labour numpty just lost my vote

they still have my vote,purely because they will abolish bedrooom tax and hopefully nationalise the railways,but agree with you about the cowardly daily mail reader policy

The only difference between labour and conservative is the colour of their banners.

Zorro....you know that is B.Sh....Labour are the good guys.....Tories are the nasty party

young kids need incentive to train up....not a bad idea

so if you are from a broken home and have no qualifications you will be denied benefits...why?

Too many youngsters leaving school with no intention of seeking employment. Something needs to be done.

"The youth allowance that will replace JSA [jobseeker's allowance] will be paid at £57 a week, which is the same as young person's JSA but it will be means tested on parental income. It is tapered off between £20,000 and £42,000.

Means they get £57 per week if parents earn less than £20,000

So does this mean a change in the law to make parents responsible for their children until they are 21.

Attlee and Nye Bevan(two saints) are looking at this mess in disgust.

We're spending a lot more on welfare now as a percentage of GDP than they did. And they certainly left the economy in a worse state than when they found it.

http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/uk_20th_century_chart.html

Unbelievable policy

Picking on 18-21 yr olds

Said it would save up to £65million which would run the NHS or Military for about 30mins!!

Labour appear soft on unemployed people who don't want to work.
Miliband must think that changing people minds about that will win him votes.

Labour have already voted with the government for a cap on welfare spending.
So if they get rid of the bedroom tax they will have to cut something else to get the money to pay for it.

"they still have my vote, purely because they will abolish bedrooom tax and hopefully nationalise the railways"

Pandora - Labour would still have your vote even if their flagship policy was to deploy our nuclear weapons on our own cities.

The bedroom tax was designed to get people out of homes with bedrooms that they don't need, in order to make room for families who do need them.

Why should a single person live in a house with spare bedrooms, when a small family has to make do with a cramped flat?

Where's your socialism there?

that's fine dr crippen if there was a plenty full supply of smaller houses available

why should somebody who has lived in a community surrounded by fiends and family all their lives

have to choose between paying extra to remain in a house some have lived in all there lives

or move to somewhere where they don't know anyone after all it is supposed to be social housing

loads of people would love to downsize but there just isn't the houses available in their communities

it reminds me a bit of the ghetto policy of certain Austrian corporal.

I've just explained why mr crisp, because there aren't enough houses to go around.
There aren't enough smaller houses and there aren't enough larger ones either.
That's why we have to make the best of a bad job and it takes time.
Allowing people to hog properties that are larger than their needs while other families are living in cramped conditions is ludicrous.
Making people pay for their extra bedrooms will ensure that they will downsize when the opportunity to do so arises. 

it reminds me a bit of the ghetto policy of certain Austrian corporal.

That comparison is simply ridiculous.

Would you care to explain how encouraging people to move to more appropriate accommodations to make the best of the housing space that's available, is akin to forcibly segregating Jews into a special area within a city?

In your own time....

Dr Crippen
22 Jun 14 11:02   
The bedroom tax was designed to get people out of homes with bedrooms that they don't need, in order to make room for families who do need them.

I live in a 4-bedroomed house, and need the extra room for daughters and grandchildren to visit. As we're over 110 miles from them, it's too long for a day trip.

Thank fack I own the house, eh?

The concept is good but what the government should have done is encourage rather than enforce.
They should have offered help with relocation and redecorating costs.

so the answer is to move a family of three
into the three bedroom house that one person is living?
without moving out the one person.

in others words thank you the wife owns my house oops

akabula
22 Jun 14 18:39   
The concept is good

Don't people who live in large properties already pay more council tax than those with smaller properties?

"why should somebody who has lived in a community surrounded by fiends and family all their lives have to choose between paying extra to remain in a house some have lived in all there lives"

The reality is when you can't afford to pay for your accommodation without taxpayer assistance, you can't pick and choose where you live.

Not exactly bedroom tax related, but we currently pay for a small amount of unemployed families to live in affluent parts of London while the workers who pay for it have to commute in from outside London.

This is simply madness.

@Taxi
When I said concept I was meaning the concept of people downsizing and not the bedroom tax part of it.
If people could be encouraged to downsize then that would be a step in the right direction to aiding the housing crisis.
It would purely be a voluntary exercise hence I suggested the incentives.

The people who are being penalised will be claiming LHA, because if they're paying their own rent they'll already be paying the full whack for any spare bedrooms they've got anyway.

If their rent is paid by LHA they won't be paying any council tax either.

So it's just benefit claimants that are being picked on?

Not being picked on simply brought into line with everybody else.

In the private sector claimants have never been allowed any spare bedrooms as far as I know.

Pensioners, like my wifes gran, who paid reduced rent, and had lived in the same house for 85 years, would have to move then?

Lucky she died last October, when she was 92, or the shock would have killed her.

Joined: 16 Apr 02 | Topic/replies: 15,423 | Blogger: Dr Crippen's blog
Labour appear soft on unemployed people who don't want to work.
Miliband must think that changing people minds about that will win him votes.

Labour have already voted with the government for a cap on welfare spending.
So if they get rid of the bedroom tax they will have to cut something else to get the money to pay for it.




Or...... Stop fat cat corporations avoiding paying tax. That will reap £ billions.

they still have my vote,purely because they will abolish bedrooom tax and hopefully nationalise the railways,but agree with you about the cowardly daily mail reader policy

Don't understand this current obsession with renationalising the railways.last time around the service was third  world,investment was haphazard a political football,staff were completely demotivated,unions held the industry to ransom, oh & it was impossible to get a train on time if at all.what makes anyone think it would be different next time?

Barrowboy personally not sure of life under BR as never used trains etc.

but now under privatization on the whole it seems not to bad(think around 88-91% run on time)


but an awful lot could still be done better,and now as with everything else
it's cut cut cut more stations closing.the Underground just the start.

the introduction of the smart card will see loads more put out of work,

as will driverless trains

oh by the way most people who use machines pay well over the top for the ticket they need
so obvious why they want to close ticket offices.

Or...... Stop fat cat corporations avoiding paying tax. That will reap £ billions.

And then the word goes around that the UK are tough on tax and the foreign investors start to look elsewhere. It's all been said before.

It's not how much tax that we collect that is the problem, it's how much we spend.

Pensioners, like my wifes gran, who paid reduced rent, and had lived in the same house for 85 years, would have to move then?

No she could continue to live there and have her housing benefit reduced by 14%.

You could have paid it for her cmat.

I could have, but I didn't.

stop anybody in any part of the country claiming any housing benefit on properties of over £250000

that would soon cool the ridiculous hotspot inflation in property markets

also pay the same rate of housing benefit everywhere if people cant afford to live in London  let them  move out

why should the rest of the country subside them

Social cleansing mr crisp?