Impact of housing benefit changes 'worse than feared'

#2
You can be assured that not one single penny of the £150m earmarked for vulnerabla claimants will assist any vulnerable claimants. It will all be spent on council waste and busllshit
 
#3
From the article, "............................ they have large family homes lying empty because tenants cannot afford to move into them................"

Confused. Wouldn't these tenants be able to get help with their rents?
Or is just this more shroud waving?
 
#4
I presume the houses have more bedrooms than the families involved "qualify" for.
 

oldbaldy

LE
Moderator
#5
So the wrong sort of houses were being built.

Three bed semi's when one bed flats were required.
 
#6
I'm a big supporter of this move, however, where it's failing and the fundamental issue to the whole scheme is; Why charge someone extra for an empty room when there's no available smaller properties that will suit their family needs?

The positive side for me, with the only caveat to there being a surplus of 1/2 bed propeties available, is that pensioners, the singletons and others, are getting 'encouraged' to move out there 3/4 bed homes to make way for whole familes to occupy instead of living in shabby sub-standard and cramped temporary accommodation

My wife deals with dozens of young familes living in dire conditions because there's no 'proper' housing available, and in the same breath, I know of dozens of older couples sans kids, who occupy reasonable large properties but have no intention, I assume, of them giving them up for a smaller one
 
#7
Oldies hate change and they'll take a financial hit before they'll up sticks.

After the next elections, when I have no doubt whatsoever we will have a Labour government, this issue more than any other will be quoted as the rock the coalition foundered upon. "Cameron's Poll Tax" even.

It's probably not that important in the grand scheme of things, but it makes for an excellent soundbite.
 
#8
After the next elections, when I have no doubt whatsoever we will have a Labour government,
With the boy Milliband, or will Balls have shafted him out by then?
 
#9
#10
With the boy Milliband, or will Balls have shafted him out by then?
Could be an amusingly shaped carrot, doesn't matter. It won't be so much a vote for Labour as a vote against the Tories.
 
#11
Could be an amusingly shaped carrot, doesn't matter. It won't be so much a vote for Labour as a vote against the Tories.
To be fair, ARRSE is awash with links to articles saying exactly that early 2010

Cameron and the gang will be fully aware of the austerity backlash, they just have to keep hammering home the 'Labour put us here' message and hopes it resonates with the (few) who actually go out to vote.
 
#12
From the article, "............................ they have large family homes lying empty because tenants cannot afford to move into them................"

Confused. Wouldn't these tenants be able to get help with their rents?
Or is just this more shroud waving?

Just like the people who earn a living can't live in the house they desire, why should these people subsidise the doleys to live in better houses than they can.
 
#13
To be fair, ARRSE is awash with links to articles saying exactly that early 2010

Cameron and the gang will be fully aware of the austerity backlash, they just have to keep hammering home the 'Labour put us here' message and hopes it resonates with the (few) who actually go out to vote.
The only things that really resonate with people are the amount they have in their pocket and their access to the government supplied services that they want.

On that basis Dave's prospects aren't great and I suspect he knows it.
 
#14
Problem's a lot of low density housing stock built when the population were younger and better at breeding. You've also got a population with very high expectations of the amount of (often squalidly maintained) living space they need in an around a dwelling. Not something there is a quick fix for and that's what this is.
 
D

Davetheclown

Guest
#15
Single men are having a hard time getting council accommodation as well. Also cheap single flats were I live are predominantly only available to over 55. Its really grating that a person over the age of 55 gets a single flat/bungalow for a third of the cost that I would have to pay. I have even looked at mobile home parks, (the nice ones) and cannot buy as I am under 55. I am desperate for accommodation. It is even worse renting at the moment, 500 pound a month to live in a large bedroom in a house of multi occupancy, 2,500 pound a month the landlord gets in his pocket, possibly earning 1500 a month after the mortgage is paid off. I looked in the village near where I live, small cottages, one bedroom cant buy one as all the second people have bought them and built extensions turning them into holiday lets.

Landlords, Councils, Second Home Owners greed has cost those of us the chance to live independently. After 19 years of service it looks like I will have to go back to my parents for a short while to live. I joined the army wearing my school uniform, bag with wash kit and underwear and with 13 pound in my pocket. I will leave with a pension and gratuity and am looking forward to coming back with cap in hand.

Disgusting.
 
#16
Nineteen years in and you couldn't buy your own house? Not the governments fault you sad sack. It's all yours.
 
#17
Just like the people who earn a living can't live in the house they desire, why should these people subsidise the doleys to live in better houses than they can.
A better question might be if government should stop intervening to prop up UK house prices (20% higher than they should be according to the IMF) which finally is what rent subsidies are achieving.

For the past few decades UK tax payer has been effectively subsidizing folk, often earning very good livings, in acquiring dwellings they actually can't afford. That has caused a trickle down of asset inflation. This redistribution of wealth upwards across income deciles and towards the older population has been one of the main drivers of UK PLC's credit addicted economy. It has basically screwed the young and the bottom deciles, reducing labor mobility and increasing poverty.

Yet older reliable and particularly Tory voters unsurprisingly rather like this statist gravy train so it will continue. And cut that off and suddenly a very large tranche of the population will join the alarming number of folk headed for a long entirely state dependent retirement.
 
#19
Nineteen years in and you couldn't buy your own house? Not the governments fault you sad sack. It's all yours.
In 1978 a met police constable earned more than a major with the best part of 30 years service. When Missis Thatcher paid off the army she allowed many to finally get on the housing ladder, much as she did me a few years later.

I wouldn't cross the road to spit on her grave, but the people who bought before 1987 just made it.

I'm sitting pretty partly because I used my London equity to get somewhere ruralish and because my pension accrued in a humaner country.


...the Requisite Securities Against the Abuse of Power, Are Not Found In Any of the Simple Forms of Government.
 
#20
Four years is a long time to forget the disasters of Labour.
It depends on your perspective. If you're looking at the "big picture" then yes, the Labour years were disastrous, if you're looking at your own circumstances and no further they were a boom time compared with the coalition term.

Guess which perspective is most popular?
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top