Home Politics & Debate

David Cameron's Government is 'Nastiest' in British History

Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/dday-for-benefits-claimants-as-unions-go-for-the-jugular-8555688.html
David Cameron’s government is the “nastiest” in British history, the leader of the TUC claimed today, as the country’s poorest families brace themselves for sweeping benefit cuts which take effect this month.

Frances O’Grady ratcheted up the political rhetoric against the Coalition with an attack on the “ideological” and “right-wing” policies of austerity. Her comments follow increasingly vociferous criticism of the Government’s welfare reforms by churches, charities and the Labour Party.

Discuss.

I would not say it's the nastiest in history, considering some of the Empire's atrocities. I certainly think they have probably had some modicum of a 'direction' - to get the economy moving, and that they have tried to do that to a degree, though failed pretty badly (and we will again hear how its not their fault before this day is out I'm sure).

However, if the cleaver must fall, then yes letting in land on the most needy is indeed a cuntish thing to do. Can't cut trident, can't cut pensions, can't tax MNCs, can't raise taxes on buy to let property - but can cut social housing allowance, can cut JSA, can cut/privatise NHS, can cut DLA. Dickens wet dream come true.

Though, surely nobody expected anything else from the conservatives? Not that they want people to suffer, purely that they believe in the primacy of the economy and the wealth creator class[some argue these are in fact the same thing, i can go into the economic theory if people care but its boring, though many contemporary economists would argue that is not actually the wealthy capital providers, but the aspirational working and middle classes who are the 'wealth creators'].

Surprised at the compliance of the lib dems considering once upon a time they used to champion themselves as champions of equality and social justice, I know they are against big government but they are also against 'priveledge' and the notion of a ruling class being untouchable as they 'own' the country. Or at least they used to be.

Labour in opposition will go down in the first year politics textbooks as the most laughably inept opposition government to ever sit in parliament. With the clearest mandate from the electorate in the last 50 years to oppose the government, they have raised objections where none were needed (re-drawing the politicla boundaries to make elections fairer) and voted with the government when the people were taking down WriteToMyMP.com in anger (retroactively changing the law so forced servitude / workfare is no longer illegal).
«13

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'm sure plenty of other governments have at times been referred to as the nastiest in British history, and undoubtedly many more will have that title to come as well, whether they are better/worse remains to be seen.

    I think no matter who came into power, some cuts were going to be made. I totally agree with your point about Labour being a very inept opposition, they seem to have done a very crap job of things so far. This could be down to a number of things, one that in some cases the Labour opposition can't go down too harsh in certain areas as they would be pointed out to be very hypocritical, in others I just think they are inept.

    Perhaps things could have been a lot better if Labour were in power, but I don't think that the country would be in a much better place. Perhaps having the Conservatives in power at this time is the best situation, meaning a new generation get to realise how nasty they are. Or would it have been better if Labour had been in power pushing the mantra "Yes its really bad but it could have been worse under the tories" and then the Tories get in once the economy starts recovering.

    I do occasionally get pissed off when people complain about cuts to benefits disproportionally effecting those poorer people in society. It's not that I'm saying I agree with the cuts, I just get annoyed when people point out the blindingly obvious. Government spending perhaps should have been cut more in the areas where it effects everyone rather than just some people.

    Whether you agree with cuts or not, some people depend and survive on benefits just to get by, and the majority of them would rather not be in a hand to mouth existence. Cuts to defence, NHS, education etc effect everyone, and not just a smaller group such as welfare, where you only get effected if you actually receive any. It doesn't matter what you cut, there will always be a very vocal opposition about whatever you decide to do. What I do appreciate is an argument about why something in particular shouldnt be cut, rather than "if they're getting it then we should" mentality which often gets thrown about.

    The welfare bill is absolutely massive, and I honestly think that much of it is down to a previous government trying to buy their winning elections with desperately needed money. I wouldnt say I advocated cuts, but perhaps a look needs to be taken to stop it from ballooning. However, this look needs to do it in a more intelligent and sensible way that it appears to be going.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    If you agree with the kind of cuts that David cuntish snob Cameron has brought in then I think you are a borderline fascist.

    My basic outgoings are now £70 a month more than I get in benefits. This is before clothes or any kind of socialising comes into it. I cannot work even though i really want to because of long term chronic health problems. I would really like David Cameron to come and live my life for a week and see how desperate it's becoming because he is not making cuts proportionately across society, no he's affecting those who can't go out and protest and riot about it. I think he's worse that Margaret thatcher and he should take on some of the burden himself!!!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Miss_Riot wrote: »
    If you agree with the kind of cuts that David cuntish snob Cameron has brought in then I think you are a borderline fascist.

    My basic outgoings are now £70 a month more than I get in benefits. This is before clothes or any kind of socialising comes into it. I cannot work even though i really want to because of long term chronic health problems. I would really like David Cameron to come and live my life for a week and see how desperate it's becoming because he is not making cuts proportionately across society, no he's affecting those who can't go out and protest and riot about it. I think he's worse that Margaret thatcher and he should take on some of the burden himself!!!

    The Question is, how does David Cameron take money off the rest of society? I'm pretty sure the only way is to raise taxes or rob bank accounts, something which if can happen to the rich, can happen to the poor as well. Just have a look at Cyprus and see what a fuss that has caused.

    Perhaps things were a lot easier before the internet and mobile phones existed and the "socially acceptable quality of life" bar was a lot lower? Now I don't mean that, I'm just going to use it to point out that in some cases (not all, and not directed at you) there may be an issue where people think they are entitled to things they wouldnt have dreamt of two generations ago. Though in no way am I saying that those points are reflective of those on benefits as a whole, but it is those issues that need to be addressed. Though since that those points do cover a very small amount of claimants, the money needs to be found from elsewhere and not just taking it away from people who actually need it.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Raise income tAx on wages over 50k
    Put up capital gains tax
    Get much harder on corporation tax - if you operate in the UK you pay UK taxes. And stop letting pensioners have all the tax breaks!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    G-Raffe wrote: »
    The welfare bill is absolutely massive, and I honestly think that much of it is down to a previous government trying to buy their winning elections with desperately needed money. I wouldnt say I advocated cuts, but perhaps a look needs to be taken to stop it from ballooning. However, this look needs to do it in a more intelligent and sensible way that it appears to be going.

    It is hugely, its really odd then that this government is looking to increase the DWP budget. Except they are putting increases on the biggest spending for the DWP (pensions, over 50%), and putting in cuts to the smaller components (JSA 3%, DLA).

    The logic would seem to be either a) pensioners vote more, ergo you need to not piss them off or b) older people are more likely to be the 'wealth creator' classes, hence giving them more money they can invest into the economy. Though if you want a bit of fiscal stimulus, far better to throw the money into the air outside of a job centre to stimulate the local economy than plough it into pensioners bank accounts.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The capital gains tax could be an interesting one, I'm not sure what makes you go between the two rates but I think for personal rates its 18% or 28% which could be quite an ingenious money grab for the government, but could effect even relatively poor people by quite a large amount.

    The income tax is an interesting one. We don't have massive amounts of brackets, perhaps if it was a more sliding scale. Ie rather than being able to earn thousands and thousands and thousands before hitting the next rate, have the gaps between the rates smaller, but the increase smaller as well (if that makes sense).

    I think the promise to increase the personnel tax allowance to £10k was a good move, and as much as people will bitch and moan about how its pointless since everything else is rising, its still a good point.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    G-Raffe wrote: »
    I do occasionally get pissed off when people complain about cuts to benefits disproportionally effecting those poorer people in society. It's not that I'm saying I agree with the cuts, I just get annoyed when people point out the blindingly obvious.

    It's blindingly obvious to you. I also enjoy that you complain about people stating the obvious then follow it with:
    G-Raffe wrote: »
    Whether you agree with cuts or not, some people depend and survive on benefits just to get by

    There have been surveys that show that a sizeable number think that the benefits system is fundamentally broken, that a large number of people on benefits are scroungers, and that there should be stricter rules in place for disability benefit. So it's not blindingly obvious to everyone.

    So while it might piss you off, repetition of what you see as blindingly obvious might help to reframe just how the poorest people will be effected by the Tory plans and reduce the rhetoric about benefit scroungers.

    Millionaires in mansions moving to stop poor people having too many bedrooms. While cutting taxes for the rich.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    G-Raffe wrote: »
    The Question is, how does David Cameron take money off the rest of society?

    Using the 82% ownership stake in RBS to stop them handing out £600m in bonuses despite a £2.5 billion pound loss? Or how about the weekly £84 food allowance for peers in the house of lords? Or the £300 daily fee they get? JSA is £71 a week.


    Deliberately making the poorest people poorer should not be even partially excused via the "where else could they get the money?" thought process.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'm not sure that I quite understand how our ownership of the banks work, if the banks didn't give out those £600m in bonus payments, would 80 odd percent of that money end up in government coffers?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    G-Raffe wrote: »
    I'm not sure that I quite understand how our ownership of the banks work, if the banks didn't give out those £600m in bonus payments, would 80 odd percent of that money end up in government coffers?

    No.

    But that money could be used for lending to small businesses. Or even donated to poverty charities.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Infinite. wrote: »
    It's blindingly obvious to you. I also enjoy that you complain about people stating the obvious then follow it with:



    There have been surveys that show that a sizeable number think that the benefits system is fundamentally broken, that a large number of people on benefits are scroungers, and that there should be stricter rules in place for disability benefit. So it's not blindingly obvious to everyone.

    I know a lot of disabled people. Not one of those people actually gets the support they should. I'm sorry to get on my high horse but who the fuck do they get to do these surveys? Fascist daily hate mail readers? I've been hounded (and I meant literally hounded) by atos 3 times in the past 18 months, just for ESA. Everytime I have to reapply or inform them of changes they want to cancel my benefit and I have to go as far as tribunal to get them reinstated. It stressed me out and makes me more ill thus putting more strain on the services. I can't get the help I need from social services because they are cutting back and I'm basically left to rot. The only way I get by is relying upon my mother and my overdraft. Pretty much everyone I know who is chronically ill or disabled is in exactly the same position.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Infinite. wrote: »
    But that money could be used for lending to small businesses. Or even donated to poverty charities.

    Or defending lawsuits for breach of contract, which they would surely lose. Bankers have contracts too you know, even if they are a big part of the cause of all our problems.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Now, I'm no Cameron or Clegg fan but this Govt is nothing compared to Thatcher's time - the only Govt I can remember who would have claim to that title too.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Or defending lawsuits for breach of contract, which they would surely lose. Bankers have contracts too you know, even if they are a big part of the cause of all our problems.

    Well yes, but as someone who has worked for two of the big banks, I know that bonuses are not guaranteed in contracts as they are dependant on the company's performance and have to be approved by shareholders, which the state is and agreed to the payout. As RBS is still mostly state owned, lost 2.5 billion, and was implicated in rate fixing, I'd say that their performance was a little bit on the poor side.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    In a word no.

    Cuts are difficult, and the people who really need help (old, disabled, so ill they are unable to support themselves etc) should get it.

    But the reason people are so pissed off about these cuts is because the gravy train that was 1997-2010 gave people this strange sense of entitlement when it came to benefits/public sector pay/pensions.

    Labour handed out money they didn't have to make themselves popular. People got far too used to being better off and now reality is calling people don't like having to live within their means. Most of these people striking have no concept of what poverty really is.

    I'm no tory.....but why exactly should the state hand out money/give people tax breaks just for having a child for example? If you can't afford to pay for that child, don't have it....

    Simples?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'm yet to hear a coherent argument for why the "bedroom tax" is so wrong. I earn nearly thirty grand a year and I have to share a flat because I can't afford not to. I have a non-resident daughter. So why should my income tax be handed over to someone else so that they can have a spare bedroom (in addition to their subsidised social rent)?

    The rich might have ten bedrooms but they earned it. People on housing benefit don't.

    The problem with the cuts is that they're going after the low hanging fruit- honest but vulnerable people- rather than going after those who really are taking the piss out of the system.

    As for ESA, I fail to see the issue with assessing peoples' disabilities on a regular basis. It's not "hounding" to get someone to prove they're disabled before handing out the readies to them. The issue is how the DWP assess the medicals, which is generally badly. But guess who brought in ESA and ATOS? Hint: it wasn't the Tories.

    Speaking of which, Iain Duncan Smith is a failure getting £134,000 a year (plus £39 breakfasts on expenses). There is an excellent example of the "something for nothing culture"!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Miss_Riot wrote: »
    If you agree with the kind of cuts that David cuntish snob Cameron has brought in then I think you are a borderline fascist.

    Wow.

    In two pages of comments not one person has picked you up on this. Speaks volumes about the demographic and mentality of TheSite.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Wow.

    In two pages of comments not one person has picked you up on this. Speaks volumes about the demographic and mentality of TheSite.

    Or that people don't really read the responses to a thread. I totally missed that line but I'd have been more likely to roll my eyes at the ridiculous hyperbole than engage with it.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    ShyBoy wrote: »

    Labour in opposition will go down in the first year politics textbooks as the most laughably inept opposition government to ever sit in parliament. With the clearest mandate from the electorate in the last 50 years to oppose the government, they have raised objections where none were needed (re-drawing the politicla boundaries to make elections fairer) and voted with the government when the people were taking down WriteToMyMP.com in anger (retroactively changing the law so forced servitude / workfare is no longer illegal).

    Not sure why you think they've a mandate, the Government is two parties which combined had over 50% of the vote. And if you look at the polling averages ( http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/ ) the current average polling result is 40% for Lib and Tory parties and 39% for Labour - there are still more people supporting Government parties than the official opposition
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Infinite. wrote: »
    Or that people don't really read the responses to a thread.

    Possible. However, I think the preponderance of evidence is otherwise.
    I totally missed that line but I'd have been more likely to roll my eyes at the ridiculous hyperbole than engage with it.

    I think there needs to be a conversational intolerance to that kind of hyperbolic nonsense. I'm a keen proponent of society's responsibility to look after its most vulnerable, but that doesn't mean I have to co-opt that kind of unhelpful silliness. The most serious dangers to a cause often come from those who choose to apply the same political labels.

    ETA: Neddy, ArticRoll and Flashman have tempered the thread with some measured responses. Maybe I'm just being a bit sensitive.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Wow.

    In two pages of comments not one person has picked you up on this. Speaks volumes about the demographic and mentality of TheSite.

    If the purpose of debate is to win people with opposite viewpoints to your side, calling them borderline fascists isn't really likely to work... abuse only works if its amusing (I miss Stargalaxy and Aladdin, who were masters of that :crying:)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Neddy wrote: »
    But the reason people are so pissed off about these cuts is because the gravy train that was 1997-2010 gave people this strange sense of entitlement when it came to benefits/public sector pay/pensions.

    Labour handed out money they didn't have to make themselves popular. People got far too used to being better off and now reality is calling people don't like having to live within their means. Most of these people striking have no concept of what poverty really is.?

    I just have to say I'm not sure I agree. What is the gravy train you're talking about? I don't think people are upset because they were having money thrown at them and now they're not, they're upset because a lot of people have been made redundant, had to find part time jobs and are barely getting by, yet they're being told that they are the problem and will have to bear the burden of additional cuts.

    Meanwhile taxes are being cut for those with more means. Interest rates forced low for the property speculators. As I've said there is an economic argument behind this which is in dispute by many, but that's different from your 'sour apples' argument.

    The reason people don't like the cuts is because they are not being levied out in what is perceived as a fair way.

    Labour certainly didn't spend, spend, spend. This is a myth. This is a myth. This is a myth. Stop believing the tabloids. Stop believing the tabloids. Stop believing the tabloids. Labour weren't perfect and you will find me lambasting me then if you do a search back 5 years, but a conservative government would have gone through exactly the same - a massive crash in revenues from the financial services sector followed by a massive increase in spend required to prevent a run on the economy.

    Party politics did not cause the financial crisis. I couldn't care left if there was one party or a dozen in power. What matters is the government, and the choices the government today makes. I think there are important responsibilities for the government, including fairness. This is why economists the world over believe in economic equity - the idea of fairness. It should be what we strive for. Not for a world where everyone gets the same regardless, but a world where everyone has the same chances.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Not sure why you think they've a mandate, the Government is two parties which combined had over 50% of the vote. And if you look at the polling averages ( http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/ ) the current average polling result is 40% for Lib and Tory parties and 39% for Labour - there are still more people supporting Government parties than the official opposition

    I don't think you can lump lib demand tory voters together in a poll. Just my opinion though.

    The clear mandate simply comes from the widespread opposition to austerity. I've seen polls ranging from 50% to 80% believing the cuts are too hard and too fast. You don't have to stop the government I'd you're in opposition - else nothing would get done. But you're damn well supposed to make them fight for the policies they want to push through, especially when they're as divisive as the privatisation of the NHS and indentured servitude. What have Labour dond? Nothing. Ergo useless. Lib dems are a far more effective 'opposition' as they actually tell the current government 'no'.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    This IDS petition has got me pondering as well. Yes he gets paid too much. Yes he claims too much. However everyone seems to be jumping on the band wagon (because signing an online petition is quite an easy thing to do) because they're under the impression that £53 a week to pay all bills and survive is the case. It seems that the £53 a week is after bills (including sky TV, phone and broadband) have been paid. I'm not saying its a massive amount at all, and perhaps people need a bit more to live on. However half of the rhetoric I'm seeing online seems to get shot in the foot when you consider that £53 is AFTER many bills have been paid.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    ShyBoy wrote: »
    I don't think you can lump lib demand tory voters together in a poll. Just my opinion though.

    The clear mandate simply comes from the widespread opposition to austerity. I've seen polls ranging from 50% to 80% believing the cuts are too hard and too fast. You don't have to stop the government I'd you're in opposition - else nothing would get done. But you're damn well supposed to make them fight for the policies they want to push through, especially when they're as divisive as the privatisation of the NHS and indentured servitude. What have Labour dond? Nothing. Ergo useless. Lib dems are a far more effective 'opposition' as they actually tell the current government 'no'.

    What scares me about the 50%-80% believing the cuts are too hard and too fast, is that many of the cuts have only literally just started coming in, and many more are still to take effect.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'm yet to hear a coherent argument for why the "bedroom tax" is so wrong. I earn nearly thirty grand a year and I have to share a flat because I can't afford not to. I have a non-resident daughter. So why should my income tax be handed over to someone else so that they can have a spare bedroom (in addition to their subsidised social rent)?

    The bedroom tax is wrong, because it unfairly penalises those with little to no utility (or choice) and has very limited power to actually modify behaviours (discourage under occupying).

    If you need to raise revenues a better method is one that fairly impacts, more on those with more utility and less on those with less utility.

    If you need to modify behaviours you need to have a way for people to modify their behaviours. There is a huge shortage of single bedroom council accommodation. If you are vulnerable you will be on a waiting list and chances are you were given a two or three bed semi or mid terrace, because that's all they have.

    The extent of this policies failure to either be fair in implementation or in its stated aim is indicated by councils already declaring they will NOT seek tenant eviction if they run arrears for this new law.

    Also as to your point about it being difficult to cope yourself: I'm in the same boat. I privately rent. The shortage of housing isn't the responsibility of the ill, poor and vulnerable who live in my area, but shortsighted local and national governments who have failed to plan for 21st century Britain. I mean do you not find it hilarious that our current plan for pensions is 'keep patching the hole until it sinks the economy'?

    We suck at any kind of long term planning. Energy prices going up? Some new nuclear plants would sort that with cheap marginal costs. Only we privatised the power grids in 1987. Last nuclear plant built in... 1987. Yep. Brilliant planning. I could easily blame old people using their winter allowance for ' using up all the gas' and pushing my prices up... But i won't because it's not their responsibility to ensure energy security just as it's not social housing tenants responsibility to ensure a functioning house building programme.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'm having to share a two-bedroom flat because rental prices in London are so high. I don't really have a great deal of choice in the matter. But I don't get a Government hand out to give me a spare bedroom so I really don't see why anyone else should. And that includes the families of service personnel (many of whom earn more than me), despite this moronic Government's moronic concession to them.

    If you can't afford to pay for your spare bedroom then move somewhere that doesn't have a spare bedroom. Simple.

    Councils that don't attempt to recover money owed to them from the reduction in housing handouts have no place attempting to recover council tax from me. It's exactly the same principle. Councils have a shortage of one-bedroom properties because they converted them all into two-bedroom flats because they were more desirable; that's fine, but why should I cough up for it?

    As for old people and the incessant handouts they get, don't even get me started. I'd start by halving Pension Credit, abolishing the free bus pass, the TV tax rebate and winter fuel allowances and making them equally liable for bearing the brunt of welfare savings. The Baby Boomer generation will go down in history as a generation of self-entitled locusts who have completely and utterly destroyed this country's finances from cradle to grave. Your point about pensions is a good one and an accurate one; I'm currently not in a pension because a) I can't afford it and b) I think the pension funds will go bankrupt and I'll lose my money anyway.

    One point about Iain Dunacn Smith: if he says "I could live on £53 a week if I had to" then it's time to make him have to. He's as much a parasite as the nastiest of benefit cheats, he's a welfare junkie and it's time he was kicked in the balls until he falls off the gravy train. The guy is a complete failure, a walking lobotomy, and the fact I'm handing over £135,000 to him makes me unspeakably angry.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    And that includes the families of service personnel (many of whom earn more than me), despite this moronic Government's moronic concession to them.

    Agreed.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    G-Raffe wrote: »
    This IDS petition has got me pondering as well. Yes he gets paid too much. Yes he claims too much. However everyone seems to be jumping on the band wagon (because signing an online petition is quite an easy thing to do) because they're under the impression that £53 a week to pay all bills and survive is the case. It seems that the £53 a week is after bills (including sky TV, phone and broadband) have been paid. I'm not saying its a massive amount at all, and perhaps people need a bit more to live on. However half of the rhetoric I'm seeing online seems to get shot in the foot when you consider that £53 is AFTER many bills have been paid.

    When I was on JSA it was £50 something for everything, excluding housing benefit which was £210 a month (a bit more if you add in the council tax benefit). I had a car at the time as I was still job hunting so I was literally bleeding money, ran a monthly deficit of around 150 - 200. Wasn't living a life of luxury either, just was lucky enough to have a small amount of savings (and then an overdraft) to tide me over for the six or so months unemployed. This was a year ago before high increases in food, fuel and energy costs though, that deficit would probably be a lot higher now.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The bedroom tax is hideously cruel. More to the point, it's counter-productive.

    If people do manage to move to avoid the tax then it is destroying the stability of communities that looked out for one another but now have neighbours scattered to the four winds. It's detrimental to the future of many young people's education prospects as not only do they have to cope with having to change schools but may find themselves crammed into sharing a small single room with a much younger sibling during important exams. It's potentially losing the support network that helps with free childcare so that it isn't economically possible to continue to afford the part time job that was hard enough to find in the first place.

    If they can't move because they are completely trapped in the social housing sector and there are no alternative smaller homes to move to then they're screwed. They can't afford the moving costs to another home. They can't get a social fund loan to help with the moving costs because the government have contracted them out to local councils who don't have to ring fence the money. They can't afford to raise a deposit for a private landlord. They can't find a guarantor and have a poor credit rating due to existing debt problems. They certainly can't afford to lose 12, or 25% of their housing benefit either. Add in to that, the possibility of having council tax to pay because the local authority has decided that to fund the 100% council tax relief on pensioners in the area, everyone else has to pay at least 18% of the council tax bill, even if previously they were getting full benefit. In the mean time, they can't get any advice or help with their situation from anywhere because the government has cut legal aid for civil law such as welfare benefits, housing and debt problems. Good timing there government.

    If they do manage to move to a private landlord it is highly likely that their local housing allowance will cost the tax payer more than the housing benefit on their old property did because private rents are more expensive. Oh and add to that the fact that this is specifically a London and South East England problem. So all these folk being shunted off around Scotland, Wales, the North and the Midlands, costing tax payers extra in private rented places - it's not even needed.
Sign In or Register to comment.