Bolitics The New Condem Government

[Awol]

shame that you have to try, again, to screw up a debate by silly personal attacks on people

If my quoting your own words back at you equals a personal attack then I guess it was, but let's leave it there.

this comment by Clegg from Blandy's link hits the nail squarely on the head:

Hit's what nail exactly? The fact that Boris mentioned a Kosovo Style cleansing or the fact that this IS actually a social cleansing of certain areas of the UK.

What is fair to the tax payers who pay for the benefits of others, I thought that was spectacularly obvious.

Do you think there should be a limit to HB/LHA and if so where should it be?

[drat01]

Do you think when virtually every government department is facing massive cuts that we should be giving hundreds of millions of pounds more per year to the massively corrupt EU? If so I think you're probably in a minority of one.

I'm sorry but I had to quote this bit, and then you see this :-)

Cameron agrees to 2.9% Increase in budget

......"He's tried to swing his handbag but simply ended up clobbering himself in the face."

The whole benefits thing is a massive one and one that should not be rushed through just to achieve these idealogical aims. As others have said the perception of the benefits and what they are used for and who gets them often is far different from the reality. Again it goes back to speed of change and if you prefer evolve or creation for fixing the problems. The one thing that Thatcher's last Gvmt showed was the dangers of attacking urban areas and the impacts it has on the whole country. Seemingly we are about to get a rerun

[Awol]

Do you think when virtually every government department is facing massive cuts that we should be giving hundreds of millions of pounds more per year to the massively corrupt EU? If so I think you're probably in a minority of one.

I'm sorry but I had to quote this bit, and then you see this :-)

Cameron agrees to 2.9% Increase in budget

2.9% is better than 6% but we shouldn't be giving a bean more to the EU, no auditable accounts should equal no money. As I understand it we don't actually have a budget veto though.

The whole benefits thing is a massive one and one that should not be rushed through just to achieve these idealogical aims. As others have said the perception of the benefits and what they are used for and who gets them often is far different from the reality. Again it goes back to speed of change and if you prefer evolve or creation for fixing the problems. The one thing that Thatcher's last Gvmt showed was the dangers of attacking urban areas and the impacts it has on the whole country. Seemingly we are about to get a rerun

I'll try again, do you think there should be a limit on the amount paid out in HB/LHA and if so what should it be?

[LondonLax]

I'll try again, do you think there should be a limit on the amount paid out in HB/LHA and if so what should it be?

The limit on the amount paid out is not the real issue here. It's the other sneeky clauses that are not getting any publicity that are the real problem.

[blandy]

he also is another who doesn't quite understand that housing benefit is not just an out of work benefit.

I think he probably does, but they choose to highlight the worst examples, perhaps.

Anyone objecting to a cap of £21 grand a year on housing benefit has not got a leg to stand on. 21 effing thousand chuffing pounds, just for housing.

"The poor dears can't get by on a hand out of 21 grand each year towards their house, if they don't get even more they will have to move to a different part of town, oh the suffering, oh it's it's appalling"

My arse.

[snowychap]

I think he probably does, but they choose to highlight the worst examples, perhaps.

I think you are much, much too generous to the slimy shit.

He isn't looking to highlight examples but to project their wide-ranging and wide-impacting policy as being about one thing (We are simply suggesting...) because, in a vaccuum (e.g. not discussing the housing situation that helps these kinds of rents to arise, and not addressing any potential, and maybe costly, unintended consequences of the policy), it is very difficult to argue against the proposal as to question the cap would have people suggesting that one was arguing in favour of huge payments.

[blandy]

Maybe so, snowy. The whole thing can be traced back to selling off all those council houses years ago, and maybe even before that, where the money for upkeep of them wasn't (made) available and they began to decline and need even more spent. Thatcher's fault, mainly. It all stems from that.

[Jon]

Everything is The Thatch's Fault. The banking crisis, the selfish society, the end of free milk, the size of my manhood ...

[PauloBarnesi]

Anyone being watching this? A Life without work

Its about York and the unemployment, going back to the days of Seebohm Rowntree and his report in 1910 through to York’s current problems.

[snowychap]

Anyone being watching this? A Life without work

Its about York and the unemployment, going back to the days of Seebohm Rowntree and his report in 1910 through to York’s current problems.

I saw last week's one. A very interesting watch.

[TrentVilla]

Everything is The Thatch's Fault. The banking crisis, the selfish society, the end of free milk, the size of my manhood ...

Are you saying Thatcher gets you hard? :shock:

[PauloBarnesi]

Harriet calls Danny a ginger rodent

Deputy Labour leader Harriet Harman has attacked the Liberal Democrats, branding Chief Treasury Secretary Danny Alexander a "ginger rodent".

Ms Harman - a former equalities minister - made the comments at the Scottish Labour conference, in Oban.

Continue reading the main story

Scottish Labour Conference 2010

I'll cut my own salary, says Gray

Miliband: 'Fightback has begun'

Gray 'would cap council tax rise'

Best of the rest at conference

She also accused the UK government of carrying out a programme of "genetic modification" to transform Lib Dems into Conservatives.

The Lib Dems condemned the "highly personal" attack.

In her speech, Ms Harman said many people who voted Lib Dem in May "believed that they were a progressive anti-Tory party".

She said they "woke up to see Nick Clegg with David Cameron in the rose garden of Number 10".

The deputy Labour leader said there was "incredulity" at seeing Mr Alexander, the MP for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey, becoming "the front-man for the Tory cuts".

"Now, many of us in the Labour Party are conservationists - and we all love the red squirrel," Ms Harman said.

Danny Alexander is a Lib Dem MP in the north of Scotland

"But there is one ginger rodent which we never want to see again - Danny Alexander."

Ms Harman went on to attack Mr Alexander's other party colleagues north of the border, telling delegates: "There's something deeply unnatural that's happened in Scotland.

"Without asking anyone in Scotland, the government has been carrying out a programme of genetic modification - political genetic modification.

"This mutation has contaminated every Lib Dem councillor, it's affected every Lib Dem MP and Lib Dem MSP.

"They've all mutated into something alien to Scotland - Tories."

Ms Harman said: "There's only one thing left to do - these political mutants must be got rid of next May at the ballot box."

She insisted Labour had learned the lessons of their general election defeat.

Ms harman said the Scottish Parliament election will send a signal to the UK government - "it is the beginning of the end".

Scottish Liberal Democrat election chairman, George Lyon, said: "There are no depths to which the Labour Party will not stoop.

"They aren't fit to be in opposition, let alone in government."

[kidlewis]

Everything is The Thatch's Fault. The banking crisis, the selfish society, the end of free milk, the size of my manhood ...

she invented cancer, HIV and The X-Factor as well.

[snowychap]

Harriet calls Danny a ginger rodent

Much though I think Danny Alexander is a pretty poor excuse for a politician let alone a human being, Harman's comments are a pretty disgraceful way to 'conduct' political discourse.

The lectern at which she was speaking had on it something like '...because Scotland deserves better' - well it certainly deserves better than that, Harriet, and so do we all.

[Ads]

Harriet calls Danny a ginger rodent

Much though I think Danny Alexander is a pretty poor excuse for a politician let alone a human being, Harman's comments are a pretty disgraceful way to 'conduct' political discourse.

The lectern at which she was speaking had on it something like '...because Scotland deserves better' - well it certainly deserves better than that, Harriet, and so do we all.

I think Ed needs to get a grip of his frontbench. The comment this week don’t exactly provide a credible base for the opposition.

[Awol]

End this housing benefits hysteria: Figures demolish claims that cities will be 'cleansed' of the poor, say ministers

Minister demanded an end to the ‘hysteria’ over housing benefit cuts last night.

Official figures made a nonsense of claims that the reforms are designed to ‘cleanse’ the inner cities of poor people.

Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith told the Daily Mail that scaremongering and in some cases blatant lies about the money-saving plans had spiralled out of control.

Opponents of welfare cuts have made increasingly lurid remarks about ‘social cleansing’ and a ‘final solution for the poor’. They have predicted that ‘hundreds of thousands’ will be forced from their homes.

But figures seen by the Mail show that 96 per cent of 642,200 claimants whose handouts will be reduced will face rent shortfalls of £20 a week or less, and 79 per cent of £10 or less.

Rather than lose their tenants, the Government expects the vast majority of private landlords – already accused of milking the taxpayer – to cover the shortfall by making a small reduction in their rents.

In addition, the proposed changes to housing benefit will affect only tenants in the private rented sector. There are 790,000 social homes in London alone, and the Government’s measures do not affect them.

Mr Duncan Smith said: ‘We have got to bring an end to the hysteria and scaremongering around housing benefit we have seen this week.

‘Our reforms are not about making people homeless - they are about restoring fairness to a system that has been allowed to run totally out of control under the Labour government.

‘Today every working person in Britain is paying almost £700 a year for housing benefit. This is unfair to taxpayers, but also unfair to the people on benefits living in accommodation that they could never afford to maintain if they entered work.

‘In this way, the housing benefit system has become yet another barrier to getting off benefits and into work, and I want to break that barrier down.

‘If you are vulnerable and need a roof over your head, we will provide it, but we will not go on putting families on benefits in houses that working families could never afford.’

Government sources pointed out that local authorities will still have a statutory duty to house those who are homeless through no fault of their own.

One source said: ‘That duty is not going anywhere – these reforms will not make people homeless, they will just have to adjust their housing to their means, like everyone else.’

Guardian columnist Polly Toynbee, who suggested the cuts were the Tories’ ‘final solution’ for the poor – a phrase usually associated with the genocide of six million Jews in the Holocaust – yesterday apologised.

But church leaders became the latest to join the chorus of criticism, signalling they are ready to go into battle against the coalition’s welfare cuts.

The Methodist Church, the Baptist Union of Great Britain and the United Reformed Church issued a joint statement accusing Chancellor George Osborne of ‘inaccurate use of welfare fraud statistics’ to justify reductions.

And a number of senior bishops voiced concerns about the potential impact of the Government’s deficit reduction plan.

The Church Times reported that the Archbishop of York, Dr John Sentamu, suggested it was ‘madness’ for the coalition to cut cash from communities, urging people to ‘stand up and call on the state to play its part by investing in Britain’s recovery’.

The coalition has announced plans to limit housing benefit to a maximum of £250 a week for a one-bedroom property and up to £400 a week for a four-bedroom home. The benefit will also be cut by 10 per cent when the tenant has been on Jobseeker’s Allowance for more than a year.

The official figures seen by the Mail show that 32 per cent of housing benefit claimants – 297,100 people – will be completely unaffected by the reforms, and 65 per cent will face a shortfall of less than £20. All the figures have been rounded to the nearest whole percentage.

Just two per cent of claimants – 17,600 – will have a rent shortfall of between £20 and £30 a week; and another two per cent – 17,600 – over £30.

So, have the negative effects of these reforms been blown out of all proportion?

[kidlewis]

Today every working person in Britain is paying almost £700 a year for housing benefit

surely that figure is bollocks?

It better be...

[snowychap]

Opponents of welfare cuts have made increasingly lurid remarks about ‘social cleansing’ and a ‘final solution for the poor’. They have predicted that ‘hundreds of thousands’ will be forced from their homes.

But figures seen by the Mail show that 96 per cent of 642,200 claimants whose handouts will be reduced will face rent shortfalls of £20 a week or less, and 79 per cent of £10 or less.

Excluding pointing out the hypocrisy of a rag like that talking about 'lurid remarks' (especially when they produced a headline in the last week or two about incapacity benefit that was factually incorrect and when they proceed to use a pejorative term like 'handout'), what they fail to factor in is that £10 or £20 a week when the income of that person may well be as low as £65 a week (the minimum the law says that person needs to live on), it is a significant amount.

This is the tabloid equivalent of the sneering Grant Shapps dismissively saying, "It's only a tenner."

From a paper done by the Cambridge centre for planning and housing research:

We have argued that the official study of the effects of the proposed changes to LHA is inadequate

to assessing the outcomes, costs and benefits of the measures. Its deficiency is in scope, rather

than accuracy or validity. It shows the cuts in payments to those who are by definition on minimal

incomes; our simulation demonstrates that this means increased poverty rates among working-age

adults, children and retired people. This confirms the position taken by other analysts that this is a

distributionally regressive measure in directly reducing the value of transfers to those near the

bottom of the income distribution.

Private renters who are supported by LHA are certainly not all younger single people who may be

able to adapt by moving to cheaper property or trimming expenditure. This part of the private

rented sector includes many who would in past times have had recourse to social rented housing:

those retired on low incomes, the disabled, and workers supporting families on low wages in high-

cost regions. The decision between living on an income below the most basic standards and

moving with difficulty and cost will be faced by retired people and employed families with children

as much or more than by singles and couples of working-age. We have shown that this will

inevitably place large numbers in severe difficulty with their housing as they find it very hard to

avoid going into arrears. For a considerable proportion of these, the eventual result will be

involuntary loss of housing, with the attendant private hardship and public costs of that.

The cost of LHA to public finances is undeniably large, and it is not hard to see some of its

outcomes as inequitable in certain places. However the measures proposed are broadly targeted,

and do not address the main underlying causes of the size of the budget: that housing costs in

many areas have increasingly outstripped basic incomes, and that the need for supply-subsidised

housing exceeds the amount available. Merely curtailing treatment does not wish away a disease.

The government clearly hopes that the changes will bear down on rental prices, but we have

shown that there are limits to this happening. In most circumstances, landlords do not have to let to

LHA tenants at whatever price. The combined and progressive effects of the measures will be to

diminish the amount of fit and adequate accommodation available to LHA tenants. Low-income

private tenants will correspondingly become more concentrated in the districts and neighbourhoods

which do still offer dwellings they can afford.

There may be some bits which are not relevant in that passage (and it's badly formatted) - sorry but I can't check at the moment as I am just on my way out.

Will check later and amend formatting.

[Awol]

Today every working person in Britain is paying almost £700 a year for housing benefit

surely that figure is bollocks?

It better be...

If it is bollocks then no doubt we'll hear about that in the press tomorrow. Still it's interesting to see that this supposed "social cleansing" (with the emphasis on London) is maybe not what it has been made out be in certain quarters.

Snowy, if the landlords - as the article suggests - lower their rents marginally in order to keep the tennants on board, then hopefully very few will lose out as a result and the taxpayer makes a considerable and necessary saving?

[kidlewis]

Today every working person in Britain is paying almost £700 a year for housing benefit

surely that figure is bollocks?

It better be...

If it is bollocks then no doubt we'll hear about that in the press tomorrow. Still it's interesting to see that this supposed "social cleansing" (with the emphasis on London) is maybe not what it has been made out be in certain quarters.

Snowy, if the landlords - as the article suggests - lower their rents marginally in order to keep the tennants on board, then hopefully very few will lose out as a result and the taxpayer makes a considerable and necessary saving?

to be fair if it's £10 they might not bother, because majority of agents ask for £250 or more tenancy fee. so if they get rid of those tenants, they are going to have to pay £250 plus other things like landlords deposit fee in order to get new tenants in. Plus the time taken between finding new tenants and more than likely spending money to re-decorate.

if it's more than £20 a week then they might turf them out because they will still make more over a year and worth the extra hassle of finding new tenants and decorating.