Labour solution to their so-called 'bedroom tax'...

[DMN]

andymadmak said:

Fine thanks, Thank you for asking.

Glad to hear old bean.

[Deva Link]

Funk said:

...reclassify 2-bedroom properties as 1-bedroom. You really couldn't make it up.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshi...

You're being ridiculous.

It's standard practice not to put families with kids in tower blocks so that would mean the 2 bedroom flats would be un-lettable.

[youngsyr]

Deva Link said:

Funk said:

...reclassify 2-bedroom properties as 1-bedroom. You really couldn't make it up.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshi...

You're being ridiculous.

It's standard practice not to put families with kids in tower blocks so that would mean the 2 bedroom flats would be un-lettable.

WHY????!!!

Why can't you put families in there?

Why can't you put two single (unrelated) adults in there?

All I hear from the "Bedroom Tax" supporters is "you can't do X, you can't do Y", well why the hell not? Plenty of people in the private sector do exactly X and Y AND PAY FOR THE PRIVILEGE!!

[/rant]

[Oakey]

youngsyr said:

WHY????!!!

Why can't you put families in there?

Why can't you put two single (unrelated) adults in there?

All I hear from the "Bedroom Tax" supporters is "you can't do X, you can't do Y", well why the hell not? Plenty of people in the private sector do exactly X and Y AND PAY FOR THE PRIVILEGE!!

[/rant]

Because social housing tenants are special?

They should be given a property, for life, regardless of whether there is space surplus to requirements.

When they die, their offspring should then get first refusal to keep living in that property.

They should also get new kitchens, bathrooms, glazing, doors, roofing, guttering, etc periodically.

And all of this should be paid for by you.

And if you try to take any of this from them? Well fk you, you monster.

[Twincam16]

andymadmak said:

Twincam16 said:

andymadmak said:

Ahh Ricky Tomlinson. Former fascist National Front member...serving a couple of years in jail for his part in a disgusting violent attack that left a man with life changing injuries
Not.

Evidence? Otherwise I can imagine a comment like that could well land PH in very hot water.

His own biography - lots of press articles, Wiki etc.. Google is your friend

He didn't serve time in jail for 'a disgusting violent attack that left a man with life-changing injuries' though - it was for 'intimidation and affray', not assault.

[youngsyr]

Oakey said:

youngsyr said:

WHY????!!!

Why can't you put families in there?

Why can't you put two single (unrelated) adults in there?

All I hear from the "Bedroom Tax" supporters is "you can't do X, you can't do Y", well why the hell not? Plenty of people in the private sector do exactly X and Y AND PAY FOR THE PRIVILEGE!!

[/rant]

Because social housing tenants are special?

They should be given a property, for life, regardless of whether there is space surplus to requirements.

When they die, their offspring should then get first refusal to keep living in that property.

They should also get new kitchens, bathrooms, glazing, doors, roofing, guttering, etc periodically.

And all of this should be paid for by you.

And if you try to take any of this from them? Well fk you, you monster.

All joking and ranting aside, I think most of the people who are for the reduction in housing benefit for spare rooms understand that not all recipients are scrounging career-layabouts/baby factories, that that the media find the most extreme cases to get our p!ss boiling and most would agree that it would be nice to have a high standard of housing for those in need, but the current system is broken and unaffordable in the long term.

It is pretty much indefensible and it seems to me that all the attempts to do so are just laughable when you consider what's going on in the private housing market.

[andymadmak]

Twincam16 said:

He didn't serve time in jail for 'a disgusting violent attack that left a man with life-changing injuries' though - it was for 'intimidation and affray', not assault.

Please read what I said again. I said " his part in a disgusting violent attack etc" The intimidation and affray were what the court used to describe Mr Tomlinsons antics, with his cohorts, when faced with workers who refused to join the builders strike. I can't be arsed to go googling at the moment, but if you do, you'll find the testimony somewhere of one of the poor chaps who got his head stoved in (literally) by people who were annoyed that he had decided not to join the strike and instead chose to cross the picket lines. I think I am correct in saying that one of the victims suffered such injuries as to never be able to work again. Still, if Mr Tomlinson sees himself as the TRUE victim then who am I to argue?

[Camoradi]

DMN said:

So where is all the social housing for these people to downgrade too?

Well?

Perhaps two single people in two bedroom flats could share, freeing up one of their flats for two more people to make use of.

Like working people do, until they can afford a place of their own.

[youngsyr]

Camoradi said:

DMN said:

So where is all the social housing for these people to downgrade too?

Well?

Perhaps two single people in two bedroom flats could share, freeing up one of their flats for two more people to make use of.

Like working people do, until they can afford a place of their own.

Every graduate I know (and we're talking dozens here) shared a place when they first started working. I know two who are still renting in a shared flat/house and they're in their mid 30s.

I'm pretty sure that all those who now own their properties only bought once they'd settled down with a partner, so effectively have never lived alone in their adult life.

Aparently this is not good enough for our lower/unpaid countrymen though?