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.
It's a pity Danny Alexander didn't say it at the time. He's just showing that he is the worst type of snivelling Lib Dem who abandoned all principles for power.
This is a move to try to put some clear blue sea between the Lib Dems and the Conservatives and it will not work.
They should have opposed it from the start but were happy to go along.
The bedroom tax was never about making money, with all the administration and other associated costs I would Imagine that the Government has probably lost money. It was about hurting the poor for being poor. Conservative strategy and Clegg went along with it.
The problem is that nobody gives a toss what the Lib Dems say any more, because we all know they will just u-turn on it later. This is a cynical move to win back some of the voters they lost to Labour; too little too late. I hope they are thoroughly wiped out in 2015. Vile hypocrites.
Judas Cleggscariot took his 30 pieces of silver and now he's seeking redemption, but it's far too late.
When people see this after have being exposed to the insufferable Danny Alexander defending the bedroom tax come what may, it'll be far too little too late.
I don't normally like name calling but that one is very witty
There aren't many black and white issues in politics but this measure is clearly wrong to me.
If the aim of the tax/benefit reduction is to encourage people to downsize then why are people who are not given the option charged?
If the aim is just to reduce the overall benefit bill then why the focus on bedrooms, why not just reduce housing benefit across the board?
I'm not sure i've heard a logical/intelligent defence of the policy it so far. Would anyone like to try?
The aim is to punish the poor. Like all the welfare changes the saving money is secondary either because it saves nothing overall or it actually costs the government more.
I think it just makes them even less credible. I've just seen a Lib Dem on the news claiming the facts have changed. The problem is that it either proves they turned a blind eye to the problems it would cause or the just didn't care because from the beginning MPs have been saying their aren't enough smaller properties in their constituencies and most of the people affected will be disabled. Nothing's changed.
There is no smaller acccomodation. Where can you find a one bedroom house. A one bedroom flat is very rare, usually private accommodation so will cost more in benefits.
One in 20 have moved since the tax was introduced. The others are struggling badly paying bills.
I think it just makes them even less credible. I've just seen a Lib Dem on the news claiming the facts have changed. The problem is that it either proves they turned a blind eye to the problems it would cause or the just didn't care because from the beginning MPs have been saying their aren't enough smaller properties in their constituencies and most of the people affected will be disabled. Nothing's changed.
The facts have never changed, the government know from day 1 that there never was enough or the right size properties, and admitted it was never about people downsizing
Clegg has no integrity. The lib dems would be well advised to get rid of him. Luckily the lib dems are pretty much an irrelevance.
Did the lib dems last year not say they would look at it again after the interim report, which they they have done, and seen its failing and causing problem for tenants and council housing departments, and HAs
It's a shame that Clegg & Co didn't work this out before it was introduced , there was no stock of empty 1/2 bedroom properties for people to move to so the only result was having their housing benefits cut putting them deeply into debt.
I heard Simon Hughes on 5Live this morning (he hasn't been wheeled out for ages) and while not exactly lying, he distorted the facts wonderfully well, including claiming Labour had introduced it and blaming it all on the financial crisis. So it had nothing to do with the Lib Dems as part of the government, it was all Labour. People like him, Paddy Pantsdown and Beaker make me sick!
It's a shame that Clegg & Co didn't work this out before it was introduced , there was no stock of empty 1/2 bedroom properties for people to move to so the only result was having their housing benefits cut putting them deeply into debt.
But then that assumes that politicians should look at the practicability of policies and the effect on the public, rather than the immediate political cash-value of voting for something based on self-interest.
Yes the government refused to take any notice of what council housing departments and housing association were telling them, why take any notice of the experts who deal with socail housing on the front line everyday
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.
Comments
And Labour were interested in listening or persuading the Government towards a different approach? Again, very funny.
No. A stupid concept that should never have happened.
Completely in agreement with this there were people even on these very forums defending the Bedroom Tax policy utterly disgraceful!
Though for the Lib Dems this is too little too late, nobody takes them seriously anymore as they will find out come next year.
It's a pity Danny Alexander didn't say it at the time. He's just showing that he is the worst type of snivelling Lib Dem who abandoned all principles for power.
They should have opposed it from the start but were happy to go along.
The bedroom tax was never about making money, with all the administration and other associated costs I would Imagine that the Government has probably lost money. It was about hurting the poor for being poor. Conservative strategy and Clegg went along with it.
If the aim of the tax/benefit reduction is to encourage people to downsize then why are people who are not given the option charged?
If the aim is just to reduce the overall benefit bill then why the focus on bedrooms, why not just reduce housing benefit across the board?
I'm not sure i've heard a logical/intelligent defence of the policy it so far. Would anyone like to try?
The aim is to punish the poor. Like all the welfare changes the saving money is secondary either because it saves nothing overall or it actually costs the government more.
One in 20 have moved since the tax was introduced. The others are struggling badly paying bills.
The facts have never changed, the government know from day 1 that there never was enough or the right size properties, and admitted it was never about people downsizing
If anyone had any doubts about Clegg, he's now made things crystal clear for them.
Did the lib dems last year not say they would look at it again after the interim report, which they they have done, and seen its failing and causing problem for tenants and council housing departments, and HAs
But then that assumes that politicians should look at the practicability of policies and the effect on the public, rather than the immediate political cash-value of voting for something based on self-interest.
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.