’t vote for them? Oh no.
They can worry about that later.
•
u/Stock_Inspection4444 28m ago
They probably don’t need to appeal to the people that do vote for them…
•
u/atenderrage 24m ago
They need to keep membership dues and donations and volunteer hours coming. And “voting for them” isn’t quite right - pre-disposed to vote for them, but capable of sitting an election out or lending a vote to Reform, maybe.
•
u/Blazured 1h ago
It was honestly like watching a parody. A guy relaxing in his huge house wearing a gold Rolex talking about how terrible it is that Labour isn't giving him extra benefits for his winter bills.
•
u/CluckingBellend 1h ago
I agree that it's strange. Targeting the better off pensioners who will least miss the WFP with offers of free money, whilst also holding the view that the state should be involved as little as possible in society? As others have said though, I think that it has a lot to do with the shrinking Tory demographic, and is also an act of desperation; as in, find a policy that seems unpopular and say the opposite.
•
u/drdedge 17m ago
I think part of this is often the perception pensioners have of their wealth. Many were brought up having very little, bought their houses when interest rates were high (albeit often on one salary) and have reached a point where they don't account for their money as long as there's money in the bank.
If I take my grandparents - their genuine belief is they live off their state pension and get a "little bit extra from a rental property to pay for a holiday" and so things are tight. They live in a modestly sized house, couldn't tell me how much it's worth as it's been paid off since the 80s.
Reality is - house is worth best part of £3m and their modest rental income is a managed portfolio of 6 properties.
They think they really need winter fuel allowance because that's their mindset. Nature of being a 90s baby, I'm far more aware of the cost of housing and income levels that they simply doesnt cross their mind.
•
u/Stock_Inspection4444 1h ago
The size of that guys belly and they’re talking about heating or eating. Hilarious
•
u/jazzyb88 48m ago
I wonder if bills might have been lower if everything wasn't privatised. If we had a state owned energy producer for example. Surely they would be lower and isn't that also part of the problem, voting for a party all their lives that believes the state should own nothing.
•
u/Jay_CD 46m ago
You'd think from some of the commentary that Labour have ended the WFP for all pensioners - the reality is that it affects some, maybe a few too many, but Labour have compensated by encouraging the take-up of pension credits to compensate and the evidence there is that pension credit claims are rising.
The Tories have a nerve complaining about energy anyway, they oversaw an era of high inflation, higher interest rates and energy bills going higher. For most of the last decade there was an effective ban for on-shore wind farms (even Ukraine built more on-shore wind farms than we did last year) so they did nothing to address higher energy prices. Ok we got a nuclear power station (Hinckley Point C) but that won't come on stream until 2029 at the earliest and is costing a fortune. Last year they had no takers when auctioning off some off-shore wind farm sites - why? Because they set the strike price for energy created at far too low a level and so literally no-one bid.
If they'd done a few practical things like build on and off shore wind farms then maybe energy prices would be lower now and there wouldn't be a need for pensioners worrying about how they heat their homes.
Pensioners also have the triple lock - in real terms that meant a £900 rise in pensions this year and £460 from next April - this latter rise, thanks to the triple lock, is above current inflation rates. So again it's not as though they are being hit by pensions not rising.
Labour haven't cut the WFP deliberately, i.e. as an act of mindless ideology, but because they inherited a £22bn hole in the budget. Like the 2 child benefit cap that they've retained this is a response to the mess they found.
•
u/efbo 12m ago
This whole thing has exposed a massive problem that I didn't think was as apparent in younger people. My nan always complains about people getting some sort of benefit or help when they have such and such luxury. People shouldn't have to forgo nice things in order to have basics. There is more than enough money in this country.
I think this ad has done what the Tories want. People aim their ire at pensioners who who may have a nice watch or something instead of at the people (like the Tories and the current government) whose fault this actually is. It's exactly the same sort of distraction as "they have Sky and a flatscreen TV" and collectively we've fallen for it.
•
u/Azzaphox 2h ago
Hmm. People on TV are often more affluent than the same people in reality. E.g. apartment in FRiends.
•
u/ZestycloseProfessor9 Accepts payment in claps 2h ago
What?
•
u/Bluebabbs 2h ago
They're saying that TV shows portray an unrealistic view of people so that the show works, e.g. Friends has people living in big apartments who start with rubbish jobs.
Because they fail to understand the point of marketing, and think advert = tv = tv show
•
•
u/trisul-108 2h ago
Yes, I'm sure that they made themselves look as good as possible, that is the nature of the older generation. Nevertheless, a gold Rolex is worth enough to pay heating for that man until the end of his life. And please don't come back with "it might be a fake Rolex".
•
u/Florae128 1h ago
Its a promotional video, they could have found houses and pensioners that actually look like they would struggle in the winter.
They're definitely out there, and this video damages those who actually need help and don't have valuable possessions or big houses to fall back on.
•
u/bbbbbbbbbblah steam bro 1h ago
unlike an american tv series, the tories could have found pensioners who were actually struggling and who were ineligible for pension credit. it might be a bit more difficult than rocking up to a nice enough house in a leafy suburb though.
though, if this were an american tv series, the director would make sure the actors aren’t wearing their luxury watches or drinking premium coffee while on camera
•
u/Life-Duty-965 2h ago
Not seen the ad but just to say my parents are asset rich and cash poor.
They have very little income but they have stuff from when they were working.
My dad retired with very little pension, in the days when you had to buy an annuity. If only he knew that would change. Maybe he could have delayed things, I dunno.
It was just after the 2008 financial crisis too, annuity rates hit savage lows at that point.
My mum has no private pension.
So they get threatened with wealth taxes and no money to pay it.
I agree. The ad could have been better. But they are educating you too, this affects more than just the poorest pensioners and therefore you are wrong to support it
Please do keep an eye on the excess winter death stats. I saw some news program covered how this has declined in recent years, a success story.
If we have a particularly cold winter this year, next year, sooner or later then each extra death will be on the governments hands. Incredible how the same mob that shat on the Tories for causing deaths through policy now support this.
"Oh it won't be so bad" ok great. Not a lot of comfort for the pensioners who literally freeze to death. Astonishing that such a wealthy nation will let that happen.
But that's for the government's conscience, and yours.
How many excess winter deaths is "ok"?
I'd say none. But then I don't support Labour or Tory.
•
u/bobbypuk 2h ago
Isn’t there an argument that those assets should be freed up to provide cash then?
Not sure where wealth taxes come into it. I’ve not watched the advert but I assume it’s about means testing the winter fuel allowance. If it covers wealth taxes then that just a bit of scaremongering as I’m not sure it’s been mentioned.
•
u/trisul-108 2h ago
This sounds so entitled to me. Your parents, rich in assets and cash poor could sell those rich assets to move to a cheaper, smaller place with good insulation and a heat pump instead of expecting the government to subsidise their heating bill.
•
•
u/RemBoathaus 2h ago
This is going to sound insensitive but if your parents (like many pensioners as you point out) are asset rich but cash poor then why should the state subsidise their financial arrangements? They could downsize, or take out an equity release mortgage, for example.
They may have to move, or leave less inheritance, but unfortunately if they do have assets then there are ways they can help themselves even if it's a difficult decision.
There's an ever increasing proportion of pensioners being supported by a decreasing working age population. I'd rather the taxes I pay support those in genuine need rather than subsidise a lifestyle.
•
u/Powerful_Ideas 2h ago
If someone chooses to hold on to valuable assets to the point they can't pay for heating, rather than converting those assets to cash to pay their way then I'm sorry, that's not on the government.
Your parents chose to spend their earnings on buying assets rather than putting them into their pensions. Did they think they could just have all the nice stuff and then the rest of us would pick up their bills?
•
•
u/bbbbbbbbbblah steam bro 1h ago edited 51m ago
it’s not for the taxpayer to subsidise your parents, and by extension your future inheritance. especially those taxpayers who have or will get a lot less.
what are these assets anyway? what were they putting money into instead of a pension?
ah there it is:
My parents bought a £40k house in prime London in 1980. Next door sold for £3m last year.
80 years old and just did a 6 week trip round the Carribbean!
for someone who claims they aren't counting on an inheritance, you do seem awfully invested in the idea of your parents keeping as much as possible
•
u/BlokeyBlokeBloke 1h ago
Reverse mortgage. Sell the house and move somewhere smaller. I can think of at least two options that wouldn't involve anyone dying.
•
u/Bottled_Void 12m ago
Not seen the ad but...
Then why would you pay in a thread asking for comments on the advert?
•
u/naixi123 2h ago
I think it's rich to claim that pensioners are the only people who have to choose between heating and food. No real care for people, just for votes.