ForumGarden

Bedroom Tax - National Housing Federation

Blimey... even Americans are commenting on this on facebook.

Wouldn't this encourage some people to have more children so this wouldn't happen? Not to sound cynical but I've heard of welfare recipients having a steady stream of children so they'd continue to receive "benefits".

On the whole, I think this change is fair enough...in the UK social housing appears to be in crisis and it seems unfair that people should be subsidised for having more bedrooms than they need when there are so many people without homes or living in cramped conditions.

However, I really hope sufficient allowance is made for people with particular needs who need an extra bedroom. And of course it begs the question, can those who have a spare bedroom find alternative suitable accommmodation? If they can't, they will find their weekly income depleted...not easy if they are already struggling to make ends meet.

It's a difficult one this...

On one hand, when I was In Housing we had and I'm sure they still do, real problems with older people who's children had grown up and moved out living In social housing In 3 even four bedroomed houses. It was really tough Insisting they moved to a smaller property If they had been In It all their working lives but the downside was that young people with babies are In bed and breakfast waiting for a home.

SnoozeAgain;1419758 wrote: Wouldn't this encourage some people to have more children so this wouldn't happen? Not to sound cynical but I've heard of welfare recipients having a steady stream of children so they'd continue to receive "benefits".


That's the kind of insane logic the right wing in this country come out with. They seem to believe people like living on benefits and have kids just to sponge off the state. They also firmly believe that our present economic malaise is die to immigrants, the unemployed and a minimum wage and employment protection legislation that prevents employers taking on more staff.

Since this is a british political thread just so you understand the difference between the different political parties the tories are right wing bastards, the liberal democrats are spineless wankers with the integrity and substance as the centre of a ring doughnut and labour are so far up their own backsides they cannot see the light, yet continue munching on their own **** until they believe it. Their new manifesto is entitled it's nothing to do with us.

gmc;1419774 wrote: That's the kind of insane logic the right wing in this country come out with. They seem to believe people like living on benefits and have kids just to sponge off the state. They also firmly believe that our present economic malaise is die to immigrants, the unemployed and a minimum wage and employment protection legislation that prevents employers taking on more staff.

Since this is a british political thread just so you understand the difference between the different political parties the tories are right wing bastards, the liberal democrats are spineless wankers with the integrity and substance as the centre of a ring doughnut and labour are so far up their own backsides they cannot see the light, yet continue munching on their own **** until they believe it. Their new manifesto is entitled it's nothing to do with us.


She's raised a very good point...some do have children to stay In benefit and not always single Mums but married couples... there's an article out today to show 4 million Brits have never worked In their lives.

And sorry but If you don't think so then come down to my neck of the woods and I'll take you to a cafe where you can hear the feckless do nothing but talk about what they are entitled to, what they're getting and what more they're going to get. It's nauseating. My husband won't go there because he calls the cafe ' Slapper R Us'. I frequent the premises on account o them doing a superb full English breakfast.



When I was In housing we had single Mums In mother and baby units, bed and breakfast or hotels despite their parents having four bedroomed houses because they wanted a council house. Some of those young Mums were under no doubt that one way to fast track a council house was to get pregnant again. So Snooze raises a good point actually.

Look at The Phillpott family.... 16 children and niether of them have never worked. They are not alone... there are many Phillpott families.

The difference Is years ago couples planned babies and the first thing they asked of themselves was ' can we afford another baby'... now It's a fore-gone conclusion the tax payer will raise the child.

So ner

oscar;1419776 wrote: She's raised a very good point...some do have children to stay In benefit and not always single Mums but married couples... there's an article out today to show 4 million Brits have never worked In their lives.

And sorry but If you don't think so then come down to my neck of the woods and I'll take you to a cafe where you can hear the feckless do nothing but talk about what they are entitled to, what they're getting and what more they're going to get. It's nauseating. My husband won't go there because he calls the cafe ' Slapper R Us'. I frequent the premises on account o them doing a superb full English breakfast.



When I was In housing we had single Mums In mother and baby units, bed and breakfast or hotels despite their parents having four bedroomed houses because they wanted a council house. Some of those young Mums were under no doubt that one way to fast track a council house was to get pregnant again. So Snooze raises a good point actually.

Look at The Phillpott family.... 16 children and niether of them have never worked. They are not alone... there are many Phillpott families.

The difference Is years ago couples planned babies and the first thing they asked of themselves was ' can we afford another baby'... now It's a fore-gone conclusion the tax payer will raise the child.



So ner


If this is so, I'm wondering when attitudes began to change?

I was pregnant at 18, in the late 60s and there was no expectation of anything from the state. My husband and I lived in an isolated caravan in the middle of a field and we had to walk across the field to get to the loo. Washing terry nappies was a nightmare...after soaking in napisan, I would boil them in an old large jam saucepan on a small calor gas stove and rinse them in the tiny sink. I would then have to walk over to the wash-house and use the old mangle, which actually was brilliant for squeezing out the excess water.

Fortunately, when my daughter was a year old, my parents helped us out by giving us the deposit for a small bungalow, but we both had to work to pay the mortgage and there was no state allowance for the first child in those days.

theia;1419777 wrote: If this is so, I'm wondering when attitudes began to change?

I was pregnant at 18, in the late 60s and there was no expectation of anything from the state. My husband and I lived in an isolated caravan in the middle of a field and we had to walk across the field to get to the loo. Washing terry nappies was a nightmare...after soaking in napisan, I would boil them in an old large jam saucepan on a small calor gas stove and rinse them in the tiny sink. I would then have to walk over to the wash-house and use the old mangle, which actually was brilliant for squeezing out the excess water.

Fortunately, when my daughter was a year old, my parents helped us out by giving us the deposit for a small bungalow, but we both had to work to pay the mortgage and there was no state allowance for the first child in those days. I remember my late sister boiling those nappies :wah:

You see... you have given the exact example of where It all went wrong.

People used to plan babies on weather they could afford them or not and If a baby was unplanned but wanted, there was a sense of community and family spirit back then. Like you, families pitched In and helped. I remember my late sister splitting from her husband and taking on a mortgage on her own for her 3 children and working full time to pay for It but she'd never have done It without my parents and the entire family mucking In and raising the kids. I'm so proud of my niece who on her young daughter getting caught out, refused all offers of welfare because her house Is big enough for all of them. My great niece still can finish college, do her saturday job and the family take care of the new baby without one penny being drawn from welfare. It's about taking responsibility I suppose and the welfare state has In many respects taken away that family spirit and sense of responsibility by just making It a little all to easy to claim. Sadly, these days, some see welfare as entitlement not the safety net for which It was designed.

But they looked beautiful on the washing line, with the wind billowing through them :wah:

theia;1419796 wrote: But they looked beautiful on the washing line, with the wind billowing through them :wah: So true... I've seen they are making a come-back.

My late sister prided herself on a line full of white Terry's blowing In the wind...

We need to be looking at why 13, 14 and 16 year old girls etc think it is such a great career choice to have a baby so young.

A lot of councils do not automatically dish out housing to young pregnant girls either, these girls are generally forced to live with their parents. Until such a point when they realise the council list is so long the only way they will get housing is if they become homeless, they'd have to endure B and B for a while though.

There have always been young teenage girls falling pregnant, the difference is once upon a time the majority of the young girls would have ended up pregnant by accident. Nowadays it has become a career choice for some because the girls don't see any other option available. Why is their self esteem so low that they think having a baby is the only thing they can do?

Having said that, not every teen is that way inclined either, there are plenty out there that are working hard, determined to be independent and have no intention of being a mother until they are in their twenties at least.

We need to stop tarring all teens with the same brush, they need some support, there are plenty within families that are getting support and there are some whose parents don't have the skills to cope with their own lives let along their teens. This situation is another one that has happened in the past, there will always have been good parents or bad parents.

Could it also be that because we have statistics now it just seems there are lot more babies born to single mums? How many over the years have been single mums but that fact was hidden by the families involved. It was shameful not that long ago to be a single pregnant woman, no it's not, is that why we feel young single mums are suddenly a majority, because no one hides the fact nowadays.

Have I got this correct, that anybody in social housing and on benefit will get a reduction in that benefit if they have more bedrooms than they need ?

If I have got that right, why don't the powers that be move these people to accomodation more suitable to their needs ?

Bruv;1419816 wrote: Have I got this correct, that anybody in social housing and on benefit will get a reduction in that benefit if they have more bedrooms than they need ?

If I have got that right, why don't the powers that be move these people to accomodation more suitable to their needs ?


They did try, I think there was a monetary incentive to people living in social housing to move them to property more suited to their actual needs. Trouble is most of the people in the two and three bed houses viewed their property as the place they raised their families and therefore a home they were not prepared to leave. So now, it's more of a force them out thing.

When the welfare state was Introduced In the 1940's It became a life-saver to widows and orphans of Injured and war dead. Also to women who had to flee violent husbands or who had been abandoned by feckless husbands. That's what It was set up for and has now been abused.

I don't think the teenage pregnancy rates have anything to do with It. In the 50's and 60's there were a lot more abortions. Girls have their babies now simply because the welfare state will keep them.

Back In the 40's when welfare was first Introduced, It was a safety net for the genuine. The reason It's become a way of life and a lifestyle choice to many now Is because anyone under the age of 60 has been born In a world where welfare Is simply paid out.... they just don't know of or remember It any other way.

Two cases In housing I will always remember. One was a woman ranting at housing staff because a couple had just been housed In a council bungalow In her road and she was out-raged because she was renting privately and had been on the list for 3 years. Even when they explained to her that the bungalow was a downgrade for an elderly couple she was still ranting. The other was was a woman In her 40's Insisting that If her daughter and new baby lived with her in her house, then she should be paid rent and extra as a carer !!! Unfortunately some people like that know life no different to pre 1940's and truely believe they are entitled not lucky to have a benefit system.

oscar;1419819 wrote: When the welfare state was Introduced In the 1940's It became a life-saver to widows and orphans of Injured and war dead. Also to women who had to flee violent husbands or who had been abandoned by feckless husbands. That's what It was set up for and has now been abused.

I don't think the teenage pregnancy rates have anything to do with It. In the 50's and 60's there were a lot more abortions. Girls have their babies now simply because the welfare state will keep them.

Back In the 40's when welfare was first Introduced, It was a safety net for the genuine. The reason It's become a way of life and a lifestyle choice to many now Is because anyone under the age of 60 has been born In a world where welfare Is simply paid out.... they just don't know of or remember It any other way.

Two cases In housing I will always remember. One was a woman ranting at housing staff because a couple had just been housed In a council bungalow In her road and she was out-raged because she was renting privately and had been on the list for 3 years. Even when they explained to her that the bungalow was a downgrade for an elderly couple she was still ranting. The other was was a woman In her 40's Insisting that If her daughter and new baby lived with her in her house, then she should be paid rent and extra as a carer !!! Unfortunately some people like that know life no different to pre 1940's and truely believe they are entitled not lucky to have a benefit system.


Were there really more abortions back then? hmmm

Anyway, I'm sure not all girls see pregnancy as a way to get the welfare state to fund their lives. A lot of these girls actually just want someone to love them and someone for them to love. It gives them a purpose because without that baby they don't have one.

Errrrrm everyone under 60?? You sure you got that right? I'm in my forties and I grew up on a council estate, both my parents worked, all our neighbours worked. When mum lost one of her jobs she wouldn't put me on free school dinners, I had to suffer packed lunch daily lol. It was shameful to be on benefits when I was growing up.

Not everyone nowadays is used to a culture of their families being on benefits, that's such a sweeping statement. There are plenty of people throughout all the age ranges out there working hard and bringing home the bacon who never want to have to rely on benefits.

Your examples are extremes and cannot be applied to the majority.

oscar;1419819 wrote: When the welfare state was Introduced In the 1940's It became a life-saver to widows and orphans of Injured and war dead. Also to women who had to flee violent husbands or who had been abandoned by feckless husbands. That's what It was set up for and has now been abused.

I don't think the teenage pregnancy rates have anything to do with It. In the 50's and 60's there were a lot more abortions. Girls have their babies now simply because the welfare state will keep them.

Back In the 40's when welfare was first Introduced, It was a safety net for the genuine. The reason It's become a way of life and a lifestyle choice to many now Is because anyone under the age of 60 has been born In a world where welfare Is simply paid out.... they just don't know of or remember It any other way.

Two cases In housing I will always remember. One was a woman ranting at housing staff because a couple had just been housed In a council bungalow In her road and she was out-raged because she was renting privately and had been on the list for 3 years. Even when they explained to her that the bungalow was a downgrade for an elderly couple she was still ranting. The other was was a woman In her 40's Insisting that If her daughter and new baby lived with her in her house, then she should be paid rent and extra as a carer !!! Unfortunately some people like that know life no different to pre 1940's and truely believe they are entitled not lucky to have a benefit system.


Also a lot of children were put up for adoption...during my lifetime I have met quite a number of freinds who felt they had to make this choice. And, in my childhood, my family would often be host, short term, to teenage girls who were in care (my mother was a secretary/social work assistant etc etc to the chief Children's Officer in a big city). Many of them had been placed for adoption but had ended up in care.

When I became pregnant, my mother said I had three choices...to have my baby adopted, for her to look after my baby and I go out to work or get married. She wasn't in favour of the latter, she said it wouldn't work. It didn't!

My parents weren't wealthy but they scrimped and saved during the early 50s and saved enough for a deposit on a house of their own. They both worked hard, my father was a legal executive and my mother worked several jobs at that point from cook to insurance agent (on a bike and covering rural areas outside the city in all manner of weathers.)

There was no help at all from the state and I don't think they would have taken it if there had been. It was intended for those who were in dire straits. Even prior to their deaths both paid paid their own care home fees.

I'm still wondering when the "welfare culture" actually began. I was able to claim sickness benefit in the early 90s...I owned my own house then and my son was still at home so I imagine it began way before then.

Betty Boop;1419823 wrote: Were there really more abortions back then? hmmm

Anyway, I'm sure not all girls see pregnancy as a way to get the welfare state to fund their lives. A lot of these girls actually just want someone to love them and someone for them to love. It gives them a purpose because without that baby they don't have one.

Errrrrm everyone under 60?? You sure you got that right? I'm in my forties and I grew up on a council estate, both my parents worked, all our neighbours worked. When mum lost one of her jobs she wouldn't put me on free school dinners, I had to suffer packed lunch daily lol. It was shameful to be on benefits when I was growing up.

Not everyone nowadays is used to a culture of their families being on benefits, that's such a sweeping statement. There are plenty of people throughout all the age ranges out there working hard and bringing home the bacon who never want to have to rely on benefits.

Your examples are extremes and cannot be applied to the majority.


BBC - GCSE Bitesize - The Welfare State

http://england.shelter.org.uk/campaigns ... al_housing

single parents: 44 per cent of lone parents live in social housing



I suggest you do some research... the graph In my second link for example.

have you ever sat on social housing or worked In the department?

Hang on wrong link

That's better

theia;1419825 wrote: I'm still wondering when the "welfare culture" actually began. I was able to claim sickness benefit in the early 90s...I owned my own house then and my son was still at home so I imagine it began way before then.


This Is a very good article that covers some of those points.

BBC News - Beveridge report: From 'deserving poor' to 'scroungers'?

Back street abortions were rife In the 50's and 60's.... some Info In this

Back-street abortion - News - Sunderland Echo

oscar;1419826 wrote: BBC - GCSE Bitesize - The Welfare State

Who gets social housing? - Shelter England

single parents: 44 per cent of lone parents live in social housing



I suggest you do some research... the graph In my second link for example.

have you ever sat on social housing or worked In the department?

Hang on wrong link

That's better


I haven't said a word against the history of the welfare state so the first link is pointless.

I'm at a loss as to what your next point is, 44% is not a majority, it's under half.

I'd better leave the thread now due to the fact I've never sat on housing, therefore obviously my rational thinking and research counts for nothing.

Betty Boop;1419829 wrote: I haven't said a word against the history of the welfare state so the first link is pointless.

I'm at a loss as to what your next point is, 44% is not a majority, it's under half.

I'd better leave the thread now due to the fact I've never sat on housing, therefore obviously my rational thinking and research counts for nothing.
Don't get offended.... all I am saying Is It's not until you have been Inside any department that you understand It better. For eg.... how do you know these young girls having babies just want someone to love them ? Have you spoken to them, counselled them, or even done a survey?

I'm not getting at you and the link I gave Theia more or less confirms what I originally said here about how the welfare state went from a safety net to a lifestyle choice.

Before I went on the council, I had some pretty Liberal thoughts and i was truely amazed at what I saw... Including wealthy people willing to have their daughter live in a one room mother and baby unit just so she got on the council house rung....

oscar;1419827 wrote: This Is a very good article that covers some of those points.

BBC News - Beveridge report: From 'deserving poor' to 'scroungers'?


That is a great article, it even says

There's nothing new in the concept of the undeserving poor. The disturbing thing is the way the "hysteria" over the dependency culture is distorting the system, he says. It used to be fraud that critics objected to. Now that fraud is at a historic low, they have changed their position arguing that people on benefits lack motivation.

Betty Boop;1419833 wrote: That is a great article, it even says

There's nothing new in the concept of the undeserving poor. The disturbing thing is the way the "hysteria" over the dependency culture is distorting the system, he says. It used to be fraud that critics objected to. Now that fraud is at a historic low, they have changed their position arguing that people on benefits lack motivation.


It also stated that welfare did exist pre 1940's but was rigouresly means tested...... which bears out what I said prior that some believe welfare Is a god given not a safety net.

For the record... I am more than happy to see young girls have and keep their babies than the misery of abortion and adoption being the only choices available but It comes at a high price to the tax payer.

But when this country did away with means testing benefit, we also did away with family commitments and responsibility on the family as a whole. The outcome Is affable people allowing their offspring to wait It out In one room instead of having them at home as one example.

oscar;1419831 wrote: Don't get offended.... all I am saying Is It's not until you have been Inside any department that you understand It better. For eg.... how do you know these young girls having babies just want someone to love them ? Have you spoken to them, counselled them, or even done a survey?

I'm not getting at you and the link I gave Theia more or less confirms what I originally said here about how the welfare state went from a safety net to a lifestyle choice.

Before I went on the council, I had some pretty Liberal thoughts and i was truely amazed at what I saw... Including wealthy people willing to have their daughter live in a one room mother and baby unit just so she got on the council house rung....


Homestart volunteer, fully trained and have engaged with young single mums and yes, sadly a lot of them just want to be loved and to have a purpose.

I'm not convinced that even these girls in their twenties have just memories full of all previous family generations being benefit claimants.

From your previous quoted article:

Academics, who have tried to find families where different generations have never worked, struggle to find people, he insists. And nine out of 10 people move off jobseekers allowance within a year. "It's not that people don't want to be in work, it's that the labour market doesn't hold them," he says.



BBC News - Beveridge report: From 'deserving poor' to 'scroungers'?

SnoozeAgain;1419758 wrote: Wouldn't this encourage some people to have more children so this wouldn't happen? Not to sound cynical but I've heard of welfare recipients having a steady stream of children so they'd continue to receive "benefits".


No, all children of the same sex are expected to share a bedroom so it would made no difference.

Bryn Mawr;1419836 wrote: No, all children of the same sex are expected to share a bedroom so it would made no difference.


You'd have to guarantee a good mix of sexes. Then you could wait it out, once the eldest of mixed sex children sharing a bedroom reaches ten you are entitled to another bedroom. Or, once the eldest of the same sex children reaches sixteen you are entitled to another bedroom.

I'm currently in a three bed private rent, as of July I am entitled to four beds, won't be getting it though, there are just none available in social housing and private rents won't take housing benefit.

Betty Boop;1419835 wrote: Homestart volunteer, fully trained and have engaged with young single mums and yes, sadly a lot of them just want to be loved and to have a purpose.

I'm not convinced that even these girls in their twenties have just memories full of all previous family generations being benefit claimants.

From your previous quoted article:

Academics, who have tried to find families where different generations have never worked, struggle to find people, he insists. And nine out of 10 people move off jobseekers allowance within a year. "It's not that people don't want to be in work, it's that the labour market doesn't hold them," he says.



BBC News - Beveridge report: From 'deserving poor' to 'scroungers'?


There has always been unemployment. There will always be unemployment. the unemployment rate Increases with population but.... the fact remains there are adults who have never worked In their life... a recent report showed 4 million adult Brits have never worked since leaving school.

It goes back to what i said about years ago the first thing a couple asked was ' can we afford another baby'?.... If this was pre 1940's when benefit was rigoursley means tested, maybe some wouldn't just keep having the kids knowing the state was going to pick up the tab like the Sharon Matthews and The Phillpotts of this world.

We have the highest rate of teenage Mothers In Europe and Sorry, no, they are not all wanting someone to love them... with some it's a culture.

The Big Question: Why are teenage pregnancy rates so high, and what can be done about it? - Big Question - Extras - The Independent

theia;1419766 wrote: On the whole, I think this change is fair enough...in the UK social housing appears to be in crisis and it seems unfair that people should be subsidised for having more bedrooms than they need when there are so many people without homes or living in cramped conditions.


Social housing is in crisis but it is a self inflicted wound. Firstly the government forced the councils to sell off social housing whilst making it impossible for them to build more and then they tried to force private builders to build new social housing in a way that has not worked.

theia;1419766 wrote: However, I really hope sufficient allowance is made for people with particular needs who need an extra bedroom. And of course it begs the question, can those who have a spare bedroom find alternative suitable accommmodation? If they can't, they will find their weekly income depleted...not easy if they are already struggling to make ends meet.


The nature of bureaucracy is such that it cannot cater for exceptions - it only applies rules and they rules applied are never as complex as real life.

On the other hand, once you're in a council house, it is relatively easy to swap to another council house in a different area / of a different size. That might well not be a practical alternative for those not covered by the rules.

Bryn Mawr;1419839 wrote: Social housing is in crisis but it is a self inflicted wound. Firstly the government forced the councils to sell off social housing whilst making it impossible for them to build more and then they tried to force private builders to build new social housing in a way that has not worked.





The nature of bureaucracy is such that it cannot cater for exceptions - it only applies rules and they rules applied are never as complex as real life.

On the other hand, once you're in a council house, it is relatively easy to swap to another council house in a different area / of a different size. That might well not be a practical alternative for those not covered by the rules.


There are loads of exchanges advertised on my Council Website every week. Never any social housing available in my area though :wah:

Bryn Mawr;1419839 wrote: Social housing is in crisis but it is a self inflicted wound. Firstly the government forced the councils to sell off social housing whilst making it impossible for them to build more and then they tried to force private builders to build new social housing in a way that has not worked.





The nature of bureaucracy is such that it cannot cater for exceptions - it only applies rules and they rules applied are never as complex as real life.

On the other hand, once you're in a council house, it is relatively easy to swap to another council house in a different area / of a different size. That might well not be a practical alternative for those not covered by the rules. Councils today Insist long waiting queues for social housing Is down to Thatchers Right to buy...

New builds now must give over a proportion of houses In the cases of an entire estate being built to social housing but It's just not enough.

oscar;1419843 wrote: Councils today Insist long waiting queues for social housing Is down to Thatchers Right to buy...

New builds now must give over a proportion of houses In the cases of an entire estate being built to social housing but It's just not enough.


That's what he said :wah:

Woohoo, just bid on a house, only three beds though. Just no 35 on the list at the moment.

By the end of the week I will be 135 on the list :wah:

Betty Boop;1419841 wrote: There are loads of exchanges advertised on my Council Website every week. Never any social housing available in my area though :wah:


So all of the exchanges advertised are for moves into the area?

Betty Boop;1419844 wrote: That's what he said :wah:
I know :p:p:p

oscar;1419843 wrote: Councils today Insist long waiting queues for social housing Is down to Thatchers Right to buy...

New builds now must give over a proportion of houses In the cases of an entire estate being built to social housing but It's just not enough.


The long waiting lists are for new entrants, not for exchanges.

Bryn Mawr;1419847 wrote: So all of the exchanges advertised are for moves into the area?


Most are people in this locality downsizing and then there are people wanting more room.

The majority are people wanting to move from outlying areas closer to towns. At a guess a lot are from people who have been forced to accept housing in an area within Cornwall they didn't want and their best hope now is a swap. Quite rare to see one that's out of Cornwall.

Late and not making sense lol

can't have a most and a majority lol

so.....

Some are people downsizing, a lot are people wanting more bedrooms and there are a lot that want a location change.

oscar;1419827 wrote: This Is a very good article that covers some of those points.

BBC News - Beveridge report: From 'deserving poor' to 'scroungers'?


That is a very good article with several different perspectives, which is always helpful...it stops me getting stuck in just one way of seeing things.

I'm going to paraphrase wildly now but one of the contributors was saying that you don't resent a very rich person but you may resent someone similar to you who is claiming benefits whilst you work. I immediately thought, ah, unfairness is the issue...but, on reflection, thought that it was far more unfair in the case of the rich person and the average or below average earner, so it couldn't be a sense of injustice that caused the initial resentment.

I'm of a mind now that its a cyclical attitude as happens so much in this society. What's acceptable at one point in time isn't at another, and back again.

theia;1419887 wrote: That is a very good article with several different perspectives, which is always helpful...it stops me getting stuck in just one way of seeing things.

I'm going to paraphrase wildly now but one of the contributors was saying that you don't resent a very rich person but you may resent someone similar to you who is claiming benefits whilst you work. I immediately thought, ah, unfairness is the issue...but, on reflection, thought that it was far more unfair in the case of the rich person and the average or below average earner, so it couldn't be a sense of injustice that caused the initial resentment.

I'm of a mind now that its a cyclical attitude as happens so much in this society. What's acceptable at one point in time isn't at another, and back again. My own view Is that any resentment comes from the easiness of claiming benefit.

Pre 1940's where any benefit was strictly means tested, others In work knew that If anyone was In receipt of welfare, It was because they were deserving. Now when benefit Is a god given right, I think It's perfectly natural that some people In work view some as scroungers.

Also our newspapers and TV these days scream about lack of jobs which I'm sure makes some just take It as red that there's no point In even looking for work and I certainly know someone who has that attitude.

Betty Boop;1419851 wrote: Most are people in this locality downsizing and then there are people wanting more room.

The majority are people wanting to move from outlying areas closer to towns. At a guess a lot are from people who have been forced to accept housing in an area within Cornwall they didn't want and their best hope now is a swap. Quite rare to see one that's out of Cornwall.

Late and not making sense lol

can't have a most and a majority lol

so.....

Some are people downsizing, a lot are people wanting more bedrooms and there are a lot that want a location change.


Perfectly valid, whatever are you thinking about

More than 50% are downsizing

More than 50% are moving into town

Who wears the green wellies and smokes Erinmore?

oscar;1419907 wrote: My own view Is that any resentment comes from the easiness of claiming benefit.

Pre 1940's where any benefit was strictly means tested, others In work knew that If anyone was In receipt of welfare, It was because they were deserving. Now when benefit Is a god given right, I think It's perfectly natural that some people In work view some as scroungers.

Also our newspapers and TV these days scream about lack of jobs which I'm sure makes some just take It as red that there's no point In even looking for work and I certainly know someone who has that attitude.


About ten years ago I was made redundant.

I was on annual leave and recieved a letter giving me the bad news. It was from the guys that handle the affairs of a company on hard times (Bit like a moderator....forgotten what they call themselves)

Anyway.......I thought I should 'sign on' and did, then after a period of time when any wages/holiday should have been exhausted I asked when I would be recieving benefit.

It was after a period longer than I could realistically survive without income.

To be honest I forget the details, but I was given a letter to go to the Social security for an emergency payment. The fellow behind the counter reckoned that because I was awaiting redundancy and my mortgage was OK and I had an overdraught facility that could tide me over, I wasn't due any assistance.

As I left the Office feeling a little agrieved,pushing through the swing doors a young chap I knew greeted me, he was reeking of beer and tobacco, he was there to pick up his allowance.I know he had not worked for at least the previous three years.

I opened this thread thinking the UK was going to start taxing everyone for having sex.

Now that would be a money maker..

YZGI;1419949 wrote: I opened this thread thinking the UK was going to start taxing everyone for having sex.

Now that would be a money maker..


They could raise more for thinking about it

Bruv;1419947 wrote: About ten years ago I was made redundant.

I was on annual leave and recieved a letter giving me the bad news. It was from the guys that handle the affairs of a company on hard times (Bit like a moderator....forgotten what they call themselves)

Anyway.......I thought I should 'sign on' and did, then after a period of time when any wages/holiday should have been exhausted I asked when I would be recieving benefit.

It was after a period longer than I could realistically survive without income.

To be honest I forget the details, but I was given a letter to go to the Social security for an emergency payment. The fellow behind the counter reckoned that because I was awaiting redundancy and my mortgage was OK and I had an overdraught facility that could tide me over, I wasn't due any assistance.

As I left the Office feeling a little agrieved,pushing through the swing doors a young chap I knew greeted me, he was reeking of beer and tobacco, he was there to pick up his allowance.I know he had not worked for at least the previous three years.


Sorry to read that. Nowadays the system will pay the Interest on your mortgage and you're allowed £6,000 In savings before any benefit is adjusted

oscar;1419907 wrote: My own view Is that any resentment comes from the easiness of claiming benefit.

Pre 1940's where any benefit was strictly means tested, others In work knew that If anyone was In receipt of welfare, It was because they were deserving. Now when benefit Is a god given right, I think It's perfectly natural that some people In work view some as scroungers.

Also our newspapers and TV these days scream about lack of jobs which I'm sure makes some just take It as red that there's no point In even looking for work and I certainly know someone who has that attitude.


The lack of jobs rather depends on where you live, london and the south east yes anyone unemployed there isn't really trying it's a bit different in rural areas or parts of once industrial and mining towns. If you've been self employed you get nothing from the state since not paying the full NI stamp means you don't have enough contributions to have any entitlement. You get income support if you are destitute and have no savings or anything left. They only pay the interest part of the mortgage and for a limited period people are becoming homeless all over the place. There are thousands of people in the building trade - many self employed - that are facing financial ruin with no sign of things improving. The number of people in banking sector that have lost their jobs is in the thousands round newcastle and leeds as well as scotland and all those nice service jobs just haven't materialised not least because service jobs need to have industry to service. I know families where both worked for the banks since they left school, their prospects of getting a job with comparable salary are slim to none, tilers,joiners, plumbers who are earning 25-30% of what they were five years ago - that's if they haven't jacked it in. Skilled engineers with no jobs because because manufacture has been moved overseas local authorities give subsidies to incoming foreign firms and put up the rent and rates for local small businesses and all the while there is this mysterious place called the private sector that will find everybody jobs.

You do get real resentment of people playing the system in areas where there is high unemployment what really angers people is smug tory bastards and papers like the daily mail tarring everybody with the same brush and taking away benefits from people who are claiming them out of necessity meanwhile no one is going to jail over the libor FRAUD, has been called to answer for destroying the financial system and the cabinet ministers that removed all the regulation an controls that were in place to prevent the very thing we have just had happen are making millions. I could rant for ages about this.

We have a very long tradition of rioting and demonstrating on this country when we get pissed off with government The riots in 2011 are a symptomatic of a real anger never mind all the daft justifications. Interestingly there was very little in Scotland, maybe that's because PR makes us feel we can squeeze the balls of the politicians at election time, I dunno,but labour still haven't got over the shock and i don't fancy the lib dems chances of having any seats at the next Westminster elections.

Councils today Insist long waiting queues for social housing Is down to Thatchers Right to buy...




What even the tory councils? I'll give her her due that did get people used to the notion they could buy their own house. many still could but what they can't do is save a big enough deposit while also paying rent. there was nort a problem with a 100% mortgage, what caused the northern rock to collapse was the 125% ones and that is down to gordon brown. The man;'s a moron, if houses are priced too high you donl;t solve the prioblem by making it easier for people to pay inflated prices.

I see our MP's want a pay rise. What we should do is pay them the average salary in london and give them a government bus pass.

gmc;1420033 wrote: The lack of jobs rather depends on where you live, london and the south east yes anyone unemployed there isn't really trying it's a bit different in rural areas or parts of once industrial and mining towns. If you've been self employed you get nothing from the state since not paying the full NI stamp means you don't have enough contributions to have any entitlement. You get income support if you are destitute and have no savings or anything left. They only pay the interest part of the mortgage and for a limited period people are becoming homeless all over the place. There are thousands of people in the building trade - many self employed - that are facing financial ruin with no sign of things improving. The number of people in banking sector that have lost their jobs is in the thousands round newcastle and leeds as well as scotland and all those nice service jobs just haven't materialised not least because service jobs need to have industry to service. I know families where both worked for the banks since they left school, their prospects of getting a job with comparable salary are slim to none, tilers,joiners, plumbers who are earning 25-30% of what they were five years ago - that's if they haven't jacked it in. Skilled engineers with no jobs because because manufacture has been moved overseas local authorities give subsidies to incoming foreign firms and put up the rent and rates for local small businesses and all the while there is this mysterious place called the private sector that will find everybody jobs.

You do get real resentment of people playing the system in areas where there is high unemployment what really angers people is smug tory bastards and papers like the daily mail tarring everybody with the same brush and taking away benefits from people who are claiming them out of necessity meanwhile no one is going to jail over the libor FRAUD, has been called to answer for destroying the financial system and the cabinet ministers that removed all the regulation an controls that were in place to prevent the very thing we have just had happen are making millions. I could rant for ages about this.

We have a very long tradition of rioting and demonstrating on this country when we get pissed off with government The riots in 2011 are a symptomatic of a real anger never mind all the daft justifications. Interestingly there was very little in Scotland, maybe that's because PR makes us feel we can squeeze the balls of the politicians at election time, I dunno,but labour still haven't got over the shock and i don't fancy the lib dems chances of having any seats at the next Westminster elections.



What even the tory councils? I'll give her her due that did get people used to the notion they could buy their own house. many still could but what they can't do is save a big enough deposit while also paying rent. there was nort a problem with a 100% mortgage, what caused the northern rock to collapse was the 125% ones and that is down to gordon brown. The man;'s a moron, if houses are priced too high you donl;t solve the prioblem by making it easier for people to pay inflated prices.

I see our MP's want a pay rise. What we should do is pay them the average salary in london and give them a government bus pass. No, you can have savings of £6,000 max. Youmust have nothing to get a crisis loan Interest free.

That's what I said.

By co-Incidence, I have spent an hour this afternoon with an elderly lady confused by the Bedroom tax.

We got talking and I explained to her It was partly due to the many young people even with families In bed and breakfast waiting for social housing.

She has a very large 3 bedroomed council house. A large lounge, dining room, kitchen, downstairs toilet and upstairs bathroom. Added to this Is a large outhouse on the side of the building and large garden which Is completely over-grown because she can't manage It.

She was Insistent that she had lived In the house for decades and raised a family there. It was very difficult finding the words to tell her that In reality, It was not her house.

She see's It as her house as do many people In this situation. It ended up with her saying she Is not moving and won't pay the rent If her benefit Is cut...

oscar;1420109 wrote: By co-Incidence, I have spent an hour this afternoon with an elderly lady confused by the Bedroom tax.

We got talking and I explained to her It was partly due to the many young people even with families In bed and breakfast waiting for social housing.

She has a very large 3 bedroomed council house. A large lounge, dining room, kitchen, downstairs toilet and upstairs bathroom. Added to this Is a large outhouse on the side of the building and large garden which Is completely over-grown because she can't manage It.

She was Insistent that she had lived In the house for decades and raised a family there. It was very difficult finding the words to tell her that In reality, It was not her house.

She see's It as her house as do many people In this situation. It ended up with her saying she Is not moving and won't pay the rent If her benefit Is cut...


That's really sad :-1 It must be so difficult for her to accept that she may be forced to move.

It is difficult, yes I can see that it is her home. Sadly the reality is she's not coping with what is possibly a four bedroom house which are like gold dust around these parts. No one would make her move out if that were her own property, but you would wonder if she would at some point sell up and move to something more manageable if that were the case.

Is there anything written into social housing tenancies nowadays that stipulates that as your requirements change you are expected to downsize?

Betty Boop;1420144 wrote:

Is there anything written into social housing tenancies nowadays that stipulates that as your requirements change you are expected to downsize? Not that I am aware of hence Cameron forcing them to downsize.

The Irony with the lady I have been with today went on to complain that her benefit meant she couldn't heat the house properly and her family don't visit as much as she'd like...

I'm going to do my best starting with a drive round some of the lovely small bungalows we have In the area for the elderly with lovely little patio'd gardens. Maybe If she see's how nice they are, she may consider downsizing.