Protestors in Weymouth ready to do battle over controversial welfare reform

Bournemouth Echo: PROTEST: From left, Michael McManus, Justin Mayer, Tyler McGarvey, Sharon McManus and Rachael McGarvey PROTEST: From left, Michael McManus, Justin Mayer, Tyler McGarvey, Sharon McManus and Rachael McGarvey

PROTESTORS in Weymouth are set to turn out in force against a controversial welfare reform.

They will gather at the Weymouth and Portland Borough Council Offices at North Quay to voice their opposition against the bedroom tax on March 15.

The reform, also known as the under-occupancy penalty, is due to come into effect in April and will cut the amount of benefit people are entitled to if they are considered to have a spare bedroom in their council or housing association home.

Organiser Michael McManus said the tax will affect many people in Weymouth.

He said: “I don’t think people realise how many types of families this will affect.

“The disgusting thing about it is that it will affect foster carers.

“These are people who are just trying to help, it’s disgraceful.”

A Facebook group set up by Mr McManus has attracted almost 300 supporters in the first two days of being online.

The protest is part of larger marches in cities across the country against the tax, which are taking place on March 30.

The protest will be held from 12pm to 2pm on March 15.

Mr McManus said: “It is as much about raising awareness that this tax will be imposed as protesting against it.

“A lot of people don’t realise this is going on, so it’s important to spread the word.”

He added that he hopes to see up to 200 people at the protest.

He said: “I would like it to be as many people as possible, though the emphasis of course is that it is going to be a peaceful protest where we are voicing our concerns.

“Some people have contacted me saying they are very worried about how they are going to cope financially after this comes in. It’s very upsetting.”

Mr McManus said he is not affected personally by the policy, but many of his immediate family and friends will be.

“They are targeting vulnerable people, those who are disabled or recovering from illness.

“Some people find it difficult to stand up for themselves, so it’s important that we all speak out about it.”

For more information about the protest, search Dorset Bedroom Tax on Facebook.

Policy part of welfare reform

THE bedroom tax policy is part of the Welfare Reform Act 2012.

It will restrict housing benefit to allow for one bedroom for each person or couple, with the exception of children under 16, who are expected to share, and where there is an overnight carer for a disabled person, who will be allowed an extra bedroom.

The change has been highly criticised by the Labour Party, but the Coalition Government believes the policy will create a fairer approach to benefits.

According to the National Housing Federation, the cut to housing benefit will be 14 per cent for one extra bedroom and 25 per cent for two or more extra bedrooms, and those affected are expected to lose around £15 per week.

In Weymouth, a two-bedroom Synergy property is rented at an average of £87.59 per week, with a three-bedroom averaging £94.49 per week.

Comments (43)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

12:01pm Fri 22 Feb 13

leo210856 says...

I am torn on this one.
On one hand it seems unfair but on the other everyone should be treated the same. I believe that the benefit for those in private housing already have their benefit reduced also if someone living in thir own property cant afford to live in a house thats considered too big for them they are left little choice.
I am torn on this one. On one hand it seems unfair but on the other everyone should be treated the same. I believe that the benefit for those in private housing already have their benefit reduced also if someone living in thir own property cant afford to live in a house thats considered too big for them they are left little choice. leo210856

12:17pm Fri 22 Feb 13

shy talk says...

I have a neighbour. Single male in full time employment, good wages. Not receiving any benefits. Lives in a three bedroom mid terraced council house alone. Who “inherited “ the rent book. How will the under-occupancy penalty affect him? You might well asked how the council allows him to live there in the first place. When there are families in desperate need of housing.
I have a neighbour. Single male in full time employment, good wages. Not receiving any benefits. Lives in a three bedroom mid terraced council house alone. Who “inherited “ the rent book. How will the under-occupancy penalty affect him? You might well asked how the council allows him to live there in the first place. When there are families in desperate need of housing. shy talk

12:27pm Fri 22 Feb 13

biggestoaf says...

shy talk - assuming you live in the Weymouth + Portland area then your neighbour doesn't live in a council house. There are no council houses in this area. Social housing here is all owned by Housing Associations such as Synergy, Magna etc.
shy talk - assuming you live in the Weymouth + Portland area then your neighbour doesn't live in a council house. There are no council houses in this area. Social housing here is all owned by Housing Associations such as Synergy, Magna etc. biggestoaf

12:30pm Fri 22 Feb 13

ino69 says...

These people need to remember that they are NOT having money taken from them. They are simply being given less for free. This is not their house, they are not being forced to move, simply being asked to pay a bit for where they live. If you don't like it , find another way. You should appreciate what you are getting given for free, not winge when folk may want to even up the field. If you can afford the TV, games consoles, fags, booze, fast food, dogs etc you can bloody well pay for your house.
These people need to remember that they are NOT having money taken from them. They are simply being given less for free. This is not their house, they are not being forced to move, simply being asked to pay a bit for where they live. If you don't like it , find another way. You should appreciate what you are getting given for free, not winge when folk may want to even up the field. If you can afford the TV, games consoles, fags, booze, fast food, dogs etc you can bloody well pay for your house. ino69

12:39pm Fri 22 Feb 13

sparkleeye says...

“The disgusting thing about it is that it will affect foster carers. "

Foster carers are paid up to hundreds of pounds a week I beleive . They should not be on benefits so how does it effect them?
“The disgusting thing about it is that it will affect foster carers. " Foster carers are paid up to hundreds of pounds a week I beleive . They should not be on benefits so how does it effect them? sparkleeye

12:45pm Fri 22 Feb 13

EvilBunny says...

ino69 wrote:
These people need to remember that they are NOT having money taken from them. They are simply being given less for free. This is not their house, they are not being forced to move, simply being asked to pay a bit for where they live. If you don't like it , find another way. You should appreciate what you are getting given for free, not winge when folk may want to even up the field. If you can afford the TV, games consoles, fags, booze, fast food, dogs etc you can bloody well pay for your house.
thats pretty harsh. I can agree where its people who are not pulling their weight; but this will affect people who are tyring to survive (I myself am currently just surviving due to long term illness of no fault of my own, and let me tell you its not all fags, booze, games etc - I have non of those things and still its bloody hard to get by on what I am entitled to). It's ok to look at this in a one-size fits all if you are a have; but what about the have-nots who are going to be unjustly penalised (consider having two kids, one is disabled and cannot share: this system will penalise the parents unfairly).

btw I am not in social housing so I am not fighting my own cause here - I too agree that this tax and the way in which its being imposed is unfair.
[quote][p][bold]ino69[/bold] wrote: These people need to remember that they are NOT having money taken from them. They are simply being given less for free. This is not their house, they are not being forced to move, simply being asked to pay a bit for where they live. If you don't like it , find another way. You should appreciate what you are getting given for free, not winge when folk may want to even up the field. If you can afford the TV, games consoles, fags, booze, fast food, dogs etc you can bloody well pay for your house.[/p][/quote]thats pretty harsh. I can agree where its people who are not pulling their weight; but this will affect people who are tyring to survive (I myself am currently just surviving due to long term illness of no fault of my own, and let me tell you its not all fags, booze, games etc - I have non of those things and still its bloody hard to get by on what I am entitled to). It's ok to look at this in a one-size fits all if you are a have; but what about the have-nots who are going to be unjustly penalised (consider having two kids, one is disabled and cannot share: this system will penalise the parents unfairly). btw I am not in social housing so I am not fighting my own cause here - I too agree that this tax and the way in which its being imposed is unfair. EvilBunny

12:51pm Fri 22 Feb 13

ino69 says...

EvilBunny wrote:
ino69 wrote: These people need to remember that they are NOT having money taken from them. They are simply being given less for free. This is not their house, they are not being forced to move, simply being asked to pay a bit for where they live. If you don't like it , find another way. You should appreciate what you are getting given for free, not winge when folk may want to even up the field. If you can afford the TV, games consoles, fags, booze, fast food, dogs etc you can bloody well pay for your house.
thats pretty harsh. I can agree where its people who are not pulling their weight; but this will affect people who are tyring to survive (I myself am currently just surviving due to long term illness of no fault of my own, and let me tell you its not all fags, booze, games etc - I have non of those things and still its bloody hard to get by on what I am entitled to). It's ok to look at this in a one-size fits all if you are a have; but what about the have-nots who are going to be unjustly penalised (consider having two kids, one is disabled and cannot share: this system will penalise the parents unfairly). btw I am not in social housing so I am not fighting my own cause here - I too agree that this tax and the way in which its being imposed is unfair.
Actually, my partner is ill and cannot currently work. I work full time, not on great money, and we have been told we do not qualify for any housing benefit or council tax benefit at all. I haven't complained though. We have just enough money to pay our rent and bills. We have to do without any extras at all until we can earn the money to pay for them. The benefits are to pay to keep you going, why should there be any extras? People simply need to stop thinking they are entitled to free everything and recognise that our benefits sytem is extremely generous in this country.
[quote][p][bold]EvilBunny[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ino69[/bold] wrote: These people need to remember that they are NOT having money taken from them. They are simply being given less for free. This is not their house, they are not being forced to move, simply being asked to pay a bit for where they live. If you don't like it , find another way. You should appreciate what you are getting given for free, not winge when folk may want to even up the field. If you can afford the TV, games consoles, fags, booze, fast food, dogs etc you can bloody well pay for your house.[/p][/quote]thats pretty harsh. I can agree where its people who are not pulling their weight; but this will affect people who are tyring to survive (I myself am currently just surviving due to long term illness of no fault of my own, and let me tell you its not all fags, booze, games etc - I have non of those things and still its bloody hard to get by on what I am entitled to). It's ok to look at this in a one-size fits all if you are a have; but what about the have-nots who are going to be unjustly penalised (consider having two kids, one is disabled and cannot share: this system will penalise the parents unfairly). btw I am not in social housing so I am not fighting my own cause here - I too agree that this tax and the way in which its being imposed is unfair.[/p][/quote]Actually, my partner is ill and cannot currently work. I work full time, not on great money, and we have been told we do not qualify for any housing benefit or council tax benefit at all. I haven't complained though. We have just enough money to pay our rent and bills. We have to do without any extras at all until we can earn the money to pay for them. The benefits are to pay to keep you going, why should there be any extras? People simply need to stop thinking they are entitled to free everything and recognise that our benefits sytem is extremely generous in this country. ino69

12:52pm Fri 22 Feb 13

greenglasses says...

this will involve alot of re-assessing as children get older so the offical needs of families change...a family in April may only need a 2 bedroom home but a few months later a birthday means they need 3....
this will involve alot of re-assessing as children get older so the offical needs of families change...a family in April may only need a 2 bedroom home but a few months later a birthday means they need 3.... greenglasses

1:44pm Fri 22 Feb 13

jinglejangle says...

Greenglasses .... then surely they will be reassessed and no longer have to pay the bedroom tax ?
Greenglasses .... then surely they will be reassessed and no longer have to pay the bedroom tax ? jinglejangle

2:53pm Fri 22 Feb 13

sparkleeye says...

ino69 wrote:
EvilBunny wrote:
ino69 wrote: These people need to remember that they are NOT having money taken from them. They are simply being given less for free. This is not their house, they are not being forced to move, simply being asked to pay a bit for where they live. If you don't like it , find another way. You should appreciate what you are getting given for free, not winge when folk may want to even up the field. If you can afford the TV, games consoles, fags, booze, fast food, dogs etc you can bloody well pay for your house.
thats pretty harsh. I can agree where its people who are not pulling their weight; but this will affect people who are tyring to survive (I myself am currently just surviving due to long term illness of no fault of my own, and let me tell you its not all fags, booze, games etc - I have non of those things and still its bloody hard to get by on what I am entitled to). It's ok to look at this in a one-size fits all if you are a have; but what about the have-nots who are going to be unjustly penalised (consider having two kids, one is disabled and cannot share: this system will penalise the parents unfairly). btw I am not in social housing so I am not fighting my own cause here - I too agree that this tax and the way in which its being imposed is unfair.
Actually, my partner is ill and cannot currently work. I work full time, not on great money, and we have been told we do not qualify for any housing benefit or council tax benefit at all. I haven't complained though. We have just enough money to pay our rent and bills. We have to do without any extras at all until we can earn the money to pay for them. The benefits are to pay to keep you going, why should there be any extras? People simply need to stop thinking they are entitled to free everything and recognise that our benefits sytem is extremely generous in this country.
Stop all those career single mothers who treat their wombs as profitable clown cars would help.

Thank Labour eh...
[quote][p][bold]ino69[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]EvilBunny[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ino69[/bold] wrote: These people need to remember that they are NOT having money taken from them. They are simply being given less for free. This is not their house, they are not being forced to move, simply being asked to pay a bit for where they live. If you don't like it , find another way. You should appreciate what you are getting given for free, not winge when folk may want to even up the field. If you can afford the TV, games consoles, fags, booze, fast food, dogs etc you can bloody well pay for your house.[/p][/quote]thats pretty harsh. I can agree where its people who are not pulling their weight; but this will affect people who are tyring to survive (I myself am currently just surviving due to long term illness of no fault of my own, and let me tell you its not all fags, booze, games etc - I have non of those things and still its bloody hard to get by on what I am entitled to). It's ok to look at this in a one-size fits all if you are a have; but what about the have-nots who are going to be unjustly penalised (consider having two kids, one is disabled and cannot share: this system will penalise the parents unfairly). btw I am not in social housing so I am not fighting my own cause here - I too agree that this tax and the way in which its being imposed is unfair.[/p][/quote]Actually, my partner is ill and cannot currently work. I work full time, not on great money, and we have been told we do not qualify for any housing benefit or council tax benefit at all. I haven't complained though. We have just enough money to pay our rent and bills. We have to do without any extras at all until we can earn the money to pay for them. The benefits are to pay to keep you going, why should there be any extras? People simply need to stop thinking they are entitled to free everything and recognise that our benefits sytem is extremely generous in this country.[/p][/quote]Stop all those career single mothers who treat their wombs as profitable clown cars would help. Thank Labour eh... sparkleeye

3:51pm Fri 22 Feb 13

UpweyGardener says...

sparkleeye wrote:
ino69 wrote:
EvilBunny wrote:
ino69 wrote: These people need to remember that they are NOT having money taken from them. They are simply being given less for free. This is not their house, they are not being forced to move, simply being asked to pay a bit for where they live. If you don't like it , find another way. You should appreciate what you are getting given for free, not winge when folk may want to even up the field. If you can afford the TV, games consoles, fags, booze, fast food, dogs etc you can bloody well pay for your house.
thats pretty harsh. I can agree where its people who are not pulling their weight; but this will affect people who are tyring to survive (I myself am currently just surviving due to long term illness of no fault of my own, and let me tell you its not all fags, booze, games etc - I have non of those things and still its bloody hard to get by on what I am entitled to). It's ok to look at this in a one-size fits all if you are a have; but what about the have-nots who are going to be unjustly penalised (consider having two kids, one is disabled and cannot share: this system will penalise the parents unfairly). btw I am not in social housing so I am not fighting my own cause here - I too agree that this tax and the way in which its being imposed is unfair.
Actually, my partner is ill and cannot currently work. I work full time, not on great money, and we have been told we do not qualify for any housing benefit or council tax benefit at all. I haven't complained though. We have just enough money to pay our rent and bills. We have to do without any extras at all until we can earn the money to pay for them. The benefits are to pay to keep you going, why should there be any extras? People simply need to stop thinking they are entitled to free everything and recognise that our benefits sytem is extremely generous in this country.
Stop all those career single mothers who treat their wombs as profitable clown cars would help. Thank Labour eh...
@sparkleeye

Anyone would think you were a Tory councillor.
[quote][p][bold]sparkleeye[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ino69[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]EvilBunny[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ino69[/bold] wrote: These people need to remember that they are NOT having money taken from them. They are simply being given less for free. This is not their house, they are not being forced to move, simply being asked to pay a bit for where they live. If you don't like it , find another way. You should appreciate what you are getting given for free, not winge when folk may want to even up the field. If you can afford the TV, games consoles, fags, booze, fast food, dogs etc you can bloody well pay for your house.[/p][/quote]thats pretty harsh. I can agree where its people who are not pulling their weight; but this will affect people who are tyring to survive (I myself am currently just surviving due to long term illness of no fault of my own, and let me tell you its not all fags, booze, games etc - I have non of those things and still its bloody hard to get by on what I am entitled to). It's ok to look at this in a one-size fits all if you are a have; but what about the have-nots who are going to be unjustly penalised (consider having two kids, one is disabled and cannot share: this system will penalise the parents unfairly). btw I am not in social housing so I am not fighting my own cause here - I too agree that this tax and the way in which its being imposed is unfair.[/p][/quote]Actually, my partner is ill and cannot currently work. I work full time, not on great money, and we have been told we do not qualify for any housing benefit or council tax benefit at all. I haven't complained though. We have just enough money to pay our rent and bills. We have to do without any extras at all until we can earn the money to pay for them. The benefits are to pay to keep you going, why should there be any extras? People simply need to stop thinking they are entitled to free everything and recognise that our benefits sytem is extremely generous in this country.[/p][/quote]Stop all those career single mothers who treat their wombs as profitable clown cars would help. Thank Labour eh...[/p][/quote]@sparkleeye Anyone would think you were a Tory councillor. UpweyGardener

4:53pm Fri 22 Feb 13

Coxywey says...

Whilst i can sympathise with people with families there are a number of people in the weymouth and Portland area that are living in housing properties way above their requirements, where i live there are 2 retired people currently occupying big 3 bedroom properties with no dependents in this instance i do believe they should be offered alternative accomodation in order to free up these large family homes for the families in this area that are desperate for housing. The housing companies should evaluate peoples requirements and move people as their circumstances change in order to home the thousands of people currently in need of housing or alternatively waiting to be moved to larger properties because their circumstances have changed. At the end of the day these rents are a lot less than the majority of people pay either in a mortgage or private capacity.
Whilst i can sympathise with people with families there are a number of people in the weymouth and Portland area that are living in housing properties way above their requirements, where i live there are 2 retired people currently occupying big 3 bedroom properties with no dependents in this instance i do believe they should be offered alternative accomodation in order to free up these large family homes for the families in this area that are desperate for housing. The housing companies should evaluate peoples requirements and move people as their circumstances change in order to home the thousands of people currently in need of housing or alternatively waiting to be moved to larger properties because their circumstances have changed. At the end of the day these rents are a lot less than the majority of people pay either in a mortgage or private capacity. Coxywey

5:46pm Fri 22 Feb 13

bootedsw says...

This is nothing new just being done differently. When there were council houses the council encouraged people to move to smaller properties when their need changed. This is similar being done by central government.
This is nothing new just being done differently. When there were council houses the council encouraged people to move to smaller properties when their need changed. This is similar being done by central government. bootedsw

5:59pm Fri 22 Feb 13

sparkleeye says...

UpweyGardener wrote:
sparkleeye wrote:
ino69 wrote:
EvilBunny wrote:
ino69 wrote: These people need to remember that they are NOT having money taken from them. They are simply being given less for free. This is not their house, they are not being forced to move, simply being asked to pay a bit for where they live. If you don't like it , find another way. You should appreciate what you are getting given for free, not winge when folk may want to even up the field. If you can afford the TV, games consoles, fags, booze, fast food, dogs etc you can bloody well pay for your house.
thats pretty harsh. I can agree where its people who are not pulling their weight; but this will affect people who are tyring to survive (I myself am currently just surviving due to long term illness of no fault of my own, and let me tell you its not all fags, booze, games etc - I have non of those things and still its bloody hard to get by on what I am entitled to). It's ok to look at this in a one-size fits all if you are a have; but what about the have-nots who are going to be unjustly penalised (consider having two kids, one is disabled and cannot share: this system will penalise the parents unfairly). btw I am not in social housing so I am not fighting my own cause here - I too agree that this tax and the way in which its being imposed is unfair.
Actually, my partner is ill and cannot currently work. I work full time, not on great money, and we have been told we do not qualify for any housing benefit or council tax benefit at all. I haven't complained though. We have just enough money to pay our rent and bills. We have to do without any extras at all until we can earn the money to pay for them. The benefits are to pay to keep you going, why should there be any extras? People simply need to stop thinking they are entitled to free everything and recognise that our benefits sytem is extremely generous in this country.
Stop all those career single mothers who treat their wombs as profitable clown cars would help. Thank Labour eh...
@sparkleeye

Anyone would think you were a Tory councillor.
WHAT!

You must be kidding, Pffff.....
[quote][p][bold]UpweyGardener[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sparkleeye[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ino69[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]EvilBunny[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ino69[/bold] wrote: These people need to remember that they are NOT having money taken from them. They are simply being given less for free. This is not their house, they are not being forced to move, simply being asked to pay a bit for where they live. If you don't like it , find another way. You should appreciate what you are getting given for free, not winge when folk may want to even up the field. If you can afford the TV, games consoles, fags, booze, fast food, dogs etc you can bloody well pay for your house.[/p][/quote]thats pretty harsh. I can agree where its people who are not pulling their weight; but this will affect people who are tyring to survive (I myself am currently just surviving due to long term illness of no fault of my own, and let me tell you its not all fags, booze, games etc - I have non of those things and still its bloody hard to get by on what I am entitled to). It's ok to look at this in a one-size fits all if you are a have; but what about the have-nots who are going to be unjustly penalised (consider having two kids, one is disabled and cannot share: this system will penalise the parents unfairly). btw I am not in social housing so I am not fighting my own cause here - I too agree that this tax and the way in which its being imposed is unfair.[/p][/quote]Actually, my partner is ill and cannot currently work. I work full time, not on great money, and we have been told we do not qualify for any housing benefit or council tax benefit at all. I haven't complained though. We have just enough money to pay our rent and bills. We have to do without any extras at all until we can earn the money to pay for them. The benefits are to pay to keep you going, why should there be any extras? People simply need to stop thinking they are entitled to free everything and recognise that our benefits sytem is extremely generous in this country.[/p][/quote]Stop all those career single mothers who treat their wombs as profitable clown cars would help. Thank Labour eh...[/p][/quote]@sparkleeye Anyone would think you were a Tory councillor.[/p][/quote]WHAT! You must be kidding, Pffff..... sparkleeye

5:12pm Sat 23 Feb 13

Chav_Scum says...

Coxywey wrote:
Whilst i can sympathise with people with families there are a number of people in the weymouth and Portland area that are living in housing properties way above their requirements, where i live there are 2 retired people currently occupying big 3 bedroom properties with no dependents in this instance i do believe they should be offered alternative accomodation in order to free up these large family homes for the families in this area that are desperate for housing. The housing companies should evaluate peoples requirements and move people as their circumstances change in order to home the thousands of people currently in need of housing or alternatively waiting to be moved to larger properties because their circumstances have changed. At the end of the day these rents are a lot less than the majority of people pay either in a mortgage or private capacity.
I too have mixed thoughts on this. The housing companies cannot simply move people as their circumstances change as the vast majority of the tenants have a lifelong tenancy. It has only been in the last year or two the housing associations have started to offer a 1 year rolling, or a 5 year tenancy (but for undesirable areas still sometimes offer a lifetime tenancy) to new tenants.
So, I think the real plan here is not actually to save a few quid in housing benefit, it's a back-door way of going about moving the older tenants out of the family-sized homes.
Yes, family housing is needed for families, I agree. And it is sad to see young families in small flats whilst pensioners have large houses where sometimes they cannot even make use of the upstairs or the garden. I don't know... some pensioners will have 2+ extra bedrooms that they will now have to pay for. But these are their family homes for the last 30/40+ years.
I think we'll hear some terrible stories next winter of old people dying of cold or hunger, whilst stuggling to pay this extra bill they'll face. Or the mentally ill & vulnerable topping themselves over yet more debt & stress.
I know we need to pay out less in benefits, & we need to make better use of the existing housing stock. But, surely there's a better way? :-/
[quote][p][bold]Coxywey[/bold] wrote: Whilst i can sympathise with people with families there are a number of people in the weymouth and Portland area that are living in housing properties way above their requirements, where i live there are 2 retired people currently occupying big 3 bedroom properties with no dependents in this instance i do believe they should be offered alternative accomodation in order to free up these large family homes for the families in this area that are desperate for housing. The housing companies should evaluate peoples requirements and move people as their circumstances change in order to home the thousands of people currently in need of housing or alternatively waiting to be moved to larger properties because their circumstances have changed. At the end of the day these rents are a lot less than the majority of people pay either in a mortgage or private capacity.[/p][/quote]I too have mixed thoughts on this. The housing companies cannot simply move people as their circumstances change as the vast majority of the tenants have a lifelong tenancy. It has only been in the last year or two the housing associations have started to offer a 1 year rolling, or a 5 year tenancy (but for undesirable areas still sometimes offer a lifetime tenancy) to new tenants. So, I think the real plan here is not actually to save a few quid in housing benefit, it's a back-door way of going about moving the older tenants out of the family-sized homes. Yes, family housing is needed for families, I agree. And it is sad to see young families in small flats whilst pensioners have large houses where sometimes they cannot even make use of the upstairs or the garden. I don't know... some pensioners will have 2+ extra bedrooms that they will now have to pay for. But these are their family homes for the last 30/40+ years. I think we'll hear some terrible stories next winter of old people dying of cold or hunger, whilst stuggling to pay this extra bill they'll face. Or the mentally ill & vulnerable topping themselves over yet more debt & stress. I know we need to pay out less in benefits, & we need to make better use of the existing housing stock. But, surely there's a better way? :-/ Chav_Scum

6:42pm Sat 23 Feb 13

intherain says...

Why should the rest of us pay for someone's spare bedroom? If you can't afford it, downsize!
Why should the rest of us pay for someone's spare bedroom? If you can't afford it, downsize! intherain

9:21pm Sat 23 Feb 13

p.stant says...

Wait for more immigrants to come along and take up what little housing we have, private is as important as social HOUSING at the moment and people not born here are renting them. Nothing against the people , it's just simple math.

Out of the EU!
Wait for more immigrants to come along and take up what little housing we have, private is as important as social HOUSING at the moment and people not born here are renting them. Nothing against the people , it's just simple math. Out of the EU! p.stant

9:36am Mon 25 Feb 13

JamesYoung says...

Chav_Scum wrote:
Coxywey wrote:
Whilst i can sympathise with people with families there are a number of people in the weymouth and Portland area that are living in housing properties way above their requirements, where i live there are 2 retired people currently occupying big 3 bedroom properties with no dependents in this instance i do believe they should be offered alternative accomodation in order to free up these large family homes for the families in this area that are desperate for housing. The housing companies should evaluate peoples requirements and move people as their circumstances change in order to home the thousands of people currently in need of housing or alternatively waiting to be moved to larger properties because their circumstances have changed. At the end of the day these rents are a lot less than the majority of people pay either in a mortgage or private capacity.
I too have mixed thoughts on this. The housing companies cannot simply move people as their circumstances change as the vast majority of the tenants have a lifelong tenancy. It has only been in the last year or two the housing associations have started to offer a 1 year rolling, or a 5 year tenancy (but for undesirable areas still sometimes offer a lifetime tenancy) to new tenants.
So, I think the real plan here is not actually to save a few quid in housing benefit, it's a back-door way of going about moving the older tenants out of the family-sized homes.
Yes, family housing is needed for families, I agree. And it is sad to see young families in small flats whilst pensioners have large houses where sometimes they cannot even make use of the upstairs or the garden. I don't know... some pensioners will have 2+ extra bedrooms that they will now have to pay for. But these are their family homes for the last 30/40+ years.
I think we'll hear some terrible stories next winter of old people dying of cold or hunger, whilst stuggling to pay this extra bill they'll face. Or the mentally ill & vulnerable topping themselves over yet more debt & stress.
I know we need to pay out less in benefits, & we need to make better use of the existing housing stock. But, surely there's a better way? :-/
There is an easy solution to this. Take in a lodger.
As others have said, if you can't afford your house when you rent privately, you get kicked out, no ifs and no buts.
We don't have the capacity to support poor widows in mansions.
[quote][p][bold]Chav_Scum[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Coxywey[/bold] wrote: Whilst i can sympathise with people with families there are a number of people in the weymouth and Portland area that are living in housing properties way above their requirements, where i live there are 2 retired people currently occupying big 3 bedroom properties with no dependents in this instance i do believe they should be offered alternative accomodation in order to free up these large family homes for the families in this area that are desperate for housing. The housing companies should evaluate peoples requirements and move people as their circumstances change in order to home the thousands of people currently in need of housing or alternatively waiting to be moved to larger properties because their circumstances have changed. At the end of the day these rents are a lot less than the majority of people pay either in a mortgage or private capacity.[/p][/quote]I too have mixed thoughts on this. The housing companies cannot simply move people as their circumstances change as the vast majority of the tenants have a lifelong tenancy. It has only been in the last year or two the housing associations have started to offer a 1 year rolling, or a 5 year tenancy (but for undesirable areas still sometimes offer a lifetime tenancy) to new tenants. So, I think the real plan here is not actually to save a few quid in housing benefit, it's a back-door way of going about moving the older tenants out of the family-sized homes. Yes, family housing is needed for families, I agree. And it is sad to see young families in small flats whilst pensioners have large houses where sometimes they cannot even make use of the upstairs or the garden. I don't know... some pensioners will have 2+ extra bedrooms that they will now have to pay for. But these are their family homes for the last 30/40+ years. I think we'll hear some terrible stories next winter of old people dying of cold or hunger, whilst stuggling to pay this extra bill they'll face. Or the mentally ill & vulnerable topping themselves over yet more debt & stress. I know we need to pay out less in benefits, & we need to make better use of the existing housing stock. But, surely there's a better way? :-/[/p][/quote]There is an easy solution to this. Take in a lodger. As others have said, if you can't afford your house when you rent privately, you get kicked out, no ifs and no buts. We don't have the capacity to support poor widows in mansions. JamesYoung

9:48am Mon 25 Feb 13

stench says...

p.stant wrote:
Wait for more immigrants to come along and take up what little housing we have, private is as important as social HOUSING at the moment and people not born here are renting them. Nothing against the people , it's just simple math. Out of the EU!
Das boot!
[quote][p][bold]p.stant[/bold] wrote: Wait for more immigrants to come along and take up what little housing we have, private is as important as social HOUSING at the moment and people not born here are renting them. Nothing against the people , it's just simple math. Out of the EU![/p][/quote]Das boot! stench

9:41pm Mon 25 Feb 13

Is it me or is everything rubbish? says...

Finally, some common sense when dealing with housing association property.

It is wrong that you can win the Lottery, yet there is no obligation to leave your tax payer subsidised property.

ALL tenants should be reviewed on a regular basis to ensure that the property is suitable (i.e not too large or too small).

Yes, Doris may have lived there for 40 years but her husband has died and her children now have children and are now crammed into flats and small houses.

I think that the Lion King put it best when they referred to it as the circle of life.
Finally, some common sense when dealing with housing association property. It is wrong that you can win the Lottery, yet there is no obligation to leave your tax payer subsidised property. ALL tenants should be reviewed on a regular basis to ensure that the property is suitable (i.e not too large or too small). Yes, Doris may have lived there for 40 years but her husband has died and her children now have children and are now crammed into flats and small houses. I think that the Lion King put it best when they referred to it as the circle of life. Is it me or is everything rubbish?

8:01am Tue 26 Feb 13

greenglasses says...

the easy answer is for those people who live in these houses is to get a job... then they can have as rooms as they wish.......Oh hang on jobs!! where to get one of those?
major problem is lack of suitable housing stock my friend lives in a 2 bed flat with a 6 y/o girl and 15y/o boy .mother and daughter share a room she works part time but there is nowhere to move them to...perhaps a nice swap with a 3 bed in say Wykewould be good...but then how will she get her children to school in Upway ....could just distrupt that too!!!
the easy answer is for those people who live in these houses is to get a job... then they can have as rooms as they wish.......Oh hang on jobs!! where to get one of those? major problem is lack of suitable housing stock my friend lives in a 2 bed flat with a 6 y/o girl and 15y/o boy .mother and daughter share a room she works part time but there is nowhere to move them to...perhaps a nice swap with a 3 bed in say Wykewould be good...but then how will she get her children to school in Upway ....could just distrupt that too!!! greenglasses

9:22am Tue 26 Feb 13

Is it me or is everything rubbish? says...

It is not your house. You have excellent help and support from the housing association (as well as a secure tenancy).

If you rented privately, you would pay much more in rent (approx £200-£300 per month) your landlord would not maintain the property to the same standard (nor would they repair the door after your drunken partner punches it), the landlord could sell the property and you would be homeless and you probably would not be able to have all your dogs and cats live in a privately rented house either (what is it with housing association tenants and their fascination with dogs- normally whippets/greyhounds)
.

So, stop whinging about having to pay a few extra pounds for a room that is either empty or rented to foreign students in the summer.
It is not your house. You have excellent help and support from the housing association (as well as a secure tenancy). If you rented privately, you would pay much more in rent (approx £200-£300 per month) your landlord would not maintain the property to the same standard (nor would they repair the door after your drunken partner punches it), the landlord could sell the property and you would be homeless and you probably would not be able to have all your dogs and cats live in a privately rented house either (what is it with housing association tenants and their fascination with dogs- normally whippets/greyhounds) . So, stop whinging about having to pay a few extra pounds for a room that is either empty or rented to foreign students in the summer. Is it me or is everything rubbish?

5:35pm Tue 26 Feb 13

radiator says...

It would be interesting to see what Bob Crows ideas are on this matter?
It would be interesting to see what Bob Crows ideas are on this matter? radiator

6:50pm Tue 26 Feb 13

JamesYoung says...

radiator wrote:
It would be interesting to see what Bob Crows ideas are on this matter?
Him and all the other union fat cats.
[quote][p][bold]radiator[/bold] wrote: It would be interesting to see what Bob Crows ideas are on this matter?[/p][/quote]Him and all the other union fat cats. JamesYoung

11:19pm Tue 26 Feb 13

grandiose says...

I do think that people need to down size if they do not need the size of accommodation they are in but things are never that black and white. Also when there is such a shortage of social housing in the country how come the government still let people buy council houses without at least building some more housing to replace it. Probably because of all the fat cat private
landlords who vote conservative will gain
I do think that people need to down size if they do not need the size of accommodation they are in but things are never that black and white. Also when there is such a shortage of social housing in the country how come the government still let people buy council houses without at least building some more housing to replace it. Probably because of all the fat cat private landlords who vote conservative will gain grandiose

8:58am Wed 27 Feb 13

JamesYoung says...

grandiose wrote:
I do think that people need to down size if they do not need the size of accommodation they are in but things are never that black and white. Also when there is such a shortage of social housing in the country how come the government still let people buy council houses without at least building some more housing to replace it. Probably because of all the fat cat private
landlords who vote conservative will gain
I hadn't thought of it like that. So what you are saying is that Labour didn't build council houses for over a decade so that buy to let landlords could vote conservative. Genius idea.
When the bailiffs knock on your door, they see things in black and white. The bailiffs are at our door. We have to cut public spending. We have to get rid of the entitlement culture.
We have to get rid of this nonsensical idea that rich people should pay more and more so that so called poor people can take less and less responsibility for their own lives. There will always be special cases and allowance should be made for these, but change is not optional any longer.
[quote][p][bold]grandiose[/bold] wrote: I do think that people need to down size if they do not need the size of accommodation they are in but things are never that black and white. Also when there is such a shortage of social housing in the country how come the government still let people buy council houses without at least building some more housing to replace it. Probably because of all the fat cat private landlords who vote conservative will gain[/p][/quote]I hadn't thought of it like that. So what you are saying is that Labour didn't build council houses for over a decade so that buy to let landlords could vote conservative. Genius idea. When the bailiffs knock on your door, they see things in black and white. The bailiffs are at our door. We have to cut public spending. We have to get rid of the entitlement culture. We have to get rid of this nonsensical idea that rich people should pay more and more so that so called poor people can take less and less responsibility for their own lives. There will always be special cases and allowance should be made for these, but change is not optional any longer. JamesYoung

9:33am Wed 27 Feb 13

stench says...

JamesYoung wrote:
grandiose wrote: I do think that people need to down size if they do not need the size of accommodation they are in but things are never that black and white. Also when there is such a shortage of social housing in the country how come the government still let people buy council houses without at least building some more housing to replace it. Probably because of all the fat cat private landlords who vote conservative will gain
I hadn't thought of it like that. So what you are saying is that Labour didn't build council houses for over a decade so that buy to let landlords could vote conservative. Genius idea. When the bailiffs knock on your door, they see things in black and white. The bailiffs are at our door. We have to cut public spending. We have to get rid of the entitlement culture. We have to get rid of this nonsensical idea that rich people should pay more and more so that so called poor people can take less and less responsibility for their own lives. There will always be special cases and allowance should be made for these, but change is not optional any longer.
Bailiffs at our door?

HAHAHAHA! Get real!
[quote][p][bold]JamesYoung[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]grandiose[/bold] wrote: I do think that people need to down size if they do not need the size of accommodation they are in but things are never that black and white. Also when there is such a shortage of social housing in the country how come the government still let people buy council houses without at least building some more housing to replace it. Probably because of all the fat cat private landlords who vote conservative will gain[/p][/quote]I hadn't thought of it like that. So what you are saying is that Labour didn't build council houses for over a decade so that buy to let landlords could vote conservative. Genius idea. When the bailiffs knock on your door, they see things in black and white. The bailiffs are at our door. We have to cut public spending. We have to get rid of the entitlement culture. We have to get rid of this nonsensical idea that rich people should pay more and more so that so called poor people can take less and less responsibility for their own lives. There will always be special cases and allowance should be made for these, but change is not optional any longer.[/p][/quote]Bailiffs at our door? HAHAHAHA! Get real! stench

11:04am Wed 27 Feb 13

JamesYoung says...

Did you not see what happened to Greece, Stench?
Once the markets turn against us, which they could do at any time....
Did you not see what happened to Greece, Stench? Once the markets turn against us, which they could do at any time.... JamesYoung

1:54pm Wed 27 Feb 13

Is it me or is everything rubbish? says...

I hate the suggestion that people who choose to get on in life and work hard should pay more tax so that those that cannot be bothered are supported through life.

As James Young has said. this is unsustainable and cannot continue.

If you earnt £100 every week and spent £130, it would not be long before you were bankrupt.

This is what is happening with the UK- we cannot keep borrowing money to make up the difference.

There are too many people that cannot be bothered to contribute- this has to end.

Help those that need to be helped.
I hate the suggestion that people who choose to get on in life and work hard should pay more tax so that those that cannot be bothered are supported through life. As James Young has said. this is unsustainable and cannot continue. If you earnt £100 every week and spent £130, it would not be long before you were bankrupt. This is what is happening with the UK- we cannot keep borrowing money to make up the difference. There are too many people that cannot be bothered to contribute- this has to end. Help those that need to be helped. Is it me or is everything rubbish?

5:01pm Wed 27 Feb 13

Esio Trot says...

Well said, James Young and IIMOIER.

The only real issue I have with the 'Bedroom Tax' (which isn't a tax, but a change to payments on a 'need' basis) is that pensioners are not affected, so there will still be many single folk or couples overaccommodated in large houses, without penalty.

In certain - exceptional - cases there should be discretion and possible exemption from the penalty, like SOME cases of a disabled couple not being able to share a room, for example, but not ALL cases where one person is disabled should apply either.

There is far too high a sense of entitlement in the UK at present, and it is completely unsustainable.

I also disagree with houses larger than 3 or 4 beds being made available in the Social Rented (Council or Housing Association) sector anyway. I don't think that it should be the only tenure where you keep being rewarded for fecklessly breeding. Most people in the Private Rented or Owener Occupied sectors cannot afford to move to a bigger property if they wanted to squat out ten children, so why should those in the Social Sector be given ever larger properties for nothing? It should be a case of "Stop breeding, or put up with being overcrowded - bed made, lie!"

I certainly do not think that those who are 'better off' should be made to subsidise the feckless and idle even further than they do already. Why should the fruits of my d*mned hard work go to line the pockets of those who cannot be bothered to better themselves, or think that repeated pregnancy is a career?
Well said, James Young and IIMOIER. The only real issue I have with the 'Bedroom Tax' (which isn't a tax, but a change to payments on a 'need' basis) is that pensioners are not affected, so there will still be many single folk or couples overaccommodated in large houses, without penalty. In certain - exceptional - cases there should be discretion and possible exemption from the penalty, like SOME cases of a disabled couple not being able to share a room, for example, but not ALL cases where one person is disabled should apply either. There is far too high a sense of entitlement in the UK at present, and it is completely unsustainable. I also disagree with houses larger than 3 or 4 beds being made available in the Social Rented (Council or Housing Association) sector anyway. I don't think that it should be the only tenure where you keep being rewarded for fecklessly breeding. Most people in the Private Rented or Owener Occupied sectors cannot afford to move to a bigger property if they wanted to squat out ten children, so why should those in the Social Sector be given ever larger properties for nothing? It should be a case of "Stop breeding, or put up with being overcrowded - bed made, lie!" I certainly do not think that those who are 'better off' should be made to subsidise the feckless and idle even further than they do already. Why should the fruits of my d*mned hard work go to line the pockets of those who cannot be bothered to better themselves, or think that repeated pregnancy is a career? Esio Trot

5:07pm Wed 27 Feb 13

Esio Trot says...

Also, nice to see the protest is scheduled in the middle of a week day, when a lot of people are HARD AT WORK!!!
Also, nice to see the protest is scheduled in the middle of a week day, when a lot of people are HARD AT WORK!!! Esio Trot

8:35pm Wed 27 Feb 13

Is it me or is everything rubbish? says...

I wish that there was a Like button on this site.

Excellent point about the time of the protest- it must be nice to have the time to wander along and complain about barbarically you are being treated.

I hope that they stop at the Working Men's Club and ask them to look up the meaning of the word "oxymoron". Then they can look up the meaning of the word "ironic".

They will probably use their iPhone to search for the meaning- I wish that I could afford an iPhone.

All my money goes on tax.
I wish that there was a Like button on this site. Excellent point about the time of the protest- it must be nice to have the time to wander along and complain about barbarically you are being treated. I hope that they stop at the Working Men's Club and ask them to look up the meaning of the word "oxymoron". Then they can look up the meaning of the word "ironic". They will probably use their iPhone to search for the meaning- I wish that I could afford an iPhone. All my money goes on tax. Is it me or is everything rubbish?

9:14pm Wed 27 Feb 13

cj07589 says...

Is it me or is everything rubbish? wrote:
I hate the suggestion that people who choose to get on in life and work hard should pay more tax so that those that cannot be bothered are supported through life.

As James Young has said. this is unsustainable and cannot continue.

If you earnt £100 every week and spent £130, it would not be long before you were bankrupt.

This is what is happening with the UK- we cannot keep borrowing money to make up the difference.

There are too many people that cannot be bothered to contribute- this has to end.

Help those that need to be helped.
Yes entirely agree tell the liberal socialists that, they blissfully think money grows on trees. All the shambles of this government can think up is even more taxes, no wonder the economy is stuffed.
[quote][p][bold]Is it me or is everything rubbish?[/bold] wrote: I hate the suggestion that people who choose to get on in life and work hard should pay more tax so that those that cannot be bothered are supported through life. As James Young has said. this is unsustainable and cannot continue. If you earnt £100 every week and spent £130, it would not be long before you were bankrupt. This is what is happening with the UK- we cannot keep borrowing money to make up the difference. There are too many people that cannot be bothered to contribute- this has to end. Help those that need to be helped.[/p][/quote]Yes entirely agree tell the liberal socialists that, they blissfully think money grows on trees. All the shambles of this government can think up is even more taxes, no wonder the economy is stuffed. cj07589

9:49am Thu 28 Feb 13

sparkleeye says...

JamesYoung wrote:
grandiose wrote:
I do think that people need to down size if they do not need the size of accommodation they are in but things are never that black and white. Also when there is such a shortage of social housing in the country how come the government still let people buy council houses without at least building some more housing to replace it. Probably because of all the fat cat private
landlords who vote conservative will gain
I hadn't thought of it like that. So what you are saying is that Labour didn't build council houses for over a decade so that buy to let landlords could vote conservative. Genius idea.
When the bailiffs knock on your door, they see things in black and white. The bailiffs are at our door. We have to cut public spending. We have to get rid of the entitlement culture.
We have to get rid of this nonsensical idea that rich people should pay more and more so that so called poor people can take less and less responsibility for their own lives. There will always be special cases and allowance should be made for these, but change is not optional any longer.
There are no poor people in this ridiculous country, only socialists playing violins while leftist Labour created a generation dependant on the state. Welfare is more than enough for anyone these days. Those who say it isn't are obviously useless with managing money. Yes I have had to use benefits before so yes I do know and I have no debts, no bailiffs and even saved some.

How many of these, "poor" drink, smoke, buy things with "labels" on them, waste it on stupid computer games they can dump their kids in front of instead of parenting them etc

It's always someone else's fault in Labours Britain, that's what Labours brand of ideology is about, dependency on the state. Problem is the damage they did to this country was so bad it is a nightmare to try and fix it, if it ever can be?
[quote][p][bold]JamesYoung[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]grandiose[/bold] wrote: I do think that people need to down size if they do not need the size of accommodation they are in but things are never that black and white. Also when there is such a shortage of social housing in the country how come the government still let people buy council houses without at least building some more housing to replace it. Probably because of all the fat cat private landlords who vote conservative will gain[/p][/quote]I hadn't thought of it like that. So what you are saying is that Labour didn't build council houses for over a decade so that buy to let landlords could vote conservative. Genius idea. When the bailiffs knock on your door, they see things in black and white. The bailiffs are at our door. We have to cut public spending. We have to get rid of the entitlement culture. We have to get rid of this nonsensical idea that rich people should pay more and more so that so called poor people can take less and less responsibility for their own lives. There will always be special cases and allowance should be made for these, but change is not optional any longer.[/p][/quote]There are no poor people in this ridiculous country, only socialists playing violins while leftist Labour created a generation dependant on the state. Welfare is more than enough for anyone these days. Those who say it isn't are obviously useless with managing money. Yes I have had to use benefits before so yes I do know and I have no debts, no bailiffs and even saved some. How many of these, "poor" drink, smoke, buy things with "labels" on them, waste it on stupid computer games they can dump their kids in front of instead of parenting them etc It's always someone else's fault in Labours Britain, that's what Labours brand of ideology is about, dependency on the state. Problem is the damage they did to this country was so bad it is a nightmare to try and fix it, if it ever can be? sparkleeye

3:30pm Thu 28 Feb 13

JamesYoung says...

1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.

2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.

3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.

4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!

5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.


This e-mail is for the sole use of the intended recipient and contains information that may be privileged and/or confidential. If you are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender by return e-mail and delete this e-mail and any attachments. Certain required legal entity disclosures can be accessed on our website.

This email was sent to you by Thomson Reuters, the global news and information company. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of Thomson Reuters.
1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. 2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. 3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. 4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it! 5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation. This e-mail is for the sole use of the intended recipient and contains information that may be privileged and/or confidential. If you are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender by return e-mail and delete this e-mail and any attachments. Certain required legal entity disclosures can be accessed on our website. This email was sent to you by Thomson Reuters, the global news and information company. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of Thomson Reuters. JamesYoung

3:30pm Thu 28 Feb 13

JamesYoung says...

Oops, shouldn't have copied that disclaimer from the guy that forwarded me that.
Oops, shouldn't have copied that disclaimer from the guy that forwarded me that. JamesYoung

4:11pm Thu 28 Feb 13

cj07589 says...

Still liebour/lib/cons all the same in my opinion, theve all had many years to resolve the abuse of the benefit system and still they don't. As wealthy nation by comparison to others, I fully support having a safety net when jobs are lost or sickness and disability occur but the current system is beyond a joke but nobody elected has bothered to sort it out.
Still liebour/lib/cons all the same in my opinion, theve all had many years to resolve the abuse of the benefit system and still they don't. As wealthy nation by comparison to others, I fully support having a safety net when jobs are lost or sickness and disability occur but the current system is beyond a joke but nobody elected has bothered to sort it out. cj07589

4:26pm Thu 28 Feb 13

JamesYoung says...

cj07589 wrote:
Still liebour/lib/cons all the same in my opinion, theve all had many years to resolve the abuse of the benefit system and still they don't. As wealthy nation by comparison to others, I fully support having a safety net when jobs are lost or sickness and disability occur but the current system is beyond a joke but nobody elected has bothered to sort it out.
Right. Largely because Labour and the Libs know that if they do, they'll be out of power for a generation. Their only saving grace is the amount of money they bribe the working classes with. Of course until we limit the vote to those who can actually understand how public finance works, we will never progress, since people vote for what's in their personal interest. The rallying cry of "tax the rich more!" gets louder every year.
[quote][p][bold]cj07589[/bold] wrote: Still liebour/lib/cons all the same in my opinion, theve all had many years to resolve the abuse of the benefit system and still they don't. As wealthy nation by comparison to others, I fully support having a safety net when jobs are lost or sickness and disability occur but the current system is beyond a joke but nobody elected has bothered to sort it out.[/p][/quote]Right. Largely because Labour and the Libs know that if they do, they'll be out of power for a generation. Their only saving grace is the amount of money they bribe the working classes with. Of course until we limit the vote to those who can actually understand how public finance works, we will never progress, since people vote for what's in their personal interest. The rallying cry of "tax the rich more!" gets louder every year. JamesYoung

5:42pm Thu 28 Feb 13

woodsedge says...

JamesYoung wrote:
cj07589 wrote:
Still liebour/lib/cons all the same in my opinion, theve all had many years to resolve the abuse of the benefit system and still they don't. As wealthy nation by comparison to others, I fully support having a safety net when jobs are lost or sickness and disability occur but the current system is beyond a joke but nobody elected has bothered to sort it out.
Right. Largely because Labour and the Libs know that if they do, they'll be out of power for a generation. Their only saving grace is the amount of money they bribe the working classes with. Of course until we limit the vote to those who can actually understand how public finance works, we will never progress, since people vote for what's in their personal interest. The rallying cry of "tax the rich more!" gets louder every year.
What an arrogant elitist point of view from an individual who needs an history lesson on how it was the lower working classes that secured the vote that you now not in the first place! I suppose it will be "take it away from women" next. I really do worry about the mind set of some individuals who just want a return to the master servant relationship. Just look at the mess the supposed well educated classes have made red and blue.
[quote][p][bold]JamesYoung[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cj07589[/bold] wrote: Still liebour/lib/cons all the same in my opinion, theve all had many years to resolve the abuse of the benefit system and still they don't. As wealthy nation by comparison to others, I fully support having a safety net when jobs are lost or sickness and disability occur but the current system is beyond a joke but nobody elected has bothered to sort it out.[/p][/quote]Right. Largely because Labour and the Libs know that if they do, they'll be out of power for a generation. Their only saving grace is the amount of money they bribe the working classes with. Of course until we limit the vote to those who can actually understand how public finance works, we will never progress, since people vote for what's in their personal interest. The rallying cry of "tax the rich more!" gets louder every year.[/p][/quote]What an arrogant elitist point of view from an individual who needs an history lesson on how it was the lower working classes that secured the vote that you now not in the first place! I suppose it will be "take it away from women" next. I really do worry about the mind set of some individuals who just want a return to the master servant relationship. Just look at the mess the supposed well educated classes have made red and blue. woodsedge

7:15pm Thu 28 Feb 13

cj07589 says...

Irrespective of what class you are from does it matter. the frustrating fact is there a number in our society both extremely wealthy and pretend poor playing the system for all its worth and its YOU and I paying them for the privilege something is very broken when someone can earn earn more doing nothing than someone who works a 40hr week. Notwithstanding the excessive greed of bankers, MP and tax avoiding moral-less celebrities. Why is nothing ever done to resolve it.
Irrespective of what class you are from does it matter. the frustrating fact is there a number in our society both extremely wealthy and pretend poor playing the system for all its worth and its YOU and I paying them for the privilege something is very broken when someone can earn earn more doing nothing than someone who works a 40hr week. Notwithstanding the excessive greed of bankers, MP and tax avoiding moral-less celebrities. Why is nothing ever done to resolve it. cj07589

9:12pm Thu 28 Feb 13

woodsedge says...

cj07589 wrote:
Irrespective of what class you are from does it matter. the frustrating fact is there a number in our society both extremely wealthy and pretend poor playing the system for all its worth and its YOU and I paying them for the privilege something is very broken when someone can earn earn more doing nothing than someone who works a 40hr week. Notwithstanding the excessive greed of bankers, MP and tax avoiding moral-less celebrities. Why is nothing ever done to resolve it.
Agreed
[quote][p][bold]cj07589[/bold] wrote: Irrespective of what class you are from does it matter. the frustrating fact is there a number in our society both extremely wealthy and pretend poor playing the system for all its worth and its YOU and I paying them for the privilege something is very broken when someone can earn earn more doing nothing than someone who works a 40hr week. Notwithstanding the excessive greed of bankers, MP and tax avoiding moral-less celebrities. Why is nothing ever done to resolve it.[/p][/quote]Agreed woodsedge

8:24am Fri 1 Mar 13

JamesYoung says...

woodsedge wrote:
JamesYoung wrote:
cj07589 wrote:
Still liebour/lib/cons all the same in my opinion, theve all had many years to resolve the abuse of the benefit system and still they don't. As wealthy nation by comparison to others, I fully support having a safety net when jobs are lost or sickness and disability occur but the current system is beyond a joke but nobody elected has bothered to sort it out.
Right. Largely because Labour and the Libs know that if they do, they'll be out of power for a generation. Their only saving grace is the amount of money they bribe the working classes with. Of course until we limit the vote to those who can actually understand how public finance works, we will never progress, since people vote for what's in their personal interest. The rallying cry of "tax the rich more!" gets louder every year.
What an arrogant elitist point of view from an individual who needs an history lesson on how it was the lower working classes that secured the vote that you now not in the first place! I suppose it will be "take it away from women" next. I really do worry about the mind set of some individuals who just want a return to the master servant relationship. Just look at the mess the supposed well educated classes have made red and blue.
Woodsedge, leaving aside the fact that back then, working class meant you worked, rather than that you had a 40 a day fag habit, a benefit cheque and a dangerous dog, think about what I said.
The power in this country is vested in the electorate. That electorate doesn't understand that £10 given here is £10 taken there. Talk to some of them and you'll realise that most think that the government is some kind of malevolent force sat on a big pile of wealth.
We've been offered a referendum on Europe. Does it not scare you that 90% of the people that will decide our future have absolutely no idea about the issues involved?
I'm not talking about taking the vote away from anyone. I'm talking about a mandatory test before you are given it in the first place. I can only assume that the only reason you object to this every time i bring it up is because of your left wing leanings. It would, after all, most likely be Labour that would suffer from having an electorate that understood that they lie.
[quote][p][bold]woodsedge[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JamesYoung[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cj07589[/bold] wrote: Still liebour/lib/cons all the same in my opinion, theve all had many years to resolve the abuse of the benefit system and still they don't. As wealthy nation by comparison to others, I fully support having a safety net when jobs are lost or sickness and disability occur but the current system is beyond a joke but nobody elected has bothered to sort it out.[/p][/quote]Right. Largely because Labour and the Libs know that if they do, they'll be out of power for a generation. Their only saving grace is the amount of money they bribe the working classes with. Of course until we limit the vote to those who can actually understand how public finance works, we will never progress, since people vote for what's in their personal interest. The rallying cry of "tax the rich more!" gets louder every year.[/p][/quote]What an arrogant elitist point of view from an individual who needs an history lesson on how it was the lower working classes that secured the vote that you now not in the first place! I suppose it will be "take it away from women" next. I really do worry about the mind set of some individuals who just want a return to the master servant relationship. Just look at the mess the supposed well educated classes have made red and blue.[/p][/quote]Woodsedge, leaving aside the fact that back then, working class meant you worked, rather than that you had a 40 a day fag habit, a benefit cheque and a dangerous dog, think about what I said. The power in this country is vested in the electorate. That electorate doesn't understand that £10 given here is £10 taken there. Talk to some of them and you'll realise that most think that the government is some kind of malevolent force sat on a big pile of wealth. We've been offered a referendum on Europe. Does it not scare you that 90% of the people that will decide our future have absolutely no idea about the issues involved? I'm not talking about taking the vote away from anyone. I'm talking about a mandatory test before you are given it in the first place. I can only assume that the only reason you object to this every time i bring it up is because of your left wing leanings. It would, after all, most likely be Labour that would suffer from having an electorate that understood that they lie. JamesYoung

8:27am Fri 1 Mar 13

JamesYoung says...

JamesYoung wrote:
woodsedge wrote:
JamesYoung wrote:
cj07589 wrote:
Still liebour/lib/cons all the same in my opinion, theve all had many years to resolve the abuse of the benefit system and still they don't. As wealthy nation by comparison to others, I fully support having a safety net when jobs are lost or sickness and disability occur but the current system is beyond a joke but nobody elected has bothered to sort it out.
Right. Largely because Labour and the Libs know that if they do, they'll be out of power for a generation. Their only saving grace is the amount of money they bribe the working classes with. Of course until we limit the vote to those who can actually understand how public finance works, we will never progress, since people vote for what's in their personal interest. The rallying cry of "tax the rich more!" gets louder every year.
What an arrogant elitist point of view from an individual who needs an history lesson on how it was the lower working classes that secured the vote that you now not in the first place! I suppose it will be "take it away from women" next. I really do worry about the mind set of some individuals who just want a return to the master servant relationship. Just look at the mess the supposed well educated classes have made red and blue.
Woodsedge, leaving aside the fact that back then, working class meant you worked, rather than that you had a 40 a day fag habit, a benefit cheque and a dangerous dog, think about what I said.
The power in this country is vested in the electorate. That electorate doesn't understand that £10 given here is £10 taken there. Talk to some of them and you'll realise that most think that the government is some kind of malevolent force sat on a big pile of wealth.
We've been offered a referendum on Europe. Does it not scare you that 90% of the people that will decide our future have absolutely no idea about the issues involved?
I'm not talking about taking the vote away from anyone. I'm talking about a mandatory test before you are given it in the first place. I can only assume that the only reason you object to this every time i bring it up is because of your left wing leanings. It would, after all, most likely be Labour that would suffer from having an electorate that understood that they lie.
Sorry, just to address your last point. The educated classes who run the government seem to do so mostly for their own benefit.
However lets not forget that a mandatory test would apply to everyone. Most university graduates couldn't explain the difference between debt and deficit.
[quote][p][bold]JamesYoung[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]woodsedge[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JamesYoung[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cj07589[/bold] wrote: Still liebour/lib/cons all the same in my opinion, theve all had many years to resolve the abuse of the benefit system and still they don't. As wealthy nation by comparison to others, I fully support having a safety net when jobs are lost or sickness and disability occur but the current system is beyond a joke but nobody elected has bothered to sort it out.[/p][/quote]Right. Largely because Labour and the Libs know that if they do, they'll be out of power for a generation. Their only saving grace is the amount of money they bribe the working classes with. Of course until we limit the vote to those who can actually understand how public finance works, we will never progress, since people vote for what's in their personal interest. The rallying cry of "tax the rich more!" gets louder every year.[/p][/quote]What an arrogant elitist point of view from an individual who needs an history lesson on how it was the lower working classes that secured the vote that you now not in the first place! I suppose it will be "take it away from women" next. I really do worry about the mind set of some individuals who just want a return to the master servant relationship. Just look at the mess the supposed well educated classes have made red and blue.[/p][/quote]Woodsedge, leaving aside the fact that back then, working class meant you worked, rather than that you had a 40 a day fag habit, a benefit cheque and a dangerous dog, think about what I said. The power in this country is vested in the electorate. That electorate doesn't understand that £10 given here is £10 taken there. Talk to some of them and you'll realise that most think that the government is some kind of malevolent force sat on a big pile of wealth. We've been offered a referendum on Europe. Does it not scare you that 90% of the people that will decide our future have absolutely no idea about the issues involved? I'm not talking about taking the vote away from anyone. I'm talking about a mandatory test before you are given it in the first place. I can only assume that the only reason you object to this every time i bring it up is because of your left wing leanings. It would, after all, most likely be Labour that would suffer from having an electorate that understood that they lie.[/p][/quote]Sorry, just to address your last point. The educated classes who run the government seem to do so mostly for their own benefit. However lets not forget that a mandatory test would apply to everyone. Most university graduates couldn't explain the difference between debt and deficit. JamesYoung

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree