MP demands rethink over 'bedroom tax' (From Daily Echo)
When news happens, text SDE and your photos or videos to 80360. Or contact us by email and phone.
MP demands rethink over 'bedroom tax'
5:22pm Saturday 23rd February 2013 in News
MP demands rethink over 'bedroom tax'
IT’S the controversial new scheme aimed to cut housing waiting lists and put families in the size of homes they need.
But some say it is a tax that will hit the pockets of thousands of Hampshire’s poorest and most vulnerable people, and even could force many to move home.
The Government’s new so called “bedroom tax” will cut the housing benefit of people living in council or social housing by the number of ‘spare bedrooms’ in their homes.
Homes with one spare bedroom will see their benefits cut by 14 per cent of the total rent paid per week.
That means if a family has rent of £115 a week and one spare bedroom, they will lose £16.10.
Meanwhile if a family had two spare bedrooms they would have their benefits cut by 25 per cent – a loss of £28.75.
Local authorities are advising tenants to compensate for the financial blow by increasing their income, taking in lodgers or moving to smaller houses.
The scheme is targeted at those residents who are of working age so pensioners currently in housing association or council homes will not be affected.
Opponents say the tax, which is being introduced on April 1, will leave affected families with less money to live on.
Tenants with disabilities will also be subject to the penalty, unless a bedroom is used by a non-resident carer who stays overnight.
And, faced with a change to council tax benefits meaning the poorest households in the country will be forced to pay council tax for the first time, some are warning that many face a ‘double impact’ on their bills from April onwards.
The Government says the tax will move people from homes which are too big so people in overcrowded accommodation can have more space, and cut the cost of welfare.
An estimated total of 5,582 households across Hampshire are likely to be affected by the bedroom tax, with 2,064 of those in Southampton.
Southampton Itchen MP John Denham called for a rethink by Westminster.
He said: “For the first time in my 20 years as an MP I have felt it necessary to organise a special benefits advice surgery because we are so worried about the number of people who will be bearing up to this tax.
“It is going to have a devastating effect.
“Some people are saying they will have to change their homes, but there’s a shortage of homes for them to go to.
“Others say they will be forced to take out loans and potentially get into debt trouble.
“The Government should have a rethink on this – it’s quite clear that this has turned out to be a lot more complicated than they thought.”
Gary Edwards, from the Southampton Advice and Representation Centre (SARC), said the organisation had already been visited by “dozens” of people worried by the impending tax.
He said: “The Government has said there is going to be some additional transitional money available to people in the form of a discretionary payment, for those in extreme circumstances, but that is only a short-term measure.
“I have already seen people about the changes, and there is some anxiety there.”
A spokesman for the Department of Work and Pensions said: “We are providing councils with £155m this year to support people and vulnerable groups who might be affected by these changes.
“We need to ensure a better use of social housing when over a quarter of a million tenants are living in overcrowded homes and two million are on housing waiting lists across the country.”
If you have any concerns contact Southampton City Council advice line 023 8083 4919.
Local authorities estimate the number of households affected are:
- Eastleigh 600
- New Forest 785
- Winchester 490
- Southampton 2,064
- Fareham 340
- Gosport 500
- Test Valley 803
WHAT DOES THE BEDROOM TAX MEAN TO YOU? CLICK HERE TO FIND OUT
Comments(151)
MegGriffin
says...
5:52pm Sat 23 Feb 13
"The scheme is targeted at those residents who are of working age so pensioners currently in housing association or council homes will not be affected."
It's the pensioners that are the problem. I know know a great many older people who live alone in 3 and 4 bedroom houses. I know I'm probably going to be slated for saying it but they are the ones who should be made to downsize first.
It's the pensioners that are the problem. I know know a great many older people who live alone in 3 and 4 bedroom houses. I know I'm probably going to be slated for saying it but they are the ones who should be made to downsize first.
Rockhopper
says...
6:11pm Sat 23 Feb 13
For too long the cost of Housing Benefit has been increasing out of control.
At least this Government is implementing changes to prevent those on welfare benefits receiving an income above the 'average' working salary.
Why should people that are working and paying taxes subsidise a better lifestyle for those on benefits.
At least this Government is implementing changes to prevent those on welfare benefits receiving an income above the 'average' working salary.
Why should people that are working and paying taxes subsidise a better lifestyle for those on benefits.
Not IDS
says...
6:19pm Sat 23 Feb 13
The 'Bedroom Tax' is not fit for purpose because it causes more problems than it claims to solve.
Inform Al
says...
6:23pm Sat 23 Feb 13
MegGriffin wrote:Of course, trust you include the queen and all the rich bankers who can afford oversized homes whilst there are people on the streets. We should be building more social housing not forcing people out of their family homes so that children and grandchildren can no longer stay at xmas etc. There are also not enough 1 bed council and HA properties in Southampton to accommodate all those being forced to move by this 'for the rich' government so another 'U' turn , or a revolution, must be on the cards.
"The scheme is targeted at those residents who are of working age so pensioners currently in housing association or council homes will not be affected."
It's the pensioners that are the problem. I know know a great many older people who live alone in 3 and 4 bedroom houses. I know I'm probably going to be slated for saying it but they are the ones who should be made to downsize first.
IronLady2010
says...
6:26pm Sat 23 Feb 13
I feel this has been rushed through with little thought.
Inform Al makes a good point, let's suppose all those with a spare room decide they want to downgrade to free up a bigger house, where will they all go?
Do we have enough smaller houses for people to move into?
Inform Al makes a good point, let's suppose all those with a spare room decide they want to downgrade to free up a bigger house, where will they all go?
Do we have enough smaller houses for people to move into?
Not IDS
says...
6:34pm Sat 23 Feb 13
@Rockhopper,
Patently, you are unaware that most who people claiming Housing Benefit are in fact working. You also seem oblivious to the fact that most people on benefits don't get anywhere near the equivalent of average salary. You want to try living on £71 per week before passing judgment on a subject you clearly know very little about..
Patently, you are unaware that most who people claiming Housing Benefit are in fact working. You also seem oblivious to the fact that most people on benefits don't get anywhere near the equivalent of average salary. You want to try living on £71 per week before passing judgment on a subject you clearly know very little about..
Rockhopper
says...
6:59pm Sat 23 Feb 13
@Not IDS,
Whether a person/family are working or not is not the issue.
People should live within their means whatever income they have.
So don't expect other tax payers to sustain a lifestyle of more benefits, a bigger property or having more children.
If you can't afford to pay for something yourself you don't get it.
The culture of the Government picking up your bill has gone.
Whether a person/family are working or not is not the issue.
People should live within their means whatever income they have.
So don't expect other tax payers to sustain a lifestyle of more benefits, a bigger property or having more children.
If you can't afford to pay for something yourself you don't get it.
The culture of the Government picking up your bill has gone.
Not IDS
says...
7:30pm Sat 23 Feb 13
Rockhopper wrote:Make your mind up! You just said:
@Not IDS,
Whether a person/family are working or not is not the issue.
People should live within their means whatever income they have.
So don't expect other tax payers to sustain a lifestyle of more benefits, a bigger property or having more children.
If you can't afford to pay for something yourself you don't get it.
The culture of the Government picking up your bill has gone.
"Why should people that are working and paying taxes subsidise a better lifestyle for those on benefits." ...
It would appear then that you believe no one receiving housing benefit (whether working or not..) should be allowed a so-called 'spare' room, regardless of the fact it penalises; families with a disabled child who should not be sharing a bedroom for medical reasons; couples who need an extra bedroom because of one of them having a medical condition or disability; foster carers; single parents who could otherwise have joint custody of their children, grandparent who would have their grandchildren stay over with them; people who have sons and daughters in university or the army etc, etc, etc....
Wow! Perhaps you think people on benefits should be fed via soup kitchens too....
What a bitter and twisted view you have towards your fellow human.
honour
says...
8:03pm Sat 23 Feb 13
You are doing what this nasty government want, that is to turn on each other, which takes the attention off them. ,just get off your back sides and vote at every opportunity.
loosehead
says...
9:18pm Sat 23 Feb 13
IronLady2010 wrote:I live next door to a council house which is a two bedroomed house with a single guy on the dole living in there?
I feel this has been rushed through with little thought.
Inform Al makes a good point, let's suppose all those with a spare room decide they want to downgrade to free up a bigger house, where will they all go?
Do we have enough smaller houses for people to move into?
Surely you can't think that's right?
I've been into flats where young families are having to carry prams & children up the stairs to one bedroomed flats is that right?
I believe that all council tenants should be financially checked & if they are financially able to buy or rent private they should be made to do so to free up council homes for the low paid.
when I was young council houses were allocated ion the size of the family to those in need not those who wanted new cars & holidays & have the council pay to repair & modernise the properties.
I have now got a couple who transferred from a four bedroom council house & they're now in a two bedroom house why?
why does anyone who only ever use one bedroom expect us to pay the rent on a two bedroom property?
Sorry I was bought up in a council home & I know it's a service for low paid not for wealthy people & it's not your house it belongs to the council.
my neighbour should be moved into a single persons property & a young family should have the two bedroomed house
loosehead
says...
9:19pm Sat 23 Feb 13
IronLady2010 wrote:Walk along Shirley High Street & see all those flats with young families in them
I feel this has been rushed through with little thought.
Inform Al makes a good point, let's suppose all those with a spare room decide they want to downgrade to free up a bigger house, where will they all go?
Do we have enough smaller houses for people to move into?
Lone Ranger.
says...
9:33pm Sat 23 Feb 13
Perhaps council houses should never have been sold off to people at low prices and then filled with just two people occupying two or three bedrooms.
.
No more selling off council/housing association house
.
No more selling off council/housing association house
Linesman
says...
9:50pm Sat 23 Feb 13
MegGriffin wrote:That's easy to say, but are there sufficient single bedroom flats and houses to move them into?
"The scheme is targeted at those residents who are of working age so pensioners currently in housing association or council homes will not be affected."
It's the pensioners that are the problem. I know know a great many older people who live alone in 3 and 4 bedroom houses. I know I'm probably going to be slated for saying it but they are the ones who should be made to downsize first.
If council houses had not been sold off in the first place, there would be greater flexibility for councils to help couples, whose children have left home, to move into more appropriate properties.
IronLady2010
says...
10:31pm Sat 23 Feb 13
loosehead wrote:Changes do need to be made. I'll give an example. Hubbys Nan lives in a 3 bed Council house all on her own, she has been asking for a small flat for ages as she is struggling with the stairs, yet it all falls on deaf ears.
IronLady2010 wrote:I live next door to a council house which is a two bedroomed house with a single guy on the dole living in there?
I feel this has been rushed through with little thought.
Inform Al makes a good point, let's suppose all those with a spare room decide they want to downgrade to free up a bigger house, where will they all go?
Do we have enough smaller houses for people to move into?
Surely you can't think that's right?
I've been into flats where young families are having to carry prams & children up the stairs to one bedroomed flats is that right?
I believe that all council tenants should be financially checked & if they are financially able to buy or rent private they should be made to do so to free up council homes for the low paid.
when I was young council houses were allocated ion the size of the family to those in need not those who wanted new cars & holidays & have the council pay to repair & modernise the properties.
I have now got a couple who transferred from a four bedroom council house & they're now in a two bedroom house why?
why does anyone who only ever use one bedroom expect us to pay the rent on a two bedroom property?
Sorry I was bought up in a council home & I know it's a service for low paid not for wealthy people & it's not your house it belongs to the council.
my neighbour should be moved into a single persons property & a young family should have the two bedroomed house
As she isn't on benefits I guess this change won't effect her, but yet she is willing to give up this house but is hitting her head against a wall trying to downgrade. There just aren't enough properties available for people to downgrade.
Not IDS
says...
10:41pm Sat 23 Feb 13
loosehead wrote:loosehead, I have no way of knowing if what you say is true but if there individual cases of people occupying a home where one bedroom is never used then I agree something should be done to entice them to move to a property with the right amount of bedrooms for their actual needs - provided of course the homes for them to move to actually do exist in the first place!
IronLady2010 wrote:I live next door to a council house which is a two bedroomed house with a single guy on the dole living in there?
I feel this has been rushed through with little thought.
Inform Al makes a good point, let's suppose all those with a spare room decide they want to downgrade to free up a bigger house, where will they all go?
Do we have enough smaller houses for people to move into?
Surely you can't think that's right?
I've been into flats where young families are having to carry prams & children up the stairs to one bedroomed flats is that right?
I believe that all council tenants should be financially checked & if they are financially able to buy or rent private they should be made to do so to free up council homes for the low paid.
when I was young council houses were allocated ion the size of the family to those in need not those who wanted new cars & holidays & have the council pay to repair & modernise the properties.
I have now got a couple who transferred from a four bedroom council house & they're now in a two bedroom house why?
why does anyone who only ever use one bedroom expect us to pay the rent on a two bedroom property?
Sorry I was bought up in a council home & I know it's a service for low paid not for wealthy people & it's not your house it belongs to the council.
my neighbour should be moved into a single persons property & a young family should have the two bedroomed house
However, can't you see that the bedroom tax in its current form doesn't differentiate between those living in homes where one bedroom is never used and families with a disabled child who should not be sharing a bedroom for medical reasons; couples who need an extra bedroom because of one of them having a medical condition or disability; foster carers who need spare rooms; single parents who could otherwise have joint custody of their children, grandparent who would have their grandchildren stay over with them while the parent(s) are working; people who have sons and daughters in university or the army etc, etc, etc?
Therefore, as I said earlier, the 'Bedroom Tax' is not fit for purpose because it causes more problems than it claims to solve.
sabre2th1
says...
10:54pm Sat 23 Feb 13
I thought this was going to be a raunchy story.
skin2000
says...
11:10pm Sat 23 Feb 13
loosehead wrote:I think IDS is working on a bathroom tax for next year....so watch out, if you are on Housing Benifit and have two loos..it will be your turn next.
IronLady2010 wrote:I live next door to a council house which is a two bedroomed house with a single guy on the dole living in there?
I feel this has been rushed through with little thought.
Inform Al makes a good point, let's suppose all those with a spare room decide they want to downgrade to free up a bigger house, where will they all go?
Do we have enough smaller houses for people to move into?
Surely you can't think that's right?
I've been into flats where young families are having to carry prams & children up the stairs to one bedroomed flats is that right?
I believe that all council tenants should be financially checked & if they are financially able to buy or rent private they should be made to do so to free up council homes for the low paid.
when I was young council houses were allocated ion the size of the family to those in need not those who wanted new cars & holidays & have the council pay to repair & modernise the properties.
I have now got a couple who transferred from a four bedroom council house & they're now in a two bedroom house why?
why does anyone who only ever use one bedroom expect us to pay the rent on a two bedroom property?
Sorry I was bought up in a council home & I know it's a service for low paid not for wealthy people & it's not your house it belongs to the council.
my neighbour should be moved into a single persons property & a young family should have the two bedroomed house
Inform Al
says...
11:15pm Sat 23 Feb 13
skin2000 wrote:Bumma
loosehead wrote:I think IDS is working on a bathroom tax for next year....so watch out, if you are on Housing Benifit and have two loos..it will be your turn next.
IronLady2010 wrote:I live next door to a council house which is a two bedroomed house with a single guy on the dole living in there?
I feel this has been rushed through with little thought.
Inform Al makes a good point, let's suppose all those with a spare room decide they want to downgrade to free up a bigger house, where will they all go?
Do we have enough smaller houses for people to move into?
Surely you can't think that's right?
I've been into flats where young families are having to carry prams & children up the stairs to one bedroomed flats is that right?
I believe that all council tenants should be financially checked & if they are financially able to buy or rent private they should be made to do so to free up council homes for the low paid.
when I was young council houses were allocated ion the size of the family to those in need not those who wanted new cars & holidays & have the council pay to repair & modernise the properties.
I have now got a couple who transferred from a four bedroom council house & they're now in a two bedroom house why?
why does anyone who only ever use one bedroom expect us to pay the rent on a two bedroom property?
Sorry I was bought up in a council home & I know it's a service for low paid not for wealthy people & it's not your house it belongs to the council.
my neighbour should be moved into a single persons property & a young family should have the two bedroomed house
skin2000
says...
11:30pm Sat 23 Feb 13
The Bedroom tax, the Workfare scheme and the selling off parts of the NHS are bad for the people of this country....People need to wake up and find their voice, to tell the government it's not what they want.
Inform Al
says...
11:39pm Sat 23 Feb 13
skin2000 wrote:They will, in 2015
The Bedroom tax, the Workfare scheme and the selling off parts of the NHS are bad for the people of this country....People need to wake up and find their voice, to tell the government it's not what they want.
IronLady2010
says...
11:50pm Sat 23 Feb 13
The 'Bedroom Tax' is actually a great idea, but things need to be in place before it's introduced.
I have a Mother-in Law who lives in a Council house with 2 bedrooms, only one is used, both work full-time and could afford to buy or rent privately, but due to the cheap costs Council Houses provide, they'd be stupid to give it up.
The best way is to increase Council House prices in line with Private Rents and make up any shortfall in benefits where needed. This way it's fair for all.
I have a Mother-in Law who lives in a Council house with 2 bedrooms, only one is used, both work full-time and could afford to buy or rent privately, but due to the cheap costs Council Houses provide, they'd be stupid to give it up.
The best way is to increase Council House prices in line with Private Rents and make up any shortfall in benefits where needed. This way it's fair for all.
Chris storey
says...
11:52pm Sat 23 Feb 13
skin2000 wrote:What you need to realise is when something needs paying for someone who works for a living has to pay for it, there is no such thing as a free lunch, someone pays for it, usually by going without themselves so you can get it for nothing.
The Bedroom tax, the Workfare scheme and the selling off parts of the NHS are bad for the people of this country....People need to wake up and find their voice, to tell the government it's not what they want.
If you want spare rooms try paying for them yourself, I have two spare rooms in my house, which I worked all my life to pay for, do you think I should let you live in one of them rent free? Oh silly me ! Of course you do .
Inform Al
says...
12:05am Sun 24 Feb 13
Chris storey wrote:Ignorance is bliss isn't it. Until we build more social housing, house prices even for most of those in work will be too high to afford, and due to low pay and too many restricted to low hours even those in work need housing benefit to pay the rent. Why should decent ordinary people be forced to move out when those lucky Tories born with a silver spoon in their greedy mouths never have to worry about such matters. If we don't get rid of these parasites soon we could end up with an explosive situation, Not something I want my kids to look forward to.
skin2000 wrote:What you need to realise is when something needs paying for someone who works for a living has to pay for it, there is no such thing as a free lunch, someone pays for it, usually by going without themselves so you can get it for nothing.
The Bedroom tax, the Workfare scheme and the selling off parts of the NHS are bad for the people of this country....People need to wake up and find their voice, to tell the government it's not what they want.
If you want spare rooms try paying for them yourself, I have two spare rooms in my house, which I worked all my life to pay for, do you think I should let you live in one of them rent free? Oh silly me ! Of course you do .
Chris storey
says...
12:20am Sun 24 Feb 13
Inform Al wrote:Ok, explain to me why i should pay the rent for people to have more rooms than they need, a simple explanation please!
Chris storey wrote:Ignorance is bliss isn't it. Until we build more social housing, house prices even for most of those in work will be too high to afford, and due to low pay and too many restricted to low hours even those in work need housing benefit to pay the rent. Why should decent ordinary people be forced to move out when those lucky Tories born with a silver spoon in their greedy mouths never have to worry about such matters. If we don't get rid of these parasites soon we could end up with an explosive situation, Not something I want my kids to look forward to.
skin2000 wrote:What you need to realise is when something needs paying for someone who works for a living has to pay for it, there is no such thing as a free lunch, someone pays for it, usually by going without themselves so you can get it for nothing.
The Bedroom tax, the Workfare scheme and the selling off parts of the NHS are bad for the people of this country....People need to wake up and find their voice, to tell the government it's not what they want.
If you want spare rooms try paying for them yourself, I have two spare rooms in my house, which I worked all my life to pay for, do you think I should let you live in one of them rent free? Oh silly me ! Of course you do .
IronLady2010
says...
12:25am Sun 24 Feb 13
Chris storey wrote:Chris, I do agree with you, but it's unfair to expect people to downgrade if there aren't enough properties to downgrade to.
Inform Al wrote:Ok, explain to me why i should pay the rent for people to have more rooms than they need, a simple explanation please!
Chris storey wrote:Ignorance is bliss isn't it. Until we build more social housing, house prices even for most of those in work will be too high to afford, and due to low pay and too many restricted to low hours even those in work need housing benefit to pay the rent. Why should decent ordinary people be forced to move out when those lucky Tories born with a silver spoon in their greedy mouths never have to worry about such matters. If we don't get rid of these parasites soon we could end up with an explosive situation, Not something I want my kids to look forward to.
skin2000 wrote:What you need to realise is when something needs paying for someone who works for a living has to pay for it, there is no such thing as a free lunch, someone pays for it, usually by going without themselves so you can get it for nothing.
The Bedroom tax, the Workfare scheme and the selling off parts of the NHS are bad for the people of this country....People need to wake up and find their voice, to tell the government it's not what they want.
If you want spare rooms try paying for them yourself, I have two spare rooms in my house, which I worked all my life to pay for, do you think I should let you live in one of them rent free? Oh silly me ! Of course you do .
What will likely happen is people will just breed to fill the bedrooms, let's be honest, it's already happening!
Pump out a sprog get extra benefits, it's a reality!
Inform Al
says...
12:34am Sun 24 Feb 13
Chris storey wrote:Easy, we ordinary people should have the same privileges of tenure of our family homes as the rich. I myself was lucky and was able to buy my home thanks to Maggies government at a time when the Tories actually worked for the people and houses were affordable, I was also able to ensure that each of my three sons had a home of their own. Ordinary people cannot do this now due to a government that ensures property prices stay out of the reach of most young people just to keep their party donors happy. Instead of forcing people out of the homes they raised their families in, they should build more social housing, something that actually more than pays for itself, but will result in lower house prices and Tory donors getting a little upset.
Inform Al wrote:Ok, explain to me why i should pay the rent for people to have more rooms than they need, a simple explanation please!
Chris storey wrote:Ignorance is bliss isn't it. Until we build more social housing, house prices even for most of those in work will be too high to afford, and due to low pay and too many restricted to low hours even those in work need housing benefit to pay the rent. Why should decent ordinary people be forced to move out when those lucky Tories born with a silver spoon in their greedy mouths never have to worry about such matters. If we don't get rid of these parasites soon we could end up with an explosive situation, Not something I want my kids to look forward to.
skin2000 wrote:What you need to realise is when something needs paying for someone who works for a living has to pay for it, there is no such thing as a free lunch, someone pays for it, usually by going without themselves so you can get it for nothing.
The Bedroom tax, the Workfare scheme and the selling off parts of the NHS are bad for the people of this country....People need to wake up and find their voice, to tell the government it's not what they want.
If you want spare rooms try paying for them yourself, I have two spare rooms in my house, which I worked all my life to pay for, do you think I should let you live in one of them rent free? Oh silly me ! Of course you do .
Torchie1
says...
12:58am Sun 24 Feb 13
Inform Al wrote:How can the government ensure that prices stay out of reach of most young people when it is up to the sellers to decide how much they want for their property. Nothing and no law on the books can force you to sell for a price other than what you decide so lets re-visit the cause of high property prices and lay the blame at the feet of the owners who try to get as much as possible.
Chris storey wrote:Easy, we ordinary people should have the same privileges of tenure of our family homes as the rich. I myself was lucky and was able to buy my home thanks to Maggies government at a time when the Tories actually worked for the people and houses were affordable, I was also able to ensure that each of my three sons had a home of their own. Ordinary people cannot do this now due to a government that ensures property prices stay out of the reach of most young people just to keep their party donors happy. Instead of forcing people out of the homes they raised their families in, they should build more social housing, something that actually more than pays for itself, but will result in lower house prices and Tory donors getting a little upset.
Inform Al wrote:Ok, explain to me why i should pay the rent for people to have more rooms than they need, a simple explanation please!
Chris storey wrote:Ignorance is bliss isn't it. Until we build more social housing, house prices even for most of those in work will be too high to afford, and due to low pay and too many restricted to low hours even those in work need housing benefit to pay the rent. Why should decent ordinary people be forced to move out when those lucky Tories born with a silver spoon in their greedy mouths never have to worry about such matters. If we don't get rid of these parasites soon we could end up with an explosive situation, Not something I want my kids to look forward to.
skin2000 wrote:What you need to realise is when something needs paying for someone who works for a living has to pay for it, there is no such thing as a free lunch, someone pays for it, usually by going without themselves so you can get it for nothing.
The Bedroom tax, the Workfare scheme and the selling off parts of the NHS are bad for the people of this country....People need to wake up and find their voice, to tell the government it's not what they want.
If you want spare rooms try paying for them yourself, I have two spare rooms in my house, which I worked all my life to pay for, do you think I should let you live in one of them rent free? Oh silly me ! Of course you do .
Inform Al
says...
1:17am Sun 24 Feb 13
Torchie1 wrote:It's so simple that even the simplest amongst us can comprehend it. Build many more social homes and the demand goes down. Simples.
Inform Al wrote:How can the government ensure that prices stay out of reach of most young people when it is up to the sellers to decide how much they want for their property. Nothing and no law on the books can force you to sell for a price other than what you decide so lets re-visit the cause of high property prices and lay the blame at the feet of the owners who try to get as much as possible.
Chris storey wrote:Easy, we ordinary people should have the same privileges of tenure of our family homes as the rich. I myself was lucky and was able to buy my home thanks to Maggies government at a time when the Tories actually worked for the people and houses were affordable, I was also able to ensure that each of my three sons had a home of their own. Ordinary people cannot do this now due to a government that ensures property prices stay out of the reach of most young people just to keep their party donors happy. Instead of forcing people out of the homes they raised their families in, they should build more social housing, something that actually more than pays for itself, but will result in lower house prices and Tory donors getting a little upset.
Inform Al wrote:Ok, explain to me why i should pay the rent for people to have more rooms than they need, a simple explanation please!
Chris storey wrote:Ignorance is bliss isn't it. Until we build more social housing, house prices even for most of those in work will be too high to afford, and due to low pay and too many restricted to low hours even those in work need housing benefit to pay the rent. Why should decent ordinary people be forced to move out when those lucky Tories born with a silver spoon in their greedy mouths never have to worry about such matters. If we don't get rid of these parasites soon we could end up with an explosive situation, Not something I want my kids to look forward to.
skin2000 wrote:What you need to realise is when something needs paying for someone who works for a living has to pay for it, there is no such thing as a free lunch, someone pays for it, usually by going without themselves so you can get it for nothing.
The Bedroom tax, the Workfare scheme and the selling off parts of the NHS are bad for the people of this country....People need to wake up and find their voice, to tell the government it's not what they want.
If you want spare rooms try paying for them yourself, I have two spare rooms in my house, which I worked all my life to pay for, do you think I should let you live in one of them rent free? Oh silly me ! Of course you do .
Lionel P
says...
7:51am Sun 24 Feb 13
It really is the height of Orwellian doublespeak to be talking of the redefining of a benefit as a "tax". Those who do so seem unable to grasp that it is unfair for those who do actually pay taxes must subsidise whatever lifestyle benefit claimants think they are entitled to, without this ever being audited or changed from time to time.
SaintM
says...
8:11am Sun 24 Feb 13
just scrap all benifits and council houses
MegGriffin
says...
8:39am Sun 24 Feb 13
Linesman wrote:Just take a look at any SCC Homebid book and look at how many vacant single bed flats there are compared to larger properties. You'll find the answer to your question there.
MegGriffin wrote:That's easy to say, but are there sufficient single bedroom flats and houses to move them into?
"The scheme is targeted at those residents who are of working age so pensioners currently in housing association or council homes will not be affected."
It's the pensioners that are the problem. I know know a great many older people who live alone in 3 and 4 bedroom houses. I know I'm probably going to be slated for saying it but they are the ones who should be made to downsize first.
If council houses had not been sold off in the first place, there would be greater flexibility for councils to help couples, whose children have left home, to move into more appropriate properties.
MegGriffin
says...
8:48am Sun 24 Feb 13
Inform Al wrote:Inform Al, you say "Instead of forcing people out of the homes they raised their families in, they should build more social housing"
Chris storey wrote:Easy, we ordinary people should have the same privileges of tenure of our family homes as the rich. I myself was lucky and was able to buy my home thanks to Maggies government at a time when the Tories actually worked for the people and houses were affordable, I was also able to ensure that each of my three sons had a home of their own. Ordinary people cannot do this now due to a government that ensures property prices stay out of the reach of most young people just to keep their party donors happy. Instead of forcing people out of the homes they raised their families in, they should build more social housing, something that actually more than pays for itself, but will result in lower house prices and Tory donors getting a little upset.
Inform Al wrote:Ok, explain to me why i should pay the rent for people to have more rooms than they need, a simple explanation please!
Chris storey wrote:Ignorance is bliss isn't it. Until we build more social housing, house prices even for most of those in work will be too high to afford, and due to low pay and too many restricted to low hours even those in work need housing benefit to pay the rent. Why should decent ordinary people be forced to move out when those lucky Tories born with a silver spoon in their greedy mouths never have to worry about such matters. If we don't get rid of these parasites soon we could end up with an explosive situation, Not something I want my kids to look forward to.
skin2000 wrote:What you need to realise is when something needs paying for someone who works for a living has to pay for it, there is no such thing as a free lunch, someone pays for it, usually by going without themselves so you can get it for nothing.
The Bedroom tax, the Workfare scheme and the selling off parts of the NHS are bad for the people of this country....People need to wake up and find their voice, to tell the government it's not what they want.
If you want spare rooms try paying for them yourself, I have two spare rooms in my house, which I worked all my life to pay for, do you think I should let you live in one of them rent free? Oh silly me ! Of course you do .
So do you honestly think it's okay for one person to live in a house with 2 or 3 unused bedrooms just because they once raised a family there?
loosehead
says...
8:59am Sun 24 Feb 13
IronLady2010 wrote:Well they could do financial reviews of council & housing association tenants so only the ones who cannot afford to buy or rent private get a council home/housing association(council tenant) home.
The 'Bedroom Tax' is actually a great idea, but things need to be in place before it's introduced.
I have a Mother-in Law who lives in a Council house with 2 bedrooms, only one is used, both work full-time and could afford to buy or rent privately, but due to the cheap costs Council Houses provide, they'd be stupid to give it up.
The best way is to increase Council House prices in line with Private Rents and make up any shortfall in benefits where needed. This way it's fair for all.
no need to build more social housing.
or we could do as London council's are now doing offer people on the waiting list houses up North in say the empty estates in Liverpool?
If unemployed they wouldn't have to worry about losing their job would they?
Go to Foyes Corner take a walk back up to shirley walk around the countless blocks of flats & see the prams up on the third level & then let Inform Al & the other opponents on here say there's no need to do something about under occupation of council homes?
Should be law that as soon as your children leave home you will be moved to a smaller property & your home passed onto a family.
If you don't want that to happen & can afford to buy then buy!
Inform Al
says...
9:42am Sun 24 Feb 13
loosehead wrote:You are advocating one law for the rich and no rights for the poor, like I suspect you are I'm sitting pretty, but I think ahead to the reality that my grandchildren and great grandchildren will probably never be able to afford to buy unless the property prices come down. This will not happen under the rule of the landlords party. Of course if you have no offspring to worry about just vote Tory and help screw the rest of us.
IronLady2010 wrote:Well they could do financial reviews of council & housing association tenants so only the ones who cannot afford to buy or rent private get a council home/housing association(council tenant) home.
The 'Bedroom Tax' is actually a great idea, but things need to be in place before it's introduced.
I have a Mother-in Law who lives in a Council house with 2 bedrooms, only one is used, both work full-time and could afford to buy or rent privately, but due to the cheap costs Council Houses provide, they'd be stupid to give it up.
The best way is to increase Council House prices in line with Private Rents and make up any shortfall in benefits where needed. This way it's fair for all.
no need to build more social housing.
or we could do as London council's are now doing offer people on the waiting list houses up North in say the empty estates in Liverpool?
If unemployed they wouldn't have to worry about losing their job would they?
Go to Foyes Corner take a walk back up to shirley walk around the countless blocks of flats & see the prams up on the third level & then let Inform Al & the other opponents on here say there's no need to do something about under occupation of council homes?
Should be law that as soon as your children leave home you will be moved to a smaller property & your home passed onto a family.
If you don't want that to happen & can afford to buy then buy!
southy
says...
9:52am Sun 24 Feb 13
Lone Ranger. wrote:The problem is not selling the council homes, the problem was Thatcher Government stoppping council from building there own homes to replace sold council home, And then came along Labour Government telling councils they must ask government permission to build council homes.
Perhaps council houses should never have been sold off to people at low prices and then filled with just two people occupying two or three bedrooms.
.
No more selling off council/housing association house
Councils should be allowed to build they should not be restricted or controlled over the matter of home building
skin2000
says...
10:04am Sun 24 Feb 13
The Queen asked ministers for a poverty hand out to help with the heating of her palaces....This was turned down....not good for PR....should she be subjected to the bedroom tax?....or do different rules apply here?
Lionel P
says...
10:15am Sun 24 Feb 13
skin2000 wrote:She's a pensioner, and nobody's being taxed. It's not a tax.
The Queen asked ministers for a poverty hand out to help with the heating of her palaces....This was turned down....not good for PR....should she be subjected to the bedroom tax?....or do different rules apply here?
Torchie1
says...
10:17am Sun 24 Feb 13
Inform Al wrote:You aren't a keen observer of your surroundings are you? The speed at which houses are built is slow enough to leave prices unaffected and planning laws will ensure this remains the case as long as people can have a say and slow or stop applications. Perhaps the house prices at Boorley Green will plummet with another 1400 dwellings due to be constructed but we both know they won't. Perhaps you should teach your offspring that house ownership is no longer a universal aspiration.
Torchie1 wrote:It's so simple that even the simplest amongst us can comprehend it. Build many more social homes and the demand goes down. Simples.
Inform Al wrote:How can the government ensure that prices stay out of reach of most young people when it is up to the sellers to decide how much they want for their property. Nothing and no law on the books can force you to sell for a price other than what you decide so lets re-visit the cause of high property prices and lay the blame at the feet of the owners who try to get as much as possible.
Chris storey wrote:Easy, we ordinary people should have the same privileges of tenure of our family homes as the rich. I myself was lucky and was able to buy my home thanks to Maggies government at a time when the Tories actually worked for the people and houses were affordable, I was also able to ensure that each of my three sons had a home of their own. Ordinary people cannot do this now due to a government that ensures property prices stay out of the reach of most young people just to keep their party donors happy. Instead of forcing people out of the homes they raised their families in, they should build more social housing, something that actually more than pays for itself, but will result in lower house prices and Tory donors getting a little upset.
Inform Al wrote:Ok, explain to me why i should pay the rent for people to have more rooms than they need, a simple explanation please!
Chris storey wrote:Ignorance is bliss isn't it. Until we build more social housing, house prices even for most of those in work will be too high to afford, and due to low pay and too many restricted to low hours even those in work need housing benefit to pay the rent. Why should decent ordinary people be forced to move out when those lucky Tories born with a silver spoon in their greedy mouths never have to worry about such matters. If we don't get rid of these parasites soon we could end up with an explosive situation, Not something I want my kids to look forward to.
skin2000 wrote:What you need to realise is when something needs paying for someone who works for a living has to pay for it, there is no such thing as a free lunch, someone pays for it, usually by going without themselves so you can get it for nothing.
The Bedroom tax, the Workfare scheme and the selling off parts of the NHS are bad for the people of this country....People need to wake up and find their voice, to tell the government it's not what they want.
If you want spare rooms try paying for them yourself, I have two spare rooms in my house, which I worked all my life to pay for, do you think I should let you live in one of them rent free? Oh silly me ! Of course you do .
southy
says...
10:18am Sun 24 Feb 13
Daz Prot is on BBC1 11am, if any one wants to listen to what he as to say.
Pikey-Biker
says...
10:24am Sun 24 Feb 13
southy wrote:I thought you said there was a media blackout on your party
Daz Prot is on BBC1 11am, if any one wants to listen to what he as to say.
skin2000
says...
10:24am Sun 24 Feb 13
Lionel P wrote:If it is not a tax, what is it then?
skin2000 wrote:She's a pensioner, and nobody's being taxed. It's not a tax.
The Queen asked ministers for a poverty hand out to help with the heating of her palaces....This was turned down....not good for PR....should she be subjected to the bedroom tax?....or do different rules apply here?
southy
says...
10:29am Sun 24 Feb 13
****-Biker wrote:There is BBC did not have much of a choice in the matter
southy wrote:I thought you said there was a media blackout on your party
Daz Prot is on BBC1 11am, if any one wants to listen to what he as to say.
Inform Al
says...
10:58am Sun 24 Feb 13
Torchie1 wrote:Actually I do not miss very much and can remember when we had a caring Tory party that actually built many more council homes than Labour, the party that kick started social home building after WW2. There were two factors in place at the time, 1 dear Maggie would never have allowed the level of immigration that has made the need now for so much more housing and 2 the fact that the desperate shortage of houses has forced the prices up due to it being a sellers market. There is no reason for there not to be a wholesale SOCIAL home building programme that will cost nothing as the rents cover the costs. In time as the need for housing reduces we will hopefully reach a position where as before the working man could afford to buy his own home. Maggies take on housing was in my view the best aspect of her tenure as PM I am so disappointed that the Tory party has sunk so low that I doubt I will ever be able to vote for it again.
Inform Al wrote:You aren't a keen observer of your surroundings are you? The speed at which houses are built is slow enough to leave prices unaffected and planning laws will ensure this remains the case as long as people can have a say and slow or stop applications. Perhaps the house prices at Boorley Green will plummet with another 1400 dwellings due to be constructed but we both know they won't. Perhaps you should teach your offspring that house ownership is no longer a universal aspiration.
Torchie1 wrote:It's so simple that even the simplest amongst us can comprehend it. Build many more social homes and the demand goes down. Simples.
Inform Al wrote:How can the government ensure that prices stay out of reach of most young people when it is up to the sellers to decide how much they want for their property. Nothing and no law on the books can force you to sell for a price other than what you decide so lets re-visit the cause of high property prices and lay the blame at the feet of the owners who try to get as much as possible.
Chris storey wrote:Easy, we ordinary people should have the same privileges of tenure of our family homes as the rich. I myself was lucky and was able to buy my home thanks to Maggies government at a time when the Tories actually worked for the people and houses were affordable, I was also able to ensure that each of my three sons had a home of their own. Ordinary people cannot do this now due to a government that ensures property prices stay out of the reach of most young people just to keep their party donors happy. Instead of forcing people out of the homes they raised their families in, they should build more social housing, something that actually more than pays for itself, but will result in lower house prices and Tory donors getting a little upset.
Inform Al wrote:Ok, explain to me why i should pay the rent for people to have more rooms than they need, a simple explanation please!
Chris storey wrote:Ignorance is bliss isn't it. Until we build more social housing, house prices even for most of those in work will be too high to afford, and due to low pay and too many restricted to low hours even those in work need housing benefit to pay the rent. Why should decent ordinary people be forced to move out when those lucky Tories born with a silver spoon in their greedy mouths never have to worry about such matters. If we don't get rid of these parasites soon we could end up with an explosive situation, Not something I want my kids to look forward to.
skin2000 wrote:What you need to realise is when something needs paying for someone who works for a living has to pay for it, there is no such thing as a free lunch, someone pays for it, usually by going without themselves so you can get it for nothing.
The Bedroom tax, the Workfare scheme and the selling off parts of the NHS are bad for the people of this country....People need to wake up and find their voice, to tell the government it's not what they want.
If you want spare rooms try paying for them yourself, I have two spare rooms in my house, which I worked all my life to pay for, do you think I should let you live in one of them rent free? Oh silly me ! Of course you do .
southy
says...
11:01am Sun 24 Feb 13
southy wrote:some made an error along the line some where
****-Biker wrote:There is BBC did not have much of a choice in the matter
southy wrote:I thought you said there was a media blackout on your party
Daz Prot is on BBC1 11am, if any one wants to listen to what he as to say.
freefinker
says...
11:11am Sun 24 Feb 13
southy wrote:.. yes, it was you, wasn't it?
southy wrote:some made an error along the line some where
****-Biker wrote:There is BBC did not have much of a choice in the matter
southy wrote:I thought you said there was a media blackout on your party
Daz Prot is on BBC1 11am, if any one wants to listen to what he as to say.
George4th
says...
11:24am Sun 24 Feb 13
loosehead wrote:Oh come on Loosehead, don't make sensible suggestions because Labour supporters don't do "sensible"! They prefer to continue wallowing in self pity............
IronLady2010 wrote:Well they could do financial reviews of council & housing association tenants so only the ones who cannot afford to buy or rent private get a council home/housing association(council tenant) home.
The 'Bedroom Tax' is actually a great idea, but things need to be in place before it's introduced.
I have a Mother-in Law who lives in a Council house with 2 bedrooms, only one is used, both work full-time and could afford to buy or rent privately, but due to the cheap costs Council Houses provide, they'd be stupid to give it up.
The best way is to increase Council House prices in line with Private Rents and make up any shortfall in benefits where needed. This way it's fair for all.
no need to build more social housing.
or we could do as London council's are now doing offer people on the waiting list houses up North in say the empty estates in Liverpool?
If unemployed they wouldn't have to worry about losing their job would they?
Go to Foyes Corner take a walk back up to shirley walk around the countless blocks of flats & see the prams up on the third level & then let Inform Al & the other opponents on here say there's no need to do something about under occupation of council homes?
Should be law that as soon as your children leave home you will be moved to a smaller property & your home passed onto a family.
If you don't want that to happen & can afford to buy then buy!
>
It is logical that you move out of a council property as the number of occupants reduces! Let someone else move in who will fully occupy the property.
If you were in private accommodation you wouldn't continue paying rent for rooms you don't fully utilise, you would downsize and pay less rent!!
But hey, that's too simplistic for many on here!
skin2000
says...
11:34am Sun 24 Feb 13
George4th wrote:Wallowing in self pity...what do you mean by this? You are very condescending to others, in your views.
loosehead wrote:Oh come on Loosehead, don't make sensible suggestions because Labour supporters don't do "sensible"! They prefer to continue wallowing in self pity............
IronLady2010 wrote:Well they could do financial reviews of council & housing association tenants so only the ones who cannot afford to buy or rent private get a council home/housing association(council tenant) home.
The 'Bedroom Tax' is actually a great idea, but things need to be in place before it's introduced.
I have a Mother-in Law who lives in a Council house with 2 bedrooms, only one is used, both work full-time and could afford to buy or rent privately, but due to the cheap costs Council Houses provide, they'd be stupid to give it up.
The best way is to increase Council House prices in line with Private Rents and make up any shortfall in benefits where needed. This way it's fair for all.
no need to build more social housing.
or we could do as London council's are now doing offer people on the waiting list houses up North in say the empty estates in Liverpool?
If unemployed they wouldn't have to worry about losing their job would they?
Go to Foyes Corner take a walk back up to shirley walk around the countless blocks of flats & see the prams up on the third level & then let Inform Al & the other opponents on here say there's no need to do something about under occupation of council homes?
Should be law that as soon as your children leave home you will be moved to a smaller property & your home passed onto a family.
If you don't want that to happen & can afford to buy then buy!
>
It is logical that you move out of a council property as the number of occupants reduces! Let someone else move in who will fully occupy the property.
If you were in private accommodation you wouldn't continue paying rent for rooms you don't fully utilise, you would downsize and pay less rent!!
But hey, that's too simplistic for many on here!
D.a.v.e
says...
11:51am Sun 24 Feb 13
Example: OAP couple live in a 3 bedroom council house with there 40 year old bachelor son. He has never left home and has no intention of doing so. He works and pays his parents keep and saves his earnings yet
mum and dad are exempt from paying for their spare rooms.
mum and dad are exempt from paying for their spare rooms.
100%HANTSBOY
says...
11:56am Sun 24 Feb 13
southy wrote:Yes,got the same airtime as the Elvis Loves Pets Party.....it's a disgrace,considering TUSC are bigger better and more successful than UKIP !
Daz Prot is on BBC1 11am, if any one wants to listen to what he as to say.
southy
says...
12:19pm Sun 24 Feb 13
Your best bit free is go and view Mt Edna pictures think you might enjoy them
southy
says...
12:21pm Sun 24 Feb 13
100%HANTSBOY wrote:All it is some one got the time wrong.
southy wrote:Yes,got the same airtime as the Elvis Loves Pets Party.....it's a disgrace,considering TUSC are bigger better and more successful than UKIP !
Daz Prot is on BBC1 11am, if any one wants to listen to what he as to say.
solomum
says...
12:30pm Sun 24 Feb 13
loosehead wrote:The problems being faced now with lack of housing was somewhat caused by the 'Buy your council home scheme' of the 80's. The majority of social housing is now owned by housing associations with very few council owned properties still out there. I have a sister and brotherinlaw who bought their children up in a council house, never claimed benefits even when her husband was struggling for work (he has always had his own business) as she was too proud to claim benefits, always lived within their means and then went on to buy her council house, selling it years later at a huge financial gain enabling them to buy their own private properties thereon. For their family, the fruits of their labours were rewarded, BUT, this has then impacted on future generations who no longer have council owned properties available. Mrs Thatcher succeeded in getting families who would not be able to afford to buy, on the property ladder during that particular era, but again, this does not extend to future generations who are now waiting years on a housing list due to lack of properties. I grew up on a council estate where there was a wonderful sense of community and everyone knew everyone. The homes were FAMILY homes. The present day government is destroying the whole ethos of families. It is a double edged sword at the moment as I agree with your comment saying 'why should we pay rent for someone to have a bigger house than they need?' but on the other hand, it is there HOME where they have bought up their children and all their memories are. The government needs to tackle the root cause of why there are so many people waiting for housing, rather than destroying family life.
IronLady2010 wrote:I live next door to a council house which is a two bedroomed house with a single guy on the dole living in there?
I feel this has been rushed through with little thought.
Inform Al makes a good point, let's suppose all those with a spare room decide they want to downgrade to free up a bigger house, where will they all go?
Do we have enough smaller houses for people to move into?
Surely you can't think that's right?
I've been into flats where young families are having to carry prams & children up the stairs to one bedroomed flats is that right?
I believe that all council tenants should be financially checked & if they are financially able to buy or rent private they should be made to do so to free up council homes for the low paid.
when I was young council houses were allocated ion the size of the family to those in need not those who wanted new cars & holidays & have the council pay to repair & modernise the properties.
I have now got a couple who transferred from a four bedroom council house & they're now in a two bedroom house why?
why does anyone who only ever use one bedroom expect us to pay the rent on a two bedroom property?
Sorry I was bought up in a council home & I know it's a service for low paid not for wealthy people & it's not your house it belongs to the council.
my neighbour should be moved into a single persons property & a young family should have the two bedroomed house
ohec
says...
12:55pm Sun 24 Feb 13
This is a very complex issue and reading through the comments its clear to see that there are many viewpoints,
there is some merit in the bedroom tax as under occupancy is a problem but one that i think should be dealt with at local level on a individual basis. The old way of thinking was that you got engaged and put your name down on the housing list and waited your turn (not very long 50 years ago) and that was it you were a council tenant for the rest of your life, you may move or get a bigger house as required and as long as you paid the rent everything was fine.
Now with such a shortage of housing things are changing but the older generation don't want to move out of their family homes and don't understand why they should, and the younger generation don't understand why they wont, so cost is not the real problem but the fact that people are being reminded that houses they considered to be theirs are not theirs at all and their security is being threatened so its a complete rethink on how we view social housing. I believe the biggest problem with rents is the buy to let investors who can charge whatever they like knowing full well that housing benefit will cover the rents (ordinary people living off the backs of other ordinary people) many thousands of social housing houses need to be built as buying becomes less and less of an option.
there is some merit in the bedroom tax as under occupancy is a problem but one that i think should be dealt with at local level on a individual basis. The old way of thinking was that you got engaged and put your name down on the housing list and waited your turn (not very long 50 years ago) and that was it you were a council tenant for the rest of your life, you may move or get a bigger house as required and as long as you paid the rent everything was fine.
Now with such a shortage of housing things are changing but the older generation don't want to move out of their family homes and don't understand why they should, and the younger generation don't understand why they wont, so cost is not the real problem but the fact that people are being reminded that houses they considered to be theirs are not theirs at all and their security is being threatened so its a complete rethink on how we view social housing. I believe the biggest problem with rents is the buy to let investors who can charge whatever they like knowing full well that housing benefit will cover the rents (ordinary people living off the backs of other ordinary people) many thousands of social housing houses need to be built as buying becomes less and less of an option.
skin2000
says...
1:10pm Sun 24 Feb 13
ohec wrote:The big problem for private renting is the cost.....a 3 bed semi costs about £700 a month to rent..how is someone on minimum wage or just over expected to afford this. At the time selling off council houses seemed a good idea...but in hindsight perhaps it wasn't.
This is a very complex issue and reading through the comments its clear to see that there are many viewpoints,
there is some merit in the bedroom tax as under occupancy is a problem but one that i think should be dealt with at local level on a individual basis. The old way of thinking was that you got engaged and put your name down on the housing list and waited your turn (not very long 50 years ago) and that was it you were a council tenant for the rest of your life, you may move or get a bigger house as required and as long as you paid the rent everything was fine.
Now with such a shortage of housing things are changing but the older generation don't want to move out of their family homes and don't understand why they should, and the younger generation don't understand why they wont, so cost is not the real problem but the fact that people are being reminded that houses they considered to be theirs are not theirs at all and their security is being threatened so its a complete rethink on how we view social housing. I believe the biggest problem with rents is the buy to let investors who can charge whatever they like knowing full well that housing benefit will cover the rents (ordinary people living off the backs of other ordinary people) many thousands of social housing houses need to be built as buying becomes less and less of an option.
George4th
says...
1:14pm Sun 24 Feb 13
solomum wrote:1. Two million immigrants under labour might have a had a minor effect!!!
loosehead wrote:The problems being faced now with lack of housing was somewhat caused by the 'Buy your council home scheme' of the 80's. The majority of social housing is now owned by housing associations with very few council owned properties still out there. I have a sister and brotherinlaw who bought their children up in a council house, never claimed benefits even when her husband was struggling for work (he has always had his own business) as she was too proud to claim benefits, always lived within their means and then went on to buy her council house, selling it years later at a huge financial gain enabling them to buy their own private properties thereon. For their family, the fruits of their labours were rewarded, BUT, this has then impacted on future generations who no longer have council owned properties available. Mrs Thatcher succeeded in getting families who would not be able to afford to buy, on the property ladder during that particular era, but again, this does not extend to future generations who are now waiting years on a housing list due to lack of properties. I grew up on a council estate where there was a wonderful sense of community and everyone knew everyone. The homes were FAMILY homes. The present day government is destroying the whole ethos of families. It is a double edged sword at the moment as I agree with your comment saying 'why should we pay rent for someone to have a bigger house than they need?' but on the other hand, it is there HOME where they have bought up their children and all their memories are. The government needs to tackle the root cause of why there are so many people waiting for housing, rather than destroying family life.
IronLady2010 wrote:I live next door to a council house which is a two bedroomed house with a single guy on the dole living in there?
I feel this has been rushed through with little thought.
Inform Al makes a good point, let's suppose all those with a spare room decide they want to downgrade to free up a bigger house, where will they all go?
Do we have enough smaller houses for people to move into?
Surely you can't think that's right?
I've been into flats where young families are having to carry prams & children up the stairs to one bedroomed flats is that right?
I believe that all council tenants should be financially checked & if they are financially able to buy or rent private they should be made to do so to free up council homes for the low paid.
when I was young council houses were allocated ion the size of the family to those in need not those who wanted new cars & holidays & have the council pay to repair & modernise the properties.
I have now got a couple who transferred from a four bedroom council house & they're now in a two bedroom house why?
why does anyone who only ever use one bedroom expect us to pay the rent on a two bedroom property?
Sorry I was bought up in a council home & I know it's a service for low paid not for wealthy people & it's not your house it belongs to the council.
my neighbour should be moved into a single persons property & a young family should have the two bedroomed house
2. Labour destroyed the ethos of family by discouraging marriage
3. Labour created a Credit Bubble, a Property Bubble and a Consumer Bubble, and they all burst!!
4. People are living in the ex Council properties - if they weren't, our housing situation would be a lot worse! So if they were still occupied by Council tenants then an equal number of people would again be without housing!
5. Labour fell disastrously short of building the required number of dwellings every single year in governemnt! - the only Property they looked after were the ones they bought for their own Wealth Investment Portfolios!
6. People renting Private dwellings move according to their changing circumstances so why can't Council/Housing Association people do the same?
loosehead
says...
1:22pm Sun 24 Feb 13
Inform Al wrote:What! The council house system was put into place to give affordable housing for low paid working class people.
loosehead wrote:You are advocating one law for the rich and no rights for the poor, like I suspect you are I'm sitting pretty, but I think ahead to the reality that my grandchildren and great grandchildren will probably never be able to afford to buy unless the property prices come down. This will not happen under the rule of the landlords party. Of course if you have no offspring to worry about just vote Tory and help screw the rest of us.
IronLady2010 wrote:Well they could do financial reviews of council & housing association tenants so only the ones who cannot afford to buy or rent private get a council home/housing association(council tenant) home.
The 'Bedroom Tax' is actually a great idea, but things need to be in place before it's introduced.
I have a Mother-in Law who lives in a Council house with 2 bedrooms, only one is used, both work full-time and could afford to buy or rent privately, but due to the cheap costs Council Houses provide, they'd be stupid to give it up.
The best way is to increase Council House prices in line with Private Rents and make up any shortfall in benefits where needed. This way it's fair for all.
no need to build more social housing.
or we could do as London council's are now doing offer people on the waiting list houses up North in say the empty estates in Liverpool?
If unemployed they wouldn't have to worry about losing their job would they?
Go to Foyes Corner take a walk back up to shirley walk around the countless blocks of flats & see the prams up on the third level & then let Inform Al & the other opponents on here say there's no need to do something about under occupation of council homes?
Should be law that as soon as your children leave home you will be moved to a smaller property & your home passed onto a family.
If you don't want that to happen & can afford to buy then buy!
on the size of your family you were allocated housing.
at no time did they say this was now your house.
I'm from a Council house background & I know that if a family call it the family home they have an option to buy if not & they are financially capable of buying or affording private rentals why should they have a council property when there are plenty who can't afford to buy or go private?
why is it okay for a single man/woman to live in a two bedroom going up to a four bedroomed property which is council & is there for families?
Council & Housing Association rents increase with the size of the property so why should wee the tax payer be expected to pay for a single or couple who only use one bedroom to live in a two bedroomed house?
If they work & are paying for this benefit of an extra room we can't do anything about it but is it right when young families have two children in a single bedroom flat?
I'm not a socialist but I can't understand how any one of the left can defend that so do you?
loosehead
says...
1:24pm Sun 24 Feb 13
IronLady2010 wrote:Tell her to look on Homebid & Rozell ct & Sarnia are for the over 60's & usually have vacant flats
loosehead wrote:Changes do need to be made. I'll give an example. Hubbys Nan lives in a 3 bed Council house all on her own, she has been asking for a small flat for ages as she is struggling with the stairs, yet it all falls on deaf ears.
IronLady2010 wrote:I live next door to a council house which is a two bedroomed house with a single guy on the dole living in there?
I feel this has been rushed through with little thought.
Inform Al makes a good point, let's suppose all those with a spare room decide they want to downgrade to free up a bigger house, where will they all go?
Do we have enough smaller houses for people to move into?
Surely you can't think that's right?
I've been into flats where young families are having to carry prams & children up the stairs to one bedroomed flats is that right?
I believe that all council tenants should be financially checked & if they are financially able to buy or rent private they should be made to do so to free up council homes for the low paid.
when I was young council houses were allocated ion the size of the family to those in need not those who wanted new cars & holidays & have the council pay to repair & modernise the properties.
I have now got a couple who transferred from a four bedroom council house & they're now in a two bedroom house why?
why does anyone who only ever use one bedroom expect us to pay the rent on a two bedroom property?
Sorry I was bought up in a council home & I know it's a service for low paid not for wealthy people & it's not your house it belongs to the council.
my neighbour should be moved into a single persons property & a young family should have the two bedroomed house
As she isn't on benefits I guess this change won't effect her, but yet she is willing to give up this house but is hitting her head against a wall trying to downgrade. There just aren't enough properties available for people to downgrade.
loosehead
says...
1:31pm Sun 24 Feb 13
skin2000 wrote:Are they taking money from their earnings?
Lionel P wrote:If it is not a tax, what is it then?
skin2000 wrote:She's a pensioner, and nobody's being taxed. It's not a tax.
The Queen asked ministers for a poverty hand out to help with the heating of her palaces....This was turned down....not good for PR....should she be subjected to the bedroom tax?....or do different rules apply here?
Are they charging them for services(council tax)?
are they charging VAT on goods brought?
No they're saying if you don't need extra rooms we'll not pay for those extra rooms so we ( THE TAXPAYERS) will not be subsidising you having homes far bigger than you need but move to a smaller property no cut in benefits rents lower so it's a win,win situation.
also freeing up homes to families trapped in single peoples accommadation
loosehead
says...
1:33pm Sun 24 Feb 13
ohec wrote:Totally agree with this post
This is a very complex issue and reading through the comments its clear to see that there are many viewpoints,
there is some merit in the bedroom tax as under occupancy is a problem but one that i think should be dealt with at local level on a individual basis. The old way of thinking was that you got engaged and put your name down on the housing list and waited your turn (not very long 50 years ago) and that was it you were a council tenant for the rest of your life, you may move or get a bigger house as required and as long as you paid the rent everything was fine.
Now with such a shortage of housing things are changing but the older generation don't want to move out of their family homes and don't understand why they should, and the younger generation don't understand why they wont, so cost is not the real problem but the fact that people are being reminded that houses they considered to be theirs are not theirs at all and their security is being threatened so its a complete rethink on how we view social housing. I believe the biggest problem with rents is the buy to let investors who can charge whatever they like knowing full well that housing benefit will cover the rents (ordinary people living off the backs of other ordinary people) many thousands of social housing houses need to be built as buying becomes less and less of an option.
loosehead
says...
1:41pm Sun 24 Feb 13
I came back from Thailand & could take on a one bedroomed retirement flat under the council or I could stretch every penny I have to buy a two bedroomed property with a garden.
I looked at it that yes I could afford to buy(JUST) but with a huge fixed rate mortgage.
Soon it will come to the point where I either rent private or I go back to Thailand to live.
I've put my name down on Homebid as an option to rent a retirement flat but will not bid as I can afford not to be a council tenant.
There are many people on more than I earn yet are in council properties.
one neighbour gets Army Pension,State pension & his Grown up son is on £25,000 a year so they could afford to buy but they are considering it.
the other side the guy had left home but his father died & he claimed he was living there so got a two bedroomed house & he's a single guy how can this be right?
Another false hood is the Family Home?where on the rent book does it say this is your families home for ever & ever?
I looked at it that yes I could afford to buy(JUST) but with a huge fixed rate mortgage.
Soon it will come to the point where I either rent private or I go back to Thailand to live.
I've put my name down on Homebid as an option to rent a retirement flat but will not bid as I can afford not to be a council tenant.
There are many people on more than I earn yet are in council properties.
one neighbour gets Army Pension,State pension & his Grown up son is on £25,000 a year so they could afford to buy but they are considering it.
the other side the guy had left home but his father died & he claimed he was living there so got a two bedroomed house & he's a single guy how can this be right?
Another false hood is the Family Home?where on the rent book does it say this is your families home for ever & ever?
southy
says...
1:43pm Sun 24 Feb 13
The Bedroom Tax has to go back, and alteration made to it. As it stands at the moment its breaking the Law.
It against the law to induce this aim at one section of society, It will have to apply to all or none.
It against the law to induce this aim at one section of society, It will have to apply to all or none.
loosehead
says...
1:50pm Sun 24 Feb 13
skin2000 wrote:Do they need 3bedrooms?
ohec wrote:The big problem for private renting is the cost.....a 3 bed semi costs about £700 a month to rent..how is someone on minimum wage or just over expected to afford this. At the time selling off council houses seemed a good idea...but in hindsight perhaps it wasn't.
This is a very complex issue and reading through the comments its clear to see that there are many viewpoints,
there is some merit in the bedroom tax as under occupancy is a problem but one that i think should be dealt with at local level on a individual basis. The old way of thinking was that you got engaged and put your name down on the housing list and waited your turn (not very long 50 years ago) and that was it you were a council tenant for the rest of your life, you may move or get a bigger house as required and as long as you paid the rent everything was fine.
Now with such a shortage of housing things are changing but the older generation don't want to move out of their family homes and don't understand why they should, and the younger generation don't understand why they wont, so cost is not the real problem but the fact that people are being reminded that houses they considered to be theirs are not theirs at all and their security is being threatened so its a complete rethink on how we view social housing. I believe the biggest problem with rents is the buy to let investors who can charge whatever they like knowing full well that housing benefit will cover the rents (ordinary people living off the backs of other ordinary people) many thousands of social housing houses need to be built as buying becomes less and less of an option.
I can tell you this if they look at buying at this moment as long as they go for the cheapest areas mortgages wouldn't be this high.
I'll admit I put down £47,000 on a two bedroom house & my mortgage is £88,555 ( eighty eight thousand & five hundred & fifty five pounds) I pay on a fixed rate mortgage £361 a month so a mortgage would be better so buy don't rent if you can afford to buy
IronLady2010
says...
1:56pm Sun 24 Feb 13
southy wrote:It has always been in effect for private rents, Social housing is now catching up. Yet again you are out of touch!
The Bedroom Tax has to go back, and alteration made to it. As it stands at the moment its breaking the Law.
It against the law to induce this aim at one section of society, It will have to apply to all or none.
freefinker
says...
1:56pm Sun 24 Feb 13
southy wrote:.. name the 'Law' it's in breach of.
The Bedroom Tax has to go back, and alteration made to it. As it stands at the moment its breaking the Law.
It against the law to induce this aim at one section of society, It will have to apply to all or none.
Bet you can't.
skin2000
says...
2:01pm Sun 24 Feb 13
loosehead wrote:You put down £47,000, on the minimum wage it would be impossible to save up for a deposit like that.
skin2000 wrote:Do they need 3bedrooms?
ohec wrote:The big problem for private renting is the cost.....a 3 bed semi costs about £700 a month to rent..how is someone on minimum wage or just over expected to afford this. At the time selling off council houses seemed a good idea...but in hindsight perhaps it wasn't.
This is a very complex issue and reading through the comments its clear to see that there are many viewpoints,
there is some merit in the bedroom tax as under occupancy is a problem but one that i think should be dealt with at local level on a individual basis. The old way of thinking was that you got engaged and put your name down on the housing list and waited your turn (not very long 50 years ago) and that was it you were a council tenant for the rest of your life, you may move or get a bigger house as required and as long as you paid the rent everything was fine.
Now with such a shortage of housing things are changing but the older generation don't want to move out of their family homes and don't understand why they should, and the younger generation don't understand why they wont, so cost is not the real problem but the fact that people are being reminded that houses they considered to be theirs are not theirs at all and their security is being threatened so its a complete rethink on how we view social housing. I believe the biggest problem with rents is the buy to let investors who can charge whatever they like knowing full well that housing benefit will cover the rents (ordinary people living off the backs of other ordinary people) many thousands of social housing houses need to be built as buying becomes less and less of an option.
I can tell you this if they look at buying at this moment as long as they go for the cheapest areas mortgages wouldn't be this high.
I'll admit I put down £47,000 on a two bedroom house & my mortgage is £88,555 ( eighty eight thousand & five hundred & fifty five pounds) I pay on a fixed rate mortgage £361 a month so a mortgage would be better so buy don't rent if you can afford to buy
southy
says...
3:22pm Sun 24 Feb 13
IronLady2010 wrote:And thats why its breaking the Law, its against English Law to discriminate.
southy wrote:It has always been in effect for private rents, Social housing is now catching up. Yet again you are out of touch!
The Bedroom Tax has to go back, and alteration made to it. As it stands at the moment its breaking the Law.
It against the law to induce this aim at one section of society, It will have to apply to all or none.
It was on yahoo political news, and your wrong it as not applied to private renting or private ownership, You can claim housing Benefit what ever your statius, just that if you are private ownership it would very unlikely to apply, but can apply for zero interest, or housing benefit might pay part of morage.
Private and Public Renting it as all ways been there for both to be able to claim.
stay local
says...
3:29pm Sun 24 Feb 13
southy wrote:Surely this is something you would support, as it seem to reflect what might be a needs budget! Just as you don't think local government workers should receive more than 40,000 why should people occupying local government (or housing association) accommodation more than they require? Surely your egalitarian society would support and encourage such plans?
The Bedroom Tax has to go back, and alteration made to it. As it stands at the moment its breaking the Law.
It against the law to induce this aim at one section of society, It will have to apply to all or none.
southy
says...
3:43pm Sun 24 Feb 13
stay local wrote:It as nothing to do with a needs bugget, in this area a needs bugget would build new homes, which is what is needed.
southy wrote:Surely this is something you would support, as it seem to reflect what might be a needs budget! Just as you don't think local government workers should receive more than 40,000 why should people occupying local government (or housing association) accommodation more than they require? Surely your egalitarian society would support and encourage such plans?
The Bedroom Tax has to go back, and alteration made to it. As it stands at the moment its breaking the Law.
It against the law to induce this aim at one section of society, It will have to apply to all or none.
skin2000
says...
4:24pm Sun 24 Feb 13
freefinker wrote:Not breaking any law, but morally unfair.
southy wrote:.. name the 'Law' it's in breach of.
The Bedroom Tax has to go back, and alteration made to it. As it stands at the moment its breaking the Law.
It against the law to induce this aim at one section of society, It will have to apply to all or none.
Bet you can't.
Inform Al
says...
4:37pm Sun 24 Feb 13
loosehead wrote:Rozel and Sarnia courts are what are known as U2 blocks. all to the same design and there are a few of them and except for Ventnor court, over 55, are restricted to the over 6o's. The voids in these flats tend to occur only when a tenant dies. As most of the problems finding 1 bed flats are for people of working age losing housing benefits these flats will not be available to them. As far as the comment about it not being their house it's the council's is concerned, it's they who pay the rent and should be entitled to live in their family home until they die, just like C'moron and his rich croneys can live in theirs until they die. If on the other hand someone actually wishes to downsize the council should do all it can to facilitate the move.
IronLady2010 wrote:Tell her to look on Homebid & Rozell ct & Sarnia are for the over 60's & usually have vacant flats
loosehead wrote:Changes do need to be made. I'll give an example. Hubbys Nan lives in a 3 bed Council house all on her own, she has been asking for a small flat for ages as she is struggling with the stairs, yet it all falls on deaf ears.
IronLady2010 wrote:I live next door to a council house which is a two bedroomed house with a single guy on the dole living in there?
I feel this has been rushed through with little thought.
Inform Al makes a good point, let's suppose all those with a spare room decide they want to downgrade to free up a bigger house, where will they all go?
Do we have enough smaller houses for people to move into?
Surely you can't think that's right?
I've been into flats where young families are having to carry prams & children up the stairs to one bedroomed flats is that right?
I believe that all council tenants should be financially checked & if they are financially able to buy or rent private they should be made to do so to free up council homes for the low paid.
when I was young council houses were allocated ion the size of the family to those in need not those who wanted new cars & holidays & have the council pay to repair & modernise the properties.
I have now got a couple who transferred from a four bedroom council house & they're now in a two bedroom house why?
why does anyone who only ever use one bedroom expect us to pay the rent on a two bedroom property?
Sorry I was bought up in a council home & I know it's a service for low paid not for wealthy people & it's not your house it belongs to the council.
my neighbour should be moved into a single persons property & a young family should have the two bedroomed house
As she isn't on benefits I guess this change won't effect her, but yet she is willing to give up this house but is hitting her head against a wall trying to downgrade. There just aren't enough properties available for people to downgrade.
LancashireLad
says...
4:51pm Sun 24 Feb 13
If you have had enough of this callous liberal coalition consider this: Reasons for not voting for any of the three trendy progressive liberal parties; ( Cons, LibDems & New Labour) all pro-EU even though it is a very costly failed experiment, all three parties will do nothing to stop the open door imigration policy with eastern Europeans flooding into Britain, all three compete to be the most politically correct, riding rough shod over our traditions and our rich Christian heritage in a bid to look the most progressive by forcing gay marriage on the nation even though there is no demand for it, no need for it, with less than 0.002 of Gays & Lesbians signing up for Civil Partnerships, plus who do they think they are to destroy and undermine marriage and the traditional family that has been practiced in all civilised societies across the world for thousands of years, yet it seems Cameron, Clegg and Miliband know what is best for the British people, all in the name of an unequal equality where some are more equal and others; a mad cap move of social engineering. All three parties have done nothing to stop the false new religion of global warming and climate change speculators and fudged scientific evidence; using this as a dishonest excuse for green stealth tax rises, leading to extortionate fuel, domestic gas & electricity bills where ordinary people can no longer drive their cars or heat their homes, but do any of the above care about the poor, the disabled or the elderly freezing to death in their homes? Have any of them done anything to reign in the greed of the big six energy companies who make massive profits year on year? Also we have the NHS on its knees , unable to come with mass imigration; four to six hour waits at A & E not uncommon before you are seen by anyone! etc etc And yet you still trust these phoney liberal progressives; despite all of of this and much more you are still prepared to vote for them! Unbelievable! If so your expectations must be really low as what you consider to be good government. This cosy club of three needs a shock result at Eastleigh , so for the sake of the nation , especially the children, the poor ,the sick the disabled and the elderly vote for Diane James & UKIP and give them a wake up call.” Stop these callous rich bullies in their tracks...
freefinker
says...
4:59pm Sun 24 Feb 13
skin2000 wrote:.. so, is this the second time this month when you admit to getting something wrong?
freefinker wrote:Not breaking any law, but morally unfair.
southy wrote:.. name the 'Law' it's in breach of.
The Bedroom Tax has to go back, and alteration made to it. As it stands at the moment its breaking the Law.
It against the law to induce this aim at one section of society, It will have to apply to all or none.
Bet you can't.
You clearly say initially '.. its breaking the Law. It against the law ..'. But now you say 'Not breaking any law'.
Would just like you to clarify that you did get it wrong in the first place.
freefinker
says...
5:00pm Sun 24 Feb 13
freefinker wrote:.. oops, sorry. I thought that was southy's reply. Need to get my eyes tested.
skin2000 wrote:.. so, is this the second time this month when you admit to getting something wrong?
freefinker wrote:Not breaking any law, but morally unfair.
southy wrote:.. name the 'Law' it's in breach of.
The Bedroom Tax has to go back, and alteration made to it. As it stands at the moment its breaking the Law.
It against the law to induce this aim at one section of society, It will have to apply to all or none.
Bet you can't.
You clearly say initially '.. its breaking the Law. It against the law ..'. But now you say 'Not breaking any law'.
Would just like you to clarify that you did get it wrong in the first place.
freefinker
says...
5:16pm Sun 24 Feb 13
southy wrote:.. come on then, name the precise legislation that makes this 'against the law'.
IronLady2010 wrote:And thats why its breaking the Law, its against English Law to discriminate.
southy wrote:It has always been in effect for private rents, Social housing is now catching up. Yet again you are out of touch!
The Bedroom Tax has to go back, and alteration made to it. As it stands at the moment its breaking the Law.
It against the law to induce this aim at one section of society, It will have to apply to all or none.
It was on yahoo political news, and your wrong it as not applied to private renting or private ownership, You can claim housing Benefit what ever your statius, just that if you are private ownership it would very unlikely to apply, but can apply for zero interest, or housing benefit might pay part of morage.
Private and Public Renting it as all ways been there for both to be able to claim.
The position on private rented accommodation and Housing Benefit is that you can live in a home with as many rooms as you wish, but the Housing Benefit rules may limit how many you can be paid for. The number of people who live with you is used to work out how many bedrooms you are entitled to for the rate of benefit you will receive.
Now tell me how this materially differs from the proposed 'Bedroom Tax' for social housing?
Housing Benefit does NOT pay any mortgage interest, but it is sometimes possible after 13 weeks to get interest paid if claiming unemployment benefit.
For an aspiring politician it is usually helpful to actually have a basic understanding of the benefits system. You appear to have little knowledge in this respect.
IronLady2010
says...
6:18pm Sun 24 Feb 13
freefinker wrote:"You appear to have little knowledge in this respect."
southy wrote:.. come on then, name the precise legislation that makes this 'against the law'.
IronLady2010 wrote:And thats why its breaking the Law, its against English Law to discriminate.
southy wrote:It has always been in effect for private rents, Social housing is now catching up. Yet again you are out of touch!
The Bedroom Tax has to go back, and alteration made to it. As it stands at the moment its breaking the Law.
It against the law to induce this aim at one section of society, It will have to apply to all or none.
It was on yahoo political news, and your wrong it as not applied to private renting or private ownership, You can claim housing Benefit what ever your statius, just that if you are private ownership it would very unlikely to apply, but can apply for zero interest, or housing benefit might pay part of morage.
Private and Public Renting it as all ways been there for both to be able to claim.
The position on private rented accommodation and Housing Benefit is that you can live in a home with as many rooms as you wish, but the Housing Benefit rules may limit how many you can be paid for. The number of people who live with you is used to work out how many bedrooms you are entitled to for the rate of benefit you will receive.
Now tell me how this materially differs from the proposed 'Bedroom Tax' for social housing?
Housing Benefit does NOT pay any mortgage interest, but it is sometimes possible after 13 weeks to get interest paid if claiming unemployment benefit.
For an aspiring politician it is usually helpful to actually have a basic understanding of the benefits system. You appear to have little knowledge in this respect.
Tell us where he does have accurate knowledge...........
...
Lone Ranger.
says...
6:39pm Sun 24 Feb 13
LancashireLad wrote:Stop these callous rich bullies in their tracks. .............. .
If you have had enough of this callous liberal coalition consider this: Reasons for not voting for any of the three trendy progressive liberal parties; ( Cons, LibDems & New Labour) all pro-EU even though it is a very costly failed experiment, all three parties will do nothing to stop the open door imigration policy with eastern Europeans flooding into Britain, all three compete to be the most politically correct, riding rough shod over our traditions and our rich Christian heritage in a bid to look the most progressive by forcing gay marriage on the nation even though there is no demand for it, no need for it, with less than 0.002 of Gays & Lesbians signing up for Civil Partnerships, plus who do they think they are to destroy and undermine marriage and the traditional family that has been practiced in all civilised societies across the world for thousands of years, yet it seems Cameron, Clegg and Miliband know what is best for the British people, all in the name of an unequal equality where some are more equal and others; a mad cap move of social engineering. All three parties have done nothing to stop the false new religion of global warming and climate change speculators and fudged scientific evidence; using this as a dishonest excuse for green stealth tax rises, leading to extortionate fuel, domestic gas & electricity bills where ordinary people can no longer drive their cars or heat their homes, but do any of the above care about the poor, the disabled or the elderly freezing to death in their homes? Have any of them done anything to reign in the greed of the big six energy companies who make massive profits year on year? Also we have the NHS on its knees , unable to come with mass imigration; four to six hour waits at A & E not uncommon before you are seen by anyone! etc etc And yet you still trust these phoney liberal progressives; despite all of of this and much more you are still prepared to vote for them! Unbelievable! If so your expectations must be really low as what you consider to be good government. This cosy club of three needs a shock result at Eastleigh , so for the sake of the nation , especially the children, the poor ,the sick the disabled and the elderly vote for Diane James & UKIP and give them a wake up call.” Stop these callous rich bullies in their tracks...
.
....... Oh yes and supprt UKIP with Mr Farage in the oh so terrible Eu ...... Where he gets his £65k salary and £2m of expenses ......... and seems to be quite happy sitting there.
.
Then in a minute you will tell us that there will be hundreds of millions of Bulgarians invading our shores
loosehead
says...
8:37pm Sun 24 Feb 13
Inform Al wrote:As Im live right next to Rozell Ct I know all of this Al I was telling Ironlady of a possible place her Hubby's Gran could go to if she was after a smaller property.
loosehead wrote:Rozel and Sarnia courts are what are known as U2 blocks. all to the same design and there are a few of them and except for Ventnor court, over 55, are restricted to the over 6o's. The voids in these flats tend to occur only when a tenant dies. As most of the problems finding 1 bed flats are for people of working age losing housing benefits these flats will not be available to them. As far as the comment about it not being their house it's the council's is concerned, it's they who pay the rent and should be entitled to live in their family home until they die, just like C'moron and his rich croneys can live in theirs until they die. If on the other hand someone actually wishes to downsize the council should do all it can to facilitate the move.
IronLady2010 wrote:Tell her to look on Homebid & Rozell ct & Sarnia are for the over 60's & usually have vacant flats
loosehead wrote:Changes do need to be made. I'll give an example. Hubbys Nan lives in a 3 bed Council house all on her own, she has been asking for a small flat for ages as she is struggling with the stairs, yet it all falls on deaf ears.
IronLady2010 wrote:I live next door to a council house which is a two bedroomed house with a single guy on the dole living in there?
I feel this has been rushed through with little thought.
Inform Al makes a good point, let's suppose all those with a spare room decide they want to downgrade to free up a bigger house, where will they all go?
Do we have enough smaller houses for people to move into?
Surely you can't think that's right?
I've been into flats where young families are having to carry prams & children up the stairs to one bedroomed flats is that right?
I believe that all council tenants should be financially checked & if they are financially able to buy or rent private they should be made to do so to free up council homes for the low paid.
when I was young council houses were allocated ion the size of the family to those in need not those who wanted new cars & holidays & have the council pay to repair & modernise the properties.
I have now got a couple who transferred from a four bedroom council house & they're now in a two bedroom house why?
why does anyone who only ever use one bedroom expect us to pay the rent on a two bedroom property?
Sorry I was bought up in a council home & I know it's a service for low paid not for wealthy people & it's not your house it belongs to the council.
my neighbour should be moved into a single persons property & a young family should have the two bedroomed house
As she isn't on benefits I guess this change won't effect her, but yet she is willing to give up this house but is hitting her head against a wall trying to downgrade. There just aren't enough properties available for people to downgrade.
I also said about the age for that Court & sarnia.
Please explain how it's their family home?Did they buy it for their "Family"?
NO most families had the option to buy their "Family" home but didn't.
this is a council property & if two,three,four bedroomed it's for families but if we all keep it until we die & then a single person who is the son or daughter keeps it until the day they die & passes it on & on you would have no council houses/properties left so sorry your idea of what a council property is happens to be the real reason behind a lack of affordable housing
bazzeroz
says...
9:51pm Sun 24 Feb 13
Here's a situation for you to ponder. Someone close to me lives in a council house and has done for more that 20 years. 3 bedrooms and now only 2 being used. Over the years they, as a family have looked after the house (it was built in the 30's so not an easy upkeep), it's nicely decorated inside and in the last 2 years have spent well over £2000 sorting out the garden with a little soft landscaping and a new good sized shed, BBQ pit etc. Last year the husband lost his job and now claims benefit and is now also diagnosed with a illness that means he can/will no longer be able to work. They now come under this new 'bedroom tax' (YES I KNOW IT'S NOT A TAX!) and will have to down size or find the extra money OUT OF STATE BENEFITS THAT THE GOVERNMENT SETS AS A LIVABLE AMOUNT to stay there. Now, having spent a load of money improving the home and garden WHY SHOULD THEY HAVE TO MOVE? Will the council reimburse the costs of the recent 'makeovers' + interest? Of course they won't so, once again why the heck should they suffer? It's not only about over occupied social housing tenants on benefit it's, about MONEY! When the first suicides happen because of this nasty, vicious, evil Government then maybe, just maybe someone will sit up and listen to the people that put them in their position of power working, for the people not, their egos!
skin2000
says...
10:08pm Sun 24 Feb 13
bazzeroz wrote:Very good post. Sums up the evil of this Bedroom tax.
Here's a situation for you to ponder. Someone close to me lives in a council house and has done for more that 20 years. 3 bedrooms and now only 2 being used. Over the years they, as a family have looked after the house (it was built in the 30's so not an easy upkeep), it's nicely decorated inside and in the last 2 years have spent well over £2000 sorting out the garden with a little soft landscaping and a new good sized shed, BBQ pit etc. Last year the husband lost his job and now claims benefit and is now also diagnosed with a illness that means he can/will no longer be able to work. They now come under this new 'bedroom tax' (YES I KNOW IT'S NOT A TAX!) and will have to down size or find the extra money OUT OF STATE BENEFITS THAT THE GOVERNMENT SETS AS A LIVABLE AMOUNT to stay there. Now, having spent a load of money improving the home and garden WHY SHOULD THEY HAVE TO MOVE? Will the council reimburse the costs of the recent 'makeovers' + interest? Of course they won't so, once again why the heck should they suffer? It's not only about over occupied social housing tenants on benefit it's, about MONEY! When the first suicides happen because of this nasty, vicious, evil Government then maybe, just maybe someone will sit up and listen to the people that put them in their position of power working, for the people not, their egos!
IronLady2010
says...
10:39pm Sun 24 Feb 13
skin2000 wrote:It's a no win situation for everyone. It's a poor thought out project.
bazzeroz wrote:Very good post. Sums up the evil of this Bedroom tax.
Here's a situation for you to ponder. Someone close to me lives in a council house and has done for more that 20 years. 3 bedrooms and now only 2 being used. Over the years they, as a family have looked after the house (it was built in the 30's so not an easy upkeep), it's nicely decorated inside and in the last 2 years have spent well over £2000 sorting out the garden with a little soft landscaping and a new good sized shed, BBQ pit etc. Last year the husband lost his job and now claims benefit and is now also diagnosed with a illness that means he can/will no longer be able to work. They now come under this new 'bedroom tax' (YES I KNOW IT'S NOT A TAX!) and will have to down size or find the extra money OUT OF STATE BENEFITS THAT THE GOVERNMENT SETS AS A LIVABLE AMOUNT to stay there. Now, having spent a load of money improving the home and garden WHY SHOULD THEY HAVE TO MOVE? Will the council reimburse the costs of the recent 'makeovers' + interest? Of course they won't so, once again why the heck should they suffer? It's not only about over occupied social housing tenants on benefit it's, about MONEY! When the first suicides happen because of this nasty, vicious, evil Government then maybe, just maybe someone will sit up and listen to the people that put them in their position of power working, for the people not, their egos!
It's a great idea in principle, but will be a disaster long term.
Am I wrong in guessing we should take in lodgers to fill the bedrooms and if so will this void the Tenancy agreement?
This has been rushed through with little thought, although I do agree with the idea.
Inform Al
says...
11:05pm Sun 24 Feb 13
loosehead wrote:Whether you buy or rent your home it is your family home, I know of one lady whose children have flown the nest but in the family home she still looks after the family's three dogs, she would be eligible to move into Ventnor Court, but the dogs wouldn't. This insidious bedroom tax is going to destroy the lives of many decent people, and their pets, whose only fault is not having been rich enough to buy their own homes. The real reason for the lack of social housing has nothing to do with people remaining in the family home, it is to do with the overwhelming immigration problem and a government not prepared to subscribe into social housing, despite the fact that it costs nothing due to the rental income, puts people into work therefore reducing the dole payout and reduces the amount of the nations housing benefit payouts as C'morons rich property owning party donors charge much more rent than social landlords. C'moron will not take this sensible approach to lowering the nations debt as it will upset his party donors.
Inform Al wrote:As Im live right next to Rozell Ct I know all of this Al I was telling Ironlady of a possible place her Hubby's Gran could go to if she was after a smaller property.
loosehead wrote:Rozel and Sarnia courts are what are known as U2 blocks. all to the same design and there are a few of them and except for Ventnor court, over 55, are restricted to the over 6o's. The voids in these flats tend to occur only when a tenant dies. As most of the problems finding 1 bed flats are for people of working age losing housing benefits these flats will not be available to them. As far as the comment about it not being their house it's the council's is concerned, it's they who pay the rent and should be entitled to live in their family home until they die, just like C'moron and his rich croneys can live in theirs until they die. If on the other hand someone actually wishes to downsize the council should do all it can to facilitate the move.
IronLady2010 wrote:Tell her to look on Homebid & Rozell ct & Sarnia are for the over 60's & usually have vacant flats
loosehead wrote:Changes do need to be made. I'll give an example. Hubbys Nan lives in a 3 bed Council house all on her own, she has been asking for a small flat for ages as she is struggling with the stairs, yet it all falls on deaf ears.
IronLady2010 wrote:I live next door to a council house which is a two bedroomed house with a single guy on the dole living in there?
I feel this has been rushed through with little thought.
Inform Al makes a good point, let's suppose all those with a spare room decide they want to downgrade to free up a bigger house, where will they all go?
Do we have enough smaller houses for people to move into?
Surely you can't think that's right?
I've been into flats where young families are having to carry prams & children up the stairs to one bedroomed flats is that right?
I believe that all council tenants should be financially checked & if they are financially able to buy or rent private they should be made to do so to free up council homes for the low paid.
when I was young council houses were allocated ion the size of the family to those in need not those who wanted new cars & holidays & have the council pay to repair & modernise the properties.
I have now got a couple who transferred from a four bedroom council house & they're now in a two bedroom house why?
why does anyone who only ever use one bedroom expect us to pay the rent on a two bedroom property?
Sorry I was bought up in a council home & I know it's a service for low paid not for wealthy people & it's not your house it belongs to the council.
my neighbour should be moved into a single persons property & a young family should have the two bedroomed house
As she isn't on benefits I guess this change won't effect her, but yet she is willing to give up this house but is hitting her head against a wall trying to downgrade. There just aren't enough properties available for people to downgrade.
I also said about the age for that Court & sarnia.
Please explain how it's their family home?Did they buy it for their "Family"?
NO most families had the option to buy their "Family" home but didn't.
this is a council property & if two,three,four bedroomed it's for families but if we all keep it until we die & then a single person who is the son or daughter keeps it until the day they die & passes it on & on you would have no council houses/properties left so sorry your idea of what a council property is happens to be the real reason behind a lack of affordable housing
IronLady2010
says...
11:19pm Sun 24 Feb 13
Inform Al wrote:What have dogs got to do with it? Dogs are not entitled to benefits and should not be counted.
loosehead wrote:Whether you buy or rent your home it is your family home, I know of one lady whose children have flown the nest but in the family home she still looks after the family's three dogs, she would be eligible to move into Ventnor Court, but the dogs wouldn't. This insidious bedroom tax is going to destroy the lives of many decent people, and their pets, whose only fault is not having been rich enough to buy their own homes. The real reason for the lack of social housing has nothing to do with people remaining in the family home, it is to do with the overwhelming immigration problem and a government not prepared to subscribe into social housing, despite the fact that it costs nothing due to the rental income, puts people into work therefore reducing the dole payout and reduces the amount of the nations housing benefit payouts as C'morons rich property owning party donors charge much more rent than social landlords. C'moron will not take this sensible approach to lowering the nations debt as it will upset his party donors.
Inform Al wrote:As Im live right next to Rozell Ct I know all of this Al I was telling Ironlady of a possible place her Hubby's Gran could go to if she was after a smaller property.
loosehead wrote:Rozel and Sarnia courts are what are known as U2 blocks. all to the same design and there are a few of them and except for Ventnor court, over 55, are restricted to the over 6o's. The voids in these flats tend to occur only when a tenant dies. As most of the problems finding 1 bed flats are for people of working age losing housing benefits these flats will not be available to them. As far as the comment about it not being their house it's the council's is concerned, it's they who pay the rent and should be entitled to live in their family home until they die, just like C'moron and his rich croneys can live in theirs until they die. If on the other hand someone actually wishes to downsize the council should do all it can to facilitate the move.
IronLady2010 wrote:Tell her to look on Homebid & Rozell ct & Sarnia are for the over 60's & usually have vacant flats
loosehead wrote:Changes do need to be made. I'll give an example. Hubbys Nan lives in a 3 bed Council house all on her own, she has been asking for a small flat for ages as she is struggling with the stairs, yet it all falls on deaf ears.
IronLady2010 wrote:I live next door to a council house which is a two bedroomed house with a single guy on the dole living in there?
I feel this has been rushed through with little thought.
Inform Al makes a good point, let's suppose all those with a spare room decide they want to downgrade to free up a bigger house, where will they all go?
Do we have enough smaller houses for people to move into?
Surely you can't think that's right?
I've been into flats where young families are having to carry prams & children up the stairs to one bedroomed flats is that right?
I believe that all council tenants should be financially checked & if they are financially able to buy or rent private they should be made to do so to free up council homes for the low paid.
when I was young council houses were allocated ion the size of the family to those in need not those who wanted new cars & holidays & have the council pay to repair & modernise the properties.
I have now got a couple who transferred from a four bedroom council house & they're now in a two bedroom house why?
why does anyone who only ever use one bedroom expect us to pay the rent on a two bedroom property?
Sorry I was bought up in a council home & I know it's a service for low paid not for wealthy people & it's not your house it belongs to the council.
my neighbour should be moved into a single persons property & a young family should have the two bedroomed house
As she isn't on benefits I guess this change won't effect her, but yet she is willing to give up this house but is hitting her head against a wall trying to downgrade. There just aren't enough properties available for people to downgrade.
I also said about the age for that Court & sarnia.
Please explain how it's their family home?Did they buy it for their "Family"?
NO most families had the option to buy their "Family" home but didn't.
this is a council property & if two,three,four bedroomed it's for families but if we all keep it until we die & then a single person who is the son or daughter keeps it until the day they die & passes it on & on you would have no council houses/properties left so sorry your idea of what a council property is happens to be the real reason behind a lack of affordable housing
Pikey-Biker
says...
11:23pm Sun 24 Feb 13
southy wrote:media blackout what load of twaddle
****-Biker wrote:There is BBC did not have much of a choice in the mattersouthy wrote: Daz Prot is on BBC1 11am, if any one wants to listen to what he as to say.I thought you said there was a media blackout on your party
IronLady2010
says...
11:28pm Sun 24 Feb 13
****-Biker wrote:Did you expect anything else? Be honest!
southy wrote:media blackout what load of twaddle
****-Biker wrote:There is BBC did not have much of a choice in the mattersouthy wrote: Daz Prot is on BBC1 11am, if any one wants to listen to what he as to say.I thought you said there was a media blackout on your party
IronLady2010
says...
11:44pm Sun 24 Feb 13
We have some 4 days left and still our very own Southy is making TUSC look like a bunch of morons. If only someone could gag him, maybe TUSC would get a few votes.
As Southy has chosen to be the TUSC spokesperson we can only assume they are all as clueless as him.
Sometimes it's best to say nothing and stick to standing outside Sainsbury's bullying the local tramps who have nothing better to do.
Get ready for a wipe out Southy!
As Southy has chosen to be the TUSC spokesperson we can only assume they are all as clueless as him.
Sometimes it's best to say nothing and stick to standing outside Sainsbury's bullying the local tramps who have nothing better to do.
Get ready for a wipe out Southy!
stay local
says...
11:53pm Sun 24 Feb 13
southy wrote:So now can we take that as a statement of TUSC, that they fully support Margaret Thatchers kind action that allowed those in local authority accommodation their right of tenancy. That you believe there is no need to provide equal resources to those in need and that people now single living in rented accommodation can retain their 4/5/6 bedroom house whilst family with children have to languish in one room flats??? hardly the caring socialist! Would the hopeless candidate that you represent in the Eastleigh by election put the needs of the local people before the demands of his union, or would we see favours for the membership?? can he or you be trusted?
stay local wrote:It as nothing to do with a needs bugget, in this area a needs bugget would build new homes, which is what is needed.
southy wrote:Surely this is something you would support, as it seem to reflect what might be a needs budget! Just as you don't think local government workers should receive more than 40,000 why should people occupying local government (or housing association) accommodation more than they require? Surely your egalitarian society would support and encourage such plans?
The Bedroom Tax has to go back, and alteration made to it. As it stands at the moment its breaking the Law.
It against the law to induce this aim at one section of society, It will have to apply to all or none.
IronLady2010
says...
12:14am Mon 25 Feb 13
stay local wrote:I feel we have to assume Peter has been snubbed by his own party. They failed to tell him they were standing in the By-Election, infact he learned from this website they were standing! Despite his constant re-assurance they wouldn't be putting forward a candidate.
southy wrote:So now can we take that as a statement of TUSC, that they fully support Margaret Thatchers kind action that allowed those in local authority accommodation their right of tenancy. That you believe there is no need to provide equal resources to those in need and that people now single living in rented accommodation can retain their 4/5/6 bedroom house whilst family with children have to languish in one room flats??? hardly the caring socialist! Would the hopeless candidate that you represent in the Eastleigh by election put the needs of the local people before the demands of his union, or would we see favours for the membership?? can he or you be trusted?
stay local wrote:It as nothing to do with a needs bugget, in this area a needs bugget would build new homes, which is what is needed.
southy wrote:Surely this is something you would support, as it seem to reflect what might be a needs budget! Just as you don't think local government workers should receive more than 40,000 why should people occupying local government (or housing association) accommodation more than they require? Surely your egalitarian society would support and encourage such plans?
The Bedroom Tax has to go back, and alteration made to it. As it stands at the moment its breaking the Law.
It against the law to induce this aim at one section of society, It will have to apply to all or none.
Never mind, Peter can advise his people that the bedroom tax is illegal and that private rents who claim benefits have never had to put up with this before. It's all a new thing!
I've never known a single person to get so many things wrong, yet alone go for a Councillors job!
Inform Al
says...
12:26am Mon 25 Feb 13
IronLady2010 wrote:you really don't, or don't want to, understand what family life is all about do you.
Inform Al wrote:What have dogs got to do with it? Dogs are not entitled to benefits and should not be counted.
loosehead wrote:Whether you buy or rent your home it is your family home, I know of one lady whose children have flown the nest but in the family home she still looks after the family's three dogs, she would be eligible to move into Ventnor Court, but the dogs wouldn't. This insidious bedroom tax is going to destroy the lives of many decent people, and their pets, whose only fault is not having been rich enough to buy their own homes. The real reason for the lack of social housing has nothing to do with people remaining in the family home, it is to do with the overwhelming immigration problem and a government not prepared to subscribe into social housing, despite the fact that it costs nothing due to the rental income, puts people into work therefore reducing the dole payout and reduces the amount of the nations housing benefit payouts as C'morons rich property owning party donors charge much more rent than social landlords. C'moron will not take this sensible approach to lowering the nations debt as it will upset his party donors.
Inform Al wrote:As Im live right next to Rozell Ct I know all of this Al I was telling Ironlady of a possible place her Hubby's Gran could go to if she was after a smaller property.
loosehead wrote:Rozel and Sarnia courts are what are known as U2 blocks. all to the same design and there are a few of them and except for Ventnor court, over 55, are restricted to the over 6o's. The voids in these flats tend to occur only when a tenant dies. As most of the problems finding 1 bed flats are for people of working age losing housing benefits these flats will not be available to them. As far as the comment about it not being their house it's the council's is concerned, it's they who pay the rent and should be entitled to live in their family home until they die, just like C'moron and his rich croneys can live in theirs until they die. If on the other hand someone actually wishes to downsize the council should do all it can to facilitate the move.
IronLady2010 wrote:Tell her to look on Homebid & Rozell ct & Sarnia are for the over 60's & usually have vacant flats
loosehead wrote:Changes do need to be made. I'll give an example. Hubbys Nan lives in a 3 bed Council house all on her own, she has been asking for a small flat for ages as she is struggling with the stairs, yet it all falls on deaf ears.
IronLady2010 wrote:I live next door to a council house which is a two bedroomed house with a single guy on the dole living in there?
I feel this has been rushed through with little thought.
Inform Al makes a good point, let's suppose all those with a spare room decide they want to downgrade to free up a bigger house, where will they all go?
Do we have enough smaller houses for people to move into?
Surely you can't think that's right?
I've been into flats where young families are having to carry prams & children up the stairs to one bedroomed flats is that right?
I believe that all council tenants should be financially checked & if they are financially able to buy or rent private they should be made to do so to free up council homes for the low paid.
when I was young council houses were allocated ion the size of the family to those in need not those who wanted new cars & holidays & have the council pay to repair & modernise the properties.
I have now got a couple who transferred from a four bedroom council house & they're now in a two bedroom house why?
why does anyone who only ever use one bedroom expect us to pay the rent on a two bedroom property?
Sorry I was bought up in a council home & I know it's a service for low paid not for wealthy people & it's not your house it belongs to the council.
my neighbour should be moved into a single persons property & a young family should have the two bedroomed house
As she isn't on benefits I guess this change won't effect her, but yet she is willing to give up this house but is hitting her head against a wall trying to downgrade. There just aren't enough properties available for people to downgrade.
I also said about the age for that Court & sarnia.
Please explain how it's their family home?Did they buy it for their "Family"?
NO most families had the option to buy their "Family" home but didn't.
this is a council property & if two,three,four bedroomed it's for families but if we all keep it until we die & then a single person who is the son or daughter keeps it until the day they die & passes it on & on you would have no council houses/properties left so sorry your idea of what a council property is happens to be the real reason behind a lack of affordable housing
IronLady2010
says...
12:41am Mon 25 Feb 13
Inform Al wrote:I refuse to pay for dogs if that's what you're suggesting?
IronLady2010 wrote:you really don't, or don't want to, understand what family life is all about do you.
Inform Al wrote:What have dogs got to do with it? Dogs are not entitled to benefits and should not be counted.
loosehead wrote:Whether you buy or rent your home it is your family home, I know of one lady whose children have flown the nest but in the family home she still looks after the family's three dogs, she would be eligible to move into Ventnor Court, but the dogs wouldn't. This insidious bedroom tax is going to destroy the lives of many decent people, and their pets, whose only fault is not having been rich enough to buy their own homes. The real reason for the lack of social housing has nothing to do with people remaining in the family home, it is to do with the overwhelming immigration problem and a government not prepared to subscribe into social housing, despite the fact that it costs nothing due to the rental income, puts people into work therefore reducing the dole payout and reduces the amount of the nations housing benefit payouts as C'morons rich property owning party donors charge much more rent than social landlords. C'moron will not take this sensible approach to lowering the nations debt as it will upset his party donors.
Inform Al wrote:As Im live right next to Rozell Ct I know all of this Al I was telling Ironlady of a possible place her Hubby's Gran could go to if she was after a smaller property.
loosehead wrote:Rozel and Sarnia courts are what are known as U2 blocks. all to the same design and there are a few of them and except for Ventnor court, over 55, are restricted to the over 6o's. The voids in these flats tend to occur only when a tenant dies. As most of the problems finding 1 bed flats are for people of working age losing housing benefits these flats will not be available to them. As far as the comment about it not being their house it's the council's is concerned, it's they who pay the rent and should be entitled to live in their family home until they die, just like C'moron and his rich croneys can live in theirs until they die. If on the other hand someone actually wishes to downsize the council should do all it can to facilitate the move.
IronLady2010 wrote:Tell her to look on Homebid & Rozell ct & Sarnia are for the over 60's & usually have vacant flats
loosehead wrote:Changes do need to be made. I'll give an example. Hubbys Nan lives in a 3 bed Council house all on her own, she has been asking for a small flat for ages as she is struggling with the stairs, yet it all falls on deaf ears.
IronLady2010 wrote:I live next door to a council house which is a two bedroomed house with a single guy on the dole living in there?
I feel this has been rushed through with little thought.
Inform Al makes a good point, let's suppose all those with a spare room decide they want to downgrade to free up a bigger house, where will they all go?
Do we have enough smaller houses for people to move into?
Surely you can't think that's right?
I've been into flats where young families are having to carry prams & children up the stairs to one bedroomed flats is that right?
I believe that all council tenants should be financially checked & if they are financially able to buy or rent private they should be made to do so to free up council homes for the low paid.
when I was young council houses were allocated ion the size of the family to those in need not those who wanted new cars & holidays & have the council pay to repair & modernise the properties.
I have now got a couple who transferred from a four bedroom council house & they're now in a two bedroom house why?
why does anyone who only ever use one bedroom expect us to pay the rent on a two bedroom property?
Sorry I was bought up in a council home & I know it's a service for low paid not for wealthy people & it's not your house it belongs to the council.
my neighbour should be moved into a single persons property & a young family should have the two bedroomed house
As she isn't on benefits I guess this change won't effect her, but yet she is willing to give up this house but is hitting her head against a wall trying to downgrade. There just aren't enough properties available for people to downgrade.
I also said about the age for that Court & sarnia.
Please explain how it's their family home?Did they buy it for their "Family"?
NO most families had the option to buy their "Family" home but didn't.
this is a council property & if two,three,four bedroomed it's for families but if we all keep it until we die & then a single person who is the son or daughter keeps it until the day they die & passes it on & on you would have no council houses/properties left so sorry your idea of what a council property is happens to be the real reason behind a lack of affordable housing
MegGriffin
says...
7:01am Mon 25 Feb 13
Inform Al wrote:Inform Al, I notice you didn't answer my previous question. Do you think it's okay for someone to live in a house with 2 or 3 unused bedrooms just because they once raised a family there? I'd like to know because your posts suggest you think that's fine.
IronLady2010 wrote:you really don't, or don't want to, understand what family life is all about do you.
Inform Al wrote:What have dogs got to do with it? Dogs are not entitled to benefits and should not be counted.
loosehead wrote:Whether you buy or rent your home it is your family home, I know of one lady whose children have flown the nest but in the family home she still looks after the family's three dogs, she would be eligible to move into Ventnor Court, but the dogs wouldn't. This insidious bedroom tax is going to destroy the lives of many decent people, and their pets, whose only fault is not having been rich enough to buy their own homes. The real reason for the lack of social housing has nothing to do with people remaining in the family home, it is to do with the overwhelming immigration problem and a government not prepared to subscribe into social housing, despite the fact that it costs nothing due to the rental income, puts people into work therefore reducing the dole payout and reduces the amount of the nations housing benefit payouts as C'morons rich property owning party donors charge much more rent than social landlords. C'moron will not take this sensible approach to lowering the nations debt as it will upset his party donors.
Inform Al wrote:As Im live right next to Rozell Ct I know all of this Al I was telling Ironlady of a possible place her Hubby's Gran could go to if she was after a smaller property.
loosehead wrote:Rozel and Sarnia courts are what are known as U2 blocks. all to the same design and there are a few of them and except for Ventnor court, over 55, are restricted to the over 6o's. The voids in these flats tend to occur only when a tenant dies. As most of the problems finding 1 bed flats are for people of working age losing housing benefits these flats will not be available to them. As far as the comment about it not being their house it's the council's is concerned, it's they who pay the rent and should be entitled to live in their family home until they die, just like C'moron and his rich croneys can live in theirs until they die. If on the other hand someone actually wishes to downsize the council should do all it can to facilitate the move.
IronLady2010 wrote:Tell her to look on Homebid & Rozell ct & Sarnia are for the over 60's & usually have vacant flats
loosehead wrote:Changes do need to be made. I'll give an example. Hubbys Nan lives in a 3 bed Council house all on her own, she has been asking for a small flat for ages as she is struggling with the stairs, yet it all falls on deaf ears.
IronLady2010 wrote:I live next door to a council house which is a two bedroomed house with a single guy on the dole living in there?
I feel this has been rushed through with little thought.
Inform Al makes a good point, let's suppose all those with a spare room decide they want to downgrade to free up a bigger house, where will they all go?
Do we have enough smaller houses for people to move into?
Surely you can't think that's right?
I've been into flats where young families are having to carry prams & children up the stairs to one bedroomed flats is that right?
I believe that all council tenants should be financially checked & if they are financially able to buy or rent private they should be made to do so to free up council homes for the low paid.
when I was young council houses were allocated ion the size of the family to those in need not those who wanted new cars & holidays & have the council pay to repair & modernise the properties.
I have now got a couple who transferred from a four bedroom council house & they're now in a two bedroom house why?
why does anyone who only ever use one bedroom expect us to pay the rent on a two bedroom property?
Sorry I was bought up in a council home & I know it's a service for low paid not for wealthy people & it's not your house it belongs to the council.
my neighbour should be moved into a single persons property & a young family should have the two bedroomed house
As she isn't on benefits I guess this change won't effect her, but yet she is willing to give up this house but is hitting her head against a wall trying to downgrade. There just aren't enough properties available for people to downgrade.
I also said about the age for that Court & sarnia.
Please explain how it's their family home?Did they buy it for their "Family"?
NO most families had the option to buy their "Family" home but didn't.
this is a council property & if two,three,four bedroomed it's for families but if we all keep it until we die & then a single person who is the son or daughter keeps it until the day they die & passes it on & on you would have no council houses/properties left so sorry your idea of what a council property is happens to be the real reason behind a lack of affordable housing
I have a neighbour, by the, way who is elderly and lives alone in a council 4 bedroom parlour house. She only uses the ground floor as she can't use the stairs. I live next door and am overcrowded. What are your views on this?
MegGriffin
says...
7:10am Mon 25 Feb 13
Before certain people start on at me about why my household may be overcrowded, I should probably point out the following: My husband and I (yes we both work) only have 2 children. Our youngest is disabled and therefore has to have his own room. Since his divorce, my brother is living with us. 3 years ago, we adopted my husbands cousin (now aged 15) after her mother died. According to Inform Al, it's ok for this 15 year old girl to be sharing a room with a 14 year old boy and a 39 year old man because his mate's dogs are more important.
Inform Al
says...
9:40am Mon 25 Feb 13
MegGriffin wrote:If all those under occupying were to be moved to smaller premises this would not scratch the surface of the problem, dodgy Dave has only brought in the bedroom tax to get those who are fooled by this premise on board. There are more rich people under occupying properties, and although I personally would never take the Stalinist route of moving the homeless into their homes, I would also not take the Nazi route of kicking the poor out of their family homes. As I have said before, if and only if an individual or couple wish to downsize the council should accommodate this. Unfortunately this could be impossible due to the already shortage of one bed social properties which is now set to get worse. Most of the under occupiers also have families who like to visit and, if like my own family live some distance, like to stay overnight. It is very wrong to put us in a situation where only the rich can do this. The only fair solution is to have a massive SOCIAL home building programme, not the stupid current propaganda move of making it easier to build private housing. Cleggy let the cat out of the bag on that one recently when he said that only the difficulty of getting mortgages was holding this up.
Inform Al wrote:Inform Al, I notice you didn't answer my previous question. Do you think it's okay for someone to live in a house with 2 or 3 unused bedrooms just because they once raised a family there? I'd like to know because your posts suggest you think that's fine.
IronLady2010 wrote:you really don't, or don't want to, understand what family life is all about do you.
Inform Al wrote:What have dogs got to do with it? Dogs are not entitled to benefits and should not be counted.
loosehead wrote:Whether you buy or rent your home it is your family home, I know of one lady whose children have flown the nest but in the family home she still looks after the family's three dogs, she would be eligible to move into Ventnor Court, but the dogs wouldn't. This insidious bedroom tax is going to destroy the lives of many decent people, and their pets, whose only fault is not having been rich enough to buy their own homes. The real reason for the lack of social housing has nothing to do with people remaining in the family home, it is to do with the overwhelming immigration problem and a government not prepared to subscribe into social housing, despite the fact that it costs nothing due to the rental income, puts people into work therefore reducing the dole payout and reduces the amount of the nations housing benefit payouts as C'morons rich property owning party donors charge much more rent than social landlords. C'moron will not take this sensible approach to lowering the nations debt as it will upset his party donors.
Inform Al wrote:As Im live right next to Rozell Ct I know all of this Al I was telling Ironlady of a possible place her Hubby's Gran could go to if she was after a smaller property.
loosehead wrote:Rozel and Sarnia courts are what are known as U2 blocks. all to the same design and there are a few of them and except for Ventnor court, over 55, are restricted to the over 6o's. The voids in these flats tend to occur only when a tenant dies. As most of the problems finding 1 bed flats are for people of working age losing housing benefits these flats will not be available to them. As far as the comment about it not being their house it's the council's is concerned, it's they who pay the rent and should be entitled to live in their family home until they die, just like C'moron and his rich croneys can live in theirs until they die. If on the other hand someone actually wishes to downsize the council should do all it can to facilitate the move.
IronLady2010 wrote:Tell her to look on Homebid & Rozell ct & Sarnia are for the over 60's & usually have vacant flats
loosehead wrote:Changes do need to be made. I'll give an example. Hubbys Nan lives in a 3 bed Council house all on her own, she has been asking for a small flat for ages as she is struggling with the stairs, yet it all falls on deaf ears.
IronLady2010 wrote:I live next door to a council house which is a two bedroomed house with a single guy on the dole living in there?
I feel this has been rushed through with little thought.
Inform Al makes a good point, let's suppose all those with a spare room decide they want to downgrade to free up a bigger house, where will they all go?
Do we have enough smaller houses for people to move into?
Surely you can't think that's right?
I've been into flats where young families are having to carry prams & children up the stairs to one bedroomed flats is that right?
I believe that all council tenants should be financially checked & if they are financially able to buy or rent private they should be made to do so to free up council homes for the low paid.
when I was young council houses were allocated ion the size of the family to those in need not those who wanted new cars & holidays & have the council pay to repair & modernise the properties.
I have now got a couple who transferred from a four bedroom council house & they're now in a two bedroom house why?
why does anyone who only ever use one bedroom expect us to pay the rent on a two bedroom property?
Sorry I was bought up in a council home & I know it's a service for low paid not for wealthy people & it's not your house it belongs to the council.
my neighbour should be moved into a single persons property & a young family should have the two bedroomed house
As she isn't on benefits I guess this change won't effect her, but yet she is willing to give up this house but is hitting her head against a wall trying to downgrade. There just aren't enough properties available for people to downgrade.
I also said about the age for that Court & sarnia.
Please explain how it's their family home?Did they buy it for their "Family"?
NO most families had the option to buy their "Family" home but didn't.
this is a council property & if two,three,four bedroomed it's for families but if we all keep it until we die & then a single person who is the son or daughter keeps it until the day they die & passes it on & on you would have no council houses/properties left so sorry your idea of what a council property is happens to be the real reason behind a lack of affordable housing
I have a neighbour, by the, way who is elderly and lives alone in a council 4 bedroom parlour house. She only uses the ground floor as she can't use the stairs. I live next door and am overcrowded. What are your views on this?
Inform Al
says...
9:47am Mon 25 Feb 13
MegGriffin wrote:Get it right. this is the exact opposite of what I am saying. The only solution to the problem is to build more social housing, as kicking, nazi style, one section of the community from their homes to make room for others will not guarantee that this bedroom tax will assist you with your problem. There is already a shortage of one bed homes to force them into.
Before certain people start on at me about why my household may be overcrowded, I should probably point out the following: My husband and I (yes we both work) only have 2 children. Our youngest is disabled and therefore has to have his own room. Since his divorce, my brother is living with us. 3 years ago, we adopted my husbands cousin (now aged 15) after her mother died. According to Inform Al, it's ok for this 15 year old girl to be sharing a room with a 14 year old boy and a 39 year old man because his mate's dogs are more important.
Inform Al
says...
9:55am Mon 25 Feb 13
IronLady2010 wrote:What I am saying is I do not agree with kicking people, nazi style, from their homes. Anyway where do you get the idea from that you are paying for it. Council home rents completely cover the cost of the council home service, and as far as housing benefit is concerned I would rather house English dogs than Middle Eastern terrorists which dodgy Daves moves are not addressing. I do wonder what the doggy loving brigade will make of your comment as jack booting the lady from her home will almost certainly result in the dogs destruction.
Inform Al wrote:I refuse to pay for dogs if that's what you're suggesting?
IronLady2010 wrote:you really don't, or don't want to, understand what family life is all about do you.
Inform Al wrote:What have dogs got to do with it? Dogs are not entitled to benefits and should not be counted.
loosehead wrote:Whether you buy or rent your home it is your family home, I know of one lady whose children have flown the nest but in the family home she still looks after the family's three dogs, she would be eligible to move into Ventnor Court, but the dogs wouldn't. This insidious bedroom tax is going to destroy the lives of many decent people, and their pets, whose only fault is not having been rich enough to buy their own homes. The real reason for the lack of social housing has nothing to do with people remaining in the family home, it is to do with the overwhelming immigration problem and a government not prepared to subscribe into social housing, despite the fact that it costs nothing due to the rental income, puts people into work therefore reducing the dole payout and reduces the amount of the nations housing benefit payouts as C'morons rich property owning party donors charge much more rent than social landlords. C'moron will not take this sensible approach to lowering the nations debt as it will upset his party donors.
Inform Al wrote:As Im live right next to Rozell Ct I know all of this Al I was telling Ironlady of a possible place her Hubby's Gran could go to if she was after a smaller property.
loosehead wrote:Rozel and Sarnia courts are what are known as U2 blocks. all to the same design and there are a few of them and except for Ventnor court, over 55, are restricted to the over 6o's. The voids in these flats tend to occur only when a tenant dies. As most of the problems finding 1 bed flats are for people of working age losing housing benefits these flats will not be available to them. As far as the comment about it not being their house it's the council's is concerned, it's they who pay the rent and should be entitled to live in their family home until they die, just like C'moron and his rich croneys can live in theirs until they die. If on the other hand someone actually wishes to downsize the council should do all it can to facilitate the move.
IronLady2010 wrote:Tell her to look on Homebid & Rozell ct & Sarnia are for the over 60's & usually have vacant flats
loosehead wrote:Changes do need to be made. I'll give an example. Hubbys Nan lives in a 3 bed Council house all on her own, she has been asking for a small flat for ages as she is struggling with the stairs, yet it all falls on deaf ears.
IronLady2010 wrote:I live next door to a council house which is a two bedroomed house with a single guy on the dole living in there?
I feel this has been rushed through with little thought.
Inform Al makes a good point, let's suppose all those with a spare room decide they want to downgrade to free up a bigger house, where will they all go?
Do we have enough smaller houses for people to move into?
Surely you can't think that's right?
I've been into flats where young families are having to carry prams & children up the stairs to one bedroomed flats is that right?
I believe that all council tenants should be financially checked & if they are financially able to buy or rent private they should be made to do so to free up council homes for the low paid.
when I was young council houses were allocated ion the size of the family to those in need not those who wanted new cars & holidays & have the council pay to repair & modernise the properties.
I have now got a couple who transferred from a four bedroom council house & they're now in a two bedroom house why?
why does anyone who only ever use one bedroom expect us to pay the rent on a two bedroom property?
Sorry I was bought up in a council home & I know it's a service for low paid not for wealthy people & it's not your house it belongs to the council.
my neighbour should be moved into a single persons property & a young family should have the two bedroomed house
As she isn't on benefits I guess this change won't effect her, but yet she is willing to give up this house but is hitting her head against a wall trying to downgrade. There just aren't enough properties available for people to downgrade.
I also said about the age for that Court & sarnia.
Please explain how it's their family home?Did they buy it for their "Family"?
NO most families had the option to buy their "Family" home but didn't.
this is a council property & if two,three,four bedroomed it's for families but if we all keep it until we die & then a single person who is the son or daughter keeps it until the day they die & passes it on & on you would have no council houses/properties left so sorry your idea of what a council property is happens to be the real reason behind a lack of affordable housing
MegGriffin
says...
10:40am Mon 25 Feb 13
Inform Al wrote:SCC Homebid magazine 21st Feb: 9 3 bedroom properties, 19 2 bedroom properties and 66 1 bedroom properties.
MegGriffin wrote:Get it right. this is the exact opposite of what I am saying. The only solution to the problem is to build more social housing, as kicking, nazi style, one section of the community from their homes to make room for others will not guarantee that this bedroom tax will assist you with your problem. There is already a shortage of one bed homes to force them into.
Before certain people start on at me about why my household may be overcrowded, I should probably point out the following: My husband and I (yes we both work) only have 2 children. Our youngest is disabled and therefore has to have his own room. Since his divorce, my brother is living with us. 3 years ago, we adopted my husbands cousin (now aged 15) after her mother died. According to Inform Al, it's ok for this 15 year old girl to be sharing a room with a 14 year old boy and a 39 year old man because his mate's dogs are more important.
SCC Homebid magazine 7th Feb: 1 4 bedroom property, 8 3 bedroom properties, 18 2 bedroom properties and 61 1 bedroom properties.
George4th
says...
10:41am Mon 25 Feb 13
Inform Al wrote:The last Labour government had 13 years to build dwellings of every kind. They fell miserably short in every year of their government.
IronLady2010 wrote:What I am saying is I do not agree with kicking people, nazi style, from their homes. Anyway where do you get the idea from that you are paying for it. Council home rents completely cover the cost of the council home service, and as far as housing benefit is concerned I would rather house English dogs than Middle Eastern terrorists which dodgy Daves moves are not addressing. I do wonder what the doggy loving brigade will make of your comment as jack booting the lady from her home will almost certainly result in the dogs destruction.
Inform Al wrote:I refuse to pay for dogs if that's what you're suggesting?
IronLady2010 wrote:you really don't, or don't want to, understand what family life is all about do you.
Inform Al wrote:What have dogs got to do with it? Dogs are not entitled to benefits and should not be counted.
loosehead wrote:Whether you buy or rent your home it is your family home, I know of one lady whose children have flown the nest but in the family home she still looks after the family's three dogs, she would be eligible to move into Ventnor Court, but the dogs wouldn't. This insidious bedroom tax is going to destroy the lives of many decent people, and their pets, whose only fault is not having been rich enough to buy their own homes. The real reason for the lack of social housing has nothing to do with people remaining in the family home, it is to do with the overwhelming immigration problem and a government not prepared to subscribe into social housing, despite the fact that it costs nothing due to the rental income, puts people into work therefore reducing the dole payout and reduces the amount of the nations housing benefit payouts as C'morons rich property owning party donors charge much more rent than social landlords. C'moron will not take this sensible approach to lowering the nations debt as it will upset his party donors.
Inform Al wrote:As Im live right next to Rozell Ct I know all of this Al I was telling Ironlady of a possible place her Hubby's Gran could go to if she was after a smaller property.
loosehead wrote:Rozel and Sarnia courts are what are known as U2 blocks. all to the same design and there are a few of them and except for Ventnor court, over 55, are restricted to the over 6o's. The voids in these flats tend to occur only when a tenant dies. As most of the problems finding 1 bed flats are for people of working age losing housing benefits these flats will not be available to them. As far as the comment about it not being their house it's the council's is concerned, it's they who pay the rent and should be entitled to live in their family home until they die, just like C'moron and his rich croneys can live in theirs until they die. If on the other hand someone actually wishes to downsize the council should do all it can to facilitate the move.
IronLady2010 wrote:Tell her to look on Homebid & Rozell ct & Sarnia are for the over 60's & usually have vacant flats
loosehead wrote:Changes do need to be made. I'll give an example. Hubbys Nan lives in a 3 bed Council house all on her own, she has been asking for a small flat for ages as she is struggling with the stairs, yet it all falls on deaf ears.
IronLady2010 wrote:I live next door to a council house which is a two bedroomed house with a single guy on the dole living in there?
I feel this has been rushed through with little thought.
Inform Al makes a good point, let's suppose all those with a spare room decide they want to downgrade to free up a bigger house, where will they all go?
Do we have enough smaller houses for people to move into?
Surely you can't think that's right?
I've been into flats where young families are having to carry prams & children up the stairs to one bedroomed flats is that right?
I believe that all council tenants should be financially checked & if they are financially able to buy or rent private they should be made to do so to free up council homes for the low paid.
when I was young council houses were allocated ion the size of the family to those in need not those who wanted new cars & holidays & have the council pay to repair & modernise the properties.
I have now got a couple who transferred from a four bedroom council house & they're now in a two bedroom house why?
why does anyone who only ever use one bedroom expect us to pay the rent on a two bedroom property?
Sorry I was bought up in a council home & I know it's a service for low paid not for wealthy people & it's not your house it belongs to the council.
my neighbour should be moved into a single persons property & a young family should have the two bedroomed house
As she isn't on benefits I guess this change won't effect her, but yet she is willing to give up this house but is hitting her head against a wall trying to downgrade. There just aren't enough properties available for people to downgrade.
I also said about the age for that Court & sarnia.
Please explain how it's their family home?Did they buy it for their "Family"?
NO most families had the option to buy their "Family" home but didn't.
this is a council property & if two,three,four bedroomed it's for families but if we all keep it until we die & then a single person who is the son or daughter keeps it until the day they die & passes it on & on you would have no council houses/properties left so sorry your idea of what a council property is happens to be the real reason behind a lack of affordable housing
And they stupidly added to what was already a massive problem by allowing 2 million immigrants into the country with no added accommodation!!!
(By the way, forget the argument about Thatcher selling council properties. If those houses were still occupied by council tenants there would be an equal number of people still looking for somewhere to live!!)
southy
says...
10:45am Mon 25 Feb 13
IronLady2010 wrote:Stay your saying that no one else.
stay local wrote:I feel we have to assume Peter has been snubbed by his own party. They failed to tell him they were standing in the By-Election, infact he learned from this website they were standing! Despite his constant re-assurance they wouldn't be putting forward a candidate.
southy wrote:So now can we take that as a statement of TUSC, that they fully support Margaret Thatchers kind action that allowed those in local authority accommodation their right of tenancy. That you believe there is no need to provide equal resources to those in need and that people now single living in rented accommodation can retain their 4/5/6 bedroom house whilst family with children have to languish in one room flats??? hardly the caring socialist! Would the hopeless candidate that you represent in the Eastleigh by election put the needs of the local people before the demands of his union, or would we see favours for the membership?? can he or you be trusted?
stay local wrote:It as nothing to do with a needs bugget, in this area a needs bugget would build new homes, which is what is needed.
southy wrote:Surely this is something you would support, as it seem to reflect what might be a needs budget! Just as you don't think local government workers should receive more than 40,000 why should people occupying local government (or housing association) accommodation more than they require? Surely your egalitarian society would support and encourage such plans?
The Bedroom Tax has to go back, and alteration made to it. As it stands at the moment its breaking the Law.
It against the law to induce this aim at one section of society, It will have to apply to all or none.
Never mind, Peter can advise his people that the bedroom tax is illegal and that private rents who claim benefits have never had to put up with this before. It's all a new thing!
I've never known a single person to get so many things wrong, yet alone go for a Councillors job!
What should be done is this, all Councils should have the right to build homes, and not ask Government for permission to do so, (it was the last Labour government that interduce this law/ruling, Before then Thatcher stop all Councils from building new homes, to replace any that was sold, it was Thatcher that allowed Councils to sale Council tennecy (Council housing stock) to private Housing Association.
Center to Left Socialist have at no point said people can buy there own council homes, We have all ways been for that, because it helps to pay for more new Council homes to be built. The TUSC do not support Thatcher and never has, ITS only you saying that Stay Local.
Iron Lady twisting words also, I see.
The decision not to stand was made on the Wed, it was at the last moment that the RMT said they could put some one up for as a Candidate late on Friday Evening the whole selection system was quickly done and was announce before 1am Sat and made offical on the Mon. And this would of been dealt with Southern Branch (Winchester) of the TUSC and not Southampton Branch even lo we would be informed, now you was told this at the time.
Its not me that said that Bedroom Tax was against the Law I just repeated what was on Yahoo News, This was said by the Law Lords, that it is illegal to discriminate against a section of society, and thats just what the bedroom tax do discriminate.
You Ironlady, Freefinker and one two others gang up on me and said there was no such thing as the Bedroom Tax, and I was making things up, and yet here it is being said by JD MP, and yet again time fall on my side and proves yet again that i was correct.
southy
says...
10:54am Mon 25 Feb 13
George4th
"The last Labour government had 13 years to build dwellings of every kind. They fell miserably short in every year of their government."
True, there was 13 years of Labour government, But Blair did Say "There would be no change in Thatcher Policy".
It was Thatcher that stop the Councils from building new homes, not even to replace the ones that she ordered the councils to sell of cheaply tot he tennants, (she even allowed councils to sell housing stock to Housing Accaiations) that ruling never change till Brown was PM but he only change to this ppolicy of no council building own homes to the councils must ask Government permission.
"The last Labour government had 13 years to build dwellings of every kind. They fell miserably short in every year of their government."
True, there was 13 years of Labour government, But Blair did Say "There would be no change in Thatcher Policy".
It was Thatcher that stop the Councils from building new homes, not even to replace the ones that she ordered the councils to sell of cheaply tot he tennants, (she even allowed councils to sell housing stock to Housing Accaiations) that ruling never change till Brown was PM but he only change to this ppolicy of no council building own homes to the councils must ask Government permission.
southy
says...
10:59am Mon 25 Feb 13
Inform Al wrote:Al in a way I might agree with you, but what is needed is Councils to have total control back again on there own Home building program, like they did before Thatcher took that right away from from councils and they should not be asking the Government for permission.
MegGriffin wrote:Get it right. this is the exact opposite of what I am saying. The only solution to the problem is to build more social housing, as kicking, nazi style, one section of the community from their homes to make room for others will not guarantee that this bedroom tax will assist you with your problem. There is already a shortage of one bed homes to force them into.
Before certain people start on at me about why my household may be overcrowded, I should probably point out the following: My husband and I (yes we both work) only have 2 children. Our youngest is disabled and therefore has to have his own room. Since his divorce, my brother is living with us. 3 years ago, we adopted my husbands cousin (now aged 15) after her mother died. According to Inform Al, it's ok for this 15 year old girl to be sharing a room with a 14 year old boy and a 39 year old man because his mate's dogs are more important.
George4th
says...
11:22am Mon 25 Feb 13
southy wrote:"But Blair did Say "There would be no change in Thatcher Policy"."
George4th
"The last Labour government had 13 years to build dwellings of every kind. They fell miserably short in every year of their government."
True, there was 13 years of Labour government, But Blair did Say "There would be no change in Thatcher Policy".
It was Thatcher that stop the Councils from building new homes, not even to replace the ones that she ordered the councils to sell of cheaply tot he tennants, (she even allowed councils to sell housing stock to Housing Accaiations) that ruling never change till Brown was PM but he only change to this ppolicy of no council building own homes to the councils must ask Government permission.
How convenient of you to leave off FOR TWO YEARS!!!
Labour religiously followed Tory Policies for two years and everything in the country was going really really well!
THEN, they introduced their own policies that finally led us to Bankruptcy and the door of the IMF!
George4th
says...
11:24am Mon 25 Feb 13
George4th wrote:Don't bother replying Southy, it was a mistake on my part even responding to you.................
southy wrote:"But Blair did Say "There would be no change in Thatcher Policy"."
George4th
"The last Labour government had 13 years to build dwellings of every kind. They fell miserably short in every year of their government."
True, there was 13 years of Labour government, But Blair did Say "There would be no change in Thatcher Policy".
It was Thatcher that stop the Councils from building new homes, not even to replace the ones that she ordered the councils to sell of cheaply tot he tennants, (she even allowed councils to sell housing stock to Housing Accaiations) that ruling never change till Brown was PM but he only change to this ppolicy of no council building own homes to the councils must ask Government permission.
How convenient of you to leave off FOR TWO YEARS!!!
Labour religiously followed Tory Policies for two years and everything in the country was going really really well!
THEN, they introduced their own policies that finally led us to Bankruptcy and the door of the IMF!
....................
....Something I had managed to do up until today..............
southy
says...
11:35am Mon 25 Feb 13
George4th wrote:No, they followed Thatcher Policy for 13 years, and we are still in Thatchers Policy, we had nothing but Thatcher Policy since late 1979 when Thatcher came to office, and when Milliband get into office (and he will do he your next PM) there will still be no change in Thatchers Policy.
southy wrote:"But Blair did Say "There would be no change in Thatcher Policy"."
George4th
"The last Labour government had 13 years to build dwellings of every kind. They fell miserably short in every year of their government."
True, there was 13 years of Labour government, But Blair did Say "There would be no change in Thatcher Policy".
It was Thatcher that stop the Councils from building new homes, not even to replace the ones that she ordered the councils to sell of cheaply tot he tennants, (she even allowed councils to sell housing stock to Housing Accaiations) that ruling never change till Brown was PM but he only change to this ppolicy of no council building own homes to the councils must ask Government permission.
How convenient of you to leave off FOR TWO YEARS!!!
Labour religiously followed Tory Policies for two years and everything in the country was going really really well!
THEN, they introduced their own policies that finally led us to Bankruptcy and the door of the IMF!
Even Thatcher ended up borrowing from IMF as well has getting a loans from the USA against the WWII loan (which finally got paid up in full by the Labour government, so no one could borrow again against the USA WWII loan).
And its this Thatchers Policy that is killing this Counctry, it did not work before wwii, and it not going to work now.
LancashireLad
says...
11:37am Mon 25 Feb 13
This is a form of ethnic cleansing by the rich toffs on the poor to move them out of their homes. Callous social engineering thought out in the Eaton old boys club whilst drinking champage with the political elite. You would only expect such a ill judged move in a communist or fascist state....
southy
says...
11:38am Mon 25 Feb 13
LancashireLad wrote:Capitalist Communist aka Stalinist
This is a form of ethnic cleansing by the rich toffs on the poor to move them out of their homes. Callous social engineering thought out in the Eaton old boys club whilst drinking champage with the political elite. You would only expect such a ill judged move in a communist or fascist state....
bigfella777
says...
11:59am Mon 25 Feb 13
So what happens then if a single person in a one bed council flat who is working exchanges with someone in a 3 bed house because they cant afford to stay there.
Then the 3 bed house would still only have 1 person living in it so how does that help overcrowding?
It is an attack on benefits not over occupying.
If a 1 bed flat costs £78 a week and a 3 bed house is £84 a week what is the point.
Then the 3 bed house would still only have 1 person living in it so how does that help overcrowding?
It is an attack on benefits not over occupying.
If a 1 bed flat costs £78 a week and a 3 bed house is £84 a week what is the point.
MegGriffin
says...
12:11pm Mon 25 Feb 13
bigfella777 wrote:The council wouldn't allow such an exchange to take place.
So what happens then if a single person in a one bed council flat who is working exchanges with someone in a 3 bed house because they cant afford to stay there.
Then the 3 bed house would still only have 1 person living in it so how does that help overcrowding?
It is an attack on benefits not over occupying.
If a 1 bed flat costs £78 a week and a 3 bed house is £84 a week what is the point.
bigfella777
says...
12:17pm Mon 25 Feb 13
MegGriffin wrote:They cant stop it,you can swap whatever you like on homeswapper,it's down to the tenants.
bigfella777 wrote:The council wouldn't allow such an exchange to take place.
So what happens then if a single person in a one bed council flat who is working exchanges with someone in a 3 bed house because they cant afford to stay there.
Then the 3 bed house would still only have 1 person living in it so how does that help overcrowding?
It is an attack on benefits not over occupying.
If a 1 bed flat costs £78 a week and a 3 bed house is £84 a week what is the point.
loosehead
says...
12:37pm Mon 25 Feb 13
bigfella777 wrote:Are you sure of that?
MegGriffin wrote:They cant stop it,you can swap whatever you like on homeswapper,it's down to the tenants.
bigfella777 wrote:The council wouldn't allow such an exchange to take place.
So what happens then if a single person in a one bed council flat who is working exchanges with someone in a 3 bed house because they cant afford to stay there.
Then the 3 bed house would still only have 1 person living in it so how does that help overcrowding?
It is an attack on benefits not over occupying.
If a 1 bed flat costs £78 a week and a 3 bed house is £84 a week what is the point.
As far as I know you have to meet the criteria to bid or swap into a bigger property & I've looked at Homebid.
loosehead
says...
12:44pm Mon 25 Feb 13
To say build more social housing isn't the solution.Under the Tory council the first council houses were built in this city in a decade.
Under the Tories we planned the rebuild of Townhill Park which at the time had residents approval then enter Labour scrap that plan & clear a copse that the locals didn't want cleared ,chuck £50million more to get a housing Association to build more homes & then to buy from them?
Sorry but this idea that a council house suddenly becomes a family home is wrong.
why should a single person or a couple live in a two bedroom-three-four bedroom property because it was their family home whilst families are living three floors up in one bedroomed flats
Under the Tories we planned the rebuild of Townhill Park which at the time had residents approval then enter Labour scrap that plan & clear a copse that the locals didn't want cleared ,chuck £50million more to get a housing Association to build more homes & then to buy from them?
Sorry but this idea that a council house suddenly becomes a family home is wrong.
why should a single person or a couple live in a two bedroom-three-four bedroom property because it was their family home whilst families are living three floors up in one bedroomed flats
bigfella777
says...
12:49pm Mon 25 Feb 13
loosehead wrote:To initially bid you have to meet the criteria but to mutually exchange on secure tenancies it's up to the tenants.
bigfella777 wrote:Are you sure of that?
MegGriffin wrote:They cant stop it,you can swap whatever you like on homeswapper,it's down to the tenants.
bigfella777 wrote:The council wouldn't allow such an exchange to take place.
So what happens then if a single person in a one bed council flat who is working exchanges with someone in a 3 bed house because they cant afford to stay there.
Then the 3 bed house would still only have 1 person living in it so how does that help overcrowding?
It is an attack on benefits not over occupying.
If a 1 bed flat costs £78 a week and a 3 bed house is £84 a week what is the point.
As far as I know you have to meet the criteria to bid or swap into a bigger property & I've looked at Homebid.
Maybe they will change this now.
MegGriffin
says...
12:50pm Mon 25 Feb 13
loosehead wrote:The council still have to okay it. As far as I know, they don't allow such exchanges to take place.
bigfella777 wrote:Are you sure of that?
MegGriffin wrote:They cant stop it,you can swap whatever you like on homeswapper,it's down to the tenants.
bigfella777 wrote:The council wouldn't allow such an exchange to take place.
So what happens then if a single person in a one bed council flat who is working exchanges with someone in a 3 bed house because they cant afford to stay there.
Then the 3 bed house would still only have 1 person living in it so how does that help overcrowding?
It is an attack on benefits not over occupying.
If a 1 bed flat costs £78 a week and a 3 bed house is £84 a week what is the point.
As far as I know you have to meet the criteria to bid or swap into a bigger property & I've looked at Homebid.
freefinker
says...
12:53pm Mon 25 Feb 13
southy wrote:.. no, southy. Nobody, including me, has denied the existence of the proposed legislation known colloquially as the 'Bedroom Tax'. It's just that you, as is often the case, have no idea what it is, what it entails or who it will effect.
IronLady2010 wrote:Stay your saying that no one else.
stay local wrote:I feel we have to assume Peter has been snubbed by his own party. They failed to tell him they were standing in the By-Election, infact he learned from this website they were standing! Despite his constant re-assurance they wouldn't be putting forward a candidate.
southy wrote:So now can we take that as a statement of TUSC, that they fully support Margaret Thatchers kind action that allowed those in local authority accommodation their right of tenancy. That you believe there is no need to provide equal resources to those in need and that people now single living in rented accommodation can retain their 4/5/6 bedroom house whilst family with children have to languish in one room flats??? hardly the caring socialist! Would the hopeless candidate that you represent in the Eastleigh by election put the needs of the local people before the demands of his union, or would we see favours for the membership?? can he or you be trusted?
stay local wrote:It as nothing to do with a needs bugget, in this area a needs bugget would build new homes, which is what is needed.
southy wrote:Surely this is something you would support, as it seem to reflect what might be a needs budget! Just as you don't think local government workers should receive more than 40,000 why should people occupying local government (or housing association) accommodation more than they require? Surely your egalitarian society would support and encourage such plans?
The Bedroom Tax has to go back, and alteration made to it. As it stands at the moment its breaking the Law.
It against the law to induce this aim at one section of society, It will have to apply to all or none.
Never mind, Peter can advise his people that the bedroom tax is illegal and that private rents who claim benefits have never had to put up with this before. It's all a new thing!
I've never known a single person to get so many things wrong, yet alone go for a Councillors job!
What should be done is this, all Councils should have the right to build homes, and not ask Government for permission to do so, (it was the last Labour government that interduce this law/ruling, Before then Thatcher stop all Councils from building new homes, to replace any that was sold, it was Thatcher that allowed Councils to sale Council tennecy (Council housing stock) to private Housing Association.
Center to Left Socialist have at no point said people can buy there own council homes, We have all ways been for that, because it helps to pay for more new Council homes to be built. The TUSC do not support Thatcher and never has, ITS only you saying that Stay Local.
Iron Lady twisting words also, I see.
The decision not to stand was made on the Wed, it was at the last moment that the RMT said they could put some one up for as a Candidate late on Friday Evening the whole selection system was quickly done and was announce before 1am Sat and made offical on the Mon. And this would of been dealt with Southern Branch (Winchester) of the TUSC and not Southampton Branch even lo we would be informed, now you was told this at the time.
Its not me that said that Bedroom Tax was against the Law I just repeated what was on Yahoo News, This was said by the Law Lords, that it is illegal to discriminate against a section of society, and thats just what the bedroom tax do discriminate.
You Ironlady, Freefinker and one two others gang up on me and said there was no such thing as the Bedroom Tax, and I was making things up, and yet here it is being said by JD MP, and yet again time fall on my side and proves yet again that i was correct.
From your posts you have said it will be ‘the first real major change to the Council tax’ since 1991. ‘People will be paying extra to there council tax if they have empty rooms’. And ‘you have not heard of it yet, and yet I known about for around 6 mths now’. All of which was total and absolute boll0cks – but that's what we expect from you.
ohec
says...
12:58pm Mon 25 Feb 13
bigfella777 wrote:Sorry to burst your bubble
MegGriffin wrote:They cant stop it,you can swap whatever you like on homeswapper,it's down to the tenants.
bigfella777 wrote:The council wouldn't allow such an exchange to take place.
So what happens then if a single person in a one bed council flat who is working exchanges with someone in a 3 bed house because they cant afford to stay there.
Then the 3 bed house would still only have 1 person living in it so how does that help overcrowding?
It is an attack on benefits not over occupying.
If a 1 bed flat costs £78 a week and a 3 bed house is £84 a week what is the point.
bigfella777 but all exchanges have to be agreed by both landlords and they would not permit the exchange you refer to, there might also be other restrictions on certain properties.
ohec
says...
1:16pm Mon 25 Feb 13
There is one other issue i would like to raise and that is over the years i have spent a great deal of money on my council houses in general maintenance and improvements, so what incentive is there for people to look after their houses if they are going to be shuffled round like a pack of cards from one dwelling to another.
There is some merit in the basic idea but it falls to pieces when you start looking at putting it into practise, for many years councils H/As have been offering substantial sums as incentives to downsize with little uptake. With house prices as they are the demand for all social housing is only going to increase and the only answer is massive house building programs with new towns and cities with reasonable houses that people WANT to live in.
There is some merit in the basic idea but it falls to pieces when you start looking at putting it into practise, for many years councils H/As have been offering substantial sums as incentives to downsize with little uptake. With house prices as they are the demand for all social housing is only going to increase and the only answer is massive house building programs with new towns and cities with reasonable houses that people WANT to live in.
George4th
says...
1:58pm Mon 25 Feb 13
"The world owes me a living" attitude is bringing this country down and down and down................
........No wonder we are being left behind.......
>
The immigrants come here and get jobs and get accommodation. Why? Because they have a "Can do" attitude.
>
All I hear are excuses, excuses, excuses not to do this, not to do that. How about turning attitudes around and saying "I can do" I will do" "I will change"
........No wonder we are being left behind.......
>
The immigrants come here and get jobs and get accommodation. Why? Because they have a "Can do" attitude.
>
All I hear are excuses, excuses, excuses not to do this, not to do that. How about turning attitudes around and saying "I can do" I will do" "I will change"
Subject48
says...
2:24pm Mon 25 Feb 13
*Reads southys comments* - *sighs* - *holds the ridge of his nose with his finger-tips*
loosehead
says...
4:20pm Mon 25 Feb 13
ohec wrote:Thank You I thought this was what would happen!
bigfella777 wrote:Sorry to burst your bubble
MegGriffin wrote:They cant stop it,you can swap whatever you like on homeswapper,it's down to the tenants.
bigfella777 wrote:The council wouldn't allow such an exchange to take place.
So what happens then if a single person in a one bed council flat who is working exchanges with someone in a 3 bed house because they cant afford to stay there.
Then the 3 bed house would still only have 1 person living in it so how does that help overcrowding?
It is an attack on benefits not over occupying.
If a 1 bed flat costs £78 a week and a 3 bed house is £84 a week what is the point.
bigfella777 but all exchanges have to be agreed by both landlords and they would not permit the exchange you refer to, there might also be other restrictions on certain properties.
behonest
says...
4:20pm Mon 25 Feb 13
George4th wrote:It's because this Tory government, like the previous Labour lot, allow us to be flooded with immigrants who are prepared to take minimum wage jobs, live in low quality shared accommodation and then send much of their wages home.
"The world owes me a living" attitude is bringing this country down and down and down................
........No wonder we are being left behind.......
>
The immigrants come here and get jobs and get accommodation. Why? Because they have a "Can do" attitude.
>
All I hear are excuses, excuses, excuses not to do this, not to do that. How about turning attitudes around and saying "I can do" I will do" "I will change"
The Tories are about to make it much worse by allowing God-knows how many tens of thousands of Romanians and Bulgarians flood into the country later this year.
We have record youth unemployment in the UK. Perhaps if the Tories tackled this problem and our own young people had opportunities open to them, maybe we'd then see a 'can do' attitude. Difficult to think 'can do' if there's no work available to do.
The workforce at the lower end has been increased so much, that living standards and wages have been driven further and further down.
This is Tory Britain. Do nothing about Eastern European immigration and most working people in the UK will end up close to minimum wage. A race to the bottom. Progress?
Inform Al
says...
4:45pm Mon 25 Feb 13
George4th wrote:I have no problem with existing council tenants buying their homes, where Maggie fell down was by not allowing councils to use the money from the sales to build more housing. She should have made it compulsory.
Inform Al wrote:The last Labour government had 13 years to build dwellings of every kind. They fell miserably short in every year of their government.
IronLady2010 wrote:What I am saying is I do not agree with kicking people, nazi style, from their homes. Anyway where do you get the idea from that you are paying for it. Council home rents completely cover the cost of the council home service, and as far as housing benefit is concerned I would rather house English dogs than Middle Eastern terrorists which dodgy Daves moves are not addressing. I do wonder what the doggy loving brigade will make of your comment as jack booting the lady from her home will almost certainly result in the dogs destruction.
Inform Al wrote:I refuse to pay for dogs if that's what you're suggesting?
IronLady2010 wrote:you really don't, or don't want to, understand what family life is all about do you.
Inform Al wrote:What have dogs got to do with it? Dogs are not entitled to benefits and should not be counted.
loosehead wrote:Whether you buy or rent your home it is your family home, I know of one lady whose children have flown the nest but in the family home she still looks after the family's three dogs, she would be eligible to move into Ventnor Court, but the dogs wouldn't. This insidious bedroom tax is going to destroy the lives of many decent people, and their pets, whose only fault is not having been rich enough to buy their own homes. The real reason for the lack of social housing has nothing to do with people remaining in the family home, it is to do with the overwhelming immigration problem and a government not prepared to subscribe into social housing, despite the fact that it costs nothing due to the rental income, puts people into work therefore reducing the dole payout and reduces the amount of the nations housing benefit payouts as C'morons rich property owning party donors charge much more rent than social landlords. C'moron will not take this sensible approach to lowering the nations debt as it will upset his party donors.
Inform Al wrote:As Im live right next to Rozell Ct I know all of this Al I was telling Ironlady of a possible place her Hubby's Gran could go to if she was after a smaller property.
loosehead wrote:Rozel and Sarnia courts are what are known as U2 blocks. all to the same design and there are a few of them and except for Ventnor court, over 55, are restricted to the over 6o's. The voids in these flats tend to occur only when a tenant dies. As most of the problems finding 1 bed flats are for people of working age losing housing benefits these flats will not be available to them. As far as the comment about it not being their house it's the council's is concerned, it's they who pay the rent and should be entitled to live in their family home until they die, just like C'moron and his rich croneys can live in theirs until they die. If on the other hand someone actually wishes to downsize the council should do all it can to facilitate the move.
IronLady2010 wrote:Tell her to look on Homebid & Rozell ct & Sarnia are for the over 60's & usually have vacant flats
loosehead wrote:Changes do need to be made. I'll give an example. Hubbys Nan lives in a 3 bed Council house all on her own, she has been asking for a small flat for ages as she is struggling with the stairs, yet it all falls on deaf ears.
IronLady2010 wrote:I live next door to a council house which is a two bedroomed house with a single guy on the dole living in there?
I feel this has been rushed through with little thought.
Inform Al makes a good point, let's suppose all those with a spare room decide they want to downgrade to free up a bigger house, where will they all go?
Do we have enough smaller houses for people to move into?
Surely you can't think that's right?
I've been into flats where young families are having to carry prams & children up the stairs to one bedroomed flats is that right?
I believe that all council tenants should be financially checked & if they are financially able to buy or rent private they should be made to do so to free up council homes for the low paid.
when I was young council houses were allocated ion the size of the family to those in need not those who wanted new cars & holidays & have the council pay to repair & modernise the properties.
I have now got a couple who transferred from a four bedroom council house & they're now in a two bedroom house why?
why does anyone who only ever use one bedroom expect us to pay the rent on a two bedroom property?
Sorry I was bought up in a council home & I know it's a service for low paid not for wealthy people & it's not your house it belongs to the council.
my neighbour should be moved into a single persons property & a young family should have the two bedroomed house
As she isn't on benefits I guess this change won't effect her, but yet she is willing to give up this house but is hitting her head against a wall trying to downgrade. There just aren't enough properties available for people to downgrade.
I also said about the age for that Court & sarnia.
Please explain how it's their family home?Did they buy it for their "Family"?
NO most families had the option to buy their "Family" home but didn't.
this is a council property & if two,three,four bedroomed it's for families but if we all keep it until we die & then a single person who is the son or daughter keeps it until the day they die & passes it on & on you would have no council houses/properties left so sorry your idea of what a council property is happens to be the real reason behind a lack of affordable housing
And they stupidly added to what was already a massive problem by allowing 2 million immigrants into the country with no added accommodation!!!
(By the way, forget the argument about Thatcher selling council properties. If those houses were still occupied by council tenants there would be an equal number of people still looking for somewhere to live!!)
loosehead
says...
4:46pm Mon 25 Feb 13
behonest wrote:I'm not a Labour fan but even though Brown C+cked Up in the end all those immigrants would still have come here we as a country no longer have controls on our own borders when it comes to the EU we have no choice but to eventually allow them in.
George4th wrote:It's because this Tory government, like the previous Labour lot, allow us to be flooded with immigrants who are prepared to take minimum wage jobs, live in low quality shared accommodation and then send much of their wages home.
"The world owes me a living" attitude is bringing this country down and down and down................
........No wonder we are being left behind.......
>
The immigrants come here and get jobs and get accommodation. Why? Because they have a "Can do" attitude.
>
All I hear are excuses, excuses, excuses not to do this, not to do that. How about turning attitudes around and saying "I can do" I will do" "I will change"
The Tories are about to make it much worse by allowing God-knows how many tens of thousands of Romanians and Bulgarians flood into the country later this year.
We have record youth unemployment in the UK. Perhaps if the Tories tackled this problem and our own young people had opportunities open to them, maybe we'd then see a 'can do' attitude. Difficult to think 'can do' if there's no work available to do.
The workforce at the lower end has been increased so much, that living standards and wages have been driven further and further down.
This is Tory Britain. Do nothing about Eastern European immigration and most working people in the UK will end up close to minimum wage. A race to the bottom. Progress?
We can stall the inevitable or we can vote for a party or in any future referendum to get out of the EU & take back our country it's our choice will you vote UKIP?
loosehead
says...
4:55pm Mon 25 Feb 13
Inform Al wrote:agree with that
George4th wrote:I have no problem with existing council tenants buying their homes, where Maggie fell down was by not allowing councils to use the money from the sales to build more housing. She should have made it compulsory.
Inform Al wrote:The last Labour government had 13 years to build dwellings of every kind. They fell miserably short in every year of their government.
IronLady2010 wrote:What I am saying is I do not agree with kicking people, nazi style, from their homes. Anyway where do you get the idea from that you are paying for it. Council home rents completely cover the cost of the council home service, and as far as housing benefit is concerned I would rather house English dogs than Middle Eastern terrorists which dodgy Daves moves are not addressing. I do wonder what the doggy loving brigade will make of your comment as jack booting the lady from her home will almost certainly result in the dogs destruction.
Inform Al wrote:I refuse to pay for dogs if that's what you're suggesting?
IronLady2010 wrote:you really don't, or don't want to, understand what family life is all about do you.
Inform Al wrote:What have dogs got to do with it? Dogs are not entitled to benefits and should not be counted.
loosehead wrote:Whether you buy or rent your home it is your family home, I know of one lady whose children have flown the nest but in the family home she still looks after the family's three dogs, she would be eligible to move into Ventnor Court, but the dogs wouldn't. This insidious bedroom tax is going to destroy the lives of many decent people, and their pets, whose only fault is not having been rich enough to buy their own homes. The real reason for the lack of social housing has nothing to do with people remaining in the family home, it is to do with the overwhelming immigration problem and a government not prepared to subscribe into social housing, despite the fact that it costs nothing due to the rental income, puts people into work therefore reducing the dole payout and reduces the amount of the nations housing benefit payouts as C'morons rich property owning party donors charge much more rent than social landlords. C'moron will not take this sensible approach to lowering the nations debt as it will upset his party donors.
Inform Al wrote:As Im live right next to Rozell Ct I know all of this Al I was telling Ironlady of a possible place her Hubby's Gran could go to if she was after a smaller property.
loosehead wrote:Rozel and Sarnia courts are what are known as U2 blocks. all to the same design and there are a few of them and except for Ventnor court, over 55, are restricted to the over 6o's. The voids in these flats tend to occur only when a tenant dies. As most of the problems finding 1 bed flats are for people of working age losing housing benefits these flats will not be available to them. As far as the comment about it not being their house it's the council's is concerned, it's they who pay the rent and should be entitled to live in their family home until they die, just like C'moron and his rich croneys can live in theirs until they die. If on the other hand someone actually wishes to downsize the council should do all it can to facilitate the move.
IronLady2010 wrote:Tell her to look on Homebid & Rozell ct & Sarnia are for the over 60's & usually have vacant flats
loosehead wrote:Changes do need to be made. I'll give an example. Hubbys Nan lives in a 3 bed Council house all on her own, she has been asking for a small flat for ages as she is struggling with the stairs, yet it all falls on deaf ears.
IronLady2010 wrote:I live next door to a council house which is a two bedroomed house with a single guy on the dole living in there?
I feel this has been rushed through with little thought.
Inform Al makes a good point, let's suppose all those with a spare room decide they want to downgrade to free up a bigger house, where will they all go?
Do we have enough smaller houses for people to move into?
Surely you can't think that's right?
I've been into flats where young families are having to carry prams & children up the stairs to one bedroomed flats is that right?
I believe that all council tenants should be financially checked & if they are financially able to buy or rent private they should be made to do so to free up council homes for the low paid.
when I was young council houses were allocated ion the size of the family to those in need not those who wanted new cars & holidays & have the council pay to repair & modernise the properties.
I have now got a couple who transferred from a four bedroom council house & they're now in a two bedroom house why?
why does anyone who only ever use one bedroom expect us to pay the rent on a two bedroom property?
Sorry I was bought up in a council home & I know it's a service for low paid not for wealthy people & it's not your house it belongs to the council.
my neighbour should be moved into a single persons property & a young family should have the two bedroomed house
As she isn't on benefits I guess this change won't effect her, but yet she is willing to give up this house but is hitting her head against a wall trying to downgrade. There just aren't enough properties available for people to downgrade.
I also said about the age for that Court & sarnia.
Please explain how it's their family home?Did they buy it for their "Family"?
NO most families had the option to buy their "Family" home but didn't.
this is a council property & if two,three,four bedroomed it's for families but if we all keep it until we die & then a single person who is the son or daughter keeps it until the day they die & passes it on & on you would have no council houses/properties left so sorry your idea of what a council property is happens to be the real reason behind a lack of affordable housing
And they stupidly added to what was already a massive problem by allowing 2 million immigrants into the country with no added accommodation!!!
(By the way, forget the argument about Thatcher selling council properties. If those houses were still occupied by council tenants there would be an equal number of people still looking for somewhere to live!!)
Inform Al
says...
4:56pm Mon 25 Feb 13
Torchie1 wrote:When its a sellers market the prices go up. If on the other hand you are willing to sell your home cheaply please let me know.
Inform Al wrote:How can the government ensure that prices stay out of reach of most young people when it is up to the sellers to decide how much they want for their property. Nothing and no law on the books can force you to sell for a price other than what you decide so lets re-visit the cause of high property prices and lay the blame at the feet of the owners who try to get as much as possible.
Chris storey wrote:Easy, we ordinary people should have the same privileges of tenure of our family homes as the rich. I myself was lucky and was able to buy my home thanks to Maggies government at a time when the Tories actually worked for the people and houses were affordable, I was also able to ensure that each of my three sons had a home of their own. Ordinary people cannot do this now due to a government that ensures property prices stay out of the reach of most young people just to keep their party donors happy. Instead of forcing people out of the homes they raised their families in, they should build more social housing, something that actually more than pays for itself, but will result in lower house prices and Tory donors getting a little upset.
Inform Al wrote:Ok, explain to me why i should pay the rent for people to have more rooms than they need, a simple explanation please!
Chris storey wrote:Ignorance is bliss isn't it. Until we build more social housing, house prices even for most of those in work will be too high to afford, and due to low pay and too many restricted to low hours even those in work need housing benefit to pay the rent. Why should decent ordinary people be forced to move out when those lucky Tories born with a silver spoon in their greedy mouths never have to worry about such matters. If we don't get rid of these parasites soon we could end up with an explosive situation, Not something I want my kids to look forward to.
skin2000 wrote:What you need to realise is when something needs paying for someone who works for a living has to pay for it, there is no such thing as a free lunch, someone pays for it, usually by going without themselves so you can get it for nothing.
The Bedroom tax, the Workfare scheme and the selling off parts of the NHS are bad for the people of this country....People need to wake up and find their voice, to tell the government it's not what they want.
If you want spare rooms try paying for them yourself, I have two spare rooms in my house, which I worked all my life to pay for, do you think I should let you live in one of them rent free? Oh silly me ! Of course you do .
Inform Al
says...
4:59pm Mon 25 Feb 13
MegGriffin wrote:Also, with over 14,000 applicants on the SCC waiting list even the couple of hundred vacancies in home bid are a paddle in the sea.
Linesman wrote:Just take a look at any SCC Homebid book and look at how many vacant single bed flats there are compared to larger properties. You'll find the answer to your question there.
MegGriffin wrote:That's easy to say, but are there sufficient single bedroom flats and houses to move them into?
"The scheme is targeted at those residents who are of working age so pensioners currently in housing association or council homes will not be affected."
It's the pensioners that are the problem. I know know a great many older people who live alone in 3 and 4 bedroom houses. I know I'm probably going to be slated for saying it but they are the ones who should be made to downsize first.
If council houses had not been sold off in the first place, there would be greater flexibility for councils to help couples, whose children have left home, to move into more appropriate properties.
Inform Al
says...
5:07pm Mon 25 Feb 13
loosehead wrote:If I lived in Eastleigh, I would.
behonest wrote:I'm not a Labour fan but even though Brown C+cked Up in the end all those immigrants would still have come here we as a country no longer have controls on our own borders when it comes to the EU we have no choice but to eventually allow them in.
George4th wrote:It's because this Tory government, like the previous Labour lot, allow us to be flooded with immigrants who are prepared to take minimum wage jobs, live in low quality shared accommodation and then send much of their wages home.
"The world owes me a living" attitude is bringing this country down and down and down................
........No wonder we are being left behind.......
>
The immigrants come here and get jobs and get accommodation. Why? Because they have a "Can do" attitude.
>
All I hear are excuses, excuses, excuses not to do this, not to do that. How about turning attitudes around and saying "I can do" I will do" "I will change"
The Tories are about to make it much worse by allowing God-knows how many tens of thousands of Romanians and Bulgarians flood into the country later this year.
We have record youth unemployment in the UK. Perhaps if the Tories tackled this problem and our own young people had opportunities open to them, maybe we'd then see a 'can do' attitude. Difficult to think 'can do' if there's no work available to do.
The workforce at the lower end has been increased so much, that living standards and wages have been driven further and further down.
This is Tory Britain. Do nothing about Eastern European immigration and most working people in the UK will end up close to minimum wage. A race to the bottom. Progress?
We can stall the inevitable or we can vote for a party or in any future referendum to get out of the EU & take back our country it's our choice will you vote UKIP?
George4th
says...
5:13pm Mon 25 Feb 13
behonest wrote:Think about it, most of the people who live in the UK are off-spring of immigrants!
George4th wrote:It's because this Tory government, like the previous Labour lot, allow us to be flooded with immigrants who are prepared to take minimum wage jobs, live in low quality shared accommodation and then send much of their wages home.
"The world owes me a living" attitude is bringing this country down and down and down................
........No wonder we are being left behind.......
>
The immigrants come here and get jobs and get accommodation. Why? Because they have a "Can do" attitude.
>
All I hear are excuses, excuses, excuses not to do this, not to do that. How about turning attitudes around and saying "I can do" I will do" "I will change"
The Tories are about to make it much worse by allowing God-knows how many tens of thousands of Romanians and Bulgarians flood into the country later this year.
We have record youth unemployment in the UK. Perhaps if the Tories tackled this problem and our own young people had opportunities open to them, maybe we'd then see a 'can do' attitude. Difficult to think 'can do' if there's no work available to do.
The workforce at the lower end has been increased so much, that living standards and wages have been driven further and further down.
This is Tory Britain. Do nothing about Eastern European immigration and most working people in the UK will end up close to minimum wage. A race to the bottom. Progress?
Every new wave is harangued by those already here!
You have a blinkered view of immigrants! Immigrants take jobs from top to bottom and bottom to top - Doctors, Engineers, Computer Scientists, Farm Managers, Carpenters, Welders, Nurses, and yes, all the way down to the low paid jobs. I know of immigrants with good education, degrees, and they took the low paid jobs but where are many now? Yes, they are up the ladder because they worked their way up there! Sometimes 3 or 4 jobs at a time!
Simples - hard work!
>
Too many Brits sit on their hands and forget how to use their hands! (or their heads!)
>
I think you're right about the minimum wage but not for your reason! Even if the immigrants hadn't come it would still be a problem!
The minimum wage is detrimental to the growth of our economy but that's another story!
As a result, the wage gap will widen and widen and therefore the gap between the have and the have nots will widen further. (Remember, the gap between the have and the have nots widened under Labour - quite a legacy! In fact, about the only Legacy that Labour left!!!)
Inform Al
says...
5:23pm Mon 25 Feb 13
George4th wrote:I myself have refugee ancestry, but it is the unacceptable level of immigration that is causing the problem. I used to be proud of living in a country where we nurtured those who needed our help. Thanks to the overcrowding in the UK we now send refugees back to despotic
behonest wrote:Think about it, most of the people who live in the UK are off-spring of immigrants!
George4th wrote:It's because this Tory government, like the previous Labour lot, allow us to be flooded with immigrants who are prepared to take minimum wage jobs, live in low quality shared accommodation and then send much of their wages home.
"The world owes me a living" attitude is bringing this country down and down and down................
........No wonder we are being left behind.......
>
The immigrants come here and get jobs and get accommodation. Why? Because they have a "Can do" attitude.
>
All I hear are excuses, excuses, excuses not to do this, not to do that. How about turning attitudes around and saying "I can do" I will do" "I will change"
The Tories are about to make it much worse by allowing God-knows how many tens of thousands of Romanians and Bulgarians flood into the country later this year.
We have record youth unemployment in the UK. Perhaps if the Tories tackled this problem and our own young people had opportunities open to them, maybe we'd then see a 'can do' attitude. Difficult to think 'can do' if there's no work available to do.
The workforce at the lower end has been increased so much, that living standards and wages have been driven further and further down.
This is Tory Britain. Do nothing about Eastern European immigration and most working people in the UK will end up close to minimum wage. A race to the bottom. Progress?
Every new wave is harangued by those already here!
You have a blinkered view of immigrants! Immigrants take jobs from top to bottom and bottom to top - Doctors, Engineers, Computer Scientists, Farm Managers, Carpenters, Welders, Nurses, and yes, all the way down to the low paid jobs. I know of immigrants with good education, degrees, and they took the low paid jobs but where are many now? Yes, they are up the ladder because they worked their way up there! Sometimes 3 or 4 jobs at a time!
Simples - hard work!
>
Too many Brits sit on their hands and forget how to use their hands! (or their heads!)
>
I think you're right about the minimum wage but not for your reason! Even if the immigrants hadn't come it would still be a problem!
The minimum wage is detrimental to the growth of our economy but that's another story!
As a result, the wage gap will widen and widen and therefore the gap between the have and the have nots will widen further. (Remember, the gap between the have and the have nots widened under Labour - quite a legacy! In fact, about the only Legacy that Labour left!!!)
countries such as Iran and Zimbabwe. My pride has flown. It is due to the level of immigration that we need to build a lot of social housing, bedromm tax or forcibly moving old grannies out of their homes will not even scratch the surface of the problem
George4th
says...
5:42pm Mon 25 Feb 13
Inform Al wrote:You're right about the housing. Whatever your politics, Labour failed miserably on building dwellings - they failed badly even in the years before all the immigrants came! It's Labour who left the problem by falling so far short on building dwellings. Had it been Russia, they would have been shot! :-)
George4th wrote:I myself have refugee ancestry, but it is the unacceptable level of immigration that is causing the problem. I used to be proud of living in a country where we nurtured those who needed our help. Thanks to the overcrowding in the UK we now send refugees back to despotic
behonest wrote:Think about it, most of the people who live in the UK are off-spring of immigrants!
George4th wrote:It's because this Tory government, like the previous Labour lot, allow us to be flooded with immigrants who are prepared to take minimum wage jobs, live in low quality shared accommodation and then send much of their wages home.
"The world owes me a living" attitude is bringing this country down and down and down................
........No wonder we are being left behind.......
>
The immigrants come here and get jobs and get accommodation. Why? Because they have a "Can do" attitude.
>
All I hear are excuses, excuses, excuses not to do this, not to do that. How about turning attitudes around and saying "I can do" I will do" "I will change"
The Tories are about to make it much worse by allowing God-knows how many tens of thousands of Romanians and Bulgarians flood into the country later this year.
We have record youth unemployment in the UK. Perhaps if the Tories tackled this problem and our own young people had opportunities open to them, maybe we'd then see a 'can do' attitude. Difficult to think 'can do' if there's no work available to do.
The workforce at the lower end has been increased so much, that living standards and wages have been driven further and further down.
This is Tory Britain. Do nothing about Eastern European immigration and most working people in the UK will end up close to minimum wage. A race to the bottom. Progress?
Every new wave is harangued by those already here!
You have a blinkered view of immigrants! Immigrants take jobs from top to bottom and bottom to top - Doctors, Engineers, Computer Scientists, Farm Managers, Carpenters, Welders, Nurses, and yes, all the way down to the low paid jobs. I know of immigrants with good education, degrees, and they took the low paid jobs but where are many now? Yes, they are up the ladder because they worked their way up there! Sometimes 3 or 4 jobs at a time!
Simples - hard work!
>
Too many Brits sit on their hands and forget how to use their hands! (or their heads!)
>
I think you're right about the minimum wage but not for your reason! Even if the immigrants hadn't come it would still be a problem!
The minimum wage is detrimental to the growth of our economy but that's another story!
As a result, the wage gap will widen and widen and therefore the gap between the have and the have nots will widen further. (Remember, the gap between the have and the have nots widened under Labour - quite a legacy! In fact, about the only Legacy that Labour left!!!)
countries such as Iran and Zimbabwe. My pride has flown. It is due to the level of immigration that we need to build a lot of social housing, bedromm tax or forcibly moving old grannies out of their homes will not even scratch the surface of the problem
Labour were so focused on Political Engineering that they forgot to govern the country in a fit and proper manner. Result? £876 Billion of debt and Rising! (even after paying the Banks)(We had NO debt when they started!)
MegGriffin
says...
6:04pm Mon 25 Feb 13
Inform Al wrote:It's a start though isn't it. There's no justification for 'grannies' to be under occupying big family homes.
George4th wrote:I myself have refugee ancestry, but it is the unacceptable level of immigration that is causing the problem. I used to be proud of living in a country where we nurtured those who needed our help. Thanks to the overcrowding in the UK we now send refugees back to despotic
behonest wrote:Think about it, most of the people who live in the UK are off-spring of immigrants!
George4th wrote:It's because this Tory government, like the previous Labour lot, allow us to be flooded with immigrants who are prepared to take minimum wage jobs, live in low quality shared accommodation and then send much of their wages home.
"The world owes me a living" attitude is bringing this country down and down and down................
........No wonder we are being left behind.......
>
The immigrants come here and get jobs and get accommodation. Why? Because they have a "Can do" attitude.
>
All I hear are excuses, excuses, excuses not to do this, not to do that. How about turning attitudes around and saying "I can do" I will do" "I will change"
The Tories are about to make it much worse by allowing God-knows how many tens of thousands of Romanians and Bulgarians flood into the country later this year.
We have record youth unemployment in the UK. Perhaps if the Tories tackled this problem and our own young people had opportunities open to them, maybe we'd then see a 'can do' attitude. Difficult to think 'can do' if there's no work available to do.
The workforce at the lower end has been increased so much, that living standards and wages have been driven further and further down.
This is Tory Britain. Do nothing about Eastern European immigration and most working people in the UK will end up close to minimum wage. A race to the bottom. Progress?
Every new wave is harangued by those already here!
You have a blinkered view of immigrants! Immigrants take jobs from top to bottom and bottom to top - Doctors, Engineers, Computer Scientists, Farm Managers, Carpenters, Welders, Nurses, and yes, all the way down to the low paid jobs. I know of immigrants with good education, degrees, and they took the low paid jobs but where are many now? Yes, they are up the ladder because they worked their way up there! Sometimes 3 or 4 jobs at a time!
Simples - hard work!
>
Too many Brits sit on their hands and forget how to use their hands! (or their heads!)
>
I think you're right about the minimum wage but not for your reason! Even if the immigrants hadn't come it would still be a problem!
The minimum wage is detrimental to the growth of our economy but that's another story!
As a result, the wage gap will widen and widen and therefore the gap between the have and the have nots will widen further. (Remember, the gap between the have and the have nots widened under Labour - quite a legacy! In fact, about the only Legacy that Labour left!!!)
countries such as Iran and Zimbabwe. My pride has flown. It is due to the level of immigration that we need to build a lot of social housing, bedromm tax or forcibly moving old grannies out of their homes will not even scratch the surface of the problem
Inform Al
says...
7:20pm Mon 25 Feb 13
MegGriffin wrote:Please don't knock my queen, that's treason
Inform Al wrote:It's a start though isn't it. There's no justification for 'grannies' to be under occupying big family homes.
George4th wrote:I myself have refugee ancestry, but it is the unacceptable level of immigration that is causing the problem. I used to be proud of living in a country where we nurtured those who needed our help. Thanks to the overcrowding in the UK we now send refugees back to despotic
behonest wrote:Think about it, most of the people who live in the UK are off-spring of immigrants!
George4th wrote:It's because this Tory government, like the previous Labour lot, allow us to be flooded with immigrants who are prepared to take minimum wage jobs, live in low quality shared accommodation and then send much of their wages home.
"The world owes me a living" attitude is bringing this country down and down and down................
........No wonder we are being left behind.......
>
The immigrants come here and get jobs and get accommodation. Why? Because they have a "Can do" attitude.
>
All I hear are excuses, excuses, excuses not to do this, not to do that. How about turning attitudes around and saying "I can do" I will do" "I will change"
The Tories are about to make it much worse by allowing God-knows how many tens of thousands of Romanians and Bulgarians flood into the country later this year.
We have record youth unemployment in the UK. Perhaps if the Tories tackled this problem and our own young people had opportunities open to them, maybe we'd then see a 'can do' attitude. Difficult to think 'can do' if there's no work available to do.
The workforce at the lower end has been increased so much, that living standards and wages have been driven further and further down.
This is Tory Britain. Do nothing about Eastern European immigration and most working people in the UK will end up close to minimum wage. A race to the bottom. Progress?
Every new wave is harangued by those already here!
You have a blinkered view of immigrants! Immigrants take jobs from top to bottom and bottom to top - Doctors, Engineers, Computer Scientists, Farm Managers, Carpenters, Welders, Nurses, and yes, all the way down to the low paid jobs. I know of immigrants with good education, degrees, and they took the low paid jobs but where are many now? Yes, they are up the ladder because they worked their way up there! Sometimes 3 or 4 jobs at a time!
Simples - hard work!
>
Too many Brits sit on their hands and forget how to use their hands! (or their heads!)
>
I think you're right about the minimum wage but not for your reason! Even if the immigrants hadn't come it would still be a problem!
The minimum wage is detrimental to the growth of our economy but that's another story!
As a result, the wage gap will widen and widen and therefore the gap between the have and the have nots will widen further. (Remember, the gap between the have and the have nots widened under Labour - quite a legacy! In fact, about the only Legacy that Labour left!!!)
countries such as Iran and Zimbabwe. My pride has flown. It is due to the level of immigration that we need to build a lot of social housing, bedromm tax or forcibly moving old grannies out of their homes will not even scratch the surface of the problem
Inform Al
says...
7:32pm Mon 25 Feb 13
George4th wrote:I have no doubt that just on this post you are right, however that does not excuse the present not fit for purpose government from a) giving us the referendum NOW to get out of the EU and b) building council homes to house those that we are already stuck with. Although I was and am against the massive immigration we have suffered, I would not support enforced extradition of those that are here, no more than I would support jackbooting grannies out of their family homes. and doing a decent days work. I would rather get rid of C'moron and friends.
Inform Al wrote:You're right about the housing. Whatever your politics, Labour failed miserably on building dwellings - they failed badly even in the years before all the immigrants came! It's Labour who left the problem by falling so far short on building dwellings. Had it been Russia, they would have been shot! :-)
George4th wrote:I myself have refugee ancestry, but it is the unacceptable level of immigration that is causing the problem. I used to be proud of living in a country where we nurtured those who needed our help. Thanks to the overcrowding in the UK we now send refugees back to despotic
behonest wrote:Think about it, most of the people who live in the UK are off-spring of immigrants!
George4th wrote:It's because this Tory government, like the previous Labour lot, allow us to be flooded with immigrants who are prepared to take minimum wage jobs, live in low quality shared accommodation and then send much of their wages home.
"The world owes me a living" attitude is bringing this country down and down and down................
........No wonder we are being left behind.......
>
The immigrants come here and get jobs and get accommodation. Why? Because they have a "Can do" attitude.
>
All I hear are excuses, excuses, excuses not to do this, not to do that. How about turning attitudes around and saying "I can do" I will do" "I will change"
The Tories are about to make it much worse by allowing God-knows how many tens of thousands of Romanians and Bulgarians flood into the country later this year.
We have record youth unemployment in the UK. Perhaps if the Tories tackled this problem and our own young people had opportunities open to them, maybe we'd then see a 'can do' attitude. Difficult to think 'can do' if there's no work available to do.
The workforce at the lower end has been increased so much, that living standards and wages have been driven further and further down.
This is Tory Britain. Do nothing about Eastern European immigration and most working people in the UK will end up close to minimum wage. A race to the bottom. Progress?
Every new wave is harangued by those already here!
You have a blinkered view of immigrants! Immigrants take jobs from top to bottom and bottom to top - Doctors, Engineers, Computer Scientists, Farm Managers, Carpenters, Welders, Nurses, and yes, all the way down to the low paid jobs. I know of immigrants with good education, degrees, and they took the low paid jobs but where are many now? Yes, they are up the ladder because they worked their way up there! Sometimes 3 or 4 jobs at a time!
Simples - hard work!
>
Too many Brits sit on their hands and forget how to use their hands! (or their heads!)
>
I think you're right about the minimum wage but not for your reason! Even if the immigrants hadn't come it would still be a problem!
The minimum wage is detrimental to the growth of our economy but that's another story!
As a result, the wage gap will widen and widen and therefore the gap between the have and the have nots will widen further. (Remember, the gap between the have and the have nots widened under Labour - quite a legacy! In fact, about the only Legacy that Labour left!!!)
countries such as Iran and Zimbabwe. My pride has flown. It is due to the level of immigration that we need to build a lot of social housing, bedromm tax or forcibly moving old grannies out of their homes will not even scratch the surface of the problem
Labour were so focused on Political Engineering that they forgot to govern the country in a fit and proper manner. Result? £876 Billion of debt and Rising! (even after paying the Banks)(We had NO debt when they started!)
Inform Al
says...
7:34pm Mon 25 Feb 13
Inform Al wrote:Something funny going on here, doing a decent days work was typed before the bit about grannies
George4th wrote:I have no doubt that just on this post you are right, however that does not excuse the present not fit for purpose government from a) giving us the referendum NOW to get out of the EU and b) building council homes to house those that we are already stuck with. Although I was and am against the massive immigration we have suffered, I would not support enforced extradition of those that are here, no more than I would support jackbooting grannies out of their family homes. and doing a decent days work. I would rather get rid of C'moron and friends.
Inform Al wrote:You're right about the housing. Whatever your politics, Labour failed miserably on building dwellings - they failed badly even in the years before all the immigrants came! It's Labour who left the problem by falling so far short on building dwellings. Had it been Russia, they would have been shot! :-)
George4th wrote:I myself have refugee ancestry, but it is the unacceptable level of immigration that is causing the problem. I used to be proud of living in a country where we nurtured those who needed our help. Thanks to the overcrowding in the UK we now send refugees back to despotic
behonest wrote:Think about it, most of the people who live in the UK are off-spring of immigrants!
George4th wrote:It's because this Tory government, like the previous Labour lot, allow us to be flooded with immigrants who are prepared to take minimum wage jobs, live in low quality shared accommodation and then send much of their wages home.
"The world owes me a living" attitude is bringing this country down and down and down................
........No wonder we are being left behind.......
>
The immigrants come here and get jobs and get accommodation. Why? Because they have a "Can do" attitude.
>
All I hear are excuses, excuses, excuses not to do this, not to do that. How about turning attitudes around and saying "I can do" I will do" "I will change"
The Tories are about to make it much worse by allowing God-knows how many tens of thousands of Romanians and Bulgarians flood into the country later this year.
We have record youth unemployment in the UK. Perhaps if the Tories tackled this problem and our own young people had opportunities open to them, maybe we'd then see a 'can do' attitude. Difficult to think 'can do' if there's no work available to do.
The workforce at the lower end has been increased so much, that living standards and wages have been driven further and further down.
This is Tory Britain. Do nothing about Eastern European immigration and most working people in the UK will end up close to minimum wage. A race to the bottom. Progress?
Every new wave is harangued by those already here!
You have a blinkered view of immigrants! Immigrants take jobs from top to bottom and bottom to top - Doctors, Engineers, Computer Scientists, Farm Managers, Carpenters, Welders, Nurses, and yes, all the way down to the low paid jobs. I know of immigrants with good education, degrees, and they took the low paid jobs but where are many now? Yes, they are up the ladder because they worked their way up there! Sometimes 3 or 4 jobs at a time!
Simples - hard work!
>
Too many Brits sit on their hands and forget how to use their hands! (or their heads!)
>
I think you're right about the minimum wage but not for your reason! Even if the immigrants hadn't come it would still be a problem!
The minimum wage is detrimental to the growth of our economy but that's another story!
As a result, the wage gap will widen and widen and therefore the gap between the have and the have nots will widen further. (Remember, the gap between the have and the have nots widened under Labour - quite a legacy! In fact, about the only Legacy that Labour left!!!)
countries such as Iran and Zimbabwe. My pride has flown. It is due to the level of immigration that we need to build a lot of social housing, bedromm tax or forcibly moving old grannies out of their homes will not even scratch the surface of the problem
Labour were so focused on Political Engineering that they forgot to govern the country in a fit and proper manner. Result? £876 Billion of debt and Rising! (even after paying the Banks)(We had NO debt when they started!)
bigfella777
says...
3:45pm Tue 26 Feb 13
ohec wrote:Well how are people going to downsize then, you are wrong.
bigfella777 wrote:Sorry to burst your bubble bigfella777 but all exchanges have to be agreed by both landlords and they would not permit the exchange you refer to, there might also be other restrictions on certain properties.MegGriffin wrote:They cant stop it,you can swap whatever you like on homeswapper,it's down to the tenants.bigfella777 wrote: So what happens then if a single person in a one bed council flat who is working exchanges with someone in a 3 bed house because they cant afford to stay there. Then the 3 bed house would still only have 1 person living in it so how does that help overcrowding? It is an attack on benefits not over occupying. If a 1 bed flat costs £78 a week and a 3 bed house is £84 a week what is the point.The council wouldn't allow such an exchange to take place.
loosehead
says...
5:34pm Tue 26 Feb 13
bigfella777 wrote:Maybe approach all those young families trapped in one bedroomed flats in Shirley?
ohec wrote:Well how are people going to downsize then, you are wrong.
bigfella777 wrote:Sorry to burst your bubble bigfella777 but all exchanges have to be agreed by both landlords and they would not permit the exchange you refer to, there might also be other restrictions on certain properties.MegGriffin wrote:They cant stop it,you can swap whatever you like on homeswapper,it's down to the tenants.bigfella777 wrote: So what happens then if a single person in a one bed council flat who is working exchanges with someone in a 3 bed house because they cant afford to stay there. Then the 3 bed house would still only have 1 person living in it so how does that help overcrowding? It is an attack on benefits not over occupying. If a 1 bed flat costs £78 a week and a 3 bed house is £84 a week what is the point.The council wouldn't allow such an exchange to take place.
DiscoPig (dj)
says...
2:00pm Thu 28 Feb 13
Inform Al wrote:hooray come on 2015.....Tory,Lib-de
skin2000 wrote:They will, in 2015
The Bedroom tax, the Workfare scheme and the selling off parts of the NHS are bad for the people of this country....People need to wake up and find their voice, to tell the government it's not what they want.
m and Labour cull time!!!Time for some thing new i feel!!!
DiscoPig (dj)
says...
2:26pm Thu 28 Feb 13
LancashireLad wrote:well said!!
If you have had enough of this callous liberal coalition consider this: Reasons for not voting for any of the three trendy progressive liberal parties; ( Cons, LibDems & New Labour) all pro-EU even though it is a very costly failed experiment, all three parties will do nothing to stop the open door imigration policy with eastern Europeans flooding into Britain, all three compete to be the most politically correct, riding rough shod over our traditions and our rich Christian heritage in a bid to look the most progressive by forcing gay marriage on the nation even though there is no demand for it, no need for it, with less than 0.002 of Gays & Lesbians signing up for Civil Partnerships, plus who do they think they are to destroy and undermine marriage and the traditional family that has been practiced in all civilised societies across the world for thousands of years, yet it seems Cameron, Clegg and Miliband know what is best for the British people, all in the name of an unequal equality where some are more equal and others; a mad cap move of social engineering. All three parties have done nothing to stop the false new religion of global warming and climate change speculators and fudged scientific evidence; using this as a dishonest excuse for green stealth tax rises, leading to extortionate fuel, domestic gas & electricity bills where ordinary people can no longer drive their cars or heat their homes, but do any of the above care about the poor, the disabled or the elderly freezing to death in their homes? Have any of them done anything to reign in the greed of the big six energy companies who make massive profits year on year? Also we have the NHS on its knees , unable to come with mass imigration; four to six hour waits at A & E not uncommon before you are seen by anyone! etc etc And yet you still trust these phoney liberal progressives; despite all of of this and much more you are still prepared to vote for them! Unbelievable! If so your expectations must be really low as what you consider to be good government. This cosy club of three needs a shock result at Eastleigh , so for the sake of the nation , especially the children, the poor ,the sick the disabled and the elderly vote for Diane James & UKIP and give them a wake up call.” Stop these callous rich bullies in their tracks...
DiscoPig (dj)
says...
2:32pm Thu 28 Feb 13
IronLady2010 wrote:Tell us where any of you have worthwhile accurate or even truthful knowledge more like!!!
freefinker wrote:"You appear to have little knowledge in this respect."
southy wrote:.. come on then, name the precise legislation that makes this 'against the law'.
IronLady2010 wrote:And thats why its breaking the Law, its against English Law to discriminate.
southy wrote:It has always been in effect for private rents, Social housing is now catching up. Yet again you are out of touch!
The Bedroom Tax has to go back, and alteration made to it. As it stands at the moment its breaking the Law.
It against the law to induce this aim at one section of society, It will have to apply to all or none.
It was on yahoo political news, and your wrong it as not applied to private renting or private ownership, You can claim housing Benefit what ever your statius, just that if you are private ownership it would very unlikely to apply, but can apply for zero interest, or housing benefit might pay part of morage.
Private and Public Renting it as all ways been there for both to be able to claim.
The position on private rented accommodation and Housing Benefit is that you can live in a home with as many rooms as you wish, but the Housing Benefit rules may limit how many you can be paid for. The number of people who live with you is used to work out how many bedrooms you are entitled to for the rate of benefit you will receive.
Now tell me how this materially differs from the proposed 'Bedroom Tax' for social housing?
Housing Benefit does NOT pay any mortgage interest, but it is sometimes possible after 13 weeks to get interest paid if claiming unemployment benefit.
For an aspiring politician it is usually helpful to actually have a basic understanding of the benefits system. You appear to have little knowledge in this respect.
Tell us where he does have accurate knowledge...........
...
DiscoPig (dj)
says...
2:51pm Thu 28 Feb 13
southy wrote:don't you worry Southy....the common peoples of Eastliegh have a gauge on 'The big three'if UKIP don't get in then i am sure enough votes will scatter among the rest to keep mainstream parties from winning!!!
IronLady2010 wrote:Stay your saying that no one else.
stay local wrote:I feel we have to assume Peter has been snubbed by his own party. They failed to tell him they were standing in the By-Election, infact he learned from this website they were standing! Despite his constant re-assurance they wouldn't be putting forward a candidate.
southy wrote:So now can we take that as a statement of TUSC, that they fully support Margaret Thatchers kind action that allowed those in local authority accommodation their right of tenancy. That you believe there is no need to provide equal resources to those in need and that people now single living in rented accommodation can retain their 4/5/6 bedroom house whilst family with children have to languish in one room flats??? hardly the caring socialist! Would the hopeless candidate that you represent in the Eastleigh by election put the needs of the local people before the demands of his union, or would we see favours for the membership?? can he or you be trusted?
stay local wrote:It as nothing to do with a needs bugget, in this area a needs bugget would build new homes, which is what is needed.
southy wrote:Surely this is something you would support, as it seem to reflect what might be a needs budget! Just as you don't think local government workers should receive more than 40,000 why should people occupying local government (or housing association) accommodation more than they require? Surely your egalitarian society would support and encourage such plans?
The Bedroom Tax has to go back, and alteration made to it. As it stands at the moment its breaking the Law.
It against the law to induce this aim at one section of society, It will have to apply to all or none.
Never mind, Peter can advise his people that the bedroom tax is illegal and that private rents who claim benefits have never had to put up with this before. It's all a new thing!
I've never known a single person to get so many things wrong, yet alone go for a Councillors job!
What should be done is this, all Councils should have the right to build homes, and not ask Government for permission to do so, (it was the last Labour government that interduce this law/ruling, Before then Thatcher stop all Councils from building new homes, to replace any that was sold, it was Thatcher that allowed Councils to sale Council tennecy (Council housing stock) to private Housing Association.
Center to Left Socialist have at no point said people can buy there own council homes, We have all ways been for that, because it helps to pay for more new Council homes to be built. The TUSC do not support Thatcher and never has, ITS only you saying that Stay Local.
Iron Lady twisting words also, I see.
The decision not to stand was made on the Wed, it was at the last moment that the RMT said they could put some one up for as a Candidate late on Friday Evening the whole selection system was quickly done and was announce before 1am Sat and made offical on the Mon. And this would of been dealt with Southern Branch (Winchester) of the TUSC and not Southampton Branch even lo we would be informed, now you was told this at the time.
Its not me that said that Bedroom Tax was against the Law I just repeated what was on Yahoo News, This was said by the Law Lords, that it is illegal to discriminate against a section of society, and thats just what the bedroom tax do discriminate.
You Ironlady, Freefinker and one two others gang up on me and said there was no such thing as the Bedroom Tax, and I was making things up, and yet here it is being said by JD MP, and yet again time fall on my side and proves yet again that i was correct.
DiscoPig (dj)
says...
2:54pm Thu 28 Feb 13
IronLady2010 wrote:and you IronLady2010!!!
We have some 4 days left and still our very own Southy is making TUSC look like a bunch of morons. If only someone could gag him, maybe TUSC would get a few votes.
As Southy has chosen to be the TUSC spokesperson we can only assume they are all as clueless as him.
Sometimes it's best to say nothing and stick to standing outside Sainsbury's bullying the local tramps who have nothing better to do.
Get ready for a wipe out Southy!
DiscoPig (dj)
says...
3:09pm Thu 28 Feb 13
George4th wrote:i do-do with no excuses but i will never change...and as a matter of fact will never be oppressed by any governing body either!!!
"The world owes me a living" attitude is bringing this country down and down and down................
........No wonder we are being left behind.......
>
The immigrants come here and get jobs and get accommodation. Why? Because they have a "Can do" attitude.
>
All I hear are excuses, excuses, excuses not to do this, not to do that. How about turning attitudes around and saying "I can do" I will do" "I will change"
loosehead
says...
3:16pm Thu 28 Feb 13
DiscoPig (dj) wrote:So you are high or what? if you think any intelligent person will vote for the TUSC what are you on that disco drug?
southy wrote:don't you worry Southy....the common peoples of Eastliegh have a gauge on 'The big three'if UKIP don't get in then i am sure enough votes will scatter among the rest to keep mainstream parties from winning!!!
IronLady2010 wrote:Stay your saying that no one else.
stay local wrote:I feel we have to assume Peter has been snubbed by his own party. They failed to tell him they were standing in the By-Election, infact he learned from this website they were standing! Despite his constant re-assurance they wouldn't be putting forward a candidate.
southy wrote:So now can we take that as a statement of TUSC, that they fully support Margaret Thatchers kind action that allowed those in local authority accommodation their right of tenancy. That you believe there is no need to provide equal resources to those in need and that people now single living in rented accommodation can retain their 4/5/6 bedroom house whilst family with children have to languish in one room flats??? hardly the caring socialist! Would the hopeless candidate that you represent in the Eastleigh by election put the needs of the local people before the demands of his union, or would we see favours for the membership?? can he or you be trusted?
stay local wrote:It as nothing to do with a needs bugget, in this area a needs bugget would build new homes, which is what is needed.
southy wrote:Surely this is something you would support, as it seem to reflect what might be a needs budget! Just as you don't think local government workers should receive more than 40,000 why should people occupying local government (or housing association) accommodation more than they require? Surely your egalitarian society would support and encourage such plans?
The Bedroom Tax has to go back, and alteration made to it. As it stands at the moment its breaking the Law.
It against the law to induce this aim at one section of society, It will have to apply to all or none.
Never mind, Peter can advise his people that the bedroom tax is illegal and that private rents who claim benefits have never had to put up with this before. It's all a new thing!
I've never known a single person to get so many things wrong, yet alone go for a Councillors job!
What should be done is this, all Councils should have the right to build homes, and not ask Government for permission to do so, (it was the last Labour government that interduce this law/ruling, Before then Thatcher stop all Councils from building new homes, to replace any that was sold, it was Thatcher that allowed Councils to sale Council tennecy (Council housing stock) to private Housing Association.
Center to Left Socialist have at no point said people can buy there own council homes, We have all ways been for that, because it helps to pay for more new Council homes to be built. The TUSC do not support Thatcher and never has, ITS only you saying that Stay Local.
Iron Lady twisting words also, I see.
The decision not to stand was made on the Wed, it was at the last moment that the RMT said they could put some one up for as a Candidate late on Friday Evening the whole selection system was quickly done and was announce before 1am Sat and made offical on the Mon. And this would of been dealt with Southern Branch (Winchester) of the TUSC and not Southampton Branch even lo we would be informed, now you was told this at the time.
Its not me that said that Bedroom Tax was against the Law I just repeated what was on Yahoo News, This was said by the Law Lords, that it is illegal to discriminate against a section of society, and thats just what the bedroom tax do discriminate.
You Ironlady, Freefinker and one two others gang up on me and said there was no such thing as the Bedroom Tax, and I was making things up, and yet here it is being said by JD MP, and yet again time fall on my side and proves yet again that i was correct.
I hope UKIP win that election to kick the others up the back side & to see the end of the EU loving Liberal party
DiscoPig (dj)
says...
3:16pm Thu 28 Feb 13
loosehead wrote:it gets sadder,our only real option seems to be a country governed by one of the three.....Time for real change maybe not UKIP though....REVOLUTION
behonest wrote:I'm not a Labour fan but even though Brown C+cked Up in the end all those immigrants would still have come here we as a country no longer have controls on our own borders when it comes to the EU we have no choice but to eventually allow them in.
George4th wrote:It's because this Tory government, like the previous Labour lot, allow us to be flooded with immigrants who are prepared to take minimum wage jobs, live in low quality shared accommodation and then send much of their wages home.
"The world owes me a living" attitude is bringing this country down and down and down................
........No wonder we are being left behind.......
>
The immigrants come here and get jobs and get accommodation. Why? Because they have a "Can do" attitude.
>
All I hear are excuses, excuses, excuses not to do this, not to do that. How about turning attitudes around and saying "I can do" I will do" "I will change"
The Tories are about to make it much worse by allowing God-knows how many tens of thousands of Romanians and Bulgarians flood into the country later this year.
We have record youth unemployment in the UK. Perhaps if the Tories tackled this problem and our own young people had opportunities open to them, maybe we'd then see a 'can do' attitude. Difficult to think 'can do' if there's no work available to do.
The workforce at the lower end has been increased so much, that living standards and wages have been driven further and further down.
This is Tory Britain. Do nothing about Eastern European immigration and most working people in the UK will end up close to minimum wage. A race to the bottom. Progress?
We can stall the inevitable or we can vote for a party or in any future referendum to get out of the EU & take back our country it's our choice will you vote UKIP?
????
loosehead
says...
3:19pm Thu 28 Feb 13
DiscoPig (dj) wrote:Go & live in one of those countries Southy admires or maybe live in North Korea in a true Socialist state & try to start a revolution
loosehead wrote:it gets sadder,our only real option seems to be a country governed by one of the three.....Time for real change maybe not UKIP though....REVOLUTION
behonest wrote:I'm not a Labour fan but even though Brown C+cked Up in the end all those immigrants would still have come here we as a country no longer have controls on our own borders when it comes to the EU we have no choice but to eventually allow them in.
George4th wrote:It's because this Tory government, like the previous Labour lot, allow us to be flooded with immigrants who are prepared to take minimum wage jobs, live in low quality shared accommodation and then send much of their wages home.
"The world owes me a living" attitude is bringing this country down and down and down................
........No wonder we are being left behind.......
>
The immigrants come here and get jobs and get accommodation. Why? Because they have a "Can do" attitude.
>
All I hear are excuses, excuses, excuses not to do this, not to do that. How about turning attitudes around and saying "I can do" I will do" "I will change"
The Tories are about to make it much worse by allowing God-knows how many tens of thousands of Romanians and Bulgarians flood into the country later this year.
We have record youth unemployment in the UK. Perhaps if the Tories tackled this problem and our own young people had opportunities open to them, maybe we'd then see a 'can do' attitude. Difficult to think 'can do' if there's no work available to do.
The workforce at the lower end has been increased so much, that living standards and wages have been driven further and further down.
This is Tory Britain. Do nothing about Eastern European immigration and most working people in the UK will end up close to minimum wage. A race to the bottom. Progress?
We can stall the inevitable or we can vote for a party or in any future referendum to get out of the EU & take back our country it's our choice will you vote UKIP?
????
Inform Al
says...
3:28pm Thu 28 Feb 13
loosehead wrote:Much as I dislike the thought of revolution, I have real worries of a British spring to the misgovernment of the UK for too many years now.
DiscoPig (dj) wrote:Go & live in one of those countries Southy admires or maybe live in North Korea in a true Socialist state & try to start a revolution
loosehead wrote:it gets sadder,our only real option seems to be a country governed by one of the three.....Time for real change maybe not UKIP though....REVOLUTION
behonest wrote:I'm not a Labour fan but even though Brown C+cked Up in the end all those immigrants would still have come here we as a country no longer have controls on our own borders when it comes to the EU we have no choice but to eventually allow them in.
George4th wrote:It's because this Tory government, like the previous Labour lot, allow us to be flooded with immigrants who are prepared to take minimum wage jobs, live in low quality shared accommodation and then send much of their wages home.
"The world owes me a living" attitude is bringing this country down and down and down................
........No wonder we are being left behind.......
>
The immigrants come here and get jobs and get accommodation. Why? Because they have a "Can do" attitude.
>
All I hear are excuses, excuses, excuses not to do this, not to do that. How about turning attitudes around and saying "I can do" I will do" "I will change"
The Tories are about to make it much worse by allowing God-knows how many tens of thousands of Romanians and Bulgarians flood into the country later this year.
We have record youth unemployment in the UK. Perhaps if the Tories tackled this problem and our own young people had opportunities open to them, maybe we'd then see a 'can do' attitude. Difficult to think 'can do' if there's no work available to do.
The workforce at the lower end has been increased so much, that living standards and wages have been driven further and further down.
This is Tory Britain. Do nothing about Eastern European immigration and most working people in the UK will end up close to minimum wage. A race to the bottom. Progress?
We can stall the inevitable or we can vote for a party or in any future referendum to get out of the EU & take back our country it's our choice will you vote UKIP?
????
DiscoPig (dj)
says...
3:38pm Thu 28 Feb 13
loosehead wrote:like wise i hope UKIP win the by- but not for their policy as i doubt its much better than other three.....hopefully its a sign of things to come with big political shake ups and revolution....No i am not high either!!!
DiscoPig (dj) wrote:So you are high or what? if you think any intelligent person will vote for the TUSC what are you on that disco drug?
southy wrote:don't you worry Southy....the common peoples of Eastliegh have a gauge on 'The big three'if UKIP don't get in then i am sure enough votes will scatter among the rest to keep mainstream parties from winning!!!
IronLady2010 wrote:Stay your saying that no one else.
stay local wrote:I feel we have to assume Peter has been snubbed by his own party. They failed to tell him they were standing in the By-Election, infact he learned from this website they were standing! Despite his constant re-assurance they wouldn't be putting forward a candidate.
southy wrote:So now can we take that as a statement of TUSC, that they fully support Margaret Thatchers kind action that allowed those in local authority accommodation their right of tenancy. That you believe there is no need to provide equal resources to those in need and that people now single living in rented accommodation can retain their 4/5/6 bedroom house whilst family with children have to languish in one room flats??? hardly the caring socialist! Would the hopeless candidate that you represent in the Eastleigh by election put the needs of the local people before the demands of his union, or would we see favours for the membership?? can he or you be trusted?
stay local wrote:It as nothing to do with a needs bugget, in this area a needs bugget would build new homes, which is what is needed.
southy wrote:Surely this is something you would support, as it seem to reflect what might be a needs budget! Just as you don't think local government workers should receive more than 40,000 why should people occupying local government (or housing association) accommodation more than they require? Surely your egalitarian society would support and encourage such plans?
The Bedroom Tax has to go back, and alteration made to it. As it stands at the moment its breaking the Law.
It against the law to induce this aim at one section of society, It will have to apply to all or none.
Never mind, Peter can advise his people that the bedroom tax is illegal and that private rents who claim benefits have never had to put up with this before. It's all a new thing!
I've never known a single person to get so many things wrong, yet alone go for a Councillors job!
What should be done is this, all Councils should have the right to build homes, and not ask Government for permission to do so, (it was the last Labour government that interduce this law/ruling, Before then Thatcher stop all Councils from building new homes, to replace any that was sold, it was Thatcher that allowed Councils to sale Council tennecy (Council housing stock) to private Housing Association.
Center to Left Socialist have at no point said people can buy there own council homes, We have all ways been for that, because it helps to pay for more new Council homes to be built. The TUSC do not support Thatcher and never has, ITS only you saying that Stay Local.
Iron Lady twisting words also, I see.
The decision not to stand was made on the Wed, it was at the last moment that the RMT said they could put some one up for as a Candidate late on Friday Evening the whole selection system was quickly done and was announce before 1am Sat and made offical on the Mon. And this would of been dealt with Southern Branch (Winchester) of the TUSC and not Southampton Branch even lo we would be informed, now you was told this at the time.
Its not me that said that Bedroom Tax was against the Law I just repeated what was on Yahoo News, This was said by the Law Lords, that it is illegal to discriminate against a section of society, and thats just what the bedroom tax do discriminate.
You Ironlady, Freefinker and one two others gang up on me and said there was no such thing as the Bedroom Tax, and I was making things up, and yet here it is being said by JD MP, and yet again time fall on my side and proves yet again that i was correct.
I hope UKIP win that election to kick the others up the back side & to see the end of the EU loving Liberal party
DiscoPig (dj)
says...
3:46pm Thu 28 Feb 13
loosehead wrote:it do-sent matter where you live,there is always a rich guy oppressing a poorer one,think it might be human nature,greed what ever you want to call it,i just pay an interest in the turmoil!!!
DiscoPig (dj) wrote:Go & live in one of those countries Southy admires or maybe live in North Korea in a true Socialist state & try to start a revolution
loosehead wrote:it gets sadder,our only real option seems to be a country governed by one of the three.....Time for real change maybe not UKIP though....REVOLUTION
behonest wrote:I'm not a Labour fan but even though Brown C+cked Up in the end all those immigrants would still have come here we as a country no longer have controls on our own borders when it comes to the EU we have no choice but to eventually allow them in.
George4th wrote:It's because this Tory government, like the previous Labour lot, allow us to be flooded with immigrants who are prepared to take minimum wage jobs, live in low quality shared accommodation and then send much of their wages home.
"The world owes me a living" attitude is bringing this country down and down and down................
........No wonder we are being left behind.......
>
The immigrants come here and get jobs and get accommodation. Why? Because they have a "Can do" attitude.
>
All I hear are excuses, excuses, excuses not to do this, not to do that. How about turning attitudes around and saying "I can do" I will do" "I will change"
The Tories are about to make it much worse by allowing God-knows how many tens of thousands of Romanians and Bulgarians flood into the country later this year.
We have record youth unemployment in the UK. Perhaps if the Tories tackled this problem and our own young people had opportunities open to them, maybe we'd then see a 'can do' attitude. Difficult to think 'can do' if there's no work available to do.
The workforce at the lower end has been increased so much, that living standards and wages have been driven further and further down.
This is Tory Britain. Do nothing about Eastern European immigration and most working people in the UK will end up close to minimum wage. A race to the bottom. Progress?
We can stall the inevitable or we can vote for a party or in any future referendum to get out of the EU & take back our country it's our choice will you vote UKIP?
????
Emmejk
says...
5:58pm Thu 28 Feb 13
The total ignorance of the needs of families with disabled children in the whole subject of housing is discriminatory and contravening human rights.
I am being forced from my home which I chose to rent privately to accommodate my sons needs when I was able to pay my own rent. We are being forced into substandard unsuitable accommodation or to face homelessness and emergency social housing.
I am being forced from my home which I chose to rent privately to accommodate my sons needs when I was able to pay my own rent. We are being forced into substandard unsuitable accommodation or to face homelessness and emergency social housing.
loosehead
says...
9:06pm Thu 28 Feb 13
Emmejk wrote:If you can afford to pay your own rent & are not on welfare you aren't being forced any where it's only those on welfare & if you can prove you have special needs( your son) there is extra money to aid you why not contact citizens advice & they'll tell you how to claim it?
The total ignorance of the needs of families with disabled children in the whole subject of housing is discriminatory and contravening human rights.
I am being forced from my home which I chose to rent privately to accommodate my sons needs when I was able to pay my own rent. We are being forced into substandard unsuitable accommodation or to face homelessness and emergency social housing.
if your not on welfare you won't be effected.
if you count as being able to afford it on welfare as I've said you can get advice & claim or contest the cuts.
loosehead
says...
9:08pm Thu 28 Feb 13
Emmejk wrote:funny sounding name where in Britain does it come from or were your family in the past from outside the UK?
The total ignorance of the needs of families with disabled children in the whole subject of housing is discriminatory and contravening human rights.
I am being forced from my home which I chose to rent privately to accommodate my sons needs when I was able to pay my own rent. We are being forced into substandard unsuitable accommodation or to face homelessness and emergency social housing.
I'm not having a go but it looks & sounds Eastern European is it?
Pikey-Biker
says...
10:08am Thu 14 Mar 13
Emmejk wrote:move to a cheaper location?
The total ignorance of the needs of families with disabled children in the whole subject of housing is discriminatory and contravening human rights. I am being forced from my home which I chose to rent privately to accommodate my sons needs when I was able to pay my own rent. We are being forced into substandard unsuitable accommodation or to face homelessness and emergency social housing.
Pikey-Biker
says...
10:09am Thu 14 Mar 13
Rockhopper wrote:well said
For too long the cost of Housing Benefit has been increasing out of control. At least this Government is implementing changes to prevent those on welfare benefits receiving an income above the 'average' working salary. Why should people that are working and paying taxes subsidise a better lifestyle for those on benefits.
Huffter says...
5:45pm Sat 23 Feb 13