BS: A New Tory Iniquity

Subject: RE: BS: A New Tory Iniquity
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Feb 13 - 04:35 PM

Subject: RE: BS: A New Tory Iniquity
From: GUEST,999
Date: 18 Feb 13 - 04:32 PM

Uncle Fred and Aunt Mehitabel will have to make do with the loo it looks like.

Subject: RE: BS: A New Tory Iniquity
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Feb 13 - 04:29 PM

"The new rules allow one bedroom for.
Every adult couple (maried or unmarried)
Any other adult aged 16 or over
And two children of the same sex under 16
Any two children aged under 10
Any other child (other than a foster child or child whose main home is elsewhere)
A carer (or team of carers) who do not live with you but provide you or your partner with overnight care"

That's from the notification sent to people who are targeted by this. If Don or anyone else can find any room for visiting relatives in there they are very clever indeed...

Subject: RE: BS: A New Tory Iniquity
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Feb 13 - 04:10 PM

"The new rules allow one bedroom for.
Every adult couple (maried or unmarked)
Any other adult aged 16 or over
And two children of the same sex under 16
Any two children aged under 10
Any other child (other than a foster child or child whose main home is elsewhere)
A carer (or team of carers) who do not live with you but provide you or your partner with overnight care"

That's from the notification sent to people who are targeted by this. If Don or anyone else can find any room for visiting relatives in there they are very clever indeed...

Subject: RE: BS: A New Tory Iniquity
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 18 Feb 13 - 04:06 PM

Hanson, you know nothing about me and you're therefore in no position to comment on my intelligence. Personal insults say far more about the person doing the insulting than they do about the person being insulted, and are the final refuge of a scoundrel whose arguments have no substance.

Sex education didn't exist in schools during my school career, nor did the contraceptive pill, but we all knew what caused babies, and we all knew how not to cause them. Your claim of ignorance is a perfect example of precisely the syndrome I proposed in the final sentence of my earlier post.

Subject: RE: BS: A New Tory Iniquity
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Feb 13 - 02:54 PM

"The elderly widow is a red herring, as she won't be affected, and will continue to be able to have a relative stay over, and so will the disabled person."

I only wish that was true. But the only exception, so far as I aw aware (and I have good reason to be aware) is where there is a live-in career, or equivalent (ie a rota of carers). If I'm wrong I'd be delighted - but that definitely isn't what the guidance stuff produced by the authorities locally says!!!

Subject: RE: BS: A New Tory Iniquity
From: Dave Hanson
Date: 18 Feb 13 - 02:49 PM

The main reason for unplanned pregnancy's is ignorance, something that
Backwoodsman is obviously well endowed with.

Dave H

Subject: RE: BS: A New Tory Iniquity
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 18 Feb 13 - 02:40 PM

Makes you wonder how bad it would be if we had a Tory government...

Come to think about it, Prescott tried introducing something similar when he ran what is now communities. Voted down by er.. let's see now.

Doesn't make it right, doesn't make Irritable Duncan Syndrome any less nasty. Just shows that Real Politik and dogma are joined at the hip, often pointed out by those attached to a different dogma.

If they see it through, it will be interesting to see if Labour promise to repeal it. Don't hold your breath.

Subject: RE: BS: A New Tory Iniquity
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 18 Feb 13 - 01:56 PM

Seems perfectly reasonable to me. £26k in benefits is the equivalent of a gross salary of £35k, or are you conveniently forgetting that. I have worked for nearly 49 years and have only needed to resort to any benefits for 2 weeks in that time.

Subject: RE: BS: A New Tory Iniquity
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 18 Feb 13 - 01:38 PM

In the second decade of the 21st century in the United Kingdom, there is absolutely no reason whatsoever for a woman to get pregnant if she doesn't want to. The means of prevention are available FOC.

It's called taking responsibility for yourself - something the PC fashion-socialists seem to regard as an alien concept.

Subject: RE: BS: A New Tory Iniquity
From: Stu
Date: 18 Feb 13 - 01:25 PM

"Pregnancy is not always planned."

No shit!

So do you think people can have children without having to worry about the cost to society or the implications of having several children?

How can we expect the more reasonable tories to give stuff if we as individuals within a society are not willing to take personal responsibility for our actions and live with the consequences?

Subject: RE: BS: A New Tory Iniquity
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 18 Feb 13 - 12:45 PM

Pregnancy is not always planned.

Don, according to the newspapers you are not right that the disabled will be left entitled to have their children to stay (with separate bedrooms).

But I know one folkie who recently posted (elsewhere) - I'll not name names, to save thier blushes: -

" So if one person is living in a house with three bedrooms and a family of 5 is living in a one bedroomed flat, Is it not fair to expect the one person to pay extra for the luxury of all that space or get them to swop living space with the family? Many tax paying home owners have down sized to make life affordable or cannot afford to move to the larger homes they need to accomadate their growing families .So why should we pay to keep one person in a bigger social housing home than they need ?"

Subject: RE: BS: A New Tory Iniquity
From: Stu
Date: 18 Feb 13 - 12:36 PM

"I know that they perhaps should have thought before enlarging their family so much . . ."

Quite . . . and they should take some responsibility for not being able to stop popping out sprogs at an unsustainable rate.

Subject: RE: BS: A New Tory Iniquity
From: Penny S.
Date: 18 Feb 13 - 11:21 AM

I think this is about the worst suggestion since the window tax and the fireplace tax.

But... I knew a family with several children - fortunately all boys - squashed in a small council house, who knew another family in another council house where there was only a couple, with a number of spare bedrooms, who persistently refused to move. The family with children had been on the list for upgrading for some time, and were unhappy about it. (I know that they perhaps should have thought before enlarging their family so much, but not everyone is, how shall I put this, capable of the degree of ratiocination necessary.)

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: A New Tory Iniquity
From: GUEST,SPB at work
Date: 18 Feb 13 - 11:20 AM

I think I've commented on this before, but this is a wonderful opportunity for property speculators to force local authorities to pay far higher amounts than they would have had to pay for social housing, so for each 17% saved on the social housing benefit bill 30-40% more would be paid out in private rented housing benefit bills.

Of course, it will be all the claimants fault as they aren't helping the government by jumping of bridges with their children. They don't matter anyway, cos they are not likely to vote for the current government. So their would be need for further cuts in benefits - but not those very very very nice property owners who deserve to be paid the lions share of working age benefits. Thay are good stout tories - and it is far far better to line their pockets than provide services needed by the most poor in the country

Subject: RE: BS: A New Tory Iniquity
From: GUEST,Fred McCormick
Date: 18 Feb 13 - 11:03 AM

hear, hear to Sugarfoot Jack also, who posted after I had read Dave H's contribution, and before I'd had chance to post mine.

Think of all the genuine jobs that a major housebuilding scheme could generate if this Tory led ConDem coalition decided to go ahead with one. But when all's said and done, it's far easier to squeeze your way out of a recession isn't it. Always provided you're not the one who's being squeezed of course.

Subject: RE: BS: A New Tory Iniquity
From: GUEST,Fred McCormick
Date: 18 Feb 13 - 10:57 AM

Dave Hanson. hear hear. No government should have to pull 250,000 houses out of a hat, because the policy of ensuring that every single citizen has the right to roof over their head should never have been abandoned by successive governments, Labour, Tory or coalition.

This is not just the most iniquitous act I have come across in many a long day, it is also the most stupid. It will go down in history alongside that other failed tax on people's living accommodation; the Window Tax.

Subject: RE: BS: A New Tory Iniquity
From: Stu
Date: 18 Feb 13 - 10:54 AM

"Just do the math!"

The problem here is that the "math" (wot no 's'? It's mathamatics) doesn't reflect reality in terms of the practicalities for people in everyday life. The fact people are going to be expected to move house every time a child leaves home or a spouse dies means they will never feel safe and secure in their home, and this is about as basic a right in a developed society as is possible.

As for suggestions that don't disadvantage anybody . . . since when has that been a tory concern? After Thatcher started the ball rolling politicians (admittedly of the right-wing ilk such as the tories and Blair) have sold off our social housing stock over the years, and now is the time to start rebuilding again on brownfield sites. There's no point in saying this can't happen due to lack of funds, because in the town where I live we're trying to stop the tory-led council building new homes on the greenbelt when there is plenty of brownfield acreage sat doing nowt, so there are houses being planned and built.


"And once again......THIS GOVERNMENT IS A COALITION!"

Change the record, please. Does no-one take any responsibility for their actions these days? The LibDumbs are an irrelevance to voters and a pain in the arse to Cam and his merry band of toffs.

Subject: RE: BS: A New Tory Iniquity
From: Dave Hanson
Date: 18 Feb 13 - 10:34 AM

And once again an I'm all right jack tory jumps up to defend the indfencible.

Dave H

Subject: RE: BS: A New Tory Iniquity
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 18 Feb 13 - 10:17 AM

And once again......THIS GOVERNMENT IS A COALITION!

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: A New Tory Iniquity
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 18 Feb 13 - 10:16 AM

I can see where you might all be appalled by this, but what isn't being exposed is the other side of the coin.

In this country we have a quarter of a million families living in social housing which is not large enough to accommodate them adequately, in other words over crowded, and in many cases with problems of mixed gender occupation of rooms as children get older.

On the other hand we have a million unoccupied bedrooms in social housing stock, where families or couples occupy houses which are larger than they need.

Just do the math!

The elderly widow is a red herring, as she won't be affected, and will continue to be able to have a relative stay over, and so will the disabled person.

It's not nice for those affected, but as I said do the math. No government can pull a quarter of a million houses out of a hat, as the last one proved over thirteen years of missing their targets, and they had a hell of a lot more money to spend than the coalition.

Instead of bitching about it, suggest alternatives which wouldn't disadvantage anybody.........You can't? Quelle surprise!

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: A New Tory Iniquity
From: Sandra in Sydney
Date: 18 Feb 13 - 09:00 AM

I just read the report & it reads like the kind of stuff the right wingers do here, too. Make ya wonder who taught who!

I only read a few of the 904 comments.

The latest here is sole parents lose benefits when their youngest child turns 8 as they they have to go out to work. Only problem is where are the jobs suitable for parents with children at school, certainly not in every area.

sandra

Subject: RE: BS: A New Tory Iniquity
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Feb 13 - 08:49 AM

Basically it comes down to "people who don't count". Or as Thatcher put it "not lone of us".

The trouble is, that is also true of Labour and the Lib Dems, but they just use marginally different criteria for who belongs in the charmed circle. Better, but not that much better - though the difference does matter.
......................

The bedroom tax is peculiarly nasty. For example it means that an elderly widow receiving housing benefit will be penalised for having a room in which a daughter or grandchild can sleep on a visit. A person with a disability will be unable to have a parent come to stay for a visit.

It's the kind of thing that disrupts families, and damages informal sharing and help within society. It's hard to think of anything that is more liable to destroy "The Big Society" - though I have no doubt they'll do their best to think up something that does.

Subject: RE: BS: A New Tory Iniquity
From: JHW
Date: 18 Feb 13 - 08:28 AM

I guessed wrong. I thought this was going to be about people with bigger houses not having to lose them to pay for care.

Pity the above post Sugarfoot Jack isn't a Facebook page as I could have clicked Like

Subject: RE: BS: A New Tory Iniquity
From: GUEST,Sugarfoot Jack
Date: 18 Feb 13 - 08:17 AM

We all know by now the tories hate:

1) the unemployed

2) the disabled

3) scientists

4) artists

5) musicians

6) women

7) the self-employed

8) johnny foreigner

9) anyone in a council house

10) thinking for yourself

11) anyone who holds ideals not connected with money

12) the state

13) people who wear trakky bottoms

14) doctors of medicine

15) wishy-washy people who like philosophy etc

16) vulnerable people

17) any expert who knows wtf they are talking about but don't agree with the tories

18) the working class

19) the middle class

20) the aspirational classes who they've fooled into believing the whole free market/wealth trickles down/strive to achieve social status thing to get them to work harder

21) the NHS

22) folk music

23) each other

24) satirists and political cartoonists

25) people who are ill through no fault of their own

26) ukip because they would like to be sordid little englanders like them but don't have the guts

27) compassion

28) anyone who points out capitalism might not be the best way forward in terms of the common good

29) any wildlife anywhere in the world (they love killing things)

31) people who can't count


. . . so nothing they come out with surprises me any more.

Subject: BS: A New Tory Iniquity
From: GUEST,Fred McCormick
Date: 18 Feb 13 - 07:54 AM

For the benefit of anyone who hasn't noticed, the British Government is introducing a benefit cut for anyone in social housing with a spare room. Even by the standards of Cameron, Osborne etc., this is unbelievably callous, short sighted and stupid. You can read a report on it here

If this report doesn't make you weep, there must be something wrong with you.