Oliver Coppard to win sheffield hallam?

[WiseOwl182 10]

Yep - all those families...

 

‘Big lie’ behind the bedroom tax: Families trapped with nowhere to move face penalty for having spare room

 

Bedroom Tax: Some Home Truths

 

Oh, and can you confirm why all the text talks about people with Housing Benefit in Social Housing, when you say that this was already the policy? I can't find anything when looking for facts on this.

 

 

 

That's okay then - it's the same people so we can ignore the problem. that'll make it go away...

 

 

 

Yeah, those pesky Labour socialists making zero-hours contracts and then wanting to scrap them... Oh wait

 

"Prior to the introduction of the Working Time Regulations 1998 and the National Minimum Wage Regulations 1999 zero-hour contracts were sometimes used to "clock-off" staff during quiet periods while retaining them on site so they could be returned to paid work should the need arise."

 

So how did Labour introduce such contracts? From the facts I can find, they made them better for those on them?

 

 

 

Child Benefit was, and until recently, never has been a means tested benefit. It was paid to all and any, regardless of income.

 

 

I bet you read the Sun, soak up all the lies as facts and then you decide to come on here without any proof other than what you think you read somewhere. Please come back when you can proof that:

 

• The bedroom tax was 'only bringing it into line' rather than dealing with the actual impact
  
• Food bank usage hasn't risen by a huge amount on the last 5 years
  
• Labour created zero-hour contracts
  

 

 

Bedroom tax - prior to 2012, housing Benefit was already paid by need to private renters but people in social housing were unaffected and essentially had spare rooms subsidised in an unfair way compared with private renters on housing benefits. The government removed this subsidy, thus bringing the two types of welfare funded tenants into line. Google and read if you don't believe me.

 

Food banks - never said use hadn't increased but not to the scale being claimed in misleading stats, eg. Quoting a million visits as a million people, two very different stats.

 

Zero hours - never said Labour introduced them, employers did, whilst under a Labour government who had 13 years in charge and only crow about it once in opposition. It's opportunistic. It's also an exaggerated issue when they account for around 2% of jobs and half of those want them by choice.

[BHRemovals 10]

I will be rooting for him.

[Alan Ladd 10]

bend over you mean..

 

And there we have it, the end of the line, run out of arguments but not got the gumption to admit it.

 

Instead, the abusive obscene one liner so typical of the whinging socialist.

[hsb98c 19]

Bedroom tax - prior to 2012, housing Benefit was already paid by need to private renters but people in social housing were unaffected and essentially had spare rooms subsidised in an unfair way compared with private renters on housing benefits. The government removed this subsidy, thus bringing the two types of welfare funded tenants into line. Google and read if you don't believe me.

 

Get ready: I apologise. I misunderstood your implication and thought that you meant social housing was the first to move to means tested/by need. For that I'm sorry and you are correct that it has now 'caught up'.

 

The problem is that rather than saying 'from this line forward...' they changed the goal posts of those already in housing, and for a reason that has not been true - there isn't a wash of families waiting for larger houses. That is the Tory party wielding the sledge hammer to make society fit their agenda instantly, rather than working with people and rules to move it to a better way forward.

 

Food banks - never said use hadn't increased but not to the scale being claimed in misleading stats, eg. Quoting a million visits as a million people, two very different stats.

 

True, but up from a few thousand that's still a large jump. Whether it's the number of people/visits, the number have BOTH gone up dramatically. And again the Tories would like us to believe that those using them are exploiting the kindness of others and that they are in fact not starving, hungry or unable to purchase food.

 

In a modern society we shouldn't be relying of volunteers to feed those in need. We shouldn't be defending an increase in the number of visits or the dramatic increase in the number of food banks. We should be working out why they are there and helping that cause. In this case, the unmandated reduction in benefits and support for the worse off.

 

Zero hours - never said Labour introduced them, employers did, whilst under a Labour government who had 13 years in charge and only crow about it once in opposition. It's opportunistic. It's also an exaggerated issue when they account for around 2% of jobs and half of those want them by choice.

 

These contracts were not created under labour and in their first year in government put extra protections in place to stop exploration of them by employers. So yes in 13 years (actually within the first 2 years) they did a lot.

 

Now, under the 2010-15 coalition, those types of contracts have grown and a lot of the jobs created are where people are on these contracts.

 

Now, I don't agree that they are a bad things and Labour did wrong in implying that they are a source of all evil. As you point out that in surveys a lot people like the flexibility of them and I agree. But to blame Labour for allowing them to be created under them, and not doing anything?

[Localman 10]

Bedroom tax - prior to 2012, housing Benefit was already paid by need to private renters but people in social housing were unaffected and essentially had spare rooms subsidised in an unfair way compared with private renters on housing benefits. The government removed this subsidy, thus bringing the two types of welfare funded tenants into line. Google and read if you don't believe me.

 

Wrong. The HB rules relating to the private-rented sector applied when you embarked on a new insecure tenancy. The Bedroom Tax has been applied to existing secure tenancies and, except for a small very narrowly defined group of individuals, completely disregards the history, circumstances and the investment made by tenants on the basis of that secure tenancy.

 

Most good landlords had schemes which encouraged action where there was significant under-occupation. The Bedroom Tax has driven a coach and horses through those schemes.

 

It has clearly failed on every aspect of the business case set out for it:

• At best, it has only 'forced' a relatively small additional movement - mainly because there are not sufficient appropriate-sized alternatives.
  
• Where there has been additional movement, it has mainly been social housing to private landlord, with a higher rent for a smaller property. That's why the housing benefit bill has gone up significantly.
  
• It has been disastrous for most families affected. Why have rent and council tax arrears increased specifically within that group? It has had disastrous social consequences for most people it has affected.
  

[Alan Ladd 10]

Wrong. The HB rules relating to the private-rented sector applied when you embarked on a new insecure tenancy. The Bedroom Tax has been applied to existing secure tenancies and, except for a small very narrowly defined group of individuals, completely disregards the history, circumstances and the investment made by tenants on the basis of that secure tenancy.

 

Most good landlords had schemes which encouraged action where there was significant under-occupation. The Bedroom Tax has driven a coach and horses through those schemes.

 

It has clearly failed on every aspect of the business case set out for it:

• At best, it has only 'forced' a relatively small additional movement - mainly because there are not sufficient appropriate-sized alternatives.
  
• Where there has been additional movement, it has mainly been social housing to private landlord, with a higher rent for a smaller property. That's why the housing benefit bill has gone up significantly.
  
• It has been disastrous for most families affected. Why have rent and council tax arrears increased specifically within that group? It has had disastrous social consequences for most people it has affected.
  

 

Surely the point here is that we do not have enough council house stock. The Tories have built more council houses in 5 years than Labour did in 13.

[-Boomer- 10]

Surely the point here is that we do not have enough council house stock. The Tories have built more council houses in 5 years than Labour did in 13.

 

Is this after selling off more than they built?

[LeMaquis 10]

They have created an economy second only to the US in growth.

 

Someone's not heard of China.

[WiseOwl182 10]

Wrong. The HB rules relating to the private-rented sector applied when you embarked on a new insecure tenancy. The Bedroom Tax has been applied to existing secure tenancies and, except for a small very narrowly defined group of individuals, completely disregards the history, circumstances and the investment made by tenants on the basis of that secure tenancy.

 

Most good landlords had schemes which encouraged action where there was significant under-occupation. The Bedroom Tax has driven a coach and horses through those schemes.

 

It has clearly failed on every aspect of the business case set out for it:

• At best, it has only 'forced' a relatively small additional movement - mainly because there are not sufficient appropriate-sized alternatives.
  
• Where there has been additional movement, it has mainly been social housing to private landlord, with a higher rent for a smaller property. That's why the housing benefit bill has gone up significantly.
  
• It has been disastrous for most families affected. Why have rent and council tax arrears increased specifically within that group? It has had disastrous social consequences for most people it has affected.
  

 

That's because private tenancies aren't tenancies for life like social housing ones are, so of course it had to apply to existing ones to bring it into line.

 

I'm not trying to argue it's a perfect policy but like a lot of other things the coalition has done, it gets a very bad press based on half truths, exaggeration, a very effective Labour spin machine and a certain state broadcaster with an alleged left wing bias.

[Douglas J 10]

Surely the point here is that we do not have enough council house stock. The Tories have built more council houses in 5 years than Labour did in 13.

 

It's true we don't have enough council housing stock, after lots has been lost through right-to-buy sales. this puts pressure on the private rented sector so leads to greater hardship for young people.

 

But the bedroom tax is not caused by the shortage of housing. it's just a policy targeted at destroying stable homes.

[stressconsul 10]

The Coalition Partners are in complete disarray after Danny Alexander’s leak on proposed Tory cuts. They include:

 

1. Limiting support to 2 children in child benefit and child tax credit, so cutting up to £3,500 from a family with three children.

2. Removing the higher rate child benefit from the first child, an average cut of over £360 for every family with children.

3. Means testing child benefit – cutting £1,750 for a two child middle income family

4. Removing child benefit from 16 to 19 year olds – a cut of over £1,000 for parents of a single child.

 

Having presided over the pauperization of the working classes, Clegg and

Alexander look like baulking at the pauperization of middle class parents, many of whom form their core vote. Clegg and Alexander are scrambling to distance themselves from these £8bn cuts, while Cameron and the Chancellor try to deny that they ever thought of such a thing (at least never thought of having it leaked a week before the election). One has to guess that this is the reason the Tories refused to detail to the IFS their proposed cuts - they know they would be both dynamite and toxic.

 

I have to wonder if this means I have been wrong to think that Clegg was definitely planning to back the Tories. Maybe U Turn Clegg is trying to give himself the option of backing Labour - if he get re-elected of course.

Edited April 30, 2015 by stressconsul
To add something

[WiseOwl182 10]

The Coalition Partners are in complete disarray after Danny Alexander’s leak on proposed Tory cuts. They include:

 

1. Limiting support to 2 children in child benefit and child tax credit, so cutting up to £3,500 from a family with three children.

2. Removing the higher rate child benefit from the first child, an average cut of over £360 for every family with children.

3. Means testing child benefit – cutting £1,750 for a two child middle income family

4. Removing child benefit from 16 to 19 year olds – a cut of over £1,000 for parents of a single child.

 

Having presided over the pauperization of the working classes, Clegg and

Alexander look like baulking at the pauperization of middle class parents, many of whom form their core vote. Clegg and Alexander are scrambling to distance themselves from these £8bn cuts, while Cameron and the Chancellor try to deny that they ever thought of such a thing (at least never thought of having it leaked a week before the election). One has to guess that this is the reason the Tories refused to detail to the IFS their proposed cuts - they know they would be both dynamite and toxic.

 

I have to wonder if this means I have been wrong to think that Clegg was definitely planning to back the Tories. Maybe U Turn Clegg is trying to give himself the option of backing Labour - if he get re-elected of course.

 

I bet a lot of things got considered, but they didn't cut them so must've decided against it. So what's the big story? Government running a huge inherited budget deficit considers lots of cuts and doesn't do them all? Shock horror.

 

Releasing this a week before the election is dirty tactics from Alexander and will make it less palatable to lend Clegg my vote, but hey, that's how much I don't want Labour in.

 

Btw, where is Labour's breakdown of where all their cuts are coming from, all their tax rises, planned dates for cutting the deficit, etc? All they can name is a mansion tax that they've already spent about 3 times over.

 

---------- Post added 30-04-2015 at 20:23 ----------

 

Is this after selling off more than they built?

 

Maths isn't your strong suit, is it.