General Chat

The hated Bedroom Tax is in the headlines again - but I have to wonder if this U-Turn is down to genuine concern or just an electioneering ploy?

The Liberal Democrats have called for a fundamental reform of the so-called "bedroom tax" in a dramatic withdrawal of support for one of the coalition's highest-profile welfare reforms.

Chief Secretary to the Treasury Danny Alexander told the party's Conservative coalition partners that it was "clearly time to take stock and change our approach" on the highly-criticised policy.

But the U-turn was given short shrift by a Tory source who insisted that the party remained "committed" to the change and said it was "imperative" the Government stuck to its push to slash the benefits bill.

U-Turns appear popular during the last few days with particular reference to 'Assisted Dying/Suicide'.

A huge ploy of course. :-| :-| :-| :-|

The reason the Spare Room Subsidy (Bedroom Tax) became law is that it was supported by the Liberal Democrats.

The regulation that brought this policy into law was part of the Welfare Reform Act 2012, since that was debated, some fifteen months have passed during which, the Liberal Democrats did nothing to oppose or change it.

The General Election is only about 10 months away and of of course that has nothing to do with the Liberal Democrats shouts of compassion on this issue ;-)

It may well be electioneering, but on the other hand it does coincide with the government report that says

"Almost 60% of households affected by the "bedroom tax" changes were in arrears as a result of the cut to their housing benefit, an internal Government review has found." It doesn't take a genius to realise that if this is the case continuing with the policy is potentially going to cost more than it brings in ( in terms of court cases, admin etc)

details here http://www.expressandstar.com/business/uk-money/2014/07/15/bedroom-tax-arrears-total-revealed/

I agree that the Liberal Democrat's announcement coincides with the government's report on this.

I also noted that a Tory source said that "Bringing the bloated Housing Benefit bill under control is a key part of our long-term plan to fix welfare, our reforms are working - and it's imperative we stick to them, the Conservatives are committed to this."

I am sure that the lovely caring compassionate man in charge of the Department of Work and Pensions will find an empty space somewhere on a shelve for this report ;-)

The problem any party aspiring to government faces is that measures such as this are actually popular with those whose vote matters - those who pay tax and are not in the position to claim housing benefit.

So, ironically, doing a 'u-turn' (horrible phrase!) is more likely to be a vote looser.

New Governments elected by jubilant voters often practice such questionable tactics in power that they end up being mistrusted & hated more severely than the previous administration they replaced.

History tells us that this is not an uncommon occurrence.

* "Ye are grown intolerably odious to the whole nation; you were deputed here by the people to get grievances redress'd, are yourselves gone! So! Take away that shining bauble there, and lock up the doors. In the name of God, go! And go now!" (Oliver Cromwell).

IGP I can't claim housing benefit, but the measure is not popular with me, and my vote matters does it not? ,....if you are implying that only those who work ( nb are ABLE to work) and pay tax have a vote that "matters" then I take issue with you. The votes of my pensioner friends "matter", the votes of my friends who have children just about to leave a room empty when they go to uni "matter", my retired sibling's vote "matters".

I listen to Nick Clegg every week when, he has a talk in slot on the Nick Ferrari show on LBC, one thing that he is definitely good at is answering callers questions without actually answering them - if that makes sense :-S

As to the Spare Room Subsidy (Bedroom Tax) - I actually think the policy of encouraging people living in social housing to large for their needs, to move to smaller accommodation to free up social housing for larger families, has some merit.

That said, I can only describe the current policy as something - that was drawn up on the back of a fag packet over a few drinks in the pub on a boys night out :-|

OFITG , I don't disagree with your view that encouraging people to move to smaller accommodation has some merit, if it is voluntary. The current scheme is just too heavy handed and badly thought out.

There are also, not enough smaller bungalows/flats.
I pay full rent on my 3 bedroomed council house, but have looked into smaller places, even flats.
The rent differentiation is a lot less than the bedroom tax, so that, to my mind is theft! There also, weren't any available places.
There is also the problem that, if I have a smaller place, my grandchildren (2 boys, 1 girl) won't be able to stay over whilst my daughter does a few night shifts on the maternity ward. Daughter will then lose the chance of a career, and be on some sort of benefit.

Heavy handed, the word I would use is draconian, over my life I have seen many badly thought out pieces of legislation - by governments of all persuasion, but never any that penalised vulnerable people they way this piece of legislation does.

There are rumours that Michael Gove got moved from Education because polling results shown to David Cameron, by those managing the party's election strategy, indicated that Michael Gove had become deeply unpopular with a large number of voters.

If the the Prime Minister was persuaded that Michael Gove could damage their chances of winning the next election if he remained at the Department of Education. I wonder why he was not persuaded that Iain Duncan Smith could also cause damage to their chances of winning the next election if he remained at the Department of Work & Pensions - his policies may well have adversely affected more voters than the number of voters who agree with his policies ;-)

Gove and IDS are still visible :-|

The government could cut the benefit bill with one slash - don't call state pensions - which have been paid into for years - benefits!!

It would be nice if they put a bit more effort into stopping tax dodgers.

Therein lies the problem.

State Pensions haven't been paid into for years - there is no pot of money accumulating as there is with a private pension fund. Every penny has to come from current income which is why they are treated as benefits.

No longer part of National Insurance or tax then?

I wonder where it all goes.......

Hmmmm.......If a state pension is called a Benefit......why is that not taken into account when a person is told that they cannot claim housing benefit unless they are on Benefits?.......Just asking!