IDS not attending debate on 'bedroom tax' in Parliment

[Rincewind]

Works and pension minister to miss the debate on the 'bedroom tax' instead opting to send a junior minister to argue his case.

 

http://www.itv.com/news/2013-11-12/iain-duncan-smith-to-miss-bedroom-tax-debate-in-commons/

[Orkneyfox]

Seems this is one of these slightly important topics that IUDS is responsible for and he will need a bloody good reason not to be there!

[Jon the Hat]

What a load of shit. People with more rooms than they need should downsize to free up larger properties for those who need them.

 

"Rachel Reeves claims the welfare change hits 660,000 housing benefit claimants with an average loss in payments of £720 per year."

 

Awaits someone telling me they all need a spare room for their wheelchair or carer.

[MooseBreath]

Such a sensible and easily defensible policy that he trusts even a kid can fend off labour.

[Julian Joachim Jr Shabadoo]

Can't understand how anyone would be against this, besides people who will be "missing out" on "their" extra rooms. Can't believe it wasn't enforced years ago

[Finnegan]

What a load of shit. People with more rooms than they need should downsize to free up larger properties for those who need them.

"Rachel Reeves claims the welfare change hits 660,000 housing benefit claimants with an average loss in payments of £720 per year."

Awaits someone telling me they all need a spare room for their wheelchair or carer.

They don't all need a spare room, no. However there is a disproportionate ratio of bedroom sizes amongst social housing stock.

Some areas in Leicester are currently converting a lot of "three bed" (they really aren't, the third is essentially an over glorified cupboard!) homes to twos to try and satisfy demand. They're been doing it since the bed tax was announced but obviously it costs money.

The bed tax sounds reasonable in principal, I know people within the authority that think its a good idea, but it isn't flawless in practice and it's application to council tenants means its another way of targeting the poorest.

[Captain...]

What a load of shit. People with more rooms than they need should downsize to free up larger properties for those who need them.

 

"Rachel Reeves claims the welfare change hits 660,000 housing benefit claimants with an average loss in payments of £720 per year."

 

Awaits someone telling me they all need a spare room for their wheelchair or carer.

 

Of course we should look to house people more efficiently, and yes we should be looking to move people into the right size property, yes we should be looking to get more people housed, but no we shouldn't be putting financial penalties on the poorest sector of the community for having a spare room when there are no other options for them.

 

It is not as simple as everyone just moving into a smaller home, there are not the smaller homes to move into and moving home takes time. You can't just rearrange people's homes like pieces on a board, people have lives, things like jobs, schools, support, dependants. Financially punishing the poorest for something they are unable to change easily just seems perverse. 

 

People are being told to move out or have their income cut, but they have nowhere to move to. Now if the housing authority has a suitable smaller property for someone to move into and they refuse, then they should pay for the privilege of staying in a bigger house and taking up the bed of someone that could make better use of it. I have no problem with that, but there needs to be the smaller properties to move into and there just aren't at the moment. They also need time to move, which they aren't being given at the moment.

 

It comes across as a money making scheme disguised as social welfare.

[Strokes]

Give everyone mansions, then let the lib dems hit them with mansion tax. Oh im sorry is that not the same?

[Zingari]

What a load of shit. People with more rooms than they need should downsize to free up larger properties for those who need them.

 

"Rachel Reeves claims the welfare change hits 660,000 housing benefit claimants with an average loss in payments of £720 per year."

 

Awaits someone telling me they all need a spare room for their wheelchair or carer.

i know people in this situation and they aren't offered alternative accommodation though .

imo , they should be offered alternative accommodation "before" having to pay any extra .

 

They don't all need a spare room, no. However there is a disproportionate ratio of bedroom sizes amongst social housing stock.

Some areas in Leicester are currently converting a lot of "three bed" (they really aren't, the third is essentially an over glorified cupboard!) homes to twos to try and satisfy demand. They're been doing it since the bed tax was announced but obviously it costs money.

The bed tax sounds reasonable in principal, I know people within the authority that think its a good idea, but it isn't flawless in practice and it's application to council tenants means its another way of targeting the poorest.

thanks Finners , you've saved me the trouble of writing pretty much the same .

[hackneyfox]

Such a sensible and easily defensible policy that he trusts even a kid can fend off labour.

It isn't sensible if you don't have the housing stock to offer a smaller home to those who will now lose money.

[Zingari]

It isn't sensible if you don't have the housing stock to offer a smaller home to those who will now lose money.

i doubt if "sense" enters into it, and it is even about saving money , it's just ideological dogma

it's just another good kicking for those  least able to kick back.

i'm sure it somehow makes them feel better about themselves

[hackneyfox]

i doubt if "sense" enters into it, and it is even about saving money , it's just ideological dogma

it's just another good kicking for those  least able to kick back.

i'm sure it somehow makes them feel better about themselves

Spot on, ideological dogma covers so many of the cuts brought in by the tories.

[MooseBreath]

It isn't sensible if you don't have the housing stock to offer a smaller home to those who will now lose money.

Not really losing money though are they. Just being given slightly less. Maybe these people can go out and wash a few cars in their street to earn the £18 a week they are "losing". Maybe they can fill out a few surveys.

Let's not forget the other end of the stick either, all these layabouts milling around in large houses makes it much more expensive for hard working young families like a lot of us on here to get on the housing ladder.

If there's a shortage of smaller properties then get these people sharing the larger ones.

[Finnegan]

[Strokes]

If there's a shortage of smaller properties then get these people sharing the larger ones.

Thats not a bad idea, the couple that live next door to me have 2 spare rooms. I would love to see someone move in with them, it might give them something else to moan about.

[Zingari]

Not really losing money though are they. Just being given slightly less. Maybe these people can go out and wash a few cars in their street to earn the £18 a week they are "losing". Maybe they can fill out a few surveys.

Let's not forget the other end of the stick either, all these layabouts milling around in large houses makes it much more expensive for hard working young families like a lot of us on here to get on the housing ladder.

If there's a shortage of smaller properties then get these people sharing the larger ones.

great idea , and why not get people with different gender children to swap with other families so they can all have same sex children and make do with 2 bedrooms. 

[Nick]

Listening to the radio a month back, in Leicester, the debt and threat of eviction has risen dramatically and not one family/person who has agreed to downsize has actually been re-homed to a smaller property as their aren't any available.

 

Something hasn't been thought through here?

[MooseBreath]

great idea , and why not get people with different gender children to swap with other families so they can all have same sex children and make do with 2 bedrooms.

Not really the same thing, zing. There are lots of single people living in properties with more than one bedroom. Absolutely no reason why a good chunk of these people can't share. Lots of young full time workers can't afford their own place so they have to share. Why does the welfare system, a supposed "safety net", require that people who don't even work must have higher living standards than those that do?

[Nick]

Not really the same thing, zing. There are lots of single people living in properties with more than one bedroom. Absolutely no reason why a good chunk of these people can't share. Lots of young full time workers can't afford their own place so they have to share. Why does the welfare system, a supposed "safety net", require that people who don't even work must have higher living standards than those that do?

 

If you ever have the misfortune to become unemployed, I feel it important you move in with Rincewind for 12 months - which should give you ample time to reflect on your argument.

[Zingari]

Listening to the radio a month back, in Leicester, the debt and threat of eviction has risen dramatically and not one family/person who has agreed to downsize has actually been re-homed to a smaller property as their aren't any available.

 

Something hasn't been thought through here?

 

 

They seem to be making policies with absolutely no thought whatsoever , it seems they're more interested in idealogical dogma that appeals to a section of their following . 

 

Not really the same thing, zing. There are lots of single people living in properties with more than one bedroom. Absolutely no reason why a good chunk of these people can't share. Lots of young full time workers can't afford their own place so they have to share. Why does the welfare system, a supposed "safety net", require that people who don't even work must have higher living standards than those that do?

i think you'll find most of those are OAP's and the tories won't do anything to upset them , it's not good for votes .

 

it really isn't that easy to relocate families every time the situation changes , ie birth , death , illness , different gender attaining age etc etc .

they really need to think more practically, and not just on the hoof policies to appease the smuggies.

the idea is not bad but it's gone off half cocked as usual  

[Strokes]

Not really the same thing, zing. There are lots of single people living in properties with more than one bedroom. Absolutely no reason why a good chunk of these people can't share. Lots of young full time workers can't afford their own place so they have to share. Why does the welfare system, a supposed "safety net", require that people who don't even work must have higher living standards than those that do?

My missus use to rent a shared house, she ended up living with some people that she is still good friends with 10 years later, despite being over 200 miles apart. We reguarly go to edinburgh to see them and they come down to us. A house is a neccessity a home is a luxury.

[Zingari]

If you ever have the misfortune to become unemployed, I feel it important you move in with Rincewind for 12 months - which should give you ample time to reflect on your argument.

[hackneyfox]

Not really losing money though are they. Just being given slightly less. Maybe these people can go out and wash a few cars in their street to earn the £18 a week they are "losing". Maybe they can fill out a few surveys.

 

 

 

 Why does the welfare system, a supposed "safety net", require that people who don't even work must have higher living standards than those that do?

What a charming attitude, and just how wrong can someone be?

[Captain...]

Listening to the radio a month back, in Leicester, the debt and threat of eviction has risen dramatically and not one family/person who has agreed to downsize has actually been re-homed to a smaller property as their aren't any available.

 

Something hasn't been thought through here?

 

Are you actually surprised, this government has failed to actually implement many of the things it wanted to, normally it is announced with a big fanfare but not thinking it through, then it either gets shot down in flames, or they press on regardless, despite huge opposition and then have to re-think things on the fly. NHS reforms, shot down in flames, Pasty Tax, implemented then removed, the English Baccalaureate, what happened to that? The fuel duty rise and the cap on charitable donations in the 2012 budget. The back to work scheme was another disaster open to exploitation. This is heading the same way and I dread to think what a mess they will make of the proposed work for benefits scheme.

 

The intention is right, there are spare rooms in social houses being paid for by the tax payer and people crying out for social housing, it should be addressed, just not like this.

[MooseBreath]

If you ever have the misfortune to become unemployed, I feel it important you move in with Rincewind for 12 months - which should give you ample time to reflect on your argument.

I lived with a few people I didn't get on with very well when I was living in shared housing. Just made me more motivated to get on and start earning enough of my own money so that I could get my own place. I don't think the possibility that you may end up sharing with people you aren't best friends with is anywhere near a good enough reason for these people to continue to live in relative luxury at the expense of the hard working tax payer, many of whom are themselves having to share houses.