"Fredxxx" wrote in message
...
On 20/12/2015 17:14, Rod Speed wrote:


"Fredxxx" wrote in message
...
On 20/12/2015 14:01, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Fredxxx wrote:
On 20/12/2015 13:07, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
RJH wrote:
On 20/12/2015 08:44, charles wrote:
In article ,
RJH wrote:
On 19/12/2015 21:29, bert wrote:
In article , RJH
writes
If you understood what the bedroom tax is
.. you wouldn't call it a tax.

Well, it is a tax on people's homes.

No - it's limit on the amount of Benefit they receive.


. . . based on the size of their home.

No. Based on the number of bedrooms and those living in the house.

You conveniently miss out the age aspect of those living in the
property.

I've not 'conveniently' missed out anything.

If you wish to give chapter and verse on what was remarkably punitive
legislation, feel free.

My apologies, I was harsh. It gets my goat that because older people
are more likely to vote, it's the younger people who get hit by these
miscellaneous measures who just happen to be under 61.

Its actually the reverse in this case. Those hardest hit are those whose
kids have moved out and who now have unoccupied bedrooms.

Precisely, except those who just happen to be over 60.

Its actually over Pension Credit age.

Which are the most likely age group with spare bedrooms.

The kids leave home MUCH earlier than that.

"Fredxxx" wrote in message
...
On 20/12/2015 16:46, Rod Speed wrote:


"RJH" wrote in message
...
On 20/12/2015 08:44, charles wrote:
In article ,
RJH wrote:
On 19/12/2015 21:29, bert wrote:
In article , RJH
writes
If you understood what the bedroom tax is
.. you wouldn't call it a tax.

Well, it is a tax on people's homes.

No - it's limit on the amount of Benefit they receive.


. . . based on the size of their home.

Based on how appropriate the govt provided home is to their needs.

No, it just attacks those who are 60 or less.

No one is attacked. They are free to move to a house
with the number of bedrooms they actually need so
that house that has more bedrooms than they need
can be used for those who need the bedrooms.

The age group most likely to have spare bedrooms aren't affected.

That is a lie. Most kids have left home and
left bedrooms unused LONG before that.

On 20/12/2015 21:56, Rod Speed wrote:


"Fredxxx" wrote in message
...
On 20/12/2015 17:14, Rod Speed wrote:


"Fredxxx" wrote in message
...
On 20/12/2015 14:01, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Fredxxx wrote:
On 20/12/2015 13:07, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
RJH wrote:
On 20/12/2015 08:44, charles wrote:
In article ,
RJH wrote:
On 19/12/2015 21:29, bert wrote:
In article , RJH
writes
If you understood what the bedroom tax is
.. you wouldn't call it a tax.

Well, it is a tax on people's homes.

No - it's limit on the amount of Benefit they receive.


. . . based on the size of their home.

No. Based on the number of bedrooms and those living in the house.

You conveniently miss out the age aspect of those living in the
property.

I've not 'conveniently' missed out anything.

If you wish to give chapter and verse on what was remarkably punitive
legislation, feel free.

My apologies, I was harsh. It gets my goat that because older people
are more likely to vote, it's the younger people who get hit by these
miscellaneous measures who just happen to be under 61.

Its actually the reverse in this case. Those hardest hit are those whose
kids have moved out and who now have unoccupied bedrooms.

Precisely, except those who just happen to be over 60.

Its actually over Pension Credit age.

Which are the most likely age group with spare bedrooms.

The kids leave home MUCH earlier than that.

I can assure you not all children leave home before their parent(s) are
under 61.

I presume your family would have 4 generations in that time?

"Fredxxx" wrote in message
...
On 20/12/2015 21:56, Rod Speed wrote:


"Fredxxx" wrote in message
...
On 20/12/2015 17:14, Rod Speed wrote:


"Fredxxx" wrote in message
...
On 20/12/2015 14:01, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Fredxxx wrote:
On 20/12/2015 13:07, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
RJH wrote:
On 20/12/2015 08:44, charles wrote:
In article ,
RJH wrote:
On 19/12/2015 21:29, bert wrote:
In article , RJH
writes
If you understood what the bedroom tax is
.. you wouldn't call it a tax.

Well, it is a tax on people's homes.

No - it's limit on the amount of Benefit they receive.


. . . based on the size of their home.

No. Based on the number of bedrooms and those living in the house.

You conveniently miss out the age aspect of those living in the
property.

I've not 'conveniently' missed out anything.

If you wish to give chapter and verse on what was remarkably punitive
legislation, feel free.

My apologies, I was harsh. It gets my goat that because older people
are more likely to vote, it's the younger people who get hit by these
miscellaneous measures who just happen to be under 61.

Its actually the reverse in this case. Those hardest hit are those
whose
kids have moved out and who now have unoccupied bedrooms.

Precisely, except those who just happen to be over 60.

Its actually over Pension Credit age.

Which are the most likely age group with spare bedrooms.

The kids leave home MUCH earlier than that.

I can assure you not all children leave home before their parent(s) are
under 61.

Sure, most obviously with those that never married or moved out.

But that is rather unusual now.

I presume your family would have 4 generations in that time?

Guess again.

On 20/12/2015 22:27, Rod Speed wrote:


"Fredxxx" wrote in message
...
On 20/12/2015 21:56, Rod Speed wrote:


"Fredxxx" wrote in message
...
On 20/12/2015 17:14, Rod Speed wrote:


"Fredxxx" wrote in message
...
On 20/12/2015 14:01, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Fredxxx wrote:
On 20/12/2015 13:07, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
RJH wrote:
On 20/12/2015 08:44, charles wrote:
In article ,
RJH wrote:
On 19/12/2015 21:29, bert wrote:
In article , RJH
writes
If you understood what the bedroom tax is
.. you wouldn't call it a tax.

Well, it is a tax on people's homes.

No - it's limit on the amount of Benefit they receive.


. . . based on the size of their home.

No. Based on the number of bedrooms and those living in the house.

You conveniently miss out the age aspect of those living in the
property.

I've not 'conveniently' missed out anything.

If you wish to give chapter and verse on what was remarkably
punitive
legislation, feel free.

My apologies, I was harsh. It gets my goat that because older people
are more likely to vote, it's the younger people who get hit by these
miscellaneous measures who just happen to be under 61.

Its actually the reverse in this case. Those hardest hit are those
whose
kids have moved out and who now have unoccupied bedrooms.

Precisely, except those who just happen to be over 60.

Its actually over Pension Credit age.

Which are the most likely age group with spare bedrooms.

The kids leave home MUCH earlier than that.

I can assure you not all children leave home before their parent(s)
are under 61.

Sure, most obviously with those that never married or moved out.

But that is rather unusual now.

I presume your family would have 4 generations in that time?

Guess again.

You're the one saying your "kids leave home MUCH earlier than that".

On 20/12/2015 21:58, Rod Speed wrote:
"Fredxxx" wrote in message

snip

The age group most likely to have spare bedrooms aren't affected.

That is a lie. Most kids have left home and
left bedrooms unused LONG before that.

What's that got to do with the age group with the most spare bedrooms?

"Fredxxx" wrote in message
...
On 20/12/2015 22:27, Rod Speed wrote:


"Fredxxx" wrote in message
...
On 20/12/2015 21:56, Rod Speed wrote:


"Fredxxx" wrote in message
...
On 20/12/2015 17:14, Rod Speed wrote:


"Fredxxx" wrote in message
...
On 20/12/2015 14:01, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Fredxxx wrote:
On 20/12/2015 13:07, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
RJH wrote:
On 20/12/2015 08:44, charles wrote:
In article ,
RJH wrote:
On 19/12/2015 21:29, bert wrote:
In article , RJH
writes
If you understood what the bedroom tax is
.. you wouldn't call it a tax.

Well, it is a tax on people's homes.

No - it's limit on the amount of Benefit they receive.


. . . based on the size of their home.

No. Based on the number of bedrooms and those living in the
house.

You conveniently miss out the age aspect of those living in the
property.

I've not 'conveniently' missed out anything.

If you wish to give chapter and verse on what was remarkably
punitive
legislation, feel free.

My apologies, I was harsh. It gets my goat that because older
people
are more likely to vote, it's the younger people who get hit by
these
miscellaneous measures who just happen to be under 61.

Its actually the reverse in this case. Those hardest hit are those
whose
kids have moved out and who now have unoccupied bedrooms.

Precisely, except those who just happen to be over 60.

Its actually over Pension Credit age.

Which are the most likely age group with spare bedrooms.

The kids leave home MUCH earlier than that.

I can assure you not all children leave home before their parent(s)
are under 61.

Sure, most obviously with those that never married or moved out.

But that is rather unusual now.

I presume your family would have 4 generations in that time?

Guess again.

You're the one saying your "kids leave home MUCH earlier than that".

Don’t need to have anything like 4 generations in that time for that to be
true.

"Fredxxx" wrote in message
...
On 20/12/2015 21:58, Rod Speed wrote:
"Fredxxx" wrote in message

snip

The age group most likely to have spare bedrooms aren't affected.

That is a lie. Most kids have left home and
left bedrooms unused LONG before that.

What's that got to do with the age group with the most spare bedrooms?

The group over 61 are the only ones not affected
by the bedroom tax and very few of those would
still have any kids still at home just before that.

In article , charles
writes
In article ,
Adrian wrote:
On Sun, 20 Dec 2015 14:01:58 +0000, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

If you wish to give chapter and verse on what was remarkably punitive
legislation, feel free.

"remarkably punitive"?

EVERYBODY else has to pay more to live in a larger property, whether they
be in private-sector rented housing or owner-occupiers or just funding
the cost of their social housing themselves.

Why should those people who get the taxpayer to cover the cost of their
social housing be any different? If social housing didn't have such
security of tenancy, it'd be easier to get people to move into more
appropriate accommodation, freeing larger properties for those who are
overcrowded or are more in need of the limited amount of social housing.

One of the problems with this train of thought is that there isn't enough
property in the "smaller" category available. Developers prefer to build
larger properties. In this village, a Housing Needs Survey showed a
requirement for 2 or 3 bedroom properties. So, there is a current planning
application for a site providing 3 off 6 bedroom, and 1 off 5 bedroom and 2
off 4 bedroom houses.

Supply meeting demand. No demand because everyone could previously get
housing benefit for two+ bedrooms. Housing associations should now start
building more single bedroom properties.
--
bert

In article ,
harry writes
On Sunday, 20 December 2015 15:09:47 UTC, Fredxxx wrote:
On 20/12/2015 14:46, charles wrote:
In article ,
Adrian wrote:
On Sun, 20 Dec 2015 14:01:58 +0000, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

If you wish to give chapter and verse on what was remarkably punitive
legislation, feel free.

"remarkably punitive"?

EVERYBODY else has to pay more to live in a larger property, whether they
be in private-sector rented housing or owner-occupiers or just funding
the cost of their social housing themselves.

Why should those people who get the taxpayer to cover the cost of their
social housing be any different? If social housing didn't have such
security of tenancy, it'd be easier to get people to move into more
appropriate accommodation, freeing larger properties for those who are
overcrowded or are more in need of the limited amount of social housing.

One of the problems with this train of thought is that there isn't enough
property in the "smaller" category available. Developers prefer to build
larger properties. In this village, a Housing Needs Survey showed a
requirement for 2 or 3 bedroom properties. So, there is a current planning
application for a site providing 3 off 6 bedroom, and 1 off 5 bedroom and 2
off 4 bedroom houses.

What is sad that successive governments failure to build to match demand
means more tax money is spent on Housing Benefit.

There's no shortage of houses.
Too much demand.
ie, too many migrants.
There's no shortage of plots with planning permission waiting for houses
to be built on them.
--
bert

On 20/12/2015 23:47, bert wrote:
In article ,
harry writes
On Sunday, 20 December 2015 15:09:47 UTC, Fredxxx wrote:
On 20/12/2015 14:46, charles wrote:
In article ,
Adrian wrote:
On Sun, 20 Dec 2015 14:01:58 +0000, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

If you wish to give chapter and verse on what was remarkably punitive
legislation, feel free.

"remarkably punitive"?

EVERYBODY else has to pay more to live in a larger property, whether they
be in private-sector rented housing or owner-occupiers or just funding
the cost of their social housing themselves.

Why should those people who get the taxpayer to cover the cost of their
social housing be any different? If social housing didn't have such
security of tenancy, it'd be easier to get people to move into more
appropriate accommodation, freeing larger properties for those who are
overcrowded or are more in need of the limited amount of social housing.

One of the problems with this train of thought is that there isn't enough
property in the "smaller" category available. Developers prefer to build
larger properties. In this village, a Housing Needs Survey showed a
requirement for 2 or 3 bedroom properties. So, there is a current planning
application for a site providing 3 off 6 bedroom, and 1 off 5 bedroom and 2
off 4 bedroom houses.

What is sad that successive governments failure to build to match demand
means more tax money is spent on Housing Benefit.

There's no shortage of houses.
Too much demand.
ie, too many migrants.
There's no shortage of plots with planning permission waiting for houses
to be built on them.

I've often thought council tax should be paid on unused plots after say
the renewal of planning permission.

"Fredxxx" wrote in message
...
On 20/12/2015 23:47, bert wrote:
In article ,
harry writes
On Sunday, 20 December 2015 15:09:47 UTC, Fredxxx wrote:
On 20/12/2015 14:46, charles wrote:
In article ,
Adrian wrote:
On Sun, 20 Dec 2015 14:01:58 +0000, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

If you wish to give chapter and verse on what was remarkably
punitive
legislation, feel free.

"remarkably punitive"?

EVERYBODY else has to pay more to live in a larger property, whether
they
be in private-sector rented housing or owner-occupiers or just
funding
the cost of their social housing themselves.

Why should those people who get the taxpayer to cover the cost of
their
social housing be any different? If social housing didn't have such
security of tenancy, it'd be easier to get people to move into more
appropriate accommodation, freeing larger properties for those who
are
overcrowded or are more in need of the limited amount of social
housing.

One of the problems with this train of thought is that there isn't
enough
property in the "smaller" category available. Developers prefer to
build
larger properties. In this village, a Housing Needs Survey showed a
requirement for 2 or 3 bedroom properties. So, there is a current
planning
application for a site providing 3 off 6 bedroom, and 1 off 5 bedroom
and 2
off 4 bedroom houses.

What is sad that successive governments failure to build to match
demand
means more tax money is spent on Housing Benefit.

There's no shortage of houses.
Too much demand.
ie, too many migrants.
There's no shortage of plots with planning permission waiting for houses
to be built on them.

I've often thought council tax should be paid on unused plots after say
the renewal of planning permission.

With ours its always paid on the land regardless
of whether there is a house on that land or not.

On Sunday, 20 December 2015 19:48:41 UTC, Fredxxx wrote:
On 20/12/2015 17:01, harry wrote:
On Sunday, 20 December 2015 15:09:47 UTC, Fredxxx wrote:
On 20/12/2015 14:46, charles wrote:
In article ,
Adrian wrote:
On Sun, 20 Dec 2015 14:01:58 +0000, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

If you wish to give chapter and verse on what was remarkably punitive
legislation, feel free.

"remarkably punitive"?

EVERYBODY else has to pay more to live in a larger property, whether they
be in private-sector rented housing or owner-occupiers or just funding
the cost of their social housing themselves.

Why should those people who get the taxpayer to cover the cost of their
social housing be any different? If social housing didn't have such
security of tenancy, it'd be easier to get people to move into more
appropriate accommodation, freeing larger properties for those who are
overcrowded or are more in need of the limited amount of social housing.

One of the problems with this train of thought is that there isn't enough
property in the "smaller" category available. Developers prefer to build
larger properties. In this village, a Housing Needs Survey showed a
requirement for 2 or 3 bedroom properties. So, there is a current planning
application for a site providing 3 off 6 bedroom, and 1 off 5 bedroom and 2
off 4 bedroom houses.

What is sad that successive governments failure to build to match demand
means more tax money is spent on Housing Benefit.

There's no shortage of houses.
Too much demand.

You obviously don't have a clue about supply and demand.

ie, too many migrants.

You mean they cause the shortage? You do understand what a "shortage" is?

You really are brain dead.
A shortage means the demand exceeds supply.
So to resolve the situation you increase supply or reduce demand.
Is that not easy to understand?

The only reason our population is rising is due to immigrants.
So to avoid concreting over the countryside, we need to reduce immigrants.
This costs nothing.

On Monday, 21 December 2015 00:49:09 UTC, Fredxxx wrote:
On 20/12/2015 23:47, bert wrote:
In article ,
harry writes
On Sunday, 20 December 2015 15:09:47 UTC, Fredxxx wrote:
On 20/12/2015 14:46, charles wrote:
In article ,
Adrian wrote:
On Sun, 20 Dec 2015 14:01:58 +0000, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

If you wish to give chapter and verse on what was remarkably punitive
legislation, feel free.

"remarkably punitive"?

EVERYBODY else has to pay more to live in a larger property, whether they
be in private-sector rented housing or owner-occupiers or just funding
the cost of their social housing themselves.

Why should those people who get the taxpayer to cover the cost of their
social housing be any different? If social housing didn't have such
security of tenancy, it'd be easier to get people to move into more
appropriate accommodation, freeing larger properties for those who are
overcrowded or are more in need of the limited amount of social housing.

One of the problems with this train of thought is that there isn't enough
property in the "smaller" category available. Developers prefer to build
larger properties. In this village, a Housing Needs Survey showed a
requirement for 2 or 3 bedroom properties. So, there is a current planning
application for a site providing 3 off 6 bedroom, and 1 off 5 bedroom and 2
off 4 bedroom houses.

What is sad that successive governments failure to build to match demand
means more tax money is spent on Housing Benefit.

There's no shortage of houses.
Too much demand.
ie, too many migrants.
There's no shortage of plots with planning permission waiting for houses
to be built on them.

I've often thought council tax should be paid on unused plots after say
the renewal of planning permission.

Typical ****ing socialist.
Thinks tax more and give to the idle proles.

On Sunday, 20 December 2015 12:16:33 UTC, tim..... wrote:
"Jonno" wrote in message
...
Dave Plowman (News) scribbled


There are plenty of people who are born rich and do **** all, other than
take drugs, get ****ed and go on holidays. Look at Prince Andrew and
his daughters, Bernie Ecclestone's daughters, Tara Palmer Tompkinson,
Alexander Thynn, Jamie Spencer-Churchill, etc.

They are responsible for the UK going down the ****ter,

Don't be silly

"wasters" such as this existed 100, 200 and 300 years ago, during the period
when Britain led the world

No they didn't.
They were put in the workhouse.
Vagrancy was a crime back then.

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Sunday, 20 December 2015 19:48:41 UTC, Fredxxx wrote:
On 20/12/2015 17:01, harry wrote:
On Sunday, 20 December 2015 15:09:47 UTC, Fredxxx wrote:
On 20/12/2015 14:46, charles wrote:
In article ,
Adrian wrote:
On Sun, 20 Dec 2015 14:01:58 +0000, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

If you wish to give chapter and verse on what was remarkably
punitive
legislation, feel free.

"remarkably punitive"?

EVERYBODY else has to pay more to live in a larger property, whether
they
be in private-sector rented housing or owner-occupiers or just
funding
the cost of their social housing themselves.

Why should those people who get the taxpayer to cover the cost of
their
social housing be any different? If social housing didn't have such
security of tenancy, it'd be easier to get people to move into more
appropriate accommodation, freeing larger properties for those who
are
overcrowded or are more in need of the limited amount of social
housing.

One of the problems with this train of thought is that there isn't
enough
property in the "smaller" category available. Developers prefer to
build
larger properties. In this village, a Housing Needs Survey showed a
requirement for 2 or 3 bedroom properties. So, there is a current
planning
application for a site providing 3 off 6 bedroom, and 1 off 5 bedroom
and 2
off 4 bedroom houses.

What is sad that successive governments failure to build to match
demand
means more tax money is spent on Housing Benefit.

There's no shortage of houses.
Too much demand.

You obviously don't have a clue about supply and demand.

ie, too many migrants.

You mean they cause the shortage? You do understand what a "shortage" is?

You really are brain dead.
A shortage means the demand exceeds supply.
So to resolve the situation you increase supply or reduce demand.
Is that not easy to understand?

The only reason our population is rising is due to immigrants.

Yes.

So to avoid concreting over the countryside,

That isn't going to happen with the current level of immigration.

we need to reduce immigrants.

Wrong, as always.

This costs nothing.

Wrong again. Once the population keeps aging,
and there are no more immigrants, eventually
there aren't enough still working to support the
senile old farts like you that aren't working any
longer and that ends up costing a hell of a lot
as the senile geriatrics like you start costing a
hell of a lot for their health care, with no one
to pay for that.

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Sunday, 20 December 2015 12:16:33 UTC, tim..... wrote:
"Jonno" wrote in message
...
Dave Plowman (News) scribbled


There are plenty of people who are born rich and do **** all, other
than
take drugs, get ****ed and go on holidays. Look at Prince Andrew and
his daughters, Bernie Ecclestone's daughters, Tara Palmer Tompkinson,
Alexander Thynn, Jamie Spencer-Churchill, etc.

They are responsible for the UK going down the ****ter,

Don't be silly

"wasters" such as this existed 100, 200 and 300 years ago, during the
period
when Britain led the world

No they didn't.

Corse they did.

They were put in the workhouse.

Those rich ones never were, they just parasited off those
who did the work on their land and their tenants etc.

Vagrancy was a crime back then.

Those weren't vagrants, just parasites.

In article ,
harry writes
On Monday, 21 December 2015 00:49:09 UTC, Fredxxx wrote:
On 20/12/2015 23:47, bert wrote:
In article ,
harry writes
On Sunday, 20 December 2015 15:09:47 UTC, Fredxxx wrote:
On 20/12/2015 14:46, charles wrote:
In article ,
Adrian wrote:
On Sun, 20 Dec 2015 14:01:58 +0000, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

If you wish to give chapter and verse on what was remarkably punitive
legislation, feel free.

"remarkably punitive"?

EVERYBODY else has to pay more to live in a larger property,
whether they
be in private-sector rented housing or owner-occupiers or just funding
the cost of their social housing themselves.

Why should those people who get the taxpayer to cover the cost
of their
social housing be any different? If social housing didn't have such
security of tenancy, it'd be easier to get people to move into more
appropriate accommodation, freeing larger properties for those who are
overcrowded or are more in need of the limited amount of
social housing.

One of the problems with this train of thought is that there
isn't enough
property in the "smaller" category available. Developers
prefer to build
larger properties. In this village, a Housing Needs Survey showed a
requirement for 2 or 3 bedroom properties. So, there is a
current planning
application for a site providing 3 off 6 bedroom, and 1 off 5
bedroom and 2
off 4 bedroom houses.

What is sad that successive governments failure to build to match demand
means more tax money is spent on Housing Benefit.

There's no shortage of houses.
Too much demand.
ie, too many migrants.
There's no shortage of plots with planning permission waiting for houses
to be built on them.

I've often thought council tax should be paid on unused plots after say
the renewal of planning permission.

Typical ****ing socialist.
Thinks tax more and give to the idle proles.
By idle proles I assume you mean elderly people who require but cannot
get some social care which is where a great part of council tax is
spent.
--
bert

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Sunday, 20 December 2015 12:16:33 UTC, tim..... wrote:
"Jonno" wrote in message
...
Dave Plowman (News) scribbled


There are plenty of people who are born rich and do **** all, other
than
take drugs, get ****ed and go on holidays. Look at Prince Andrew and
his daughters, Bernie Ecclestone's daughters, Tara Palmer Tompkinson,
Alexander Thynn, Jamie Spencer-Churchill, etc.

They are responsible for the UK going down the ****ter,

Don't be silly

"wasters" such as this existed 100, 200 and 300 years ago, during the
period
when Britain led the world

No they didn't.
They were put in the workhouse.
Vagrancy was a crime back then.

They weren't vagrant

the premise is that they were rich ****ers with too much time on their hands

Oh and no-one got *put* in the work-house, entrance was entirely at you own
volition (or if under age your parent's volition)

On Monday, 21 December 2015 12:38:46 UTC, bert wrote:
In article ,
harry writes
On Monday, 21 December 2015 00:49:09 UTC, Fredxxx wrote:
On 20/12/2015 23:47, bert wrote:
In article ,
harry writes
On Sunday, 20 December 2015 15:09:47 UTC, Fredxxx wrote:
On 20/12/2015 14:46, charles wrote:
In article ,
Adrian wrote:
On Sun, 20 Dec 2015 14:01:58 +0000, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

If you wish to give chapter and verse on what was remarkably punitive
legislation, feel free.

"remarkably punitive"?

EVERYBODY else has to pay more to live in a larger property,
whether they
be in private-sector rented housing or owner-occupiers or just funding
the cost of their social housing themselves.

Why should those people who get the taxpayer to cover the cost
of their
social housing be any different? If social housing didn't have such
security of tenancy, it'd be easier to get people to move into more
appropriate accommodation, freeing larger properties for those who are
overcrowded or are more in need of the limited amount of
social housing.

One of the problems with this train of thought is that there
isn't enough
property in the "smaller" category available. Developers
prefer to build
larger properties. In this village, a Housing Needs Survey showed a
requirement for 2 or 3 bedroom properties. So, there is a
current planning
application for a site providing 3 off 6 bedroom, and 1 off 5
bedroom and 2
off 4 bedroom houses.

What is sad that successive governments failure to build to match demand
means more tax money is spent on Housing Benefit.

There's no shortage of houses.
Too much demand.
ie, too many migrants.
There's no shortage of plots with planning permission waiting for houses
to be built on them.

I've often thought council tax should be paid on unused plots after say
the renewal of planning permission.

Typical ****ing socialist.
Thinks tax more and give to the idle proles.
By idle proles I assume you mean elderly people who require but cannot
get some social care which is where a great part of council tax is
spent.
--
bert

There's no doubt people are gonna have to work until they're older.
Maybe taper off their work.

Bringing in migrants is only a temporary solution unless you pack them off when they get old.
Even then they put up the cost of housing, take up NHS etc etc
So they actually form no part of the solution.

"bert" wrote in message
...
In article , harry
writes
On Monday, 21 December 2015 00:49:09 UTC, Fredxxx wrote:
On 20/12/2015 23:47, bert wrote:
In article ,
harry writes
On Sunday, 20 December 2015 15:09:47 UTC, Fredxxx wrote:
On 20/12/2015 14:46, charles wrote:
In article ,
Adrian wrote:
On Sun, 20 Dec 2015 14:01:58 +0000, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

If you wish to give chapter and verse on what was remarkably
punitive
legislation, feel free.

"remarkably punitive"?

EVERYBODY else has to pay more to live in a larger property,
whether they
be in private-sector rented housing or owner-occupiers or just
funding
the cost of their social housing themselves.

Why should those people who get the taxpayer to cover the cost of
their
social housing be any different? If social housing didn't have
such
security of tenancy, it'd be easier to get people to move into
more
appropriate accommodation, freeing larger properties for those
who are
overcrowded or are more in need of the limited amount of social
housing.

One of the problems with this train of thought is that there isn't
enough
property in the "smaller" category available. Developers prefer
to build
larger properties. In this village, a Housing Needs Survey showed
a
requirement for 2 or 3 bedroom properties. So, there is a current
planning
application for a site providing 3 off 6 bedroom, and 1 off 5
bedroom and 2
off 4 bedroom houses.

What is sad that successive governments failure to build to match
demand
means more tax money is spent on Housing Benefit.

There's no shortage of houses.
Too much demand.
ie, too many migrants.
There's no shortage of plots with planning permission waiting for
houses
to be built on them.

I've often thought council tax should be paid on unused plots after say
the renewal of planning permission.

Typical ****ing socialist.
Thinks tax more and give to the idle proles.

By idle proles I assume you mean elderly people who require but cannot get
some social care which is where a great part of council tax is spent.

That's not what
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counci...l_Tax_is_spent
says.

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Monday, 21 December 2015 12:38:46 UTC, bert wrote:
In article ,
harry writes
On Monday, 21 December 2015 00:49:09 UTC, Fredxxx wrote:
On 20/12/2015 23:47, bert wrote:
In article ,
harry writes
On Sunday, 20 December 2015 15:09:47 UTC, Fredxxx wrote:
On 20/12/2015 14:46, charles wrote:
In article ,
Adrian wrote:
On Sun, 20 Dec 2015 14:01:58 +0000, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

If you wish to give chapter and verse on what was remarkably
punitive
legislation, feel free.

"remarkably punitive"?

EVERYBODY else has to pay more to live in a larger property,
whether they
be in private-sector rented housing or owner-occupiers or just
funding
the cost of their social housing themselves.

Why should those people who get the taxpayer to cover the cost
of their
social housing be any different? If social housing didn't have
such
security of tenancy, it'd be easier to get people to move into
more
appropriate accommodation, freeing larger properties for those
who are
overcrowded or are more in need of the limited amount of
social housing.

One of the problems with this train of thought is that there
isn't enough
property in the "smaller" category available. Developers
prefer to build
larger properties. In this village, a Housing Needs Survey
showed a
requirement for 2 or 3 bedroom properties. So, there is a
current planning
application for a site providing 3 off 6 bedroom, and 1 off 5
bedroom and 2
off 4 bedroom houses.

What is sad that successive governments failure to build to match
demand
means more tax money is spent on Housing Benefit.

There's no shortage of houses.
Too much demand.
ie, too many migrants.
There's no shortage of plots with planning permission waiting for
houses
to be built on them.

I've often thought council tax should be paid on unused plots after
say
the renewal of planning permission.

Typical ****ing socialist.
Thinks tax more and give to the idle proles.
By idle proles I assume you mean elderly people who require but cannot
get some social care which is where a great part of council tax is spent.

There's no doubt people are gonna have to work until they're older.

They wouldn't have to with more of the right sort of immigrants.

Maybe taper off their work.

Some have always done that.

Bringing in migrants is only a temporary solution
unless you pack them off when they get old.

Bull**** when they have more kids than the locals do.

And plenty of the locals leave for other
places in the EU too as they get older.

Even then they put up the cost of housing, take up NHS etc etc

And keep paying taxes when the locals have retired etc.

So they actually form no part of the solution.

Even sillier and more pig ignorant than you usually manage, bigot boy.

On Sun, 20 Dec 2015 13:07:27 -0000, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
RJH wrote:
On 20/12/2015 08:44, charles wrote:
In article ,
RJH wrote:
On 19/12/2015 21:29, bert wrote:
In article , RJH writes
If you understood what the bedroom tax is
.. you wouldn't call it a tax.

Well, it is a tax on people's homes.

No - it's limit on the amount of Benefit they receive.


. . . based on the size of their home.

No. Based on the number of bedrooms and those living in the house.

What if you removed an internal wall and reduced the number of bedrooms?

--
The Official MBA Handbook on business cards: Avoid overly pretentious job titles such as "Lord of the Realm, Defender of the Faith, Emperor of India" or "Director of Corporate Planning."

Mr Macaw posted
On Sun, 20 Dec 2015 13:07:27 -0000, Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article ,
RJH wrote:
On 20/12/2015 08:44, charles wrote:
In article ,
RJH wrote:
On 19/12/2015 21:29, bert wrote:
In article , RJH writes
If you understood what the bedroom tax is
.. you wouldn't call it a tax.

Well, it is a tax on people's homes.

No - it's limit on the amount of Benefit they receive.


. . . based on the size of their home.

No. Based on the number of bedrooms and those living in the house.

What if you removed an internal wall and reduced the number of bedrooms?

This is *rented* accommodation, ****wit. They don't have that choice.

--
Les

On Mon, 21 Dec 2015 22:10:42 -0000, Big Les Wade wrote:

Mr Macaw posted
On Sun, 20 Dec 2015 13:07:27 -0000, Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article ,
RJH wrote:
On 20/12/2015 08:44, charles wrote:
In article ,
RJH wrote:
On 19/12/2015 21:29, bert wrote:
In article , RJH writes
If you understood what the bedroom tax is
.. you wouldn't call it a tax.

Well, it is a tax on people's homes.

No - it's limit on the amount of Benefit they receive.


. . . based on the size of their home.

No. Based on the number of bedrooms and those living in the house.

What if you removed an internal wall and reduced the number of bedrooms?

This is *rented* accommodation, ****wit. They don't have that choice.

Don't tell the landlord.

And what about people on benefits with their own homes?

--
We've had a hot, dry summer this year. It was so hot that one of my neighbors said his wife even thawed out.

On 20/12/2015 22:57, Rod Speed wrote:


"Fredxxx" wrote in message
...
On 20/12/2015 21:58, Rod Speed wrote:
"Fredxxx" wrote in message

snip

The age group most likely to have spare bedrooms aren't affected.

That is a lie. Most kids have left home and
left bedrooms unused LONG before that.

What's that got to do with the age group with the most spare bedrooms?

The group over 61 are the only ones not affected
by the bedroom tax and very few of those would
still have any kids still at home just before that.

Nonsense, but either way, why should they be exempt from the bedroom tax?

"Mr Macaw" wrote in message news
On Mon, 21 Dec 2015 22:10:42 -0000, Big Les Wade wrote:

Mr Macaw posted
On Sun, 20 Dec 2015 13:07:27 -0000, Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article ,
RJH wrote:
On 20/12/2015 08:44, charles wrote:
In article ,
RJH wrote:
On 19/12/2015 21:29, bert wrote:
In article , RJH
writes
If you understood what the bedroom tax is
.. you wouldn't call it a tax.

Well, it is a tax on people's homes.

No - it's limit on the amount of Benefit they receive.


. . . based on the size of their home.

No. Based on the number of bedrooms and those living in the house.

What if you removed an internal wall and reduced the number of bedrooms?

This is *rented* accommodation, ****wit. They don't have that choice.

Don't tell the landlord.

You have to otherwise you still get slugged the bedroom tax.

And what about people on benefits with their own homes?

They don't get the housing benefit being discussed.

"Fredxxx" wrote in message
...
On 20/12/2015 22:57, Rod Speed wrote:


"Fredxxx" wrote in message
...
On 20/12/2015 21:58, Rod Speed wrote:
"Fredxxx" wrote in message

snip

The age group most likely to have spare bedrooms aren't affected.

That is a lie. Most kids have left home and
left bedrooms unused LONG before that.

What's that got to do with the age group with the most spare bedrooms?

The group over 61 are the only ones not affected
by the bedroom tax and very few of those would
still have any kids still at home just before that.

Nonsense,

Fact.

but either way, why should they be exempt from the bedroom tax?

I have no idea what the rationale is for exempting those above the Pension
Credit age is.

bert wrote:
Supply meeting demand. No demand because everyone could previously get
housing benefit for two+ bedrooms. Housing associations should now start
building more single bedroom properties.

15 years ago my housing association spent a large amount of money
converting all its unmarketable bedsits and one-bed flats into
two- and three-bed properties. Is somebody going to pay off our
loans so we can go back to scratch and convert tham back again?

jgh

On Mon, 21 Dec 2015 23:26:12 -0000, Phucker ****er wrote:



"Mr Macaw" wrote in message news
On Mon, 21 Dec 2015 22:10:42 -0000, Big Les Wade wrote:

Mr Macaw posted
On Sun, 20 Dec 2015 13:07:27 -0000, Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article ,
RJH wrote:
On 20/12/2015 08:44, charles wrote:
In article ,
RJH wrote:
On 19/12/2015 21:29, bert wrote:
In article , RJH
writes
If you understood what the bedroom tax is
.. you wouldn't call it a tax.

Well, it is a tax on people's homes.

No - it's limit on the amount of Benefit they receive.


. . . based on the size of their home.

No. Based on the number of bedrooms and those living in the house.

What if you removed an internal wall and reduced the number of bedrooms?

This is *rented* accommodation, ****wit. They don't have that choice.

Don't tell the landlord.

You have to otherwise you still get slugged the bedroom tax.

And what about people on benefits with their own homes?

They don't get the housing benefit being discussed.

They get mortgage assistance. Why is that not limited to the right number of bedrooms too?

--
A high IQ is like a Jeep. You still get stuck, just further from help.

In article ,
writes
bert wrote:
Supply meeting demand. No demand because everyone could previously get
housing benefit for two+ bedrooms. Housing associations should now start
building more single bedroom properties.

15 years ago my housing association spent a large amount of money
converting all its unmarketable bedsits and one-bed flats into
two- and three-bed properties. Is somebody going to pay off our
loans so we can go back to scratch and convert tham back again?

jgh
15 years ago? Yes when Labour threw around benefits like confetti and
now other people are having to pick up the pieces.
You could raise funds by selling some of these off to the long term
tenants and building single bed homes.
--
bert

In article , Fredxxx
writes
On 20/12/2015 22:57, Rod Speed wrote:


"Fredxxx" wrote in message
...
On 20/12/2015 21:58, Rod Speed wrote:
"Fredxxx" wrote in message

snip

The age group most likely to have spare bedrooms aren't affected.

That is a lie. Most kids have left home and
left bedrooms unused LONG before that.

What's that got to do with the age group with the most spare bedrooms?

The group over 61 are the only ones not affected
by the bedroom tax and very few of those would
still have any kids still at home just before that.

Nonsense, but either way, why should they be exempt from the bedroom tax?
Well it's not a tax so exemption isn't applicable.
But older people have generally been in their homes for much longer and
are less mobile and more emotionally impacted by change. That's not an
absolute reason for not reducing the benefit but it just another example
of how the Nasty Party mantle is passing over from the Tories to the
left.
--
bert

On 22/12/2015 20:09, bert wrote:
In article ,
writes
bert wrote:
Supply meeting demand. No demand because everyone could previously get
housing benefit for two+ bedrooms. Housing associations should now start
building more single bedroom properties.

15 years ago my housing association spent a large amount of money
converting all its unmarketable bedsits and one-bed flats into
two- and three-bed properties. Is somebody going to pay off our
loans so we can go back to scratch and convert tham back again?

jgh
15 years ago? Yes when Labour threw around benefits like confetti and
now other people are having to pick up the pieces.
You could raise funds by selling some of these off to the long term
tenants and building single bed homes.

I think the housing bill is far higher than under Labour 15 years ago.
One might even say Labour was frugal and living within its means, not
like the current Tory spending plans!

On 22/12/2015 13:32, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Mon, 21 Dec 2015 23:26:12 -0000, Phucker ****er
wrote:



"Mr Macaw" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 21 Dec 2015 22:10:42 -0000, Big Les Wade
wrote:

Mr Macaw posted
On Sun, 20 Dec 2015 13:07:27 -0000, Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article ,
RJH wrote:
On 20/12/2015 08:44, charles wrote:
In article ,
RJH wrote:
On 19/12/2015 21:29, bert wrote:
In article , RJH
writes
If you understood what the bedroom tax is
.. you wouldn't call it a tax.

Well, it is a tax on people's homes.

No - it's limit on the amount of Benefit they receive.


. . . based on the size of their home.

No. Based on the number of bedrooms and those living in the house.

What if you removed an internal wall and reduced the number of
bedrooms?

This is *rented* accommodation, ****wit. They don't have that choice.

Don't tell the landlord.

You have to otherwise you still get slugged the bedroom tax.

And what about people on benefits with their own homes?

They don't get the housing benefit being discussed.

They get mortgage assistance. Why is that not limited to the right
number of bedrooms too?

In your dreams. The mortgage assistance is only after being unable to
pay after a year, and then less than the typical mortgage interest rate,
and then only on a limited amount.

That amount wouldn't buy a room in most parts of the country.

On Tue, 22 Dec 2015 21:58:36 -0000, Fredxxx wrote:

On 22/12/2015 13:32, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Mon, 21 Dec 2015 23:26:12 -0000, Phucker ****er
wrote:



"Mr Macaw" wrote in message
news On Mon, 21 Dec 2015 22:10:42 -0000, Big Les Wade
wrote:

Mr Macaw posted
On Sun, 20 Dec 2015 13:07:27 -0000, Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article ,
RJH wrote:
On 20/12/2015 08:44, charles wrote:
In article ,
RJH wrote:
On 19/12/2015 21:29, bert wrote:
In article , RJH
writes
If you understood what the bedroom tax is
.. you wouldn't call it a tax.

Well, it is a tax on people's homes.

No - it's limit on the amount of Benefit they receive.


. . . based on the size of their home.

No. Based on the number of bedrooms and those living in the house.

What if you removed an internal wall and reduced the number of
bedrooms?

This is *rented* accommodation, ****wit. They don't have that choice.

Don't tell the landlord.

You have to otherwise you still get slugged the bedroom tax.

And what about people on benefits with their own homes?

They don't get the housing benefit being discussed.

They get mortgage assistance. Why is that not limited to the right
number of bedrooms too?

In your dreams. The mortgage assistance is only after being unable to
pay after a year, and then less than the typical mortgage interest rate,
and then only on a limited amount.

That amount wouldn't buy a room in most parts of the country.

I've been on it. It's 3 months not a year. And it's all the interest unless you've remortgaged, then it's all the interest on the original price. So a lot more than rent on a 1 bedroom flat.

I guess they assume someone who managed to get a mortgage is unlikely to stay on benefits for long.

--
My daughter asked me for a pet spider for her birthday, so I went to our local pet shop and they were £70! Blow this, I thought, I can get one cheaper off the web.

On 19/12/2015 18:01, Rod Speed wrote:


"Fredxxx" wrote in message
...
On 19/12/2015 10:33, Adrian wrote:
On Sat, 19 Dec 2015 10:02:58 +0000, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

The problem for a government is always to attempt to get the money
needed to run the country with the minimum of pain to the people who
live under them. Sometimes certain sectors of society, get clobbered
more than was intended. End of story.

Think you've missed the point. A large percentage of the population -
including a fair few on here - want the poor to be clobbered. As it is
entirely their fault for being poor, old or disabled.

Are you suggesting that there aren't people who could do a LOT more
themselves to improve their lot in life, but are happy to continue being
subsidised by the public purse?

If the rules discourage that sort of behaviour by the current tax and
benefit,

They dont.

So don't complain if people can't be bothered to work and sit on their
bums at home.

who can blame them.

Anyone with even half a clue.

That is often sufficient for someone to realise that working at a low
wage is futile. Perhaps more typical of larger families.

"Mr Macaw" wrote in message news
On Tue, 22 Dec 2015 21:58:36 -0000, Fredxxx wrote:

On 22/12/2015 13:32, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Mon, 21 Dec 2015 23:26:12 -0000, Phucker ****er
wrote:



"Mr Macaw" wrote in message
news On Mon, 21 Dec 2015 22:10:42 -0000, Big Les Wade
wrote:

Mr Macaw posted
On Sun, 20 Dec 2015 13:07:27 -0000, Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article ,
RJH wrote:
On 20/12/2015 08:44, charles wrote:
In article ,
RJH wrote:
On 19/12/2015 21:29, bert wrote:
In article , RJH

writes
If you understood what the bedroom tax is
.. you wouldn't call it a tax.

Well, it is a tax on people's homes.

No - it's limit on the amount of Benefit they receive.


. . . based on the size of their home.

No. Based on the number of bedrooms and those living in the house.

What if you removed an internal wall and reduced the number of
bedrooms?

This is *rented* accommodation, ****wit. They don't have that choice.

Don't tell the landlord.

You have to otherwise you still get slugged the bedroom tax.

And what about people on benefits with their own homes?

They don't get the housing benefit being discussed.

They get mortgage assistance. Why is that not limited to the right
number of bedrooms too?

In your dreams. The mortgage assistance is only after being unable to
pay after a year, and then less than the typical mortgage interest rate,
and then only on a limited amount.

That amount wouldn't buy a room in most parts of the country.

I've been on it. It's 3 months not a year. And it's all the interest
unless you've remortgaged, then it's all the interest on the original
price.

Nothing like housing benefit.

So a lot more than rent on a 1 bedroom flat.

We aren't talking about 1 bedroom flats, we
are talking about multiple bedroom houses.

I guess they assume someone who managed to get
a mortgage is unlikely to stay on benefits for long.

And it makes no sense to force them to sell up and
buy a house with less bedrooms if they don't have
enough people to use the bedrooms they have.

On Tue, 22 Dec 2015 22:48:32 -0000, Phucker ****er wrote:



"Mr Macaw" wrote in message news
On Tue, 22 Dec 2015 21:58:36 -0000, Fredxxx wrote:

On 22/12/2015 13:32, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Mon, 21 Dec 2015 23:26:12 -0000, Phucker ****er
wrote:



"Mr Macaw" wrote in message
news On Mon, 21 Dec 2015 22:10:42 -0000, Big Les Wade
wrote:

Mr Macaw posted
On Sun, 20 Dec 2015 13:07:27 -0000, Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article ,
RJH wrote:
On 20/12/2015 08:44, charles wrote:
In article ,
RJH wrote:
On 19/12/2015 21:29, bert wrote:
In article , RJH

writes
If you understood what the bedroom tax is
.. you wouldn't call it a tax.

Well, it is a tax on people's homes.

No - it's limit on the amount of Benefit they receive.


. . . based on the size of their home.

No. Based on the number of bedrooms and those living in the house.

What if you removed an internal wall and reduced the number of
bedrooms?

This is *rented* accommodation, ****wit. They don't have that choice.

Don't tell the landlord.

You have to otherwise you still get slugged the bedroom tax.

And what about people on benefits with their own homes?

They don't get the housing benefit being discussed.

They get mortgage assistance. Why is that not limited to the right
number of bedrooms too?

In your dreams. The mortgage assistance is only after being unable to
pay after a year, and then less than the typical mortgage interest rate,
and then only on a limited amount.

That amount wouldn't buy a room in most parts of the country.

I've been on it. It's 3 months not a year. And it's all the interest
unless you've remortgaged, then it's all the interest on the original
price.

Nothing like housing benefit.

More than. So should be more likely to incur bedroom tax.

So a lot more than rent on a 1 bedroom flat.

We aren't talking about 1 bedroom flats, we
are talking about multiple bedroom houses.

We're talking about the government paying more than they should because you've got more than a 1 bedroom flat.

I guess they assume someone who managed to get
a mortgage is unlikely to stay on benefits for long.

And it makes no sense to force them to sell up and
buy a house with less bedrooms if they don't have
enough people to use the bedrooms they have.

Yes it does as the government would pay less mortgage assistance.

--
23% of all photocopier faults worldwide are caused by people sitting on them and photocopying their buttocks.

Fredxxx wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Fredxxx wrote
Adrian wrote
Dave Plowman (News) wrote

The problem for a government is always to attempt to get the money
needed to run the country with the minimum of pain to the people who
live under them. Sometimes certain sectors of society, get clobbered
more than was intended. End of story.

Think you've missed the point. A large percentage of the population -
including a fair few on here - want the poor to be clobbered. As it is
entirely their fault for being poor, old or disabled.

Are you suggesting that there aren't people who could do a LOT more
themselves to improve their lot in life, but are happy to continue
being subsidised by the public purse?

If the rules discourage that sort of behaviour by the current tax and
benefit,

They dont.

So don't complain if people can't be bothered to work and sit on their
bums at home.

Its just not possible to come up with a system that
stops that happening, but doesnt penalise the kids
whose parents choose to be benefit bludgers.

who can blame them.

Anyone with even half a clue.

That is often sufficient for someone to realise that working at a low wage
is futile. Perhaps more typical of larger families.

No perhaps about it given that they get
a lot more in benefits because of the kids.

Enough more that those absolute dregs of society
that choose to not work at all and stay on benefits
for life end up with even more kids just because
that produces more benefits.

No society has worked out how to avoid that result either.

Even when there are no benefits for anyone, there is still
an incentive for the dregs of society to keep pumping out
more kids because they can be made to work for peanuts
and bring in some income and can be abandoned or kicked
out if they refuse to do that.

In article , Fredxxx
writes
On 22/12/2015 20:09, bert wrote:
In article ,
writes
bert wrote:
Supply meeting demand. No demand because everyone could previously get
housing benefit for two+ bedrooms. Housing associations should now start
building more single bedroom properties.

15 years ago my housing association spent a large amount of money
converting all its unmarketable bedsits and one-bed flats into
two- and three-bed properties. Is somebody going to pay off our
loans so we can go back to scratch and convert tham back again?

jgh
15 years ago? Yes when Labour threw around benefits like confetti and
now other people are having to pick up the pieces.
You could raise funds by selling some of these off to the long term
tenants and building single bed homes.

I think the housing bill is far higher than under Labour 15 years ago.
One might even say Labour was frugal and living within its means, not
like the current Tory spending plans!
So you are in favour of harder austerity?
--
bert