Question Time baby

[Mick Mac]

:) rosie...

How did we think it went tonight?

I liked Hugh Hendry as the voice of capitalism giving it his best shot against the Labour/Liberal political panel. Nice to see a Wall Street character for real, red specs, square watch and all.

Social housing was under scrutiny - it was referred to a social clensing which drew great distain- but it was pointed out that it is surely not right for the taxpayer to line the pockets of Chelsea landlords who up rents of unemployed tenants at the expense of the taxpayer generally.

The politics of torture - Hugh Hendry was vilified as a supporter of torture but he did not actually say that in so many words and the liberals of course jumped on him - but in reality, he meant be tough on terrorism, lets not be too liberal.

[Loz]

I loved it when the banker guy said "That's why they chucked you out and I'm still here". The Labour guy tried to come back with a snappy retort, but instead looked like a petulant teenage that was about to burst into tears.

He won the day even though "I'm still here" sounded soooo John Major.

[Mick Mac]

Its a brilliant thread, 3 posts already.

But be careful Loz, he is a "hedgie" so he is no doubt extremely popular - if you call him a "banker" he is very unpopular.

[????]

I'm not sure about the social housing thing but parking the right or wrong aside, 30,000 effected which is the figure I keep hearing, is hardly going to turn inner London into a white rich ghetto despite the hysterical "we'll be Paris" cries from the usual suspects, which is ironic as last week they wanted us to be french. PS having been away I presume the Guardian and Independents front pages on WednesdaY were "Double dip - what double dip"

[Mick Mac]

Where were you exactly ? Were you incommunicado? Do they speak english? Do they have the net? electricity ? potatoes?

[????]

only potatoes, Guinness and Eamon Dunphy keep me going

[DJKillaQueen]

I don't think capping the limit of HB is really the problem. But taking 10% away after a year is. Efectively it is a way of reducing JSA to the LTU. They can't reduce the level of base benefit by law but for someone on ?65 per week to lose ?10 or more to rent is an attack on the poorest, especially when most of the people affected ARE looking for work but live in areas of high unemployment and have virtually no chance of finding a job unless the governement find some way to create jobs in those areas. And outside of London there are MANY areas like that.

FACT...for every job vacacy there are at least five unemployed....so what will reducing HB after a year achieve? Nothing, when it comes to reducing the numbers of unemployed.

[Mick Mac]

DJKQ - Thats far too serious - we need to address that in the morning, At the moment I feel we need to focus on Guinness and potatoes.

[DJKillaQueen]

How might ?55 be spent?

Gas per week ?10?

Electric per week ?10?

Food ?25?

That leaves just ?10 for EVERYTHING else.....could YOU do it?

Most people would find a couple of months of that soul destroying, try it for years. It's a total myth that the unemployed are living a life of luxury.

[DJKillaQueen]

DJKQ - Thats far too serious - we need to address that in the morning, At the moment I feel we need to focus on Guinness and potatoes.

LOL you are right.....plus I am reeling after the strongest Margharita's known to mankind.....would potatoes go with a margharita I wonder?

[RosieH]

Ah, I missed it. A broken woman, I went to bed early and will be watching on iplayer later. I caught 2 minutes of Hugh Hendry afore I slept though and thought he was a right cocky cunt.

And now Clegg's on Desert Island Discs...

[RosieH]

Nick's so down with the kids - he helps his son with Mario Bros (pronounced like alien-twin boy band Bros).

Am I mad, it's Mario Brothers right? I know it's spelt Bros, but you don't pronounce Mr as mrr do you? Oh god, he's making me want to headbutt a wall.

[Mick Mac]

Relax Rosie.

[SeanMacGabhann]

good spot Rosie - and I rather suspect that his kids help HIM withthe game rather than the other way round

[*Bob*]

I spotted Nicola Sturgeon and 'Glasgow' and went to bed.

Actually that's not fair. I saw a few minutes of Danny Boyle lookalike Hendry shouting populist cod-truthery down one end and Schama sweating and twitching down the other.. and then went to bed.

The labour guy had scary shark-like death eyes.

[wee quinnie]

RosieH Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Nick's so down with the kids - he helps his son

> with Mario Bros (pronounced like alien-twin boy

> band Bros).

>

> Am I mad, it's Mario Brothers right? I know it's

> spelt Bros, but you don't pronounce Mr as mrr do

> you? Oh god, he's making me want to headbutt a

> wall.

Rosie, I must say, I completely agree with you - it was completely nauseating.

[PeckhamRose]

... I have just woken up after that margarita...

No-one addressed the other inadequacy of the poor paying more for their gas and electricity because they have 'keys' when the rest of us can afford to pay out of our regularly-ish upkept bank accounts and thus secure a cheaper rate.

OK, wrong thread.

Back to bed.

[tomchance]

DJKillaQueen, the other big "reform" to HB is reducing the level from 50% of median local rent at the mo to only 30% in October next year. That will hit loads of households really hard.

Conservatives shouldn't forget that one of the reasons Beveridge introduced council (now social) housing was to ensure that employers could rely on labour living nearby in decent conditions.

[Huguenot]

"one of the reasons Beveridge introduced council (now social) housing was to ensure that employers could rely on labour living nearby in decent conditions"

That'll be a business subsidy then? The taxpayer paying the wages that the business won't? That was why the idea of a 'welfare state' appealed to conservatives - it took plenty of the business costs like healthcare and accommodation and shifted them onto the taxpayer. Genius.

Don't misunderstand me, I'm not against the welfare state, I just wish people would call a spade a spade etc.

Besides, Beveridge came out with all sorts of silly ideas, so he's hardly a sage. His broad ambition was for the state to own the means of production - i.e. old fashioned Soviet-style socialism.

Nobody liked him either ;-)

[DJKillaQueen]

I broadly agree on H's view of Beveridge but it also has to be remebered that the reforms to housing st the time were also aimed at ridding the UK of the last of it's slums, and overcrowded ones at that, with whole families still living in one or two rooms.

The assault on HB makes no sense for lots of reasons. I don't think anyone has a problem with doing something about a situation that allows a minority of recipients to live in properties with ?1000+ per week rents. But what the coalition are doing goes much further than that, in ways that will affect every poor person in the country.

There's a contradiction in the alteration to the ceiling level of meridian rent. They announce a ceiling cap of ?400 per week but with the meridian adjustment this will mean a much lower cap in many areas. HB has always been capped to the meridian mean regionally. The coalition seem to think it will force some landlords to lower rents, but I don't think it will - mostly because (especially those on buy to let) don't have much leeway to lower the rent beyond the mortgage repayment.

What we'll see is local authorities paying rents directly (i.e. outside of HB) for those they can't find a cheap enough place to house them in, which is a return the far more extremely expensive (to the tax payer) practise of using bed and breakfast.

At the same time, the government grant for building affordable new homes have been savagely cut, meaning that councils who want to build homes will have to severely raise rent levels for new tenants to raise revenue, and given that the majority of social housing tenants nationwide receive HB, they will need more of that. If we ever get into the situation where social housing becomes too expensive for HB (which could happen in London) then we are on a road to disastor for a lot of people (why are there no moves to end the right to buy scheme for example? if we really want to improve the lack of affordable housing, surely that is one thing that would help).

In Southwark for example, a one bedroomed flat in the private sector will cost around ?900 a month to rent. A council flat of similar size will cost around ?360 per month. If the new mean meridian is applied, suddenly the most HB will pay out is ?300. That essentially means that even the lowest available rent, suddenly becomes unafordable for anyone on benefits....if you then add to that the 10% reducaton after a year, you are looking at thousands of people finding themselves in an impossible situation very quickly (needing to spend around ?25 per week of the ?65 benefit the recieve on rent). If you then add on the move to increase social housing rents to 80% of private sector rents, then Southwark will have a real problem on their hands, and many tenants whom have never had rent arrears are going to find themselves in trouble for the first time.

Add to it the policy that no-one under 35 will get HB for a single dwelling (I'm gussing those with children will be exempt) there are going to suddenly be a lot of younger people (and some of them vulnerable) housed in one bedroom and studio flats and suddenly homeless. It's nonsense.

700,000 recipients of HB are in full time work too.....how will this affect them? If a low waged person has to move further away from their place of work to find cheaper housing, they then are faced with increased transport costs..........

Basically it's a policy that says, if you don't work (and worse still, don't earn enough if you do work) then you have no right to live in a individual property (although the costs of a room in a shared property are usually just as high). Boris Johnson was absolutely right in his comments and I think it gave a true insight into the philosophy behind those setting the policy. They hate the poor....simple as that.

Either this thing is so badly thought through that they'll have to change their thinking on it, or they really are hell bent on squeezing the poorest and most vulnerable into even further poverty and potential homelessness. And none of this will create a single extra job in those areas where unemployment is high and most unemployed have no chance of finding work.

There are at least five times more unemployed than there are jobs advertised (and many of them part time) at any one time. Where are the policies to close THAT gap?

The biggest part of the welfare bill....some 60% of it....is spent on the over 65s. Nothing of any significance is changing there (because it's such a political hot potato) yet we are all expected to keep the baby boomers in the manner which they were promised decades ago.

For me, and I might be wrong, everything the spending review has proposed has been geared to hurting the biggest voting blocks least (ie the over 65s and middle classes) and hammering everyone else (i.e. often traditional Labour voters - the poor and low paid). It's Dickensian to say the least.

Anyway, it seems as though there will be internal opposition to these reforms. We'll have to wait and see which ones make it through to enforcement.

[Huguenot]

"[Landlords] don't have much leeway to lower the rent beyond the mortgage repayment."

You've said this before. It was logically inconsistent then, and it's still logically inconsistent now.

If they can't afford to pay the mortgage without high rents from HB tenants, then they can't afford them with no tenants either. They have to sell the property. On the macro scale it drives the market down and makes housing more affordable.

I'm absolutely unrepentant in the view that people under the age of 35 should not be paid benefits to live in single dwellings. When you argue this is unfair it undermines the rest of your argument, becuase it makes HB appear to be an indulgence instead of a necessity.

[DJKillaQueen]

I accept the point on landlords and lack of tenants but I'm not convinced it will have the impact you describe to the extent required. It will depend on other measures (like the FSA proposed changes to mortgage lending) for any distinct change to happen I think. Plus councils could still house tenants in those properties (because they have a legal reponsibility to house the homeless) and will make up the shortfall that HB won't....

On the point of under 35's...there are many younger people who are vulnerable for whom shared housing would put them at risk. And the average rent of a social housing studio flat is less than that of a single room in a shared dwelling.

When I lived in shared houses, they were the most miserable time because of the scumbags I was forced to share with.

I know we won't agree on this, but it is stupid to make someone move, esp when they may well be employed again soon. Contract workers and freelance workers will often have a few months between jobs when they may need to claim benefits....do we condemn them to life in a shared household?