60,000 households with carers are being hit by the Bedroom Tax

January 1, 2014 8:29 am

Today’s reports of an astonishing 60,000 households with carers being hit by the Bedroom Tax are another damaging blow for David Cameron and Iain Duncan Smith.

In June David Cameron said, “They (carers) do an amazing job. If they stopped caring, the cost to the taxpayer would be phenomenal, so we should do what we can to support our carers”. And a month later the Prime Minister told the House of Commons, “When it comes to the spare room subsidy, anyone who needs to have a carer sleeping in another bedroom is exempt from it.”

Yet today we see the Department for Work and Pensions confirming that, ‘around 60,000 households affected by the removal of the spare room subsidy policy are in receipt of carer’s allowance or have an underlying entitlement to carer’s allowance.’

bedroom-tax-150x150

What a shambles.

Throughout 2013 we’ve seen mounting evidence of the damage which the Bedroom Tax is doing;

  • 660,000 families including 400,000 disabled people. Some of Britain’s hardest-pressed low-income households are being forced to find, on average, an extra £720 a year – or face losing their home
  • Surveys have suggested that as many as half of those affected by the Bedroom Tax are behind with their rent, hitting the finances of affordable housing providers at a time when housebuilding is already at its lowest level since the 1920s and risking an explosion of evictions and homelessness
  • Thousands of hard-pressed families hit by the Bedroom Tax are being forced to rely on food banks just to make ends meet.
  • And now we know that 60,000 households with carers are being hit by the Bedroom Tax.

Little wonder that Iain Duncan Smith disappeared off to Paris in November rather than face questions about his Bedroom Tax in Parliament.

Warm words from David Cameron about his admiration for carers mean nothing when we see how his government is making their lives harder.

Carers are a lifeline for disabled people. The work they do is invaluable, it can’t be costed, and is often done whilst holding down a job. The stress of having to move is the last thing they need when they are working round the clock to enable those they care for to live dignified lives.

Carers need the support of a government that understands their vital, and often unsung role, in our communities. Yet David Cameron and Iain Duncan Smith have shown they are only prepared to stand up for a privileged few, with tax cuts for millionaires, while hitting the poorest and most vulnerable with their hated Bedroom Tax.

The government should scrap the Bedroom Tax. If they don’t, Labour will. Any costs would be covered by reversing tax measures such as the shares for rights scheme that benefit only the wealthiest and cracking down on false self employment in the construction industry.

That shows the difference that Labour values and priorities would mean and how a Labour government could change things for the better. If you want to see Bedroom Tax scrapped, then join our campaign, and say you’re with us.

Rachel Reeves is the Shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

  • Holly

    I am a full time carer. I have been for the last six years.
    We have never had the bedroom subsidy, because we do not live in a council house.
    I presume we get the same amount of benefit as others, in the same situation we find ourselves, so my question is…
    Why does this only apply to council house tenants?
    Either everyone should get it, or no one should.
    I would hazard a guess that there is little difference in the amount paid in housing costs.

    We manage to find £40.00 each month to make up the difference between what we get in housing benefit, and what has to be paid, hence all the stew & dumplings.

    What is wrong with the British people today?
    It is called life, you make your choice, and you pay the due amount.

    • treborc1

      Well of course it’s not just council houses it’s housing associations as well, but labour have found another soap box and another band wagon to hammer down on.

    • Monkey_Bach

      The main reason is BECAUSE THERE ARE NOT ENOUGH SMALLER PROPERTIES FOR PEOPLE TO DOWNSIZE TO WHEN THE BEDROOM TAX BECAME LAW BECAUSE, INSTANTLY, HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF TENANTS WERE AFFECTED ALL AT ONCE. When Gordon Brown introduced a Bedroom Tax on private tenants he did not do so retrospectively and swamp the rental sector as soon as the measure became – only new tenants were affected by the new rules – and the housing market had time to adjust..

      In the unitary authority where I live the local newpaper states that 40 council tenants have downsized because of the Bedroom Tax whereas nearly 700 tenants are progressively falling into arrears BECAUSE THERE IS NOWHERE ELSE THAT THEY CAN MOVE TO, SMALLER AND CHEAPER, IN SUCH AN EXPENSIVE AREA.

      It’s the same story throughout the UK.

      Eeek.

      • treborc1

        Little wonder so many have turned away from politics, sadly for labour you cannot hammer down on people and then try this little gift to the socialist. Many people who are unemployed are caught up in this, but of course labour who are now these days anti Welfare would have wet beds if a minister said anything about the sick the disabled and the unemployed. But carers well many middle class are in fact carers.

      • Alexwilliamz

        If they had really wanted to solve the problem of a mismatch between stock and use and therefore underused resources (spare bedrooms) surely an audit followed by a mechanism to downsize people to suitably provided accommodation would have been organised. The so called savings could have been used as the long term downpayments on the initial investment to acquire/build suitable properties.

        • treborc1

          Why not give the poor tents or let them build out of rubbish, sure 46 labour MP’s and a few Tories would agree with that.

          It’s not about how many bedrooms you have it about how many rooms that you can deem to be spare.

          I live in as I keep saying a one bedroom bungalow, but the new rules state my dinning room is spare.

          So what do I have to do move into a fecking tent

          • Doug Smith

            You can move into a tent only as long as the presence of your tent doesn’t reduce the value of the surrounding houses.

            From a mainstream political perspective I can’t see a problem with tents on a rubbish dump. I’m surprised this hasn’t already been suggested by our politicians. Certainly it would help hard-working families avoid the burden of scroungers’ funeral expenses. Just bulldoze the whole lot away into a landfill.

            And if it becomes too much of an eyesore why bother waiting for them to die?

          • Alexwilliamz

            Where do i say anything like that? The problem is that there is not enough appropriate housing around, if one of the problems are that some people have got more than they need while others have not enough space then one thing is a reasonable and staged reallocation. I have no idea how much of a problem this is, however i think i suggested that new property was a key component. An audit would seem to be a prudent starting point but the terms of such an audit should be rooted in compassion and the preservation of someone’s dignity. Admittedly there are far more pressing issues than picking on a tiny issue within the welfare budget and choosing that to be one of your flagship ‘savings’ but surely better that it is rebutted with a block and alternative solution to a perceived problem than reacting with equal hyperbole. Of course the starting point would be to beg the question of some hard facts about the actual problem and addressing the real issue.

      • Doug Smith

        Quite right.

        The intention is to make the less well off pay for the economic incompetence and financial risk-taking of the rich.

        The bedroom tax is a tax on the poor.

        • Mouch

          Oh Doug that is such cliched nonsense. So you are saying the Tories got together in a room and devised the policy to spite and punish the poor? You don’t really believe that do you? No politician goes into politics to do harm.

          The principle behind the spare room subsidy was sound – people in private rented accommodation pay for the bedrooms they need. The same should apply to council tenants.

          The strategic issue here is one of dependency on the state and benefits. Under Labour dependency increased i.e. disability living allowance rose from 1m to 3m. The problem with benefits are that we always can find reasons to give out more and that the resulting dependency sucks the life force out of people. It becomes the problem not the solution.

          And this is where Labour has a real problem because it likes to give out unearned benefits – it needs people to be dependent so they vote for them i.e. Brown’s tax credits

          • Doug Smith

            I judge by results.

            If lubrication facilitates the turning of wheel if fair to say the purpose of lubrication is to make a wheel turn freely.

            If the poor are compelled to bail out the bankers then it’s fair to say the poor are paying the price for bankers’ gluttony and the failure of an economic arrangement that never worked to the advantage of the 99%.

            Of course, top people are very important so they have to be feather-bedded at all times. The 99% have to make to with whatever’s left over.

            This is not to let Labour of the hook. Labour were complicit in the greed-fest (re Mandelson & “filth rich” and general economic incompetence).

            The LibLabCon still live high on the hog.

          • Mouch

            Bill, you sound a little bitter and resentful of the 1%. You might want to be grateful also. Top earners are important to the welfare state. The top 1% of earners pay 30% of all income tax. The top 10% pay 50%.

            So you could look at the numbers and deduce that the rich have been subsidising (bailing out) the poor and instead of complaining about them we should thank them. If they leave the UK you’ll have a lot more to worry about.

          • Doug Smith

            Bill?! Please, no!

            Bitter and resentful?!

            Not at all dear chum. I’m like Warren Buffet – puzzled as to why we have socialism for the rich but not for poor.

            Those who want to ram neo-liberalism down our throats appear not to like the taste of it themselves.

            It’s a funny old world.

          • Mouch

            Apologies for getting your name wrong Doug. Poor attention to detail on my part.

            My observations are two-fold and inextricably linked.

            1. Socialism failed. It was a nice ideal but unfortunately history tells us that it always leads to tyranny – a small group of people deciding what’s in the interest of society. No thanks.
            2. Free and open market economic philosophy won and it’s gone global. Even the Chinese have realised that a market economy drives better quality and lower costs. Individuals want choice and more importantly the freedom to chose.

            So when I read people on LL talk about socialism what I think the really mean is they want the taxes from a free market to redistribute in the ‘common good’ (whatever that is). Nobody really wants to go back to the 70’s do they?

          • Doug Smith

            I agree with much of what you write though I’m much more hesitant than you when it comes to interpreting comments on LL. Mainly, I suppose, because I’m baffled by the support most offer to the LP.

            But let’s not forget, Callaghan threw the towel in for Labour during the mid-1970s when he declared “we can no longer spend our way out of recession.” This signaled Labour’s acceptance of the neo-liberal settlement. Which, as we can now see, has failed.

            The trickle-down promised by neo-liberal enthusiasts didn’t happen – the reverse happened. Wealth torrented upwards. This led to Warren Buffett’s famous comment: “There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.”

            Which brings me to back to the 1970s. We were, economically, a more equal society then and I regard that as a positive. But of course, I wouldn’t want to see a return to Callaghan’s ridiculous, even babyish, enthusiasm for neo-liberalism.

          • Mouch

            After a 5 year readjustment in the markets, I think neoliberalism is alive and well and creating growth. I see no evidence that it has failed. There is no alternative model being put forward.

            Interestingly, Hollande’s futile attempt at introducing socialism and an alternative to austerity has revealed the extent to which the global markets shape a nation’s economy

          • Danny

            Neoliberalism has and continues to be propped up by China, a socialist market economy. Remove Chinese capital and cheap Chinese labour and then see how neoliberalism fares.

            Alive and well? It’s been on a socialist/communist life support machine for almost as long as I’ve been on the planet.

          • Mouch

            Danny, accumulated Chinese capital is a consequence of cheap labour and relatively small levels of internal consumption. As their incomes and consumption increase so will the cost of their goods. The market will then shift production to the next low cost source of labour. That’s global market economics for you Danny – alive and well and you can’t control it, particularly as every WTO agreement is about liberalising trade not restricting it.

            Your last comment is hyperbolic nonsense and only tells me you’ve been on the planet for less than 30 years.

            Come the revolution brother…….

          • Alexwilliamz

            We are presently tied into the biggest ponzi scheme ever. An economy pretty much dependent on speculation and house price inflation. Nothing has changed since the last crash. Banks have increased their capital reserves from gvt’s printing money so the risk is all there. If the economy continues to ‘grow’ with out similar adjustment to wages there is going to be a crisis when interest rates will be forced to increase and hundreds of thousands will be unable to pay their mortgages. I sound pessimistic but where are we actually creating wealth? The idiot osbourne has incredulously boosted property prices. And the comedy idea that neolieralism is alive and well, without acknowledging that the whole thing needed propping up with billions of dollars of public money leaves me speachless. If that sort of money had simply been put directly into the economy and people’s pockets who knows how much growth it might have created?
            Basically we are faced with two failed systems. Neither have been fully implemented in their entire utopian way. Surely we need to recognise which things should be left to the market and which to the state, then ensure both work properly.

          • Doug Smith

            “There is no alternative model being put forward.”

            Certainly not put forward in any straight-forward or obvious sense but I’m beginning to think an alternative is emerging.

            Rather than relying on open, free-market arrangements Western economies are increasingly dependent on vast state investment in the military. Interestingly, in the U.S. this is often regarded, like the bailout of the bankers, as a perverse form of state-socialism. While this began to take shape well before the demise of the neoliberal project it has taken on a much greater significance since that event.

            And now LibLabCon swivel-eyed armchair commandants, from Blair and Hollande downwards, messianically advise military intervention left, right and centre at every opportunity. Got to keep the pot boiling, I suppose.

            When war becomes as profitable as it now is, to quote right-wing academic Chalmers Johnson*, we should expect to see a lot more of it.

            *Johnson’s piece in Harpers magazine: The Business of War, Chalmers Johnson is worth googling.

        • Holly

          But the financial risk-takers took the risk on the ‘poor’. Who of course blobbed on their debt.
          And it is NOT a tax, it IS a taxpayer funded benefit.
          Repeating that it is a tax will never ever ever make it a tax!

          • Doug Smith

            Not a tax? Well, let’s put it this way – it’s a compulsory contribution to state revenue, levied by the government.

            That’s a bit of a mouthful so let’s not get pernickety, let’s play off a straight bat and just call it a tax.

          • Monkey_Bach

            Technically a tax is defined as: A compulsory financial contribution imposed by a government on individuals and businesses in order to raise revenue. Since the Bedroom Tax compels affected tenants, who happen to have one or more spare bedrooms, to contribute money to their local authority because their Housing Benefit has been cut, because of the Bedroom Tax, in order to enable the government make supposed savings (in the overall national cost of Housing Benefit paid to claimants) naming this nasty and pernicious policy the Bedroom Tax isn’t really far off the mark.

            During the Thatcher years rate were replaced by what the government of the day called the Community Charge. Much like the Bedroom Tax this ended up relabelled as the Poll Tax and in time next to nobody, not even the Conservative government of the day, itself, referred to the policy in any other way. Community Charge was forgotten and Poll Tax was remembered and is remembered ruefully to this very day. This is exactly the situation as per Spare Room Subsidy versus Bedroom Tax as far as nomenclature is concerned. Bedroom Tax has eclipsed Spare Room Subsidy in popular culture and in the minds of the British public.

            It’s a done deal.

            Bedroom Tax it is and Bedroom Tax it will be forever.

            Eeek.

          • Mouch

            I think I agree with your definition Monkey. However it doesn’t change the underlying principle which is to put council house tenants on the same footing has private tenants.

            What is more important is that someone takes responsibility for reducing the cost of the welfare state. If we hadn’t let the problem get out of hand in the first place, we wouldn’t have to take the tough decisions now. What was wrong was creating dependency on benefits and accumulating debt that our children will have to pay for.

            Economics always trumps political promises. Welcome to reality.

          • Doug Smith

            I’m getting to like you, Mouch. You should stick around. Every piece you contribute, to my eye, bears considerable scrutiny. This sentence for example:

            “What is more important is that someone takes responsibility for reducing the cost of the welfare state.”

            Well, why don’t we just instead say “… reducing the size of state expenditure.”? That puts the whole caboodle into the picture. And why not? Why should the recipients of benefits be singled out? Sure, that’s the current LibLabCon fashion. But so what?

            The failure of your analysis is, in my view, highlighted by your sentence: “Economics always trumps political promises.” You could, more accurately, have written “Ideological priorities always trump economics.”

            You appear to be defending the LibLabCon perspective. I’m wondering why?

          • Mouch

            I agree Doug, it would be better (will be necessary) to reduce the size of the state. It shouldn’t just be about benefit recipients.
            My point about economics trumping politics is that irrespective of a party’s political ideology, they all have to work within the laws of economics. Hollande’s flawed ‘growth not austerity’ (living within your means) is a good example of the political rhetoric being trumped by economic reality.
            I don’t intend to defend the LibLabCon perspectives. Each has some merit, but all promise more than they can deliver and the country can afford. And that is just plain wrong.

          • Alexwilliamz

            The laws of economics; wondered how long before we arrived at mysticism.

          • Mouch

            Well I’ll give you the first simple lesson Alex. You can’t continue to spend on public services more than you take in taxes. Agree?

            The second lesson is that eventually the borrowing has to be paid back. Agree?

            And that’s where we’re at. It’s pay back time. Unless you want to shirk you’re responsibility and let you’re kids to carry the burden for you?

          • Alexwilliamz

            You mentioned laws of economics, then give me a lesson in public accounts and spending. Please fill me in as to how you think these things are related.

          • Mouch

            Because it’s from a successful economy that taxes are taken to fund public spending. If the economy doesn’t generate enough taxes and we borrow to plug the gap then we eventually have to pay it back and cut spending. Got it?

          • Alexwilliamz

            Er yes. Not sure what your point is. The issue is not heavily disputed by anyone, the question of how the economy can best be successful, the correct level of taxation and the need to pay it back are all in the air. If the right kind of public spending stimulated the economy then it would make sense to borrow if that were possible. Similarly self defeating cuts can contribute to a downward spiral.

          • Steve Stubbs

            Ask the Greeks, ~They reached that point. As did Cyprus. Must count as empirical evidence ?

          • Alexwilliamz

            I guess so, but still no nearer to know what the tipping point is. I’m not an idiot but since western gets have been running deficits for decades and running up big debts no one really knows what is and is not possible. No one has also put together a convincing model of how public spending, economic growth etc etc all fits together.

          • Alexwilliamz

            How does Japan fit into your empirical base?

          • Steve Stubbs

            will be when it looks certain that the next government will be those committed to borrowing even more to spend even more.

          • Alexwilliamz

            ???

          • Monkey_Bach

            The point is that in order to protect some budgets Osborne has decided to disproportionately penalising the poorest of the by making swingeing cuts to the welfare budget and wants to take this further to infeasible and impossible levels in order to avoid having to raise revenue by tax increases.

            Truth be told there will have to be tax increases after the next general election whoever wins because it will prove to be impossible, economically and politically, to reduce the deficit much further on the backs of the poor.

            This is the God’s honest truth.

            Eeek.

          • Monkey_Bach

            To expect people to move into accommodation that doesn’t exist and then financially penalise them when they fail to do so is morally wrong and disgracefully low behaviour even from the worst Conservative government in living memory.

            Bedroom tax, yes. Mansion tax, no. Says it all really.

            The Duke of Westminster makes no extra contribution in respect to his mansions while the couple who have a spare room in their council flat occupied by a dialysis machine used by the wife to keep her alive gets hit by the Bedroom Tax and the life worried out of them as they tumble deeper into poverty.

            Thing is we are fortunate enough to live in a democracy and it is the people ultimately who decide what is fair or unfair, just or unjust, not a pseudo-science like economics or ideologically driven aloof politicians. China is but the majority of its people live narrow and pinched lives of poverty and toil. The Nazi state unfettered by the normal constraints shared by balanced human beings was one of the most efficient that has ever existed and supposed to last for a thousand years but where is it now?

            Measures like the Bedroom Tax are cruel and will tarnish the coalition government to the point of unelectability because the British people are not inherently unfeeling and cruel themselves and will, little by little, be repulsed by what is happening to their country. My countrymen do want less people dependent on social security but not by means of raids on or random cuts made to entitlements, which simply drive helpless and innocent men, women, and children into unbearable poverty and misery, but by getting people into jobs which pay enough of a wage to enable men and women to support themselves and their families.

            Economics might trump political policies but it doesn’t trump democracy or the humanity that informs the British people and it is the British people at the end of the day that choose the politicians to rule them.

            Eeek.

          • Mouch

            Wow Monkey that was such a wide ranging and long response that I hardly know where to start.

            I think you’re saying the bedroom tax is very unfair?

            You may be right. However, isn’t it also true that most people on LL think that any attempt to remove or reduce benefits is always unfair? Is the Pope Catholic?

            But somebody has the take the tough grown-up decisions in life. We can’t carry on giving out unearned benefits. It has to stop somewhen doesn’t it?

            So the fundamental challenge for Labour is can they take those decisions and be comfortable with not being liked? I’m not sure they can. It’s in their DNA to redistribute and give away the wealth that others create.

            But as you say, we’ll see in 2015

          • Monkey_Bach

            Trying to cut social security by driving thousands of disabled citizens from homes in which they might have been living in for decades takes some justifying, especially considering any hypothetical savings may be modest, compared to the overall size of the welfare budget, or even add costs rather than reduce costs to the budget overall.

            I never thought any government would dare act so cruelly and think it absolutely extraordinary that anybody of sound mind would stand up and try to defend such a policy publicly. How tragic it is that a people as great as the British must suffer to be led by so ignoble government peopled by liars. knaves, charlatans, bullies, and thugs.

            Eeek.

          • Mouch

            So during the era of growth and plenty 1997 – 2008, why didn’t labour get all those people dependent on the state off benefits and into jobs? You had your chance and didn’t take it. Instead 1m Eastern Europeans came to the UK and filled jobs that a hard core group of unemployed couldn’t or wouldn’t take. The numbers on DLA rose utmost 1m to 3m for instance. Benefits suck the life out of people.

            So my experience and observation is that Labour will not take tough decisions on welfare. It is the party of welfare and dependency.

          • Monkey_Bach

            I didn’t vote Labour in the last election or the one before it. I will be voting Labour in the next election because at their core at least they are half-human and possess smatterings of decency and humanity which is something I cannot honestly say I believe is true in respect to the Tory rabble that lead the current coalition government.

            To force the poorest sick and disabled from their homes by measures like the Bedroom Tax is not a “tough” decision but a contemptible decision, which, previously, every British politician, of whatever political complexion, would have avoided like the plague.

            The Conservatives have lost the plot in respect to welfare spending thinking that “hard-working families that want to get on” to pilfer their sound bite, want to see continual, large, year on year reduction in benefits paid to the poor come what may. He could not be more misguided. Previously Osborne received tentative support for his welfare reductions based on myths that had been created about people on welfare living much better lives than people in work, e.g., families receiving over £100,000 per year in benefits and living in luxury, when in fact there were only ever about half a dozen such cases for the whole of the UK. Freezing benefit uprating at a below inflation 1% (Osborne actually wanted 0% but the Liberal Democrats wouldn’t go for it) and justifying it by comparing it with static pay increases in the public, when in fact there is in fact no linkage one with the other, is another example of Osborne’s guile. And so on and so forth.

            Osborne got away with his welfare cuts because people though that the people affected deserved them and would simply end up being forced into work by the Work Programme (didn’t work) and be better off than on benefits anyway because of Universal Credit (will never work). This kind of argument can’t be made in respect to further cuts to the poor because people can now see what such measures actually mean on the ground and the suffering and injustice that many have witnessed have made them recoil in horror.

            We all know the kind of things Osborne wants to do: lower the benefits cap, cap overall welfare spending, cut child benefit to the first two children, remove housing benefit from the under 25s. But now people are thinking more critically having seen the mess that resulted in the past. Nothing Osborne predicted has come to pass and yet his only solution as far as cuts go is to impoverish even further the poorest and most disadvantaged in society: trouble is you can only go so far down this road before you look cruel and sadistic. Voters do want people to work if and when they can but not to be driven into homelessness, poverty, malnutrition, and destitution. This kind of behaviour isn’t a signal of strong government willing and able to do what is necessary and take tough decisions; throwing the weakest and most vulnerable to the wolves like this is a sign of failed economic polices coupled with a personal cowardice rarely celebrated in such a public fashion by such a parcel of rogues hell bent on reducing the deficit unrealistically quickly.

            You seem not to have understood what I have been saying.

            The reason that Labour is likely to win a majority in 2015 is not that Labour is good but that Labour will be believed to be much more humane and far less cruel than the Conservative or Liberal Democrat parties, separately or in coalition. As with their deficit reduction plan the Coalition’s welfare reduction go: “Too far, too soon”.

            Eeek.

          • KenKaunda

            “……we wouldn’t have to take the tough decisions now. What was wrong was creating dependency on benefits and accumulating debt that our children will have to pay for.”

            ———————————————————————–
            Ha ha ha, Nick Clegg I presume?

            What a classically awful piece of trolling!

          • Mouch

            Sorry Ken, I don’t understand your first comment. A bit too clever for me I’m afraid.

            Trolling? Stating that benefit dependency and passing debt on to our children is wrong? Even the Guardian agrees with that.

    • Alexwilliamz

      Key word at the end holly; choice. Who knows how people end up where they are and you where you are. The question as a humane society is do we presume innocence or guilt in individuals circumstances? Because no system that tried to make some kind of judgement would be especially accurate and would cost far more than any ‘savings’. The real problem is many welfare payments should be stop gaps, but because of the injustice and inequity within the system that we live in (even if it was the best system possible) there are too many people stuck where they are, whether by choice or circumstances. I applaud you for managing your life as you do but this should not give you a platform from which to judge others.

      • Holly

        I do not like judging others, but for far too long they have been left to their own devises and allowed to behave in a way that far outstrips their income.
        Now don’t get me wrong, there are tons of ‘stuff’ I would love to have, but without the money to pay for it, they are just things I would love to have.
        The thing many people forget is, they are not only responsible for themselves, but they are responsible for the people in their care, whether young, old, disabled or not, and therefore must make choices with their well being in mind.

        This was lost over the last decade, and I know full well how hard it is.
        The sad fact of life is, being a ‘grown-up’ forces you to act responsibly, and being a carer, means you have to give up even more.

        Three golden rules…
        Rent…Bills…Food…Any money left after that, and you’ve probably forgotten to pay something.

        • Alexwilliamz

          I don’t disagree, i merely challenge your suggestion that the solution is simply cutting money across the board. If you are right and people have become dependent then how is it their fault? Whatever you do about it, has to be done in a staged and fair way, you can’t just overnight change the system and expect everyone to be able to adapt. Moreover there are many people who genuinely need this help and unless you xan replace it without something else you are acting cruelly. If you fed garden birds every year, then suddenly stopped halfway through the winter what do you think would happen?

          Finally you say you do not like to judge. Well i don’t want to be mean but that is exactly what you are doing. You are judging everyone on benefits of being morally irresponsible and in their position due to their own actions. And having judged them in this way feel morally able to support this decision.

  • Bik Byro

    It’s not a tax.

    • treborc1

      Well yes it is really, call it what you like subsidy or tax same issues.

      Between Labour and the Tories it seems the bottom of society is under continuing attack it would be nice if one of them had worn condoms by let see building enough housing so people could change instead of shafting us..

      .

    • Monkey_Bach

      Whatever you want to call it the policy is unjust, unenlightened, and very, very cruel because the only people who are really affected and likely to be driven from their homes are the very poorest of the poor who, for one reason or another, have no additional income beyond modest social security entitlements.

      This policy is a direct and deliberate attack on some of the poorest and most helpless men, women, and families found anywhere in Great Britain.

      Eeek.

      • Holly

        I do not like being rude, but there are few ‘poor’ people in this country.
        there is a very generous welfare system in this country, and for too many years, too many people were making too many wrong choices, with little if any discouragement.
        Now, most people know how much they pay out in rent, and when this council housing perk was stopped, and every adult was expected to be more responsible for themselves, they should have acted responsibly.

        I made the choice to care for my husband. I could have continued working and ‘got someone in’ to care for him, but I didn’t. My choice.
        I will NEVER be ‘driven from our home’, because I am willing to make personal sacrifices so we won’t be. Again my choice. And it is my responsibility to ensure we keep the roof over our heads, the energy on, and food in our belly.
        Does that make me a ‘victim’, or make me feel ‘unjustly’ treated by the system?
        No it does not.

        Also, we never look upon ourselves as ‘the bottom of society’ either, and no one has ever treat us as if we are, and to use that kind of language is what I find an absolute disgrace.

        • Alexwilliamz

          You are making a chicken and egg point here. What is it you are saying, there are few poor people because of the welfare state, i’d agree. But then you want to cut welfare. Surely that will make people poor again? Or is that what you want? The issue is before the bedroom tax many of these people could manage reasonably well, few if any would enjoy the luxurious life style the mail seems to suggest people have despite the figures telling us otherwise. Then this policy comes in and suddenly making ends meet turns into being short of a few quid every month, which turns into having to visit a foodbank or worse borrowing a few pounds from those nice people at wonga. I think the words of mr macawber spring to mind. Of course i understand your belief that you are in a position to judge others, but frankly i do not feel that i can. I have not experienced the things that they have and do not possess their skill set. I am sure there are many who are in their situation because of their own action, but even then i cannot see a moral justification for making them suffer deprivation. I’ve read the bible through several times and i’m pretty sure jesus’ teaching is in line. After all who needs more help, those on the right path or those who err? I think the story of the prodigal son sums it up pretty well. Leave it to god to judge, and if you are not a believer then just think of it as doing your bit for humanity.

        • Monkey_Bach

          You really do write the silliest stuff.

          Having consulted the web I now know that an unemployed person aged 16 to 24 gets £56.80 per week Jobseeker’s Allowance and those 25 or over get £71.70 to cover all expenses other than rent, which is met by Housing Benefit.

          To me £8.11/£10.24 per day to live on isn’t generous, not by a long chalk, and sitting here, typing these words, I really cannot imagine how anybody could purchase adequate food, clothing, transport, electricity, gas, water, and so on and so forth, using such an inconceivably small amount of money without savings to dip into or some other undisclosed income stream. I have read of cases, locally, where individuals trying to live on £56.80 per week are now being billed for 25% of the Council Tax Bill (about £5.00 per week) leaving him/her with the reduced amount of £51.80 (£7.40 per day) with which to survive.

          That isn’t generous at all but verging on the Dickensian.

          You seem to have some notion that if everybody only took full responsibility for everything that happens in their lives everybody would be in work, struggling manfully (or womanfully) to keep their head above water and shunning help from the state. Which is profoundly stupid because it presupposes that the choice to live like that, or not to live like that, exists as a given for every British citizen.

          Factually: This isn’t true.

          I have no idea what you personal circumstances are. I have no idea what your income is or whether you receive help from the State – like Carer’s Allowance, Attendance Allowance, Income Support, Housing Benefit or what not – but as you have stated that you subsidise your own rent by some £40.00 per month, from your own pocket, infer that your own position must be a much better one than that of persons facing situations similar to the one I mention above.

          The Bedroom Tax is hideously unfair to its core because the only people who will be forced to move are the poorest tenants of all. In the county where I live, which is littered with second and third homes belonging to well-off people who only occupy the premises for a week or two a year in summer, there is, literally, absolutely nowhere for poor people driven out of cheaper social housing to downsize to that satisfies the both occupancy stipulations and affordability in terms of Housing Benefit. This is a truly awful situation much hated and publicly decried by almost every county councillor, including the majority of dyed in the wool, true blue, Conservatives can you believe?

          A surprising axiom: Not all Conservatives are bad.

          The Bedroom Tax IS a hideous policy.

          Eeek.

        • KenKaunda

          Actually, what you’re saying is that your husband is responsible for the situation he’s in – he needs care because of a few wrong choices.

          Moreover, thanks to you and the wrong choices that you’ve made (to care for him), rather than allow carers, he now has ‘personal sacrifices’ imposed on him so that you don’t both get thrown out of your home. Given his reduced quality of life, those personal sacrifices are really hurting him.

          Are you still convinced that you’ve made the right bad choices?

          I’m only going along with what you’re saying.

  • treborc1

    There are almost seven million carers in the UK – that is one in ten people. This is rising.
    Every year in the
    UK, over 2.3 million adults become carers and over 2.3 million adults
    stop being carers. Three in five people will be carers at some point in
    their lives in the UK.
    Out of the UK’s carers, 42% of carers are men and 58% are women.
    The economic value of the contribution made by carers in the UK is £119bn per year.
    Over the next 30 years, the number of carers will increase by 3.4 million (around 60%).
    The number of people over 85 in the UK, the age group most likely to
    need care, is expected to increase by over 50% to 1.9 million over the
    next decade.

    I’ve a question I do know the answer but do you Ms Reeves.

    How many of the 660,000 carers actually care for people in the sick or the disabled person home. To be at risk you have to live in a council house or a housing association home.

    Now then if a carer is caring in the disabled or sick person home who is most at risk, the carer who will normally be a family member or friend, who may not have a disability or illness, or in fact the person they are looking after.

    This is another band wagon to win votes with out allowing the Tories to state labour is the party of the welfare state, which I use to be proud of, which sadly these days labour is not.

    • Steve Stubbs

      You are getting there gradually Treborc1 The author of the article quotes Cameron as saying “When it comes to the spare room subsidy, anyone who needs to have a carer sleeping in another bedroom is exempt from it.” She then goes on to tell us that 60,000 of the households affected by removal of the spare room subsidy are those with carers.

      What she doesn;t tell us is what is the number of the 60.000 households with carers who needs to have a carer sleeping in another bedroom. It certainly isn’t going to be all 60,000 is it? In fact if what Cameron said is being practiced by the local authorities and housing associations, then it would be none of them. Is that why she doesn;t tell us the actual figure affected? and if there are some or a significant sumber being affected, then why has she not taken it up with the authorities who actually put the so called bedroom tax into effect?

      The only problem with this policy is that there should have been an obligation on the authority to offer alternative correct size accommodation before withdrawing the extra cash. And the failure to have that is down to classic civil service drafting stupidity, not some conspiracy theory to hammer the poor as envisaged by the more rabid posters here. Happy New Year.

      • Monkey_Bach

        Actually, no. Imposing the Bedroom Tax on under-occupiers who refuse to accept alternative accommodation was suggested as an amendment, I believe in committee by Dame Anne Begg MP, and was rejected out of hand by the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats for very obvious reasons.

        The idea behind the Bedroom Tax was never to free up social housing but to cut the overall Housing Benefit budget by reducing payments made to under-occupying tenants in receipt of said entitlement. The government always knew that most people would/could not downsize to alternative accommodation and would absorb the increase in rent by meeting it using money from other sources. Making savings was the real idea and in order to make savings most people would have to stay put and be hit by the Bedroom Tax, which would reduce Housing Benefit payments to those affected and so make savings. If too many under-occupiers did downsize to smaller properties they would re-qualify for receipt of full Housing Benefit, no savings would be made, and the Housing Benefit bill would rise rather than fall.

        The government doesn’t want under-occupiers to downsize but to stay where they are, suffer the Bedroom Tax, and make savings as far as the Housing Benefit bill is concerned by cutting the Housing Benefit received by the individuals affected. As I say, if too many under-occupiers were able to downsize, the policy would be a failure.

        Eeek.

        • Steve Stubbs

          Well ignoring my question I put in the first two paragraphs, which I see nobody has tried to answer so far, lets look at your response to my third paragraph.

          It could of course also be the case that the thought process was

          1.. Incentivise those with spare rooms to move to smaller properties, thereby reducing the amount of housing benefit they claim.

          2.. Move families with larger requirements out of more expensive bed and breakfast type accommodation into the houses thereby released, reducing welfare costs even further.

          3. Those who choose to stay put with spare accommodation then pay towards the cost of their having spare by paying a portion of their housing costs themselves – their choice. And therefore achieving some more savings in addition to those above.

          But as neither of use know what the real thinking was (only what we can surmise) we will have to wait for the 30 year rule to release the actual information. But let’s not let this mere detail get in the way of a good conspiracy theory. Me? I blame David Cameron and Ed Balls for the Apollo 13 disaster.

          • Monkey_Bach

            That’s better only problem is there isn’t enough one and two bedroom accommodation for people to downsize to on or below the 30th percentile upper limit on rents as set by the government. Another daftness comes when social landlords can no longer use their discretion to house families in vacant, empty, larger properties because they can’t afford to rent large houses when hit with the Bedroom Tax.

            Marie Antoinette supposedly advised the starving poor to eat cake if they didn’t have bread whereas today a similarly out of touch Coalition government tells them to downsize if they have one or more spare bedrooms.

            Thing is the government really doesn’t want too many people hit by the Bedroom Tax to move because savings in the Housing Benefit bill by this measure can only happen if a large enough number of affected tenants stay put and make up the shortfall in rent by other means. The whole idea of the Bedroom Tax is to cut Housing Benefit not by getting under-occupiers to move into cheaper accommodation but to get them to pay more of their rent, themselves, by denying them full Housing Benefit.

            Cynical, nasty, and devious stuff which people have only recently begun to wake up to and see for what it really is.

            Eeek.

  • swatnan

    There’s still a problem here; even if there were enough housing to downsize into, people would still be reluctant to leave their council houses which have now become their homes.
    The only way you can do this is to change the basis of housing council tenants ie the presumption being that getting a coucil house is not a tennacy for life, but only temporary one. Because we seem to have moved into a climate of house ownership.
    Those people that could never raidse enough money for a deposit would obviously still bremain in their council property, provided they kept to the rules of the tenancy and didn’t annoy their neighbours.

    • Alexwilliamz

      I don’t think it is entirely unreasonable if properly managed, after all many people downsize after the kids leave home. Part of the present problem in the current housing situation (aside from the unsustainable value of property) might be that this is not happening enough, causing young families to remain in cramped conditions. It is a vicious circle as this then blocks off first time buyers who then have to live with their parents!! This is speculative reasoning i have no research to back it up of course.

      • treborc1

        The way I look at this is simple not enough council houses built, 46 labour MPs who agreed with the Tories so did not bother voting to try and defeat this so called bedroom tax, and Ms Reeves who like Thor loves using a hammer.

        The fact is we are your right not enough properties, who’s fault is that.

        But I love how labour try to make out they care, when they do not speak about the people that are effected the most the sick the disabled the low paid and the unemployed all of which would get Thors hammer/.

        • Doug Smith

          It all depends on what is indicated by the polls in the southern marginals Labour wants to win.

          If polling indicates a desire for hammering the poor, Reeves will be swinging the hammer.

          If polling indicates a desire for blue grass, Reeves will be brandishing a paintbrush and a pot of blue paint.

          That’s how valueless and rudderless these people are.

          • Alexwilliamz

            Sad but true. Moral compass lost in the pursuit of triangulation, if i can use two navigational metaphors in one sentence.

          • Doug Smith

            As an Xmas present I was given a book of daily meditations written by Archbishop Oscar Romero.

            It’s a fine antidote to the LibLabCon nonsense.

          • Danny

            A very good gift. Oscar Romero is a hero of mine. What’s the book called?

          • Doug Smith

            Through the Year With Oscar Romero: Daily Meditations.
            (translated by Irene B. Hodgson)
            Forward by John Sentamu.

            I’m quite impressed. As I am with the work of Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Though I’m not a particularly religious person, and I don’t think of myself as being Christian, there is, I feel, much of interest and great value.

          • Danny

            I don’t think you need to be a Christian or even religious to appreciate what an incredible human being Oscar Romero was.

        • Monkey_Bach

          Gordon Brown didn’t bother to turn up for the vote! Eeek.

          • BillFrancisOConnor

            He had been paired up with a Tory or a Fib. I presume you’ve heard about the pairing system?- It enables MPs to give interviews to the Bullingdon Broadcasting Corporation and open places in their constituencies, etc. If there was no pairing MPS would be spending all day, every day sitting on their a**es listening to puerile, sterile and often irrelevant debates.

          • Monkey_Bach

            Pairing is an informal voluntary arrangement not even recognised by House of Commons rules; Brown must have consented to such an arrangement. Personally I would have expected that the last Labour Prime Minister, still supposedly an active Member of Parliament, would have insisted on being in the House of Commons to speak against and vote against a Tory invention quite as cruel and invidious as the Bedroom Tax.

            I suppose he was too busy to be bothered.

            Eeek.

          • swatnan

            Whips should only allow pairing if it is a life or death situation; so Gordon had no excuse. Either turn up or dock £2000 off their pay. In fact , scrap salaries altogether, and put them on piece rate and clocking in. and weekly timesheets.

          • Doug Smith

            I suppose if I worked for BMW and paired myself up with an employee of a competitor it would be ok if I failed to turn up for work, as long as the competitor employee also failed to turn up.

            Politics is a game for these entitlement slobs. But they’d probably start squealing if their trough was taken away.

          • BillFrancisOConnor

            He did vote against it via the pairing system.

          • Monkey_Bach

            Symbolically it was important for as many opponents of the Bedroom Tax, particularly senior figures, to have been SEEN to speak against the Bedroom Tax and be SEEN to vote against it, publicly, with others as a demonstration of their strength of feeling. Brown’s presence, indicative that he felt strongly about this particular ConDem travesty to be spurred to travel to Parliament and be physically present during the debate, would have been very significant, much as a the presence of a General brave enough to lead his troops into battle from the front, would be vitally important in respect to their morale as they charged towards the enemy.

            It was the standing up and being counted that was important not the vote, because the vote against the Bedroom Tax was never going to be won under any circumstances.

            A very poor show from Gordon Brown then in my opinion.

            Eeek.

          • BillFrancisOConnor

            Maybe, but it’s nice for you to admit that your claim that he didn’t vote against it was completely wrong. .

          • Monkey_Bach

            What I said was: “Gordon Brown didn’t bother to turn up for the vote”. Which is COMPLETELY correct. Get your facts right!

            Eeek.

          • BillFrancisOConnor

            Sorry Mate. I’ve just copied and pasted it. Here’s what you said- See **** marks:

            ‘Personally I would have expected that the last Labour Prime Minister, still supposedly an active Member of Parliament, would have insisted on being in the House of Commons to speak against ****and vote**** against a Tory invention quite as cruel and invidious as the Bedroom Tax even if his presence was principally symbolical’.

          • Monkey_Bach

            And your point is?

            My point is that Brown was absent during a very serious opposition day debate and so neither spoke in the House of Commons during it AND vote on Labour’s side after it in support of his party and people suffering under the yoke of the Bedroom Tax.

            (That’s a Boolean AND not a Boolean OR you realise.)

            http://www.thecourier.co.uk/news/politics/labour-mps-under-fire-for-missing-bedroom-tax-vote-1.153255

            Talk about splitting hairs! You’ll be arguing about how many Angela Merkels can dance on the head of a pin next. Now go an have a cup of nice sugary tea, custard cream, put your feet up, and relax before your burst a blood vessel and try to stop being quite so anal for goodness’ sake.

            Thank you in advance for trying not to be quite so trying.

            Eeek.

          • Doug Smith

            Even when we don’t agree we should at least make an attempt to disagree interestingly and informatively but Bill always narrows the discussion into irrelevance and tedious back-biting.

            I’m sure he could do much better if he disengaged his destructive personal antagonisms and brought his obvious intelligence into play.

          • Monkey_Bach

            Bill’s barbs and invectives do make me chuckle even though I suppose being amusing wasn’t exactly what he had in mind sitting in front of his computer keyboard. However I really don’t know why he keeps mentioning Sarah Teather repeatedly, pulling her out of nowhere, like a rabbit out of a hat, simply because I stated that the woman had suffered a crises of conscience and felt remorse in respect to Liberal Democrat conduct within the coalition government.

            I do find THAT behaviour kind of eccentric to be honest.

            But, as I say, the guy makes me smile and although I think he’s probably trying his best to be annoying rather than entertaining feel obliged to award him a few Brownie points for that on point of principle.

            Eeek.

          • BillFrancisOConnor

            Sorry but if you make such a serious accusation against a prominent political figure (ie that he failed to vote against the Bedroom Tax when he did) and then deny that you said it when it is proven that such an accusation is false – that is not splitting hairs. Especially so since I have copied and pasted your remarks to show in black and white that you said he did not vote against the Bedroom Tax.

            You’ve completely misrepresented what happened – and that (IMHO) is not a hair splitting matter.

            .

          • Doug Smith

            But if Brown was not in the House to vote against the Bedroom Tax surely it is accurate to say he did not vote against the Bedroom Tax?!

          • BillFrancisOConnor

            No because he was paired up with the Tories or FIbs. De facto he voted against the cruel and malicious tax.

          • Doug Smith

            So who did the Tory/LibDem he was paired up with ‘vote’ for/against?

          • Monkey_Bach

            You’ll no doubt be suing me for slander or challenging me to a duel in the near future I suppose. What gets written on LabourList is a matter of opinion not a matter of honour. Give it a rest, sport, take a chill pill, soak your plates of meat in a pan of Radox water, and relax.

            I AM NOT THE ENEMY.

            Eeek.

          • BillFrancisOConnor

            I am chilled. Please don’t patronise me.
            Just because I am not a huge fan of Sarah Teather nor a fan of writing things on here which are easily shown to be demonstrably false doesn’t mean that I am the enemy either.
            I am well aware of who the enemy is.

          • Monkey_Bach

            This silliness has begun to become rather sad and tedious as far as I am concerned and so, for both our sakes, I’ve decided to ignore you from this point onwards.

            Life is too short.

            Live long and prosper.

            Eeek.

          • Bik Byro

            Bill Francis O’Connor not making you chuckle any more then? He has the almost unique ability to get both the left and right leaning posters on this board to write him off as a pointless troll.

          • Monkey_Bach

            The same joke repeated over and over quickly loses its shine and ceases to be amusing because you already know its punchline. So being accused of being a secret Sarah Teather admirer for no reason, as if it were a crime, does tend to pall somewhat eventually. That said I support the right of anybody to say anything they want, about anything they want, in any way they want, no matter how silly, on any public forum.

            At the end of the day trolls are people too.

            Eeek.

          • BillFrancisOConnor

            Of course your old pal Sarah didn’t vote against it , did she Monkey?

          • Monkey_Bach

            I am neither my brother’s or Ms. Teather’s keeper.

            (You do make me chuckle though.)

            Eeek.

        • BillFrancisOConnor

          Not true- the Labour MPs who didn’t turn up were paired up with Tories and Fibs. You do know about the pairing system Treborc?

          • Monkey_Bach

            Pairing is an informal, voluntary, affair as you well know. Brown could and should have participated in the debate and must have chosen not to bother to get his weight behind and to support poor Bambi-like tyro Rachel Reeves during the important Bedroom Tax debate.

            What a warrior.

            Eeek.

        • BillFrancisOConnor

          46 labour MPs who agreed with the Tories so did not bother voting to try and defeat this so called bedroom tax……….

          This is totally false the Labour MPs who did not attend the vote were paired off with Tories and Fibs. It had no effect on the outcome of the vote at all.

    • treborc1

      It’s never been a tenancy for life, each and every tenancy will state the council has the legal right to down size you should your situation change. Then they can offer you three choices of a property before evicting you.

      But the issue is in my area when I moved into a council house the property was falling down, doors missing and rooms we really messed up big time, the council stated they could not afford to do the work themselves , and if I was willing to do the work I would be given a reduced rent, for a year and when I moved out, the council would look at how the house was and pay me for the work I did.

      I did move and I did get a payment which was set at £6000

      • swatnan

        In reality, it becomes a tenancy for life, because its damned difficult getting council tenants to move on when their circumstances improve. Take 2 extreme cxases Frank ‘Dobb ‘ Dobson and Bob Crow, still in a council house and the b****rs are on thousands a year denying a poorer family council accomodation. And lets hit this idea of ‘need’ on the head and allocate on whether they are a good and deserving tenant, as well.
        In treborc’s case, good of the Council to reimburse for keeping the teanancy in good nick and not annoying the neighbours. But many tenants and Councils are not as good. We need more temp Council tenancies and the Council allowed access to inspect state of tenancies just to check they are being maintained in good nick.

        • Monkey_Bach

          The Bedroom Tax wouldn’t affect people like Frank Dobson or Bob Crow, it only really affects the poorest of the poor which is what makes the policy so invidious.

          Eeek.

  • JC

    So what’s the answer? Should we as a nation tell everyone on benefits that they should chose a home of whatever size they want and the taxpayers will pay for it? Or should we suggest that they should chose a home of a more appropriate size? If more smaller dwellings are required, then the relevant planning departments should give out permits to build them.

    What do we want the taxpayer to pay for?

    • Alexwilliamz

      See my solution above.

    • Monkey_Bach

      You get hit by the Bedroom Tax whether your rent is reasonable or not. It’s nothing to do essentially with the cost of your tenancy; just because you have a spare bedroom does not mean you have a costly rent. So in the area where I live tenants formerly living in low-rent council or housing association accommodation are being evicted and immediately re-housed by the council in very expensive temporary accommodation, or moved from cheaper social housing into very much more expensive although smaller private housing, which ends up costing the tax payer (general and local) much more money in the final analysis.

      You don’t get it.

      The idea behind the Bedroom Tax was to cut Housing Benefit paid to the poorest tenants and force them to make up the shortfall from other entitlements not to get them to move because, oddly enough, where I live at least, the people who do move end up costing the taxpayer even more than they did before they downsized!

      You couldn’t make it up.

      Eeek.

      • Alexwilliamz

        Of course you can make it up if the author of the policy makes decisions based upon what he believes rather than any cold hard facts.

      • Quiet_Sceptic

        Your analysis is missing something, it’s only half the equation – who then fills the newly empty council/HA property and what saving does that provide?

        So for example, say a couple on HB are under-occupying a 3 bed council/HA property and they then move into a 1-2 bed private rental increasing the cost to the state, that’s the first part. The second is who then fills that low rent empty 3 bed council property, where are they coming from and what savings does that provide?

        • Monkey_Bach

          It’s a vicious circle.

          Poor tenants get starved out of under-occupied social housing, after being impoverished by the Bedroom Tax, move into much more expensive private housing as the only alternative to homelessness: people who are living in expensive private housing that is too small for them then move into the economically cleansed social housing. So one rent rises, another falls, and next to no savings in social security will be made, especially in the case of disabled tenants quitting specially adapted accommodation, since once driven out of their previous adapted home their local authority will have to foot the bill to adapt and alter their new home in order to suit their needs. What you end up with is zero-sum-gain with massive upheaval and misery.

          In fact the more people that move the less money is saved which is beginning to worry the Coalition, privately, which based its calculation on predictions that far fewer tenants would be willing to move than is currently the case.

          Where I live the Bedroom Tax has been as disaster and councillors dismayed that much more humane and effective powers to manage the social housing stock were not devised rather than a policy which impacts most on the lives of the poorest of the poor, who often cannot scrape together a deposit to offer to a private landlord in order to secure the tenancy of a privately rented property, or afford to pay a removal firm to transport their furniture and belongings from one location to another.

          Eventually the truth will out.

          Eeek.

    • BillFrancisOConnor

      There aren’t enough smaller houses for people to move into.

  • Pingback: From Labour List: 60,000 households with carers are being hit by the Bedroom Tax « Derby People's Assembly

Latest

  • News Maria Eagle and Sadiq Khan slam Tory inaction on air pollution

    Maria Eagle and Sadiq Khan slam Tory inaction on air pollution

    Almost 30,000 people a year die due to poor air quality in our towns and cities, according to Shadow Environment Maria Eagle. Along with Shadow London Minister Sadiq Khan, Eagle today launched a campaign against the Government’s failure to act on the rising levels of air pollution in the UK’s towns and cities. More than 3,000 of those deaths occur in London, with scientists warning that pollution in Britain’s cities is stunting the development of children’s lungs. They announced that […]

    Read more →
  • Comment Reforming employment tribunals

    Reforming employment tribunals

    Shadow Business Secretary Chuka Umunna has created quite a stir in the employment law world by announcing that a Labour Government would “abolish the current system” and “reform the employment tribunals”. Speaking at the Trades Union Congress on 8 September, Mr Umunna said: “The current employment tribunal system is unfair, unsustainable and has resulted in prohibitive costs kicking people out of the justice they are entitled to. Affordability should not be a barrier to workplace justice. But it would be […]

    Read more →
  • News Scotland Head, heart and soul – read the full text of Ed Miliband’s speech in Cumbernauld

    Head, heart and soul – read the full text of Ed Miliband’s speech in Cumbernauld

    Ed Miliband has just given a speech in Cumbernauld, to tell people in Scotland why they should vote to stay part of the Union in the referendum next week. Here’s the full text: It is great to be here with Gregg McClymont, one of our most talented young MPs, who is doing such a brilliant job. And with our great shadow Secretary State for Scotland, Margaret Curran, and Lawrence Watson, the Scottish Secretary of USDAW, who has done so much […]

    Read more →
  • Comment We need more BAME Shadow Ministers to propel Ed to Downing Street 

    We need more BAME Shadow Ministers to propel Ed to Downing Street 

    Historically, the fight for racial justice has followed the amazing progress made in the fight for gender equality, particularly in the trade union and Labour movement. Over the last fifteen years and after many years of debate, campaigning and struggle, the treatment and representation of women has made leaps and bounds in the Labour Party. Our Party is unrecognisable from the one in which women were effectively excluded from positions of influence, with the exception of pioneers like Barbara Castle. […]

    Read more →
  • News Scotland Poll shows Labour on course to win next May – but only with Scottish MPs

    Poll shows Labour on course to win next May – but only with Scottish MPs

    The “poll of polls”, carried out on behalf of The Independent, has suggested that Labour would win next year’s election with a 32 majority. The poll has re-ignited a discussion about what would happen with regards to the general election if the people of Scotland opt for independence next Thursday. The SNP are calling for the election to be postponed so that it wouldn’t get in the way of negotiations leading up to March 2016 – when Scotland would officially become […]

    Read more →