Bedroom Tax

The fact that ministers don't listen to advice when they have a bee in their bonnet is so true.
This was obvious when when the then minister devised DLA to replace AA. He was convinced everybody would tell the truth about their needs.
The bill went through the roof and government wondered why.

Ana , you little sausage !

absent so true. You hear london-centric stuff like "parents should have choice of secondary schools" which is easy in London, less so in other cities and completely impossible if you live in a small town in the middle of somewhere like Shropshire.

Nonu, I'm afraid I misread a word in your post at first....[shocked]
Thought it was out of character!

Movedalot , just picked up on your post of 19/3, 14.01 as I have been pretty tucked up for the last couple of days .
Snap , perhaps she just got browned off with too much captiousness .

How about - move Parliament and maybe the stock exchange to say Manchester - or Leeds. Change the centre of gravity for the country. London house prices would drop. Population would move and even out. And there'd be no need for this silly new high speed train.

OK, we all agree that we could run the country better, so how? What would you do about the housing problem and how would you fund it?

Surely a large part of the problem with government decisions – and the frequent U-turns – is that some chap is put in charge of, say, the Department of Health, without having a clue about hospitals, doctors, nurses, general practice, dentistry, pharmacology, general health workers, community care, medical training, etc. etc. and feels obliged to make changes and make his (usually his) mark. Furthermore, most of them are London-centred where things are not always done in a way that is appropriate for the rest of the country. Then after off-loading the bee in the bonnet, said chap then moves on to a completely different department and makes his mark there.

No one takes the rap for bad decisions and the long-suffering public is left with the cost/inefficiency/bad service/no service – whatever – before another set of radical changes is introduced by another equally ignorant chap in charge.

How refreshing.

You're right, granjura, and those who don't lean strongly either to the left or the right tend to get irritated and frustrated by the entrenched views of those who do. If a compromise is put forward it's immediately shot down by one or the other...

Exactement, Orca.

The Right : it's all their fault so we refuse to do anything....

The Left : it's all their fault, and even more so... so we refuse to blablabla

and back again, and round and round.

Where one earth does that lead us ?

Jess - I agree. It's time we had a third chamber - of Gransnetters.

That's why nothing ever gets sorted in this country JessM. No one grasps that particular nettle. Granted not easy, but no one even tries, and so we go on, and on, and on.

Easier said than done I guess orca.
mamacaz it certainly does sound like a farce. The pie tax revisited on a grand scale. Oh and then there was the "all the foreign students in metropolitan university must turn round and go home" last September. I could go on.
I'm not sure if the civil servants fail to think things through or whether the ministers, once they have a nice sparkly new bit between their teeth insist on galloping off, shaking their heads and neighing, while the civil servants, having failed with the "yes minister but if we do that ..." line are just standing back and shaking their heads waiting for the fall at the first fence.
You would not think it would take a genius to work out the consequences of some of these ideas - just a few individuals with a modicum of practical sense sitting down for a meeting for a couple of hours and saying "If we do this, what are the consequences... just lets write them on a flip chart and then discuss the risks
I am told that ministers have the attention span of a gnat and won't listen to arguments against their ideas. It would appear to be true.

It's a shame when people have worked hard all their lives and through illness, redundancy, no fault of their own, are having their lives upset. But then there are those who have shirked all their lives and are shouting 'unfair'.
Surely someone can differentiate between the two and stop lumping them all together?

The whole thing is turning into a total farce.

One minute, ministers claim this will help reduce wefare spending, but it has been shown that this will only happen if people stay put and pay the "tax". If people move, it will actually increase spending!
The next minute, they claim it is aimed at making better use of housing stock. How can it, given that there is nowhere (other than the more costly private rented sector) for most people to go? And if they seriously wanted to make better use of housing stock, they could not exempt pensioners, since about half of the so-called 'spare' bedrooms are in their homes.

On top of that, the 'exemptions' supposedly given to certain groups by ministers are not what they claim. For example:

Not all pensioners are exempt.
Not all severely disabled people are exempt.
Not all people who need a room for a non-residential carer are exempt.
Not all foster parents are totally exempt.

Either the Government is deliberately misleading the public with its claims, or it is worryingly ignorant of its own policy. Which of those two possibilities is the worst, I wouldn't like to say!
In the meantime, what a shame that so many people are going to have their lives turned upside down as a result of this cruel, half-baked policy.

Oh, and they decide to re-name the policy the 'spare bedroom subsidy'. Yet another example of their incompetence, since in the same breath they talked of groups being 'exempt' from the subsidy - I'll leave you to work out what's wrong with that one for yourselves!

moved I understand and agree with your points. Obviously 'deserving poor' has now to be added to non PC words list. This is just petty point scoring on behalf of some members. We all know what is meant by the term and to hark back to the Victorian poorhouse beggars belief. (excuse the pun)

I, and anyone I know has compassion and sympathy for anyone who finds themselves on hard times and in no way would condem or label them. I would imagine most people, certainly those I know, would think 'there but for the grace of God'

The 'undeserving' ? Well yes, actually. Are we denying that people have claimed benefits they weren't entitled to? Is it non PC to suggest that there are people who have no intention of working or contributing to society? Head and sand spring to mind.

Just off now, sneering, to kick the dog and slap the staff.

bluebell I think the term 'undeserving poor' has been taken as it was meant in the Victorian times which I didn't know until today. I simply use it at its face value. I have made negative comments about people who could get work and look after themselves but choose not too and I make no apology for that. I would be surprised if anyone on here disagreed with that. If I am wrong I would like to hear from those who approve of people taking advantage of the rest of us. We all know such people exist unless someone wants to prove otherwise. I hope that makes it clear.

when I wrote: "the whole ten pages of the first one". I didn't look any futher!

Oh Ana, Moved and Absent -lay off - don't you realise how your comments are coming across? And for the record I think a fair few people on GN have made very negative comments about the ' undeserving ' poor

I presume the same one - I think she was just saying that the first of the discussions was 10 pages long.

That's the one I found Ana. I wonder where Moved has been looking?

One page with 76 discussions. Some of the discussions/threads obviously run to many pages each...

Not the same if you've got 10 pages Moved. We're obviously looking at different layouts - this one takes a minute to navigate.

Absent

MamaCaz you seem to have a good grasp of the current issues for certain groups. There are so many contradictions in the policies of this coalition government. They don't appear to talk to each other!

When I think its the same. I only looked at the first one and that was 10 pages long! I couldn't b a....d to waste any more time on it.

Yes absent it amused me greatly too! The thought of someone bothering to trawl through all those was very absurd.

Don't forget the 67 000 pensioners in a mixed-age couple (where one is below retirement age). Despite IDS's claims that they are exempt if already receiving Pension Credit, there are many circumstances that can and will end that protection. Then to that 67 000, we need to add all those other mixed-age couples who find themselves in need of benefits from April onwards. I don't think there's any doubt at all that there will be pensioners who are affected by this right from the start.

I'm sure you were talking generally about pensioners not being affected, and I'm not trying to panic anyone, because it's true that for the time being the vast majority won't be. However, I just wanted to make it clear to anyone reading this that there are some pensioners who will be hit by it.