No, I'm merely noting what has been reported.
Ms May did not deny suggestions that ten million pensioners in the rest of the UK would lose their money Scottish Tories demand winter fuel allowance is kept for Scottish pensioners
The Conservative manifesto will set out plans to begin means-testing the winter fuel payment.
The Tories say they could save billions of pounds if they restrict the payments only to those who are classed as living in "fuel poverty".
What is the winter fuel payment and how will it change?
The Conservative Party has pledged to means test winter fuel payments for the elderly if they are returned to power after the General Election, but this will not be the case north of the border, the Scottish Tory leader has said.
Scottish Conservatives' manifesto: No means testing of winter fuel allowance
The only way billions can be raised is to cut it going to large numbers of people - 12 million payments at £200 = £2.4 billion annually. As noted there wouldn't be means testing for this in Scotland so with roughly 10% of those currently eligible being excluded from cuts this leaves around 11 million payments where saving could be made or £2.2 billion annually.
Winter Fuel Allowance: Tory means-testing to give 'trivial' savings, blasts IFS
Setting up a new means testing procedure would produce trivial amounts after the costs of doing the testing into taken into account. Using an existing means testing process (Pension Credit) imposes no extra costs on doing the tests.
Where else do you think money can come from except by cutting something like this going to large numbers of people...
Cutting it from overseas pensioners = around £300 million at best
Cutting it from those with average income and higher probably £0.8 to 1billion
Worst case scenario is cutting Winter Fuel payment completely which would save nearer £3 billion annually as over 75s get £300 vs £200.
They have said they could save billions, and yes in order to do that they will need to cut hard, they haven't said that's what they will do.And given their penchant for U-turns we can't even guarantee them doing something they have promised to do.
A 50% saving in expenditure I've also seen suggested as a likely route.We'll just have to see, same with social care.
No that's a "not even close to being in the manifesto" scenario .I'm trying to stay with what they have proposed, not what you can imagine 
Do you really thinkthey will sell off the Social Care Contract to private equity release companies?, that's a really depressing concept.I hope you are wrong.
I am perfectly ok with paying for Home/Care Home fees with a £100k floor but only if it is the actual costs incurred and not some private equity release scheme making mega bucks on the side.
They have said we can keep £100k so if that was to mean £100k less those costs that would be a step too far and there would be a national outcry.
That is the scenario doug is proposing (at great length), but it doesn't seem to be based on anything other than a cup half empty viewpoint.
Je suis un pensionnaire 
Though it is in the manifesto for now. And as such is being discussed in the media (and eagerlypicked up by other parties)
Not wanting to digress too far on this, it was just given as one example of three where they may have made a manifesto commitment too far for their voter base.
Drop pension triple lock
Social care costs taking away inheritances (already one U-Turn)
Means test Winter Fuel payment
Any of the above on their own could change voting preference, all three together can be perceived as a concerted attack on Pensioners. And no party, Tory or Labour has ever tried that before.
I have seen speculation that the Tory aim of this is too deliberately loose the election to not to have to deal with Brexit negotiations. While I wouldn't endorse that viewpoint they are certainly taking some very strange manifesto policy commitments impacting mainly on their largest voter base.
Useful info, helps put it in perspective, thanks.
I must say that scenario has very briefly crossed my mind but surely they could not be that stupid. The stakes are so high that if they intentionally handed the victory over to Corbyn they would never be elected again for a long long time.
No they didn't say we could keep that, rather that this amount wouldn't have to go for care costs.
It's the fine print loved by insurance companies. Yes, it wouldn't be going for care costs but rather to finance the care costs. And how these are to be financed is what is missing from the manifesto.
The options available are to use the type of equity release scheme I noted or to give the councils more money so they can in effect loan the care costs interest free (or very low interest) and then reclaim from the proceeds of house sales. Private sector vs Public. Where would the state get the funds to do this? How much more likely is it being the big players on the equity release side having the money and the procedures already in place to deal with this...
It's based on quite a bit of reading and knowledge of the financial companies who would be itching to get their claws into such a widened area for their products. Je suis un pensionnaire who worked for finance companies and also got screwed over by them for an endowment policy. We are talking many billions of pounds to be made.
Not very good at finance then?(That's a joke, I got screwed too)