While I think it's too little, too late - personally, I agree with him on both those points and wish that had been implemented from the start.
Couldn't agree more David. Those are exactly the changes to the policy that I and many others have said were needed before the "Bedroom Tax/RSRS" was implemented. It is a shame that Danny Alexander and his mates didn't share this opinion when voting for this policy in parliament. It is very difficult not to be extremely cynical about this change of heart.
If any party deserves to be wiped out, it's the Tories. Yet for some odd reason they STILL have more than 30% despite them being branded as the nasty party.
Maybe those 30% think the alternatives are even worse?
You may as ask why Labour are still polling around 30% despite being branded (by me) the Incompetent Party?
If any party deserves to be wiped out, it's the Tories. Yet for some odd reason they STILL have more than 30% despite them being branded as the nasty party.
Looks like there must be a lot of nasty people around!
I have always opposed the spare room punishment (some of you may have noticed)
I outlined my personal views on how I could possibly support 'some sort' of policy to encourage people in social housing to downsize,
First of all it would be across the board, I see no reason whatsoever if the Tories claim that it is (in part) intended to help those living in overcrowded conditions is true, why is it only those claiming housing benefit who should be 'encouraged' to downsize?
(answer, because it was NEVER about Tory 'concern' for people in overcrowded living conditions, and only ever about saving a little money by imposing a lot of suffering, on the poor of course)
If a person is judged to have 'more room than they need' then what difference does it make if they aren't claiming housing benefit or if they are an OAP? they still "have more room than they need"
it would only apply to new tenants, so that it was a part of their tenancy contract from day one, IF at some point in the future the size of their family decreases they will be encouraged to move into a smaller property.
To punish tenants retrospectively for something that is beyond their control is just about the cruellest thing this government has done, (and that takes some doing) the overwhelming majority of social housing tenants did not ASK for a "spare bedroom" they usually had a family when they were allocated the property, and for any number of reasons it has got smaller, and it's usually due to a child/children growing up and leaving home, relationship breakdown, or a death,
It's like deciding to make smoking illegal tomorrow and then fining any and everyone who has ever smoked a cigarette.
As for the penalty not being imposed unless an offered a smaller place is turned down, well obviously on the face of it this sounds 'fair enough' but there should also be other considerations, the tenant should be given the right to appeal in order to say why moving to the offered place would cause unnecessary hardship, there are any number of reasons why this could be the case,
they could be moving away from their place of employment for example, they may have sick or elderly relatives living nearby who depend on them, their children may have to move schools, etc etc,
and of course anyone who has ever moved house knows that it certainly isn't cheap, where are these people, who by the very fact they have to claim, and are eligible for, housing benefit, means that they have a very low income, supposed to just 'find' the cost of moving home from?
ALL these are thing that should have been given consideration before rushing through a nasty, ill thought through, reactionary change in legislation, for (I believe) nothing other than to appear "tough on benefit claimants"
other unforeseen consequences of this farce, are that it will discourage tenants from investing in the properties or bothering to take any pride in the place.
My partner moved into this house with her 2 teenage children in 2008, she was in full time reasonably well paid employment at the time, as she had been for the majority of her adult life, (she didn't ASK to contract a rare and incurable illness) she (and I) have spent several thousands of pounds on this home, she has managed, despite her illness, to get the garden looking how she wants it, she has takes great pride on the condition of the inside of the house, and again has invested several thousands of pounds in it, furniture carpets etc, (she like most people 'on benefits' hasn't been 'on benefits' for her entire life, despite what the Tories like people to think)
I doubt very much that she would have bothered had she known she would be punished for having a 'spare' room at some point in the future.
Several councils and housing associations have said that they now have large numbers of three or more bedroomed properties standing empty, as people are reluctant to 'take them on' because like my partner, they are unable to see into the future,
I know of one housing association in Manchester that has said it may have to consider demolishing some of the empty 3 bedroomed properties as it costs too much to keep them maintained and fit for habitation, how bloody ridiculous is that?
(heading off the demand for "link")
Providers report rise in voids as they struggle to let larger properties
Landlords could demolish bedroom-taxed homes
Wigan and Leigh Housing, which manages 22,576 homes on behalf of Wigan Council, is one of several landlords finding it harder to let properties due to the under-occupation penalty, which cuts housing benefit for social tenants with spare bedrooms.
Ashley Crumbley, chief executive of Wigan and Leigh Housing, said the ALMO is considering a range of options for stock for which there is low demand.
These include redecorating to make homes more attractive, carrying out structural work to change the number of bedrooms or, in some cases, demolishing them and replacing them with different types of housing, such as older people’s housing or smaller properties.
I said before it was introduced that this could very well lead to the Tories downfall, and I stand by that,
with the now gaping chasm between the Tories and the yellows, over this and the court of human rights issue,
all it would take is for Labour and the Yellows to agree to a form of words that will substantially change the shambles that the spare room fine has become, and the Tories would be voted down and HAVE to change it,
I would think/hope that such an outcome could very well lead to a vote of no confidence.
It's really odd that so many of the things the coalition have done has ended up hurting people who might have voted Conservative in the past.
The only social group to come out of the last 4.5yrs unharmed are the fairly well-off. And they are simply not numerous enough to ensure a majority Conservative government, ever.
So you have to conclude that the people of this government are massively out of touch, even with their own voters.
It's really odd that so many of the things the coalition have done has ended up hurting people who might have voted Conservative in the past.
The only social group to come out of the last 4.5yrs unharmed are the fairly well-off. And they are simply not numerous enough to ensure a majority Conservative government, ever.
So you have to conclude that the people of this government are massively out of touch, even with their own voters.
lol- you think people in social housing are habitual Tory voters ?
lol- you think people in social housing are habitual Tory voters ?
Hehe, I really don't want to frighten you, but have a look at the figures in the chart at the bottom of this link about marginal seats, the number of votes Labour would need to overturn the Tory/limp damp majority, and the number of working age benefit claimants that the Tories have been hammering and demonising since 2010, and tell me how confident you feel afterwards.
it does make the point quite clearly, that the Tories strategy of wholesale attacks on the poor, the disabled, the unemployed, and the working poor, is WELL set to bite them on the backside come next may.
Hehe, I really don't want to frighten you, but have a look at the figures in the chart at the bottom of this link about marginal seats, the number of votes Labour would need to overturn the Tory/limp damp majority, and the number of working age benefit claimants that the Tories have been hammering and demonising since 2010, and tell me how confident you feel afterwards.
it does make the point quite clearly, that the Tories strategy of wholesale attacks on the poor, the disabled, the unemployed, and the working poor, is WELL set to bite them on the backside come next may.
Why would it frighten me?
You act like I should care.
I am simply pointing out, that the demographic of social housing tenants are not typical Tories, they weren't at the last election and they won't be at the next....so no change !
Hmm, I wonder if a website called benefitsandwork.co.uk could be running an agenda?
The LIb Dems these days must be seen as the lowest of the low. Honestly, every one of their MP's come out looking like sniveling morons anytime I see them on TV, desperately trying to weasel their way out of every situation. Danny Alexander is a particular incompetent. They actually seem to believe the public want to hear them emphasise more their achievements and so every debate on TV descends into a LD minister trying to spin a question on Syria into the 10K tax relief or Pupil Premium.
The funny thing is that this U-turn yet again highlights the nonsense the LD's routinely speak these days. I mean if you cast your mind back to the start of the 'bedroom tax/spare room subsidy' issue, you'll recall the tories didnt even try to pretend the policy was ever about saving money or getting the right homes for people. I remember the media received the figures about how much this policy would save and they all came to the conclusion it was miniscule. When Miliband put that to Cameron at PMQ's he openly stated that it was a policy more about "principle and fairness", which is Tory speak for ideological cuts when it comes to Welfare. So from day 1 the Lib Dems knew and it didn't take this report to tell them it.
lol- you think people in social housing are habitual Tory voters ?
Do you think that alot of private rental sector are tory voters, saying there is more of them than social housing voters, yes the private rental sector could hold the important votes
Well the lib dems, have seen the government own report on this and said its not working we need to change it, this adimitting the policy is flawed, were the tories will carry on with a flawed policy, because any thing else would be to admit we got it wrong. Sorry but seen the same over alot of the welfare changes that have run into big problems, everyone else can see its going wrong but people like IDS who just say the same thing everything fine on time on budget no problems at all, you only have to look at WCA and PIP and UC, deny to the bitter end that there are problems that is why the bedroom penalty report came out on tuesday try bury bad news when everyone is looking at other things going on.
Do you think that alot of private rental sector are tory voters, saying there is more of them than social housing voters, yes the private rental sector could hold the important votes
Especially as younger people are more likely to be renting. Damage your reputation with them while they're young and you're unlikely to pick up their vote later on. Something a party with a dying electoral base should bear in mind.
My wife has been nagging me to build an extension to the house, where do I apply to get the state to build me an extra room for free ?, I can't find it on the website
Comments
Couldn't agree more David. Those are exactly the changes to the policy that I and many others have said were needed before the "Bedroom Tax/RSRS" was implemented. It is a shame that Danny Alexander and his mates didn't share this opinion when voting for this policy in parliament. It is very difficult not to be extremely cynical about this change of heart.
Maybe those 30% think the alternatives are even worse?
You may as ask why Labour are still polling around 30% despite being branded (by me) the Incompetent Party?
Not as long as they're still part of the government. As they still may be after 2015!
Looks like there must be a lot of nasty people around!
I have always opposed the spare room punishment (some of you may have noticed)
I outlined my personal views on how I could possibly support 'some sort' of policy to encourage people in social housing to downsize,
First of all it would be across the board, I see no reason whatsoever if the Tories claim that it is (in part) intended to help those living in overcrowded conditions is true, why is it only those claiming housing benefit who should be 'encouraged' to downsize?
(answer, because it was NEVER about Tory 'concern' for people in overcrowded living conditions, and only ever about saving a little money by imposing a lot of suffering, on the poor of course)
If a person is judged to have 'more room than they need' then what difference does it make if they aren't claiming housing benefit or if they are an OAP? they still "have more room than they need"
it would only apply to new tenants, so that it was a part of their tenancy contract from day one, IF at some point in the future the size of their family decreases they will be encouraged to move into a smaller property.
To punish tenants retrospectively for something that is beyond their control is just about the cruellest thing this government has done, (and that takes some doing) the overwhelming majority of social housing tenants did not ASK for a "spare bedroom" they usually had a family when they were allocated the property, and for any number of reasons it has got smaller, and it's usually due to a child/children growing up and leaving home, relationship breakdown, or a death,
It's like deciding to make smoking illegal tomorrow and then fining any and everyone who has ever smoked a cigarette.
As for the penalty not being imposed unless an offered a smaller place is turned down, well obviously on the face of it this sounds 'fair enough' but there should also be other considerations, the tenant should be given the right to appeal in order to say why moving to the offered place would cause unnecessary hardship, there are any number of reasons why this could be the case,
they could be moving away from their place of employment for example, they may have sick or elderly relatives living nearby who depend on them, their children may have to move schools, etc etc,
and of course anyone who has ever moved house knows that it certainly isn't cheap, where are these people, who by the very fact they have to claim, and are eligible for, housing benefit, means that they have a very low income, supposed to just 'find' the cost of moving home from?
ALL these are thing that should have been given consideration before rushing through a nasty, ill thought through, reactionary change in legislation, for (I believe) nothing other than to appear "tough on benefit claimants"
other unforeseen consequences of this farce, are that it will discourage tenants from investing in the properties or bothering to take any pride in the place.
My partner moved into this house with her 2 teenage children in 2008, she was in full time reasonably well paid employment at the time, as she had been for the majority of her adult life, (she didn't ASK to contract a rare and incurable illness) she (and I) have spent several thousands of pounds on this home, she has managed, despite her illness, to get the garden looking how she wants it, she has takes great pride on the condition of the inside of the house, and again has invested several thousands of pounds in it, furniture carpets etc, (she like most people 'on benefits' hasn't been 'on benefits' for her entire life, despite what the Tories like people to think)
I doubt very much that she would have bothered had she known she would be punished for having a 'spare' room at some point in the future.
Several councils and housing associations have said that they now have large numbers of three or more bedroomed properties standing empty, as people are reluctant to 'take them on' because like my partner, they are unable to see into the future,
I know of one housing association in Manchester that has said it may have to consider demolishing some of the empty 3 bedroomed properties as it costs too much to keep them maintained and fit for habitation, how bloody ridiculous is that?
(heading off the demand for "link")
http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/landlords-could-demolish-bedroom-taxed-homes/6527632.article
I said before it was introduced that this could very well lead to the Tories downfall, and I stand by that,
with the now gaping chasm between the Tories and the yellows, over this and the court of human rights issue,
all it would take is for Labour and the Yellows to agree to a form of words that will substantially change the shambles that the spare room fine has become, and the Tories would be voted down and HAVE to change it,
I would think/hope that such an outcome could very well lead to a vote of no confidence.
The only social group to come out of the last 4.5yrs unharmed are the fairly well-off. And they are simply not numerous enough to ensure a majority Conservative government, ever.
So you have to conclude that the people of this government are massively out of touch, even with their own voters.
lol- you think people in social housing are habitual Tory voters ?
"Might have voted Conservative in the past"
Does not equate to "habitual Tory voters"
lol.
Hehe, I really don't want to frighten you, but have a look at the figures in the chart at the bottom of this link about marginal seats, the number of votes Labour would need to overturn the Tory/limp damp majority, and the number of working age benefit claimants that the Tories have been hammering and demonising since 2010, and tell me how confident you feel afterwards.
http://www.benefitsandwork.co.uk/news/2555-could-claimants-choose-the-next-govenment
it does make the point quite clearly, that the Tories strategy of wholesale attacks on the poor, the disabled, the unemployed, and the working poor, is WELL set to bite them on the backside come next may.
Why would it frighten me?
You act like I should care.
I am simply pointing out, that the demographic of social housing tenants are not typical Tories, they weren't at the last election and they won't be at the next....so no change !
Hmm, I wonder if a website called benefitsandwork.co.uk could be running an agenda?
... and fall flat on their arses!
The funny thing is that this U-turn yet again highlights the nonsense the LD's routinely speak these days. I mean if you cast your mind back to the start of the 'bedroom tax/spare room subsidy' issue, you'll recall the tories didnt even try to pretend the policy was ever about saving money or getting the right homes for people. I remember the media received the figures about how much this policy would save and they all came to the conclusion it was miniscule. When Miliband put that to Cameron at PMQ's he openly stated that it was a policy more about "principle and fairness", which is Tory speak for ideological cuts when it comes to Welfare. So from day 1 the Lib Dems knew and it didn't take this report to tell them it.
No, that honour is still with Labour.
Do you think that alot of private rental sector are tory voters, saying there is more of them than social housing voters, yes the private rental sector could hold the important votes
What's the problem with Labour? They are not even in government.
Especially as younger people are more likely to be renting. Damage your reputation with them while they're young and you're unlikely to pick up their vote later on. Something a party with a dying electoral base should bear in mind.
They should never have supported it!!!
I was going to reply to the original post, but I decided not to bother when I saw yours. It said everything I was going to say beautifully.
They created the bedroom tax.
It was clear as day years ago that there weren't enough places to downsize to, and they just let people suffer.
It's not like sudden new information has come to light.
@.