[Closed] Bedroom tax,what's the fuss?

They should make her get a lodger in.

"tax" ?

not a tax. it's a reduction of benefits. if you don't get said benefits, you're not affected

They'll be plenty of takers in central London when the "reforms" kick in 🙂
johndrummer mea culpa "spare room subsidy"

My only problem with it is that in a fair world, the benefit reduction would only apply when a person turns down a suitable property and stays in a larger one, whereas as I understand it, it will be applied to everyone despite the majority not having the option to move and reduce the number of bedrooms.

As with all of these propose a better solution of moving people with houses bigger/more expensive than their needs with smaller houses. I'm guessing if they were footing the bill themselves they would have moved by now already....

It should also free up larger social houses for those that are crammed in smaller ones and on waiting lists.

The policy implementation may be blunt but the outcomes may be better.

Perhaps assistance with moving and proactive finding of other properties/swaps would work.

2 points I can see in favour.
Why should someone in a subsidised house have spare rooms when there is overcrowding and waiting lists elsewhere?
Why should tax payers subsidise bigger houses than are required?
If it means someone has to move out of an area, tough. We can't all afford to live where we want to.
.
On a related point, I think we should abolish the idea of a council house for life too. To pick an example, Bob Crow, union leader. He got a council house when he needed one. Fair enough. He now earns £80k and so no longer needs it, but still lives in it, subsidised by us all,he should move out to free it up for someone who really does need it. A council house should be given to people who need it, for as long as they need it, but no longer.

Show me the evidence that council houses (although most have now been transferred to housing associations)are subsidised by us all?
All the figures I have seen show that tenants have paid for them many times over.As far as I could see from the figures that Manchester City council used to publish on their website and in the breakdown of how your rent was spent the tenants were actually subsidising the council and it's other services.

What spooky said.

Show me the evidence that council houses (although most have now been transferred to housing associations)are subsidised by us all?

Council Houses are rented at lower than Market Rates.

They could be rented out for more, but the rents are "subsidised" by the council.

All the figures I have seen show that tenants have paid for them many times over.

Isn't that precisely the argument the Tories used when justifying selling off council houses at knockdown prices to tenants ?

the rents are "subsidised" by the council.

So where does this "subsidy" go, ie, who receives it ?

They could be rented out for more,

Council Houses are rented at lower than Market Rates.

So where does this "subsidy" go, ie, who receives it ?

The occupant presumably as they occupy for less than market rent if there is such a thing, which I doubt in some areas. I don't think his usage was an abuse of the word whereas its use in "spare room subsidy" probably is, but I guess that was meeting one abuse of language with another. It is a sad reflection of modern political reporting that as much time is spent on which is the better use of language than the policy at issue.

One of the biggest issues identified locally is the lack of one bedroom properties. Lots of couples/single adults, who's kids have left home and now have spare room(s), have space when grandkids come, a place for family to stay etc are having benefits cut to subsidise spare rooms, but there is no where to move to!

we've done rather nicely out of it

we were living in a cramped two bed, with youngest in a cot in the front room.. (he is abominably loud and doesn't sleep well, there is no chance he could share a room with our oldest)
anyhoo.. we needed a third bedroom, and wanted to move back to our home town, and a nice lady there had a larger three bed with only one kid left at home..

we swapped houses, I've given up smoking and drinking to pay the bedroom tax

everyone is a winner 8)

The occupant presumably as they occupy for less than market rent if there is such a thing

So the tenant is handed over money which is then spent on their rent ? I don't think so.

If there was a subsidy then it would go directly to the landlord, in this case the local authority. But as rents over the years more than cover the cost of the build, according to the Tories, then there is no subsidy. In fact there has to reach a point when the rent eventually just becomes profit.

If there was a subsidy, then it would go directly to the landlord, in this case the local authority. But as rents over the years more than cover the cost of the build, according to the Tories, there is no subsidy. In fact there has to reach a point when the rent eventually just becomes profit.

OK then so the profit goes to the local authority - good thing?
The tenant can still access housing at an affordable rate?
People who can't rent in the private sector can get houses?
Only somebody missing the point would equate build cost to overall cost of housing, repairs, maintenance, gaps in occupancy need to be accounted etc.

Housing Associations receive a grant from central government, this is a subsidy, they also raise funds independently using debt. They charge rent which covers interest, repairs and potentially new investment. They are not required to return the grant or make a return on it so that essentially enables them to offer lower rents than someone who does not receive such a grant. This is an indirect subsidy to the tenants.

I struggle to understand the economic logic behind council house sales, although the electoral logic was self evident.

Only somebody missing the point would equate build cost to overall cost of housing, repairs, maintenance, gaps in occupancy need to be accounted etc.

You think rent doesn't cover repairs and maintenance ? I think [i]you[/i] might be missing the point 🙂

gaps in occupancy

😀 A staggering cost to the taxpayer no doubt.

With a most inhuman cruelty, they who have put out the people's eyes reproach them of their blindness

we've done rather nicely out of it

we were living in a cramped two bed, with youngest in a cot in the front room.. (he is abominably loud and doesn't sleep well, there is no chance he could share a room with our oldest)
anyhoo.. we needed a third bedroom, and wanted to move back to our home town, and a nice lady there had a larger three bed with only one kid left at home..

we swapped houses, I've given up smoking and drinking to pay the bedroom tax

everyone is a winner

Are there a lot of people in a similar situation, do you think?

Are there a lot of people in a similar situation, do you think?

nooo, well... I don't know - I try to avoid thinking, Precariat you see.. 🙂

Although what I do know is that my neighbour has just roared off down the street to work and our sitting room is now full of diesel fumes from his car, even though our double glazed windows are firmly shut.. 😐

Bedroom tax!!! What about the MP second homes?

To ask people to downsize would be a reasonable request if any smaller properties were actually available to downsize too.

They're not. Something the government will have been well aware of.

So to ask people to do so, while being fully aware that its impossible to comply with the request, then sanctioning them financially for their lack of compliance is absolutely typical of the cynicism and casual cruelty of this government. I'm sure they heartily congratulated themselves when they devised this little wheeze

not a tax. it's a reduction of benefits. if you don't get said benefits, you're not affected

Moving small families out of big homes and into smaller ones does make sense on the surface but the way they are going about it is stupid (lets forget for the moment there aren't enough 1 and 2 bedroom houses to provide for these small families) and it doesn't take into account special cases. The families shouldn't have to move halfway across the country either.

wonder if this will have an affect on birth rates...

My only problem with it is that in a fair world, the benefit reduction would only apply when a person turns down a suitable property and stays in a larger one, whereas as I understand it, it will be applied to everyone despite the majority not having the option to move and reduce the number of bedrooms.

This.

Cynical and vindictive, designed to appeal to people's worst instincts, egged on by their cheerleaders in the tabloids. Depressing.

To ask people to downsize would be a reasonable request if any smaller properties were actually available to downsize too.

They're not. Something the government will have been well aware of.

So to ask people to do so, while being fully aware that its impossible to comply with the request, then sanctioning them financially for their lack of compliance is absolutely typical of the cynicism and casual cruelty of this government. I'm sure they heartily congratulated themselves when they devised this little wheeze

Exactly.

SO the government is either incompetent for not knowing the state of the housing stock or wilfully cruel for imposing this tax when they know people have no alternatives

I doubt it will even save any money.

SO the government is either incompetent for not knowing the state of the housing stock or wilfully cruel for imposing this tax when they know people have no alternatives

doesn't instil much faith does it..?
And it just makes me even sicker to hear folk on other threads defending this rabid shamble

The benefits system isn't fair, no matter which party started it, adjusted it or currently plans to overhaul it. Life isn't fair, don't expect benefits to be either.

Incompetent or cruel? This lot are most certainly both, but there's no doubt that this is yet another calculated assault on the poorest in society. They like that kind of thing. It plays well to Mail Readers.

In Hull, for example, 5,500 are deemed to be over-occupying, and have been told to downsize to a one bedroom property, or have benefits removed. However, Hulls social housing stock has 70 one bedroom properties available. The same applies across the country. Does anyone seriously believe the government didn't know this?

The benefits system isn't fair, no matter which party started it, adjusted it or currently plans to overhaul it. Life isn't fair, don't expect benefits to be either.

Yes but why make it worse/less fair purely to pander to the nasty instincts of Daily Mail readers?

In Hull, for example, 5,500 are deemed to be over-occupying, and have been told to downsize to a one bedroom property. However, Hulls social housing stock has 70 one bedroom properties available. The same applies across the country. Does anyone seriously believe the government didn't know this?

Blimey, are the private sector landlords the only ones capable of converting a semi into 2 flats?

I'm sure it's not rocket surgery to look at the available housing stock and work out a balance that is a best fit, I'm sure it won't be perfect but it will allow many to remain in the areas where they currently live.

If I go on holiday and hire a car for a week and rent a villa for a week - it doesn't make it MY car or villa. Even if I rent the car and villa for a year (or 10 years) it [b]still[/b] never becomes MY car or villa.
The same applies to a rented house (private or council) even when the occupant works and pays the rent themself.

So one of the fundamental problems is the attitude that has grown up over the last 40-50 years, that people in council houses, with the rent paid by benefits, somehow OWN the house and that it is THEIR house. It isn't.

Perhaps it is changing this attitude that is one of the Government's objectives.

Roger - Just a thought, but Maybe if local councils had the funds and resources available they 'd have done that already.
I don't know if you'd noticed, they've been having to deal with some ever-so-slight cuts to their budgets lately. This policy has also been rushed through with no consultation. As with everything else this lot do!

Ironically it's the private sector landlords who will benefit here. Social housing tenants will have to downsize into private landlords flats where rents are far higher. The end result? Housing benefit bills will actually increase. But of course the money will now going to the 'right people' as the government get to re-inflate the buy-to-let market/bubble yet again, particularly in the south east

What could possibly go wrong?

Subsidized council house rent - if a renter is paying less than the market rate for a house then it is being subsidized and the council is therefore not gaining as much money from it's capital investments as it could do. This is an opportunity cost to the council / tax payer.

robbespierre - Member
So one of the fundamental problems is the attitude that has grown up over the last 40-50 years, that people in council houses, with the rent paid by benefits, somehow OWN the house and that it is THEIR house. It isn't.

'Right to buy' might have had something to do with that attitude, and the reduction in our social housing stock.

Blimey, are the private sector landlords the only ones capable of converting a semi into 2 flats?

In the less salubrious areas of Hull, it'd surely never be worth doing that conversion though, and to suggest that councils do it would be stupid; the cost of conversion of a terrace into two one bed flats would probably cost a similar amount of money to the cost of buying a second terraced house. To put it in perspective, there are areas where a 2 bed terrace house can cost less than 20K. By the time they'd fitted even a cheap kitchen, bathroom etc and divided things off, you'd be costing them most of the cost of buying a completely new house.

So in order to save a tiny bit of housing benefit, they'd spend thousands of pounds converting essentially valueless houses, money which they could just as easily have spent on buying a few more similar sized houses (or just have not spent if the extra housing isn't needed). Brilliant idea.

Just imagine they take a step further, with all the houses on mortgages, that are under occupied, but the residents have lost their jobs are are curently geting council tax benefit and the intrest paid on their mortgages.

Perhaps stop this after say 6 weeks long enough to get a new job, or the house has to be sold for whatever value that pays off the mortgage, and the residents move, or its given to someone on the housing list in need and the local housing assosiation carry on with the repayments for the new tennants.

A win win situation for all .

I think the figure for Bob Crow's salary of £80K further up the thread is wrong - the last thing I read put his total package at around £145K in 2009 and it's presumably gone up since then.

Given his limited living costs it's reasonable to assume that red Bob is actually a millionaire living in a council house subsidised by everyone else (given that he's unlikely to be paying market rent and hence the council is not achieving the maximum income for it).

So one of the fundamental problems is the attitude that has grown up over the last 40-50 years, that people in council houses, with the rent paid by benefits, somehow OWN the house and that it is THEIR house. It isn't.

It is their HOME though. That fact is indisputable.

That, and the fact that they are part of a local community. Forcing them to move for purely economic reasons ignores this, and the impact of such measures. Not that the tories care about the social impact of their policies; after all, they don't affect they themselves at all.

Stop thinking that such things are being done because they are 'necessary'. What is necessary, is to break down social barriers, and encourage better interaction and cohesion between members of society. Such a move will not actually 'save' money, as there will need to be a greater expenditure to fix the resultant issues. Things like this (and many other attacks on the poorest in our society) are being done for purely ideological reasons; crush the poor, starve them a little, make them grateful for whatever crumbs are then thrown at them.

[i]Divide et impera.[/i]

Bob Crow - The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.

When there is no way to argue the actual points, mention Bob Crow.

Why the tory obsession with Bob Crow? Regardless of his wealth, he is not a homeowner. And he will be paying full rent, as he earns above any threshold which would qualify him for any benefit. And I'd imagine, over his life he has probably paid well over even the 'market value' for his property, in rent, and is now 'subsidising' other people's housing. And given that he has been extremely instrumental in getting better pay and conditions for hundreds of thousands of other people during his career, I'd say he's done a tad more for greater society than pretty much anyone on here. Yet you'd begrudge him even a modest home on a council estate? And where is it that you live? What's your home like? How many times have you managed to help secure better pay and conditions for other people?

Mudshark; how ironic, that someone who professes to have 'upper class' roots, can accuse another of having their snout in the trough. 😐

That, and the fact that they are part of a local community. Forcing them to move for purely economic reasons ignores this, and the impact of such measures.

We all sometimes have to move for purely economic reasons!
This is the 21st century, not the 19th Century!!
Millions of people move country for economic reasons, never mind move town or street.

Some people expect to be totally insulated, by the state, from the realities of life!

This is an opportunity cost to the council / tax payer.

We all sometimes have to move for purely economic reasons!

That's fine, when it's your own choice and such a move will benefit you and your family. A different story if it's someone else forcing you to move for ideological reasons, in a manner that's detrimental to your own situation.

This is the 21st century, not the 19th Century!!

And people should not be forced out of their homes simply because the tories claim it's 'necessary'. Because it isn't. What is necessary, is for we as a society to address the issues of housing, and build more for those that need them. Oh, but that would push house values down. Not something a tory government would want.

Again; stop thinking this is about 'necessity', because it's not. It's all about [i]ideology[/i].

Mudshark; how ironic, that someone who professes to have 'upper class' roots, can accuse another of having their snout in the trough.

I don't follow. I ain't upper class if that helps you?

"Bedroom tax; what's all the fuss?"
Well, here's how I see it.People in social housing and living on benefits aren't always the lifestyle unemployed scroungers. Many are people on benefits due to disability or chronic mental health problems. Until the health service has the resources to help them, they're effectively on the scrapheap ~ discarded by society. A single person housed in a two bed flat won't always have the alternative of a one bedroomed premises as councils simply don't have them. Moving costs money too. Ok for you or I, we hire a man with a van or truck and move ~ a person without a pot to piss in can't do that. Plus there are always other associated costs with a move. Where they live, vulnerable people also have roots, friends and a support network; all that is lost if they move to another area which can compound isolation. As it stands now, people will typically have to find £10 to £20 per week out of their meagre benefits to top up the rent. Not even IDS could manage that. At the last budget, I come out about £195 per annum better off. I'd rather not have that money and that people who need it had it.

"Market rate" in housing is utterly distorted.

We've got a huge house price bubble, and governments will do anything they can to prop it up (e.g. offering to subsidise people's deposits) because they're terrified of the ramifications of large numbers of middle class baby boomers suddenly finding out much of their wealth is built on:

a) Hot air/asset overvaluation
b) A huge "trickle-up" from the younger and poorer as a result of the inflated rents and property prices they end up paying to get a roof over their head, as a result of (a).

Until housing is a proper, un-propped-up, undistorted actual market, it's brutal to base social housing policy on "market rates"

I don't follow. I ain't upper class if that helps you?

So, you've never benefited from any social institutions yourself? Such as state education? State healthcare? Emergency services? Etc?

Bob Crow chooses to remain in a flat he pays full rent for. Why do you have a problem with that?

Are they allowed to take in lodgers? Maybe the answer is to give the option of taking in a council nominated lodger? Not very appealing I'm sure but if there's a rental benefit then it could help some?

And people should not be forced out of their homes simply because the tories claim it's 'necessary'.

As per my first post. There is an issue with the attitude of "their" homes.
If I lose my job and can't pay my mortgage, then very soon afterwards "my house" will become the bank's house.

I am all for house price stability/gently falling, but that is an entirely different issue.

Bob Crow chooses to remain in a flat he pays full rent for. Why do you have a problem with that?

He pays less than he would if it was a private sector flat, his place could be occupied by someone who needs it; so yeah that's not so great.

Bob Crow chooses to remain in a flat he pays full rent for. Why do you have a problem with that?

It's OK Bob, nobody's getting at you 😉 😛

As per my first post. There is an issue with the attitude of "their" homes.

And what's wrong with that? What's wrong with someone establishing a home? Everyone needs a home, wouldn't you agree? Everyone has the right to a home, regardless of wealth, no?

If I lose my job and can't pay my mortgage, then very soon afterwards "my house" will become the bank's house.

And I suppose you'd just shrug, accept it and move on? What if you were forced to move far from friends, family etc? What if you relied upon those close networks for support?

There are myriad factors you're simply not seeing/choosing to ignore.

I am all for house price stability/gently falling, but that is an entirely different issue.

I'd quite like to see house prices crash to such an extent they were brought back in line with peoples' earnings. So that more people were able to afford their own homes, and knee-jerk Daily Mailers didn't get so wound up about other folk living in social housing.

He pays less than he would if it was a private sector flat, his place could be occupied by someone who needs it; so yeah that's not so great.

What he pays is irrelevant. He needs a home; why shouldn't he continue to occupy the one he's got?

[url= http://www.****/news/article-2004880/Bob-Crow-Champagne--650-lunches-sickening-hypocrisy.html ]Crow turned down the right to buy the modest end-of-terrace property in Woodford Green because he ‘believes social housing stock should remain available for future generations’.[/url]

From the Daily Mail, no less. 😕 So, Bob is actually ensuring that the home he lives in remains in the 'public' sector, rather than become private property. Sticking to his ideals and principles. Admirable.

Do you have any spare rooms? Will you be offering them to needy people? Or will you just expect someone else to do that?

And you haven't answered my earlier questions re education, healthcare etc.

Everyone has the right to a home, regardless of wealth, no?

There needs to be a serious rebalancing of rights and responsibilities throughout our society - not just for people on benefits.

And you haven't answered my earlier questions re education, healthcare etc.

Not sure why it's relevant; if I was taking advantage of a soup kitchen then that would be a fair comparison - I could do get away with it but I would deserve to be considered a right ar5e.

I have twice uprooted myself from an established home area in order to find work - not ideal but I didn't have the choice of staying put in social housing.

And this change only brings the social housing benefit claimants in line with the rules for those claiming in the private rented sector, albeit with more exemptions.

The issue is made worse by lack of investment in social housing by governments over the last 30 years. And both parties have been in power for big chunks of that time.

Our welfare state provides a safety net that protects people from being homeless, starving or dying from curable illness.
It does not give people a "right" to the home that they want in the area that they prefer.

Actually, our laws do give people the right to have somewhere to live (as long as they satisfy certain criteria). And if you do qualify, then it is the legal duty of the local authority to provide you with suitable housing.

No one mentioned anything about 'he home that they want in the area that they prefer'. That's you, trying to introduce another caveat to support your disintegrating argument.

Most social housing tends to be in 'less desirable' areas. That some of those areas have become 'desirable' by those seeking cheap properties in an overinflated market (that's your '[u]right[/u] to buy' scheme working there), does not mean that those already living in an area are no longer entitled to live in a community they have helped create, simply because someone with more money wants rid of them. That's called 'social cleansing', and is socially very destructive.

There needs to be a serious rebalancing of rights and responsibilities throughout our society - not just for people on benefits.

You're right. Maybe people should not buy up social housing simply because they want to own their own home, then? Because this deprives others who need housing, somewhere to live.

Not sure why it's relevant; if I was taking advantage of a soup kitchen then that would be a fair comparison - I could do get away with it but I would deserve to be considered a right ar5e.

No it wouldn't. You're now resorting to desperate measures because your argument is flawed.

Bob Crow needed a home. A local authority provided him with one. He still needs a home, and he pays to live there.

Did you receive a university education in the UK? If so, did you pay all of your fees? If not, and if you are in a financial position to do so, are you paying back those fees?

That's a fair comparison.

You're right. Maybe people should not buy up social housing simply because they want to own their own home, then? Because this deprives others who need housing, somewhere to live.

Ah, so you only object to people [b]with[/b]money having a right to their own home?
😉

I was a labour party member fighting the right to buy in the late 80s, so don't preach to me!
However, we are where we are (as Tiger would say) and there will be no massive public investment in social housing for the forseeable future (probably ever), so it's pointless going over this ground again.

Ah, so you only object to people withmoney having a right to their own home?

No. Don't know where you got that idea from. 😕

I was a labour party member fighting the right to buy in the late 80s, so don't preach to me!

Yet you've now adopted tory values? 😕

He's getting subsidized accommodation he would not be eligible for if he didn't already have it - he can't be forced out so he stays; morally OK? You seem to think so but others don't.

I didn't stop anyone else going to Uni and everyone is allowed to go no matter how well off they are. But there are people waiting to move into a place such as Bob's house.

Our welfare state provides a safety net that protects people from being homeless, starving or dying from curable illness.
It does not give people a "right" to the home that they want in the area that they prefer.

nope it most certainly does not.. you are given an choice of allocated housing, suitable to your family's basic requirements, this will include taking into account your family support network eg. where you work and where your relatives live..

My family have been very lucky as a result of the new housing shakeup and have landed exactly where we want to be..

tee hee, and indeed, ner ner ne ner ner 😀

He's getting subsidized accommodation he would not be eligible for if he didn't already have it - he can't be forced out so he stays; morally OK? You seem to think so but others don't.

The 'subsidized' bit has already been done; it's not. Fact is, he was once eligible, and is still legally entitled to remain in his home. Which he pays full rent for, and I'd imagine has probably contributed more than it's market value in rent, over the years. So morally, there is absolutely no issue.

But there are people waiting to move into a place such as Bob's house.

But his home is not available at the moment, as he is occupying it. He needs somewhere to live, is legally entitled to remain there, so that's pretty much the end of that. He isn't preventing anyone else from having a home. Indeed, as I've already stated; he's probably now helping to subsidize social housing for others. That there is a social housing shortage isn't Bob Crow's fault; for that, you must look to the sell off of public housing and the lack of replacement. But it's easy to blame someone who you are ideologically opposed to, rather than look at the failings within your own ideologies. Did Bob Crow create the housing bubble that means many people can't afford to buy their own home? No. Who did?

I didn't stop anyone else going to Uni and everyone is allowed to go no matter how well off they are

You having a place at uni would have prevented someone else from going, using your logic, as there is a finite amount of places.

If you could afford it, why did you not go to a private university, and leave that place for someone unable to pay for private education?

Please give me some figures to prove that he isn't getting cheap accommodation. As for Uni - my courses weren't maxed out, not that I could have afforded to pay for my education back then.

Oh well, you seem happy to stick up for a wealthy socialist - that Daily Mail article you linked to made him sound even more of an ar5e than I thought he was but he's still OK in your books. Reality is someone could benefit if he decided to move out of his house.

not that I could have afforded to pay for my education back then.

Yet you still remain educated at public expense.

Oh well, you seem happy to stick up for a wealthy socialist

So Socialists aren't allowed to be 'wealthy' then? Even if they've worked hard all their lives, and their endeavours have benefited many others in society?

that Daily Mail article you linked to made him sound even more of an ar5e than I thought he was

Personally I thought that article made the Daily Mail look even more like a hysterical reactionary right-wing rag than I thought it was.

Actually, no it didn't. I always knew the Daily Mail was a hysterical reactionary right-wing rag. Which is why I don't take it seriously as a newspaper, unlike some people. 😆

Reality is someone could benefit if he decided to move out of his house.

But he'd then still need a home. 😕

You are sticking up for a wealthy socialist - I am sticking up for the less well off. He can buy I home pretty much anywhere he likes - even if prices are far too high.

Oh, and The Sun says he's getting a cheap deal so must be true:

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3507276/Union-fat-cat-Bob-Crow-on-half-rent.html

I am sticking up for the less well off

😆

If I thought this would actually save any money or do any good, I'd be for it. The principle is deceptively simple (hence its appeal to Daily Hate readers :-O) but the reality is far more complex. Some families could be forced out of bigger properties into smaller ones that might actually be more expensive - it doesn't always follow that a 2-bed property is cheaper than a 3-bed, especially if people are forced into the private rented sector and their housing benefit might have to go up to compensate.

Fed up with this government making stupid gestures to appease the right wing "scrounger haters" which are meaningless to the average working person that they claim to represent.

Tory logic:

Some people, who don't have the unassisted means to obtain shelter in our ridiculous housing market, have one more room than they could conceivably cram into: PUNISH THE SPONGERS

A man who owns outright a large house and horse paddock, each independently registered, changes around his first/second homes AND REMORTGAGES THE HOUSE AND PADDOCK so he can claim expenses from public funds to pay for them, making himself a tidy six figure sum, despite the fact that a horse paddock is NOTHING to do with his public job: Move along, nothing to see here, in fact let's make him Chancellor

The Bedroom tax, don`t tell my missus...........ooooerr

She`ll want a new set o pearls an one of them Eye pads

Inevitably, someone will come along and make some sort of crude and frankly unnecessary comment about giving her a pearl necklace. 😐

If you could afford it, [b]why did you not go to a private university, [/b]and leave that place for someone unable to pay for private education?

Because we have loads of those in the uk don't we 😐

Nothing's stopping anyone going abroad to study, is there? Plenty of students do just that.

And nobody's stopping anyone who got a wonderful free university education here from making a donation equivalent to the cost to an overseas student (or at current fee rates which all students must now pay) tot he university they studied at, once they've become economically successful, are they? No.

But you don't mind someone who earns over £100k paying 1/2 market rent and taking the place of a low income family? Are you his special friend?