Dear Forum Members,

The Mirror last night reported:

"Nick Clegg will set the Lib Dems on a major collision course with the Tories over his plea to axe the hated Bedroom Tax.

The Deputy PM has finally agreed the crippling penalties are battering the poorest in society and will push for change before next year’s general election.

But if Mr Clegg cannot persuade his heartless Coalition partners the Bedroom Tax is a disastrous flop before Britain goes to the polls, he will make ditching it a Lib Dem manifesto pledge"

Doing the right thing, even if it is a bit late is not hypocrisy as Rachel Reeves, the shadow welfare secretary states, it is simply doing what is right.

The reality is that governments of all flavours are generally not very good at admitting when they have something wrong. The LibDem Leader Nick Clegg is demonstrating that although his Party is in Government it is not hardwired into an immovable establishment viewpoint and has the ability to admit through action when it has got things wrong.

The Tories nationally and certainly here in West Berkshire even when they so disastrously get things wrong may follow Maggie and belligerently state "The lady's not for turning," and let us face it we have experienced a catalogue of awful policies from our own district council, but at least the Liberal Democrats are demonstrating that they do listen and will change.

Overall, I have to commend Nick Clegg and Danny Alexander for doing what is right.

Ruwan Uduwerage-Perera
Newbury Town Council - Councillor for Victoria Ward & Deputy Leader

NTC aren't very good at it either - have they apologised to Simon yet?

Maybe you should get your house in order before trying to score political points of others!

Yet again LibDems change tack in a desperate attempt to win a populist vote. (Using the populist media title "Bedroom Tax" (which it isn't)).
It's an old habit that they regularly adopt.
Nearly every LibDem story I hear reinforces my determination to never vote for them again. (And yes I did once!)

But they aren't really going to 'axe' the bedroom tax are they?

Under the Lib Dem reforms, all disabled people would be permanently exempt from the tax. And as part of a complete overhaul, nobody would have their housing benefit cut unless they can be offered a suitable smaller home.

They propose to make it fairer (obviously a good thing), but they seem to intend to keep the 'bedroom tax'.

And Gove's loss is a shame, one of the few ministers who seems to get anything done, ditched because he upset the unions. Whereas Pickles stays, despite upsetting the Tory faithful. Very odd.

Wouldn't disagree with any of that.

Just a thought. It seems to me that its going to get a bit nasty as the future unfolds, what with enquiries looming and so forth. I'd want a very safe pair of hands connected to an ideologically pure but effective party heavy as Chief Whip, even better one with real media influence; so certainly in party terms, it ain't a demotion!

Anyone would think we are approaching an election within the next year! I think the 'bedroom tax' as is a particularly pernicious policy.

Give didn't achieve much because he was so hated. Whether he was right or wrong is irrelevant if nobody does what he wants anyway.

Still not a tax, never has been. Still a grotesque policy though.

It's a tax in everything but name.

And a cow is a horse in everything but name.

Moral high ground?

Oh well. What is this 'Bedroom Tax' you mention? Can you explain it for us so I can avoid having to pay it if at all possible?

What have Messrs Clegg and Alexander 'done'?

The bebroom tax was an unjust measure and I'm pleased that the Lib Dems have realised that. Sometimes a decision looks right at the time, and in politics we can make it hard for politicians to change their minds, but whatever was decided before, the bedroom tax is the wrong thing now.

I have some small insight into the precarious situation of renters, being dependent to a large degree on the goodwill of their landlord for what is, after air, food and water, the next most essential of human necessities, and I find it intolerable that renters have such poor security of tenure - how can a society be fully stable and content when, on a whim, a landlord can evict a tenant without cause. There was a time when politically active council tenants could legitimately be evicted from their homes for criticising their council landlords but the Human Rights Act has made that unlawful and mercifully there are some effective housing charities who enforce that right. Likewise minorities have not always had equal access to housing and that injustice has to a large extent been eliminated by some relatively decent equality legislation, though "foreigners" are still routinely vilified for being allocated public housing and as UKIP encourages Britain to be less and less tolerant that situation looks likely to deteriorate and casual discrimination diffuse into the mainstream Tory agenda.

I would give tenants far greater security of tenure, and I know that's going beyond the current argument, but it's something I've felt strongly about for some time. It's intolerable to make someone's home insecure, so I would make it very difficult indeed to evict a family from their home, and that obviously includes getting rid of the intrusive and demeaning bedroom tax. Yes, I understand that there will be families who can't find the rented housing that they need, and yes I understand that there may be families living in rented housing which by some Orwellian measure is too big for their needs, but the bedroom tax is a divisive way to solve the problem that undermines the dignity of people and it's something only a Tory would be happy with.

But the Lib Dems don't seem to be proposing to do away with the bedroom 'tax' - just modifying to remove some of the most unjust aspects of it.

Pre election grandstanding.

Again, I'd agree with that. The original implementation of this measure was pretty blunt. In effect, the LibDems have seen what's happened and, as you say, are really just proposing what seems like a pretty valid correction. Say what you like, but for once, it is a politician saying 'we didn't get that right first time, so we'll make a correction'.....exactly what we've been asking our Councillors to do locally!

Absolutely! ...and if we really do want to break the 'only way is own' fettish in housing, we have to do this.

Cameron used the argument that it was unfair that privately rented occupants didn't get the same benefit and that low income families were struggling to find homes with enough space, but it seems very unfair that the least capable people are the first to be penalised. Good riddance to the 'Bedroom Tax'.

Don't know. Perhaps we should ask HMRC, they must be involved if it is a tax.

Well you and NWNREADER can be very taxing sometimes, does this mean you work for the HMRC?

'Fraid not. Feels like I fund them........

Would like a couple of answers, though.......

No skill in being disingenuous!

Benefits are a minefield and I'm sure that central government were trying to find ways of getting the cost down and perhaps attempting to get social tenants who were capable of working back into the workplace. In my view, it is a little unworkable as the administration has rules rather than guidelines which rules are a little draconian. But of course, discretion leads to variances between councils and it all goes off the rails.

Will this go the way of the Poll Tax.

Well at least the "Poll Tax" (Community Charge) WAS a tax and affected all of us, the principal being that it would have been not just homeowners / renters who paid excessively high council tax but all would contribute towards the services they received.
Because this would draw in people who would not have previously paid local taxes it inevitably was unpopular with those people.
Likewise, if this was really a tax then, as I receive no housing benefit, am I taxed on ALL my bedrooms?
Anyway I'll speak to my colleagues in the tax office for clarification and see if I can arrange a tax for EVERYONE who has spare bedrooms and see how popular that is because then it WOULD be taxing.

There are bigger questions than yours and other's pedantic witterings as to whether the policy is levied by the HMRC or not. After all, a bread-line isn't made of bread, and a bread-winner doesn't these days jubilate having won a weeks worth of bread. However, the practical effect of this is exactly the same for those that it costs in terms of reduced income (or benefit in this case). It is certainly true that it is taxing for those that have found their benefits cut. Tax is often thought of as an ugly word and this policy deserves to be considered ugly.

The problem with the Poll Tax is that many lower income people saw their household bill soar.

Or in deliberately continuing a falsehood, or overstating a value........ Especially when seeking to make personal gain from so doing

Please see my last posting.

People on low incomes could apply for Community Charge Relief - the real problem was that people who could afford to pay didn't want to. It was in many ways a far fairer tax than Rates or Council Tax - all adults paying a share rather than just the householders.

The Lib Dems were proposing a local income tax as an alternative - is this still the case Ruwan?

The 'Bedroom tax' also makes some sense - why should councils pay higher rents for people who are lving in larger houses than they need? Is it not unfair that families in need are crammed into 2 bedroom homes while couples whose children have left the nest sit comfortably in 4 bedroom houses paid for by the taxpayer? The glaring problems were the inability of the system to recognise 'need' in terms of disabled tenants and in the obvious unfairness of reducing housing benefit when the tenant had no choice of moving to smaller accomodation.

People on the bread line or just above could get no discount, and saw their 'rates' almost double. It is fair in that the charge was per person, but it didn't take into account the affect on low or modest income families, especially where was only one 'bread winner'.


Exactly.

In many ways, what got called Bedroom Tax was probably a fairer distribution of the limited welfare budget - simply not explained well enough. The 'bedroom tax' name was really just a brilliant strap line thought up by Labour to help their own political ends; they can't be faulted for that and it worked! Nonetheless, the basic principle is right and highlights what's wrong with paying out unemployment benefit made up of myriad different allowances. Arguably, it would be much fairer to pay out a flat rate benefit, potentially based on your last n years average pay for a period or in the absence of that, the minimum wage.

If that was all it was then there wouldn't be an issue, the problem is the limited or inability of people to avoid it. Of course the Bedroom Tax is a fairer system, but its implementation was appalling. Perhaps a better idea was create a positive incentive for people to move out of homes they don't fully utilise, rather than a punitive one.

I seem to remember Mrs T was against local PAYE because she thought she'd go down in history as the PM who having pledged to reduce income tax actually substantially increased it. Poll tax on the face of it was the answer - it got rid of the old rates and made everyone pay. Seemingly much fairer and with the advantage of giving everyone a real stake in local government. The real issue wax that it is un enforceable - how do you make people pay? You can't cut off most council 'services' and debt is a civil offence. The community charge is really the rates under another name so as you suggest, it still needs sorting. As well as local PAYE, there is the American way, have a local sales tax; that would make life interesting!

I'm not convinced. After all, what happened when the claimants were in work, they didn't get extra wages simply because they had more bedrooms. Equally, in harsh terms, if someone is on benefit, there is still no compulsion to move; it just means they have less to spend elsewhere. We don't adjust benefit for people who have large powerful cars than they need which creates the same effect. It's the overall level of benefit that is too low.

If you have an expensive car, you can sell it for a modest one that will do the job just as well. It is not like people can just move next door to a place with fewer rooms.

Like I said, it isn't the principle that is wrong, it is the transition. People who already struggle to make ends meet, or are of modest means, are made poorer. And it isn't a case that benefits are too low as such, but that we have a situation where benefits is the best 'option'. In other words, a lack of meaning full work and living wages, coupled with an ever increasing cost of leaving in proportion to income. All this without even thinking about the disabled.

Witterings? pedantry? Tut tut....

I get the point re 'home', but wonder where the line falls for the State to supply accommodation for a person that is above and beyond their needs? Plenty of adverse comments about people who cannot stop having children who demand ever bigger houses, this topic seems to be about people whose needs have decreased and whether or not the State should fund them while still needing to find big homes for new families coming through.

Philosophical point, but if the choice of the people is to give housing according to the request of the occupier, with virtually no constraint, then the rest of the system (funding included) will have to accommodate that.

As I understand (and I'm on the outside looking in) there is no tax, just (?) a reduction in Benefits when the need no longer exists? Is the proposal that Benefits once granted are never re-assessed?

I'm still waiting to hear what the named politicians have 'done'. Speaking is not doing. Party is not the point - it is a trick they all use.

It is about a policy that inevitably means removing people from their homes based on the ability to pay. The benefit was deemed to be necessary according to need, but, as a lever to remove people from alleged underutilised property, they are withholding benefit, a.k.a The Benefit Tax.


Philosophical, but also unfounded and irrelevant.


See my first comment. Of course benefits should be re-assessed. If someone is being paid for something and that something goes, then the need goes, but that isn't what is happening here.


They have acknowledged the unfairness of the policy, where as the the Tories haven't. Nothing else. But you knew that too.

Still not a tax.

Nu-nun-na-nun-na ?

As much as Breadline isn't bread, or a seahorse isn't a horse, but in practical terms The Bedroom Tax is a tax.

Nu-nun-na-nun-na ?
No it's not.
Do you take on board every sensationalist title invented by the media?
Is Posh posh?
Is this a short argument or the full half hour??

That mocking noise 'adults' make when someone's being childish.


Is a seahorse a horse, is a bread winner someone who is exclusively successfully in winning bread in competitions?

If you cannot understand poetic licence in what is in effect a proper noun, then you are probably too disingenuous or obtuse to have a meaning full conversation with, or just too pedantic. There are far greater issues at hand than the etymology or meaning of words.

In practical terms The Bedroom Tax is a tax. Period.

Sorry, the removal of a Benefit an individual no longer needs - but would still like - is not tax.

Ah yes, but, it suits some people to jump on the populist bandwagon, or rather to not bother to scramble off it. The same people who say Tory and at the same time mumble scum under their breath will be most likely to use the phrase "bedroom tax" as some kind of mantra :-)

Taxes taketh away

Vat taketh away

Loss of benefit taketh away.

(We don't adjust benefit for people who have large powerful cars than they need which creates the same effect)

We do....

Road fund licence or Car tax taketh away proportional to the emissions of the car. Big car expensive small car less expensive.

Fuel tax taketh away.

and so on.

I'll have a glass of whatever you are drinking!

I forgot. hic.

Alcohol tax taketh away

Well, whatever it's called, there is another very simple answer, what's wrong with the landlord reducing the rent, particularly those who claim to be social landlords?

How does that work. The bedroom still exists and if the benefit is cut, why should the rent be cut to compensate. That means the landlord now has the burden.

I was simply pointing out another alternative because this debate about appeared to be about what some see as an unreasonable reduction in benefit payments. This whole 'bedroom tax' issue has arisen because politicians like to use the benefits system as a tool kit for social re-engineering. Not surprising round here, arguably we started that trend with the Speenhamland system!

Please explain how this is a removal of a benefit an individual no longer needs.

I don't see why having a spare bedroom means I would need a lesser amount in benefit unless of course I was renting the room out but there are rules to cover that which reduces my income accordingly.

Where this all goes pear shaped in my opinion are the draconian rules around disabled people and carers. If I or my partner are disabled and at the moment don't need an overnight carer or If I sleep in the same room as my disabled partner then I am penalised because I have a spare room. But often, a spare room makes life tolerable within a disabled partnership. A bit like a full time carer needing time out and the day carer has to sleep over to help out or I have to move into the spare room now and again.

The other rule that baffles me is that children under ten should share a room even if of the opposite sex. What !!! is that OK and if they are 8 and 9 do I get my benefit back when one turns 10 and is entitled to a room alone or, if I have been downsized, can I now be resized. In both cases, who pays my moving expenses. I am poor, that's why I am on benefit.

I thought the civil servants who think these things up went to expensive schools to be able to think things through before asking a minister to rubber stamp an unworkable policy. You can bet that councils will do their best to make it work despite the human cost.

It will all end in tears.

Please tell me if I have got anything wrong here.

You've just explained why it's stupid not to pay a fixed sum and which isn't based on other spurious factors. In this area, civil servants are innocent, it's the dolts we vote in that cause the trouble! Have a look at the original Beverage (he was then a civil servant) proposal; not what got implemented sadly.