Bedroom Tax - Politics

[sarahxxx]

Very well put David and very true!

But, to be fair... the mess was not of their doing... as much as anyone dislikes Blair or Brown, you can't really blame them for the reckless behaviour of mortgage salesmen in the USA... which is what caused the financial crisis in the first place and lead directly to the banking bailouts in this country which is why we are all up shit creek now.

Or the stupid bankers in this country that brought it all off them, as well as doing the same here...

It doesn't matter which way you cut it... the basic Tory philosophy is one of small state and specifically limited benefits spending where as the basic philosophy of the Labour party is big government and more benefits spending.

Although to be fair to Maggie, in the late 80's, state benefit was handed out like there was a never ending pot of money to be had, in Slough you could rent out, to scroungers, a 3 bed terraced house, worth £35,000 for £1,000 per month.

Government have always looked short term at a long term problem, if a private company took over the running of the housing benefit budget there would be a great increase in the amount of homes available for social housing and all directors would be become very wealthy, very quickly. Since the 80's there has been a huge increase in the amount of people on housing benefit living in private rented accommodation.

This again is down to both parties not just one.

Sarah x x x

[Trinity-Belle]

It doesn't matter which way you cut it... the basic Tory philosophy is one of small state and specifically limited benefits spending where as the basic philosophy of the Labour party is big government and more benefits spending.

Although to be fair to Maggie, in the late 80's, state benefit was handed out like there was a never ending pot of money to be had

To be fair... in the late eighties it looked very much as though there WAS a never ending pot of money!!!

[Trinity-Belle]

I shouldn't really be drawn into this, Trinny and I have previous for passionate exchanges elsewhere, and we will never agree on the merits of socialism, or otherwise, but I respect her view. (and passion)

Indeed we have! lol

The situation you describe in your post is communism, surely, not socialism.

Socialism does allow for some people to be rich and others to be poor.

[blue-satin]

It may be worth having a read through the housing policy over the last 3 to 4 years. Am sure I read somewhere, people have to have a room to work from home, so eg if you are currently working in lets say in the dinning room, then simply use the spare bedroom.
Also, it may be worth having a read over education and housing policy, eg a place for a child to study in peace, particularly important if you have a smart child whom is deemed a exceptional child. I would advice on both accounts that you do your home work first as apposed to simply contacting your local authority..be harmed with knowledge.
BS xx

[blue-satin]

additionally, adding to the debate above.

I do not think this is a working definition of socialism. It is more a definition of egalitarianism.
The difference being in egalitarian thinking everyone is equal in certain categories.
Socialism is an economic theory which roughly means that the economy is geared to the benefit of all and as such is based on human need.
In this case the bedroom tax would be wrong, since housing is a basic human need and the space required for comfortable living would be a right.
I do not mean by comfortable, luxurious...just the space to live happily, that not five kids and six adults all crammed in one place.
Just for the record, socialism is loosely based on a philosophy of each according to their ability and each according to their need, which allows for social movement I suppose.
BS xx

[Strawberryblonde]

The social housing and housing benefit situation is in a mess, some people have profited from the mess, other's haven't and the upshot is a massive bill and no-one knows what to do about it. Demand for housing and cheap, easy mortgages hasn't helped and the majority of people carry some responsibility for it - for some reason everyone thinks it's a right to own a house, or have the biggest house they can afford.

This policy is only fair if the council can offer alternative, smaller accomodation and cover moving costs. Otherwise it's not effective and sounds as if it'll cost more to implement than the saving made.

[Trinity-Belle]

...sounds as if it'll cost more to implement than the saving made.

Very possibly.

But it's one of those ridiculous situations where they don't actually want or need to save the money. What they do want to do is appease the Daily Mail readers by making a grand gesture towards dealing with "feckless and lazy scroungers" and by this means hope to secure their votes.

Political parties of what ever flavour have always done such things.

[x Connie x]

they could always get a job?

[Trinity-Belle]

Who?

The politicians?

Rather than scrounging off the tax payer?

Yea, totally agree.

They earn £65K as a basic salary and there are 650 of them, so that's £42mil just for their basic salaries... not including "expenses", nor additions which many get for being heads of committees or having ministerial rolls and so on. Oh, and they want a pay rise... of 36%!

36%?!?!

While everyone else in civil service is still on a pay freeze or being made redundant, MPs want such a massive increase?

Perhaps they could fund it by cutting the benefits budget?

How to win friends and influence people.


ps...

There are currently 2.5mil people officially "unemployed" and 7.5mil people of working age who are "economically inactive" (which is shorthand for unemployed, but for one reason or another they don't count as "job seekers" or are currently unavailable or unable to work, or else are not seeking employment - like housewives.

The economy has, at the moment, about 450,000 vacancies.

So if every single vacancy was filled tomorrow from someone on the dole, there would still be over 2mil people "unemployed" and 7.5mil people "economically inactive".

This news from last week:

The Republic fashion chain has collapsed into administration – putting 2,500 jobs at risk.

The Leeds-based company, which has 121 stores and employs 2,500 people, appointed Ernst & Young as administrators on Wednesday and immediately made 150 staff at its head office redundant.

It is the latest in a long list of retail failures since Christmas, including Jessops, HMV and Blockbuster, with the total loss of up to 10,000 jobs.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2013/...obs-retail

So that's another 10,000 people who have suddenly and unexpectedly become feckless and lazy.

Sponging bastards.

They'll be complaining that they can't pay the rent next and expecting the tax payer to pay it for them!

Bloody cheek.

They should just get a job.

...or work webcams...

[x Connie x]

couldn't agree more about the MPs but we'll never change it and yes they are cheeky fu**ers expecting that kind of rise but i have no sympathy for people who will not work.

i watched a documentary a while ago about house reposessions and a poor (married) woman in her 40s was going to have to start working for the first time in her life - damn shame.

i have not been out of work since leaving school and i'm not particularly clever and have no skills/qualifications to speak of. if it was me being threatened with losing my home or even some of my benefits, as is the case here, i'd even consider selling my body....oh, wait