Options
Labour supports the "bedroom tax" except for the vulnerable and disabled
mungobrush
Posts: 9,332 Forum Member
✭
So now we see the real Labour agenda.
In principle they support the tax
They only want it recalled for the vulnerable or disabled.
If you read the motion they want to debate today they want additional funds allocated to local councils to support people moving to smaller premises.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmagenda/ob131112.htm
In principle they support the tax
They only want it recalled for the vulnerable or disabled.
If you read the motion they want to debate today they want additional funds allocated to local councils to support people moving to smaller premises.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmagenda/ob131112.htm
0
Comments
I presume by 'vulnerable' they are referring to unemployed/low paid people in social housing, some of whom are disabled.
They don't want additional funds allocated to local councils either. They want deductions from housing benefit to stop, and the money which had been set aside for 'discretionary housing payments' to be used to fund local authorities so that they can help people move to more suitable accommodation. So they might agree that social housing can be better allocated, but that statement does not suggest that they support the tax (so it is a tax then?
There is no wrong with the tax in principle but the biggest problem is the availabilty of alternative accommodation. How you levy this tax when you know there is nowhere else to offer them?
It has been badly legislated and should be suspended until they get it right.
Agreed, For this policy to be even remotely fair it should only be applied where a suitable alternative has been offered and refused (without good reason).
Not enough 1 or 2 bedroom flats? Then build some.
I agree apart from it isn't a tax and therefore isn't levied.
I thought you Tories didn't like calling it a tax
There hasn't been a real Labour agenda for years, all the main parties are to the right now days so you should be happy
Have you actually read the content of your link? because I have, and nowhere does it even hint that " Labour supports the bedroom tax" as your thread title says,
can you show me where Labour are "supporting" the spare room punishment because I can't see it?
and the response?
3 and a half years in and they still keep wheeling out this excuse lie, it's actually costing more than it's saving by charities, the church, councils, housing associations, their very own partners in government ,and even some Tory MPs??? the bedrooms aren't "spare" they weren't "spare" before the bedroom fine was introduced and they aren't "spare" now, people on HB get the rent for the property, they do NOT and never have got 'extra' money for a 'spare' room, another lie, ALL pensioners are not "protected" garbage, the average payment under the DHP is around 3-4 pounds a week, the loss in benefits can be as high as 25 pounds a week, the DHP only lasts for 12 weeks and has to be re applied for and in order to get it one has to go through the humiliation of listing everything they owe or own more garbage and this from the woman who "regrets" any exaggeration and misrepresentation
When there are THREE times MORE more spare room criminals in the north east of England, than there are people "living in overcrowded accommodation" and on the waiting list" so people are being punished for having a 'spare room' when,if they all moved into one of the 'mythical' smaller places, 2 thirds of the homes would have no one to move into them,
it really is a bit rich to hear a Tory talk of exaggeration and misrepresentation when it comes to their attitudes towards the poor, the sick and the disabled,
Oops.... sorry for arguing my point,... I mean "ranting"
But as usual with this government they rushed from idea to implementation without considering the consequences
But the reality is that they wont recall it If they do get elected, all they will do is just tweak it around the edges for a small number of disadvantaged groups.
Which is what it probably needs anyhow.
Rachel Reeves
Ed Balls
Chris Leslie
Stephen Timms
Ms Rosie Winterton
That this House regrets the pernicious effect on vulnerable and in many cases disabled people of deductions being made from housing benefit paid to working age tenants in the social housing sector deemed to have an excess number of bedrooms in their homes; calls on the Government to end these deductions with immediate effect; furthermore calls for any cost of ending them to be covered by reversing tax cuts which will benefit the wealthiest and promote avoidance, and addressing the tax loss from disguised employment in construction; and further calls on the Government to use the funding set aside for discretionary housing payments to deal with under-occupation by funding local authorities so that they are better able to help people with the cost of moving to suitable accommodation.
I've read it several times and i still can't make sense of it.
genuinely it is not clear to me what they mean.
But you have only quoted the end of a sentence:
additionally it does seem to indicate that they want more funding to help with implementation.
"vulnerable" is a very emotive word, and is severely over used in modern politics.
my best guess from my reading of it is that they consider everyone in social housing to be vulnerable.
which is patronising in the extreme.
This bit - "and further calls on the Government to use the funding set aside for discretionary housing payments to deal with under-occupation by funding local authorities so that they are better able to help people with the cost of moving to suitable accommodation."
http://speye.wordpress.com/2013/11/11/the-knowing-lies-ministers-tell-over-the-bedroom-tax/
Not really, as not everyone in social housing is being affected by this - just the ones of working age who are not earning enough to pay full rent either through low pay, disability, unemployment or a combination of these. I'd say that means they are a fairly vulnerable group, comparatively speaking.
if we are using the phrase 4.5 times worse for rising housing benefit then that would seem to be something of and admission that we should be lowering it.
which rather begs the question how you would propose to do that.
i understand that not everyone on HB or in social housing is affected by this but i don't think it can possibly mean that all the people on HB and affected by this are vulnerable as if it has actively searched out only the vulnerable.
but it is still not clear what their policy is for people they don't regard as vulnerable, or if indeed there are any people affect by the bedroom tax that they don't regard as vulnerable.
Indeed, which is more important than how much under which governments it got to its present levels. Having said that the cost of housing is something that needs addressing too in terms of it being related to incomes and affordability.
From Discretionary Housing Payments Guidance Manual April 2013. Even with time-limited awards, the review can be automatic with no forms to fill in.
Strange that Labour were quite happy with the rules on vulnerable and disabled in the private rented sector. If they had changed them, it would be automatic that they would also apply to the social rented sector, as the legislation was tacked onto the private rented sector rules.
Yep indeed, I wonder if there is an official labour party scale of vulnerability?
Strange how you notice that but conveniently forget about the Tories calling pensioners "vulnerable". I would say that disabled people are more likely to be "vulnerable" than pensioners.
And another one who conveniently forgets to comment on the Tories calling pensioners "vulnerable".
i don't get your point.
are you saying it's wrong and the conservative motion is just as bad and i should have pointed it out?
what are you saying?
Yes, and you would think that selling off the last dregs of social housing and introducing near-market rents for the ones that don't sell would be least likely to help reduce the HB bill, yet they're forging ahead with these plans anyway.
Applying the term vunerable to a whole group of people is probabilty not a good idea as there will be many in that group who aren't. You therefore need criteria to define who is considered vunerable in the said group.