Could you live on £7.50 a day?

[vetran]

if they had made the 'spare bedroom benefit adjustment' payable after the tenant had been offered and refused 3 suitable alternatives it would have been totally defensible. Now it just looks like a spiteful attack on claimants.

[formant]

if they had made the 'spare bedroom benefit adjustment' payable after the tenant had been offered and refused 3 suitable alternatives it would have been totally defensible. Now it just looks like a spiteful attack on claimants.

Yeah. I mean even if they offered just one suitable alternative...! As it stands it's absolutely indefensible.

[VectraMan]

if they had made the 'spare bedroom benefit adjustment' payable after the tenant had been offered and refused 3 suitable alternatives it would have been totally defensible. Now it just looks like a spiteful attack on claimants.

How much spare social housing do you think councils have? And that's assuming we are talking council tenants; much if not most of housing benefit goes to private landlords. Are you suggesting the state hire thousands of extra civil servants to find new accommodation for private tenants?

This is a wrong being righted. Inevitably any change has some negative effects, and some people appear to lose out unfairly, but that's not reason enough to stop trying to improve things.

[VectraMan]

I think that's the crux of the matter. The whole debate is a lot of bollocks, polarised and politicised and what we actually need is some smart people to take a step back, look at the situation and think "how can we sort this out". Unfortunately the nature of modern Britain means that the necessary smart people are either busy thinking "how can we make money out of this" or busy making money out of something else.

I think the problem is the people in charge are thinking "how can I get votes out of this". No government can do what's actually in the interests of the country for fear that it'll cost them the next election.

Oh dear, we really are proper ****ed aren't we.

Yep.

[formant]

How much spare social housing do you think councils have? And that's assuming we are talking council tenants; much if not most of housing benefit goes to private landlords. Are you suggesting the state hire thousands of extra civil servants to find new accommodation for private tenants?

This is a wrong being righted. Inevitably any change has some negative effects, and some people appear to lose out unfairly, but that's not reason enough to stop trying to improve things.

With social housing however, the 'wrong' has got nothing to do with the tenants. They were allocated whatever flat/house was available at the time - which, in many circumstances was larger than necessary.
You can't penalise people for something they have zero control over. Would have been a bit different if this only affected housing benefit recipients in privately rented accommodation.

[OwlHoot]

I reckon the Government probably assumes most "spare" bedrooms are being sub-let anyway, especially by benefit claimants.

[Zippy]

I reckon the Government probably assumes most "spare" bedrooms are being sub-let anyway, especially by benefit claimants.

It probably goes on, but not declaring that income is fraud.

Of course there is a problem in that we don't have enough smaller properties for people to move into. If the government insists on making people work for their benefits, why not get them doing something useful like renovating derelict properties?(still quite a few I think). I'm sure there are plenty of folk who'd like the chance to learn something useful (or put all those unemployed builders, roofers etc. to good use).
Nope - instead we pay Tesco or Poundland to teach them to operate an alarm clock for a few months. I know actually skilling people up would be more expensive, but surely it would be cheaper in the long run?

[Peoplesoft bloke]

Here we go! The affluent priviliged man sneering at the system that puts him into the planets elite ...Blah Blah hypocrisy)etc

The discussions should be on making everything work not about ideology

I agree with you about ideology - which is why it's so tragic that you just keep whining about hypocrisy all the time.

As others have observed since - crappy party dogma is distorting everything and giving up TorLIb and NuLie policies that are all as bad.

[VectraMan]

With social housing however, the 'wrong' has got nothing to do with the tenants. They were allocated whatever flat/house was available at the time - which, in many circumstances was larger than necessary.

From the sound of it, it's more like people were allocated a house big enough for them and their children, and then the children moved out. If the parent was being completely honest, and only accepting what they needed from the state, they should have gone back and asked for a smaller place. But why would you when the state will pay for you to have a spare room, no questions asked?

I can't imagine there are that many single people who were allocated 4 bedroom houses, for example. And if they were, then that system clearly needs a radical overhaul too.

[darmstadt]

IDS could quite easily live on 7.50 a day as he expects the taxpayer to pay for his underwear: House of Commons - Standards and Privileges - Written Evidence

Not documented in this email but particularly pertinent to this scheduled meeting was the widespread concern that Mr Duncan Smith was not paying for his own personal expenses—which included his lunches, haircuts, food for his own home, a mirror for his flat, his laundry and the purchase of underwear. In November 2002, I had been obliged to present Mr Duncan Smith with a list of expenses which had been incurred on his behalf and paid for, in the first instance, by his staff who were then reimbursed by CCO. I recollect that sum to have been in excess of £400. He always took considerable time to present a cheque—a fact which caused me great concern as I was determined to ensure that we improved financial controls in his office. All of these facts had also already been discussed privately with the Chief Executive and Mr Paterson as well as within the context of the weekly communications meetings.

The other item I raised for discussion with Mr Paterson was an apparently cavalier attitude with which we appeared to be treating our most regular donors—those with private planes who frequently lent them to Mr Duncan Smith if requested. These issues were considered once again to be so sensitive that Mr Paterson was delegated to raise them with the Leader. It was against this background and these on-going concerns that I felt obliged to send my email at all.