BS: A New Tory Iniquity

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.

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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,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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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 - 04:35 PM

Subject: RE: BS: A New Tory Iniquity
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 18 Feb 13 - 05:01 PM

Post eater active! Very!

Subject: RE: BS: A New Tory Iniquity
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Feb 13 - 05:46 PM

Meanwhile all those of us who scraped up the cash to buy our houses all those years ago at a massive discount can have as many rooms as the house can hold.

The sell-off of social housing, and the refusal of central government to allow the money to be used to build fresh social housing for the future are the reasons there is such a terrible shortage now. Messing around with a vulnerable minority of tenants whose circumstances mean they are entitled to Housing Benefit doesn't do anything significant to solve this consequence of a shameful failure of society to plan ahead.

Subject: RE: BS: A New Tory Iniquity
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 18 Feb 13 - 05:54 PM

Agreed

Subject: RE: BS: A New Tory Iniquity
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Feb 13 - 02:49 AM

This is very mean-spirited piece of legislation.

There is a shortage of affordable housing, but it would make a lot more sense to try and solve the problem in more compassionate ways.

Such as taking unoccupied and semi derelict houses and offering them at reduced/zero rent to families that can upgrade them.

Such as lifting restrictions in force in some areas where retail outlets are not allowed to rent out the flat above the shop because the building must be retained for 100% retail use.

I'm sure that there are much better minds out there than mine that could up with many more, much better ways to help the homeless if only the politicians would listen.

Kampervan cookieless

Subject: RE: BS: A New Tory Iniquity
From: Dave Hanson
Date: 19 Feb 13 - 04:29 AM

Try and do better with your quotes Backwoodsman, PATRIOTISM is the last
refuge of a scoundrel.

Dave H

Subject: RE: BS: A New Tory Iniquity
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 19 Feb 13 - 04:46 AM

From: Dave Hanson - PM
Date: 18 Feb 13 - 02:49 PM
The main reason for unplanned pregnancy's is ignorance, something that
Backwoodsman is obviously well endowed with.


That comment only really applies to a first pregnancy. By the time of childbirth the mother should have been educated as to the causes, and how to avoid them.
A first unwanted pregnancy may be due to ignorance, subsequent ones (making allowances for rape) are due to an unwillingness to take responsibility.

Subject: RE: BS: A New Tory Iniquity
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 19 Feb 13 - 05:20 AM

If you are going to pick other people up and tell them off for using a phrase that, whether you know it or not, is common usage, it might be a very good idea to check the correct spelling of mathematics, don't you think Jack?

And this particular "I'm all right Tory" is far from pleased with the way things are going, and is actively harrassing hisTory MP to try to change them.

What are you lefties doing? Bitching and moaning and f**k all else.

Get together and form a credibly socialist party and I'll be first in the queue to join, but don't try to sell me Ed Millipede and the gang that screwed us up under Tony B Liar.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: A New Tory Iniquity
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 19 Feb 13 - 05:44 AM

There are ways that housing could be made available swiftly and with comparatively small expenditure.

If the government took over all the houses which are kept long term unoccupied by the owners, refurbished them to a reasonable standard and Hey Presto, instant social housing for thousands of families, but they would be faced with a horde of screaming left wing protesters banging on about high handed government infringing peoples human rights.

You say build on brownfield sites as a matter of urgency.

Well we have that 250,000 families who already have children in over crowded properties.

What's your best solution for them. Shoot a couple of kids? I don't think that is allowed.

Then there's a million on the waiting list for accommodation.

"Well", says you "The Tories should get moving and magic up a million and a quarter houses,...FAST"

Where were you when Blair and Brown, with all the money they had to throw around (of course what they actually did was throw it away), signally failed to do even a small part of what you now expect the current government to do with very little money?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: A New Tory Iniquity
From: GUEST,Fred McCormick
Date: 19 Feb 13 - 06:02 AM

Don. Don't be silly. If you're that stuck for a sensible argument I suggest you go and lie down for a while.

Subject: RE: BS: A New Tory Iniquity
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 19 Feb 13 - 06:20 AM

Says the man who can't remember which thread he's on.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: A New Tory Iniquity
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 19 Feb 13 - 06:21 AM

And who seems to have mislaid his sense of humour.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: A New Tory Iniquity
From: GUEST,FredcMcCormick
Date: 19 Feb 13 - 06:27 AM

Don, I've no idea what the first of your two comments refers to, but I do not have a sense of humour. Not when people are being driven out of their houses at any rate.

Subject: RE: BS: A New Tory Iniquity
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Feb 13 - 06:32 AM

Of course the so-called "Labour" governments bears a large measure of blame, but that's not immediately relevant. We are stuck with a poisonous political system in which the existing parties are scrabbling around divorced from any kind of principle, competing for who can be nasty enough to appeal to a nasty minority of self-satisfied "Middle Englanders". But that's the system we are stuck with.

Cruel and stupid policies that hurt innocent people have to be attacked, regardless of who is promoting them. At present that means a very nasty Tory government, supported by pretty slimy LibDems, and colluded in much of the time by time serving Labour local authorities.

"Families in Hartlepool and LIverpool who have suffered the death of a child now face cuts for their empty bedrooms" (from today's Guardian) - both Labour controlled councils.

But the people with power to stop ths grotesque piece of legislation are the Tories, and they are the ones to target at this time.

Subject: RE: BS: A New Tory Iniquity
From: Stu
Date: 19 Feb 13 - 06:38 AM

"If you are going to pick other people up and tell them off for using a phrase that, whether you know it or not, is common usage, it might be a very good idea to check the correct spelling of mathematics, don't you think Jack?"

Arrrggghh! Hoisted by my own petard. Point taken, but people here in the UK say "maths" (plural) and it shows some respect to use the vernacular, especially of you're from the UK.


""Well", says you "The Tories should get moving and magic up a million and a quarter houses,...FAST""

Houses are being built, but on greenbelt not brownfield (the issue with the local dispute where I live), and only a proportion of these are social housing, the rest new homes no-one can afford anyway.

Also, many of us "leftists" (whatever that means) didn't vote for the labour party when it became apparent there was no commitment to social democracy. In fact, no party is now committed to any sort of socially progressive politics as we edge closer to adopting an more Asian style of capitalism in order to compete with the emerging powerhouses of the east; good news for the 1%, bad news for the rest of us.

I approach this whole subject of politics differently now, by getting very involved at a local level in my town and being part of the local community, setting up an organisation that works for us, holding the local authority to account for their actions and calling out local politicians (publicly, in the local newspaper) and at town meetings when we disagree with them. We already have a massively successful market and vibrant arts scene all due to the citizens doing the job themselves. The local tories have jumped on this success as part of the big society, but as I told a local councillor we were doing this before that ridiculous phrase was touted by Cameron and we will be doing long after the local tories (and the others) have fucked off and left us alone. Men and women of straw. Those of us who were in this at the start know no politicians were willing to back us, so we did it anyway.

We are trying to tackle the housing problem here the same way, but the situation is complicated and we don't have the resources of the vested interests, who despise the democratic process and recruit shills to do their dirty work in local government; they've taken over the planning department completely. It's a black day for local democracy and I am not sure how this will play out . . . more accountability and transparency is needed for a start.

So there's your solution. Local people acting on a local level and stuff your party political tribalism; they're all the same in my eyes and if I mention the tories more than any other it's because at the moment they're who we're fighting, who do most of the blathering, and they are generally the worst of the lot, lacking any compassion being fiercely pro-business to the exclusion of all else.

But here's the thing . . . I think we are having a positive effect. There is a mood of self-confidence in the town for the first time in years. It's early days yet but the party political wonks aren't aware the foundations of their outdated and retrospective economic and social policies are eroding away beneath their very feet; meanwhile, the people have and are doing something about it.

There is hope, but it needs to start at a local level.

Subject: RE: BS: A New Tory Iniquity
From: GUEST,Backwoodsman
Date: 19 Feb 13 - 08:00 AM

Hanson, of course I know the original quote is 'Patriotism'. And, however ignorant you may consider me, I at least have the intellect to understand the concept of paraphrase, which seems to be as equally lost on you as is the concept of taking responsibility for oneself.

But I really don't care what you think - as I said, you know nothing about me, which makes your opinion of me the equivalent of a verbal fart. So you can take your childish insults, insert them in your own rectum and swivel on them.

Subject: RE: BS: A New Tory Iniquity
From: GUEST,Fred McCormick
Date: 19 Feb 13 - 08:03 AM

McGrath. "Families in Hartlepool and LIverpool who have suffered the death of a child now face cuts for their empty bedrooms" (from today's Guardian) - both Labour controlled councils.

I wonder how sensitively the benefits people will deal with the problems of bereaved parents. I'd like to think that they'd be given a period of grace to get over their bereavement, decide whether they have to move, and then find new accommodation. Do you think it's likely to be done that way? No, I don't think so either. Said child will die on day 1. Said benefit will be cut from day 2.

I live very close to Liverpool, and I'm engaged in anti-cuts campaigns there and in my own borough of Wirral. Liverpool is Labour controlled, and Wirral has a Labour led coalition. You might think that there would be a residue of sympathy somewhere in both administrations. But trying to talk to these goons is like trying to talk to the wall. The only response they ever manage to come up with is that they are being forced to implement central government policy, and if they don't, the government will send the auditors in. For Christ's sake, give me a break. How many local authorities are there in England, and how many auditors are there? All together now. "If every Labour led local council stood firm and refused to implement this policy, they would stop the government dead in its tracks". Some hope.

Sugarfoot Jack. You're absolutely right. Direct action is the only option left. Get yourself on a telephone tree, or start one. When your local council sends the bailiffs in, make sure there are enough people surrounding the building to stop them.

Subject: RE: BS: A New Tory Iniquity
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 20 Feb 13 - 06:52 AM

""Don, I've no idea what the first of your two comments refers to, but I do not have a sense of humour. Not when people are being driven out of their houses at any rate.""

I'm referring, as I rather think you already know, to the post you made on an entirely unrelated topic (which has been removed, probably by a helpful elf), which had nothing whatever to do with people being driven out of their houses.

Perhaps the elf concerned might confirm that I am telling the truth.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: A New Tory Iniquity
From: GUEST,Fred McCormick
Date: 20 Feb 13 - 07:00 AM

Don, the message may have been posted and it may have been removed by a mudelf, but I never sent it. Ipso fact, it must have been written by someone using my name. Someone with a sense of humour perhaps?

---

The post Don quotes was not from Fred, and was removed. --Mod

Subject: RE: BS: A New Tory Iniquity
From: Howard Jones
Date: 20 Feb 13 - 09:15 AM

Ironically, this is based on good Marxist principles - "to each according to his needs". Why should someone in publicly-provided housing continue to occupy a house which is bigger than they need when there are others in need of larger housing? However the way this is being handled is completely wrong. It would be far better to incentivise people to move voluntarily rather than coerce them through imposed hardship.

Subject: RE: BS: A New Tory Iniquity
From: GUEST,Fredc McCormick
Date: 20 Feb 13 - 09:21 AM

Mod. Thanks for that. I may get hot under the collar when I think of the injustices of this world, and it wouldn't be the first time I've got into a steaming argument over same. But I don't go round posting scurrilous messages just to annoy people.

Subject: RE: BS: A New Tory Iniquity
From: GUEST,Fred McCormick
Date: 20 Feb 13 - 09:47 AM

Howard. Actually it's not. Marx envisaged a world where everyone was equal, and equally rewarded, and where everyone gave of their gifts and talents for the benefit and betterment of all. A tad utopian perhaps, and there are some terrible examples where people have tried to impose Marx's ideals - and failed. Even so, wouldn't it be grand if we could but travel at least some of the road towards that perfect society?

Incentivisation? You know what? I think I agree. The thing which absolutely tore me apart when I started this thread, was reading about the couple whose daughter had died of cancer, who'd kept her bedroom as a shrine (something which I suspect lots of people do), and were now forced to abandon their home by political ruthlessness and bureaucratic insensitivity. Plus there's lots of other reasons why people need a spare room. Kids away at college for example, or fighting in the armed forces.

So I have no problem at all with people being encouraged to downsize where practical. But you know, and I know that this isn't about freeing up housing stock. It's about the government saving money.

Subject: RE: BS: A New Tory Iniquity
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Feb 13 - 10:51 AM

The crazy thing is that it is liable to end with the government spending a lot more money. Moving to a smaller place is only to liable to end up with higher payments for overpriced private accommodation of one sort or another. That's even without taking into account the cost caused by the disruption, which is likely to trigger unwanted knock-on effects, such as kids in care and old people's support network breaking down.

Subject: RE: BS: A New Tory Iniquity
From: GUEST,Big Al Whittle
Date: 20 Feb 13 - 11:44 AM

lets leave aside party politics - they're both capable of being complete gits.

How is this legislation going to help, and who will it help - apart from the private agencies we will employ to execute the policy?

Subject: RE: BS: A New Tory Iniquity
From: olddude
Date: 20 Feb 13 - 12:34 PM

I can't remember I know I asked this before but what is a tory?