sorry, have you ever seen me suggesting that John Prescott needed two free houses anymore than Nick Clegg, George Osbourne or Princess Di would?

No but the people telling others that they shouldn’t live in places paid for by the tax payer that’s a bit bigger than they need – even if they were put there by the council – have extra bedrooms at our expense to spare, not to mention croquet lawns and you’re defending their logic

Defending their logic?

you think that I support them having free houses?

way, way off the mark I’m afraid Jota – but two wrongs don’t make a right, do they? or is it just the politics of envy?

“Well, the queens got twenty spare bedrooms, so I deserve one as well?”

Fact remains, that there’s absolutely no justifiable reason, in this day and age, that we have taxpayers paying for people to under-occupy a precious resource, while other people are forced to live in cramped, unsuitable and overcrowded properties.

don’t get me wrong, there are a great many perfectly good arguments for the state being responsible for the provision and construction of housing for people on a ‘need’ basis and aso good arguments for social cohesion and health for those homes being open to all who need them, regardless of income.

The difference becomes when people expect the taxpayer to pick up the bill for something they don’t need.

The only true travesty was that the reforms and sales of council properties in the 80’s prohibited councils putting the money from sales back into the pot for new building – worth also mentioning that Blair could have reversed that overnight in 1997, to be fair he could also have thought about it before bringing a million plus immigrants here as well…

Z 11 -i have worked most of my adult life– i am now 53– so give up on the patronising claptrap– get real , my house is barely adequate for us, but its okay.

There is no logic to this punitive attack on the poor– peoples circumstances can change dramatically– sudden redundancy for instance– and you are insisting that people have to move over a 6′ x 6′ room ??

no –this is another smokescreen , the amount of benefit paid to ‘private’ buy to lets , bnb , ‘hotels’ far exceedes that to social housing– lots of profit to the lanlords–a market created by choking public housing– oh and the billions and billions bankers have been bailed out with– yes Z 11 its socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor….

Spherical objects rudebwoy – Its ridiculous to think that since we gave someone a five bedroom house in 1985 because they had four kids, that they should now expect to stay in it until the day they die, with the rest of us picking up the bill!

totally and utterly ridiculous!

Tell you what, since you mention socialism – I’ll throw you a quote from Marx:

A house may be large or small; as long as the neighboring houses are likewise small, it satisfies all social requirement for a residence.

i dont know if some of you have read wider but there is now also a housing benifits cap on the same horizon..

”A new cap on the total amount of welfare benefits that can be claimed by people of working age will start to be introduced from 15 April 2013. The London boroughs of Bromley, Croydon, Enfield and Haringey will be the first to be affected. The cap will be extended to the rest of the country by the end of September 2013.

Most benefits are counted, including housing benefit. The limits are:

£500 per week for families with children
£350 per week for individuals.
You won’t get anything above these limits, even if you’re assessed as needing more. There are some exemptions, however. For example, if you or anyone else in your household qualifies for working tax credits, the benefits cap won’t apply to you.

Any benefits you receive that would take you above these levels will be deducted from your housing benefit. It will be up to you to make up any shortfall in your rent from the benefits intended to help with the ordinary costs of living, such as food, gas, electricity etc. ,,

so no the private tory landlords wont be raking it in.. as the tenants will have a limited income for the first time so that work does actually pay.. after all why if your healthy of working age should you be able to claim more in cash benifits than the person working next door is likely to earn.