Opposition grows to benefit cap
Discussion
paddyhasneeds said:
Oh I'm sure I'd be less put out by it, but I still don't agree with the principle. Tbh the thing that's surprised me is that I don't recall ever seeing the bishops in the Lords before. Of course that's not to say that they aren't usually there, simply that I don't recall seeing them in anything I've seen on the news before.
Its a historical thing anyway, they have been trying to reform the Lords for a long time from what I understand and it will probably be cut down big time eventually.B Huey said:
0a said:
It's telling that almost every single comment on the BBC website (yes the BBC!!!!) is pro the £26k cap. Labour may have messed up by insisting on a wrecking amendment. The Tories should stand firm on this - they are unambiguously in the right, and in line with public opinion. Parliament act, please, and another demolition of Millibean on PMQs.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16675314
A lot of people agreed with poll tax, it didn't do Thatcher much good.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16675314
Telegraph said:
Long before churchmen, Liberal Democrats and independent peers plotted to vote against a £26,000 cap on benefits, Mr Cameron had got the support he wanted for a key element of his welfare reforms. A YouGov poll showing that 76 per cent of the public approved of the cap contained even better news for the PM: that figure included 69 per cent of Labour voters.
This should be a dreadful week for the Prime Minister. The Government’s ill-starred NHS reforms have attracted the scorn of the Health Select Committee, cuts to legal aid have invited widespread fury, and anxiety over a welfare Bill described by Lord Ashdown as “completely unfair” is prising the Coalition apart.
And yet Ed Miliband found himself yesterday morning in the not-unfamiliar role of loser. By saying that Labour supported a benefits cap in principle but objected to the terms in which it was framed, the party appeared to occupy a no man’s land. On one side stood objectors appalled by Iain Duncan Smith’s plans to cap household benefit so that workless families, however large and needy, cannot exceed the limit. The measure, according to the Children’s Society, would make up to 80,000 children homeless.
Oh, I suspect the Children's Society should say "80,000 children to move house" not be made homeless. This should be a dreadful week for the Prime Minister. The Government’s ill-starred NHS reforms have attracted the scorn of the Health Select Committee, cuts to legal aid have invited widespread fury, and anxiety over a welfare Bill described by Lord Ashdown as “completely unfair” is prising the Coalition apart.
And yet Ed Miliband found himself yesterday morning in the not-unfamiliar role of loser. By saying that Labour supported a benefits cap in principle but objected to the terms in which it was framed, the party appeared to occupy a no man’s land. On one side stood objectors appalled by Iain Duncan Smith’s plans to cap household benefit so that workless families, however large and needy, cannot exceed the limit. The measure, according to the Children’s Society, would make up to 80,000 children homeless.
Shadow apologist Byrn on Newsnight now - a new rent-a-bite:
"whopping new bill for homelessness." to be foisted on councils due to the bill, hence the Labour amendment. Said at least three times.
Paxman questioning right of Bishops to interfere, to the Bishop of Leicester (still one there? quelle surprise).
"whopping new bill for homelessness." to be foisted on councils due to the bill, hence the Labour amendment. Said at least three times.
Paxman questioning right of Bishops to interfere, to the Bishop of Leicester (still one there? quelle surprise).
crankedup said:
jbi said:
Social housing creates deprived areas, while losing money we can not afford.
No go.
Social housing used to create areas that might have been described as 'unsavoury'. Nowadays that has been identified and the solution to build a mix of private and social within the same development has resolved that particular problem. Having said that I would not want to live on such a development with my personal money sunk into bricks and mortar.No go.
Firstly, mixing people up hasn't resolved that particular problem. It has just meant that now low to middle income working families are living next door to dole scrounging scum, rather than on a different estate.
Secondly, the fact that you wouldn't want to live there yourself says it all. All about the supposed fix, and all about the lefty, who believes it's quite alright to impose these stupid experiments on people so long as they don't affect the lefty himself.
How about everyone just pays for their own housing? Sounds crazy but it might just work.
Hi Guys
Just to clear things up on HB, it's now paid direct to the Landlord.
This is because when it was paid direct to the claimant some unscrupulousness people they'd spend it on other things such as drugs etc.
Then the Landlord would have all sorts of problems to evict because the claimants would pay say 70% of their rent and it would be hard to evict as the claimants would promise to pay the arrears thus AFAIK bypassing the eviction process.
Also it's correct that each council has limits on rent and combined with the lack of social housing makes it quite hard for single people w/o kids to locate housing, as many private landlords don't want DSS tenants.
How do I know this? Well I lost my house because I was put onto the wrong unemployment benefit and therefore wasn't eligible to receive help to pay my mortgage on an interest only basis and therefore lost my house.....
So it meant having to move back to my parents for almost a year before I could find a private landlord which would take DSS.
I just wanted to clear up a few misunderstandings on this thread.
Just to clear things up on HB, it's now paid direct to the Landlord.
This is because when it was paid direct to the claimant some unscrupulousness people they'd spend it on other things such as drugs etc.
Then the Landlord would have all sorts of problems to evict because the claimants would pay say 70% of their rent and it would be hard to evict as the claimants would promise to pay the arrears thus AFAIK bypassing the eviction process.
Also it's correct that each council has limits on rent and combined with the lack of social housing makes it quite hard for single people w/o kids to locate housing, as many private landlords don't want DSS tenants.
How do I know this? Well I lost my house because I was put onto the wrong unemployment benefit and therefore wasn't eligible to receive help to pay my mortgage on an interest only basis and therefore lost my house.....
So it meant having to move back to my parents for almost a year before I could find a private landlord which would take DSS.
I just wanted to clear up a few misunderstandings on this thread.
Dixie68 said:
So those unelected god-botherers have managed to scotch this in the house of lords. Serious question: why are these fantasists in the house of lords?
Back in the last government, they were the only thing stopping completely bats
t insane legislation going through. Usually to do with 'terror' laws.They're a mixed bag imo.
Benjurs said:
Hi Guys
Just to clear things up on HB, it's now paid direct to the Landlord.
This is because when it was paid direct to the claimant some unscrupulousness people they'd spend it on other things such as drugs etc.
Then the Landlord would have all sorts of problems to evict because the claimants would pay say 70% of their rent and it would be hard to evict as the claimants would promise to pay the arrears thus AFAIK bypassing the eviction process.
Also it's correct that each council has limits on rent and combined with the lack of social housing makes it quite hard for single people w/o kids to locate housing, as many private landlords don't want DSS tenants.
How do I know this? Well I lost my house because I was put onto the wrong unemployment benefit and therefore wasn't eligible to receive help to pay my mortgage on an interest only basis and therefore lost my house.....
So it meant having to move back to my parents for almost a year before I could find a private landlord which would take DSS.
I just wanted to clear up a few misunderstandings on this thread.
No its not paid to the landlord, it is paid to the tenant.Just to clear things up on HB, it's now paid direct to the Landlord.
This is because when it was paid direct to the claimant some unscrupulousness people they'd spend it on other things such as drugs etc.
Then the Landlord would have all sorts of problems to evict because the claimants would pay say 70% of their rent and it would be hard to evict as the claimants would promise to pay the arrears thus AFAIK bypassing the eviction process.
Also it's correct that each council has limits on rent and combined with the lack of social housing makes it quite hard for single people w/o kids to locate housing, as many private landlords don't want DSS tenants.
How do I know this? Well I lost my house because I was put onto the wrong unemployment benefit and therefore wasn't eligible to receive help to pay my mortgage on an interest only basis and therefore lost my house.....
So it meant having to move back to my parents for almost a year before I could find a private landlord which would take DSS.
I just wanted to clear up a few misunderstandings on this thread.
It will only be paid to the landlord when the tenant has not been paying his rent for a couple of months, ie at the point you can evict.
I learnt this to my cost when my tenant did not pay any rent, even though they were collecting the full rent in HB.
roachcoach said:
Dixie68 said:
So those unelected god-botherers have managed to scotch this in the house of lords. Serious question: why are these fantasists in the house of lords?
Back in the last government, they were the only thing stopping completely batst insane legislation going through. Usually to do with 'terror' laws.They're a mixed bag imo.
What will happen if 'we' continue with this conceit and feel we have to allow the Pixie devotees to be represented for some historical, traditional practice that we are too twitchy to remove, or through this ever present neurosis that says we all have to be respectful to the deluded, well, so long as they have a book?
To be more representative as society changes will they add in Sikhs, Hindus, Buddhists, Catholics and, my favourite flavour, Muslims? You can just imagine the voting patterns and impact on bills around things like scientific research, gene therapy, legalisation of suicide, homosexuality etc.
Bill presented on clarifying property rights in same sexed relationships...
"Those in favour..?"
"My Lords, we propose an amendment to the Bill.."
"The amendment is?"
"We propose to amend the Bill adding that said co-habitees be thrown from The London Eye into the Thames."
What could go wrong?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff