tonyh29 Posted April 8, 2013 Share Posted April 8, 2013 I took it out the thread for the reason I gave , what is it about you and accusing people of lying all the time !! I took a direct quote from you , it's quite clear what you said .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted April 8, 2013 Share Posted April 8, 2013 Tony - I have no idea what agenda you are playing to at the moment, the comments re lies what the hell are on? If there is a problem with something that you have obviously misunderstood then maybe you can take it up with a mod or send a PM, I will gladly put you right and stop this silliness In respect to the comments re Thatcher, then the views (and the context) are there and I quite happily stand by them. As a "fan" of hers I appreciate that they may not sit very well with you, but as said history clearly shows that she was heavily involved in all of those instances I mentioned and the context as said was about people passing away, which again history shows happened. As said I think you have either misread something, or have been told something that is supposedly been said that is causing all of this confusion on your part. Why not as the mods have requested talk about the subjects in the thread, eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted April 8, 2013 Share Posted April 8, 2013 I know the mods prefer otherwise but my feel is that once things are said in public , the reply should be public as well ..however tedious that may be for everyone else When I say I moved a comment here because I didn't want to take another thread off at a tangent , then that is why I moved it ... and thus if you are saying I moved it for reasons other than the one I stated ... which you did , then you are calling me a liar aren't you ? Now you may say deep down that is not your intent , but it's certainly the way it comes across (as it did also in the other similar post ) Regarding the post I quoted and the way it is worded .. it implies in exactly the same way that Osborne implies without every actually mentioning Philpott .. intentional or not only you can say , but I can't believe I am the only person in the VT world that read it that way (answers on a postcard / forum ) Read my posts with a hint of mischief , but never any malice ..that way your replies would probably be worded differently and we would avoid this NK / USA type tensions that spasmodically break out between us Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted April 8, 2013 VT Supporter Share Posted April 8, 2013 It's getting as bad as the main VT forum in here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markavfc40 Posted April 12, 2013 Share Posted April 12, 2013 (edited) It seems Leeds City Council have found a way around the bedroom tax: Leeds Help Tenants Leeds City Council is looking at ways to reduce the number of people who are losing out on benefits because they are under occupying a house. The council is looking at the possibility of re-designating the number of bedrooms in a wide range of council homes across the city so as to reduce the amount of people who may lose out on their housing benefit after the government’s ‘bedroom tax’ came into force this month. As part of the new welfare changes that are now in place, those tenants under occupying a house will receive up to 14 per cent less housing benefit if they are assessed to have one additional bedroom and up to 25 per cent if they are assessed to have two or more additional bedrooms. Coun Peter Gruen, Leeds City Council executive board member with responsibility for neighbourhoods, planning and support services said: “As part of our ambition to be the best city in the UK we want to make sure people can live comfortably in our city without the worry of not being able to pay their rent. “Under the new welfare changes, tenants under occupying a house by one or more bedrooms will have their housing benefit reduced, therefore making it more difficult to pay the rent each month. “Officers at the council will be investigating the possibility of re-designating 398 three-bedroom low rise flats to two bedrooms, 341 five bedroom houses with a downstairs bedroom to four bedroom houses and 126 two bedroom multi storey flats to one bedroom. “These properties are being looked at because they fall into the highest percentage of properties that are currently affected by under occupancy and fall into low demand when finding new tenants. These properties also present a feasible option for re-designation due to the current layouts. “If the council is able to re-designate all 865 properties that we are currently looking at, it will mean the households affected will not have to find additional funds and will not find themselves in a place of hardship. “The council will benefit from this scheme through the savings that could have been associated with the additional resources such as legal costs and additional staff that come with chasing rent.” Edited April 12, 2013 by markavfc40 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villamark Posted April 12, 2013 Share Posted April 12, 2013 I may be wrong but would the government not just cut cental funding to councils who do this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted April 12, 2013 Share Posted April 12, 2013 I may be wrong but would the government not just cut cental funding to councils who do this. The HB regulations state We will not be defining what we mean by a bedroom in legislation and there is no definition of a minimum bedroom size set out in regulations. It will be up to the landlord to accurately describe the property in line with the actual rent charged It's possible that at some point in the future they could change the regulations, like they recently changed the law when they were found to be acting illegally by making people work for nothing. But right now, it seems to me that the best course of action is for councils and HAs to redesignate properties where people are underoccupying and are not eligible for exemption. Nottingham have done this and Cambridge are considering it. Some councils have decided not to evict for arrears caused by the bedroom tax, but doing this while failing to redesignate means they lose rent, and the tenant has a debt. Redesignating would mean that HB continues to be paid. I don't see why more aren't doing it, apart from it being administratively complex and fiddly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted April 12, 2013 Share Posted April 12, 2013 news from the colonies: Wales has 29,000 people in under occupied houses facing the bedroom tax, luckily Wales also has nearly 400 single bedroom properties for them, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markavfc40 Posted April 12, 2013 Share Posted April 12, 2013 (edited) news from the colonies: Wales has 29,000 people in under occupied houses facing the bedroom tax, luckily Wales also has nearly 400 single bedroom properties for them, Its ridiculous and simply an underhand way of getting a few more quid out of those already with the least and living hand to mouth. Edited April 12, 2013 by markavfc40 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted April 12, 2013 Share Posted April 12, 2013 (edited) news from the colonies: Wales has 29,000 people in under occupied houses facing the bedroom tax, luckily Wales also has nearly 400 single bedroom properties for them, Can't you lot convert some decommissioned pits? Get Beeney and Kevin Grand-Designs and you're on to a winner. Edited April 12, 2013 by snowychap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted April 13, 2013 Share Posted April 13, 2013 news from the colonies: Wales has 29,000 people in under occupied houses facing the bedroom tax, luckily Wales also has nearly 400 single bedroom properties for them, Similar proportions in many other areas, as well. Because, unsurprisingly, social landlords have tried to develop a housing stock which is likely to meet the requirements of both households and populations over many decades. As you would. But the bedroom tax says that people must be permitted no more than the minimum space their household numbers require today. It's mindbendingly stupid, it's at odds with many decades of housing policy, and pretty obviously, it's massively out of step with the reality of what actually exists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted April 13, 2013 Share Posted April 13, 2013 news from the colonies: Wales has 29,000 people in under occupied houses facing the bedroom tax, luckily Wales also has nearly 400 single bedroom properties for them, Can't you lot convert some decommissioned pits? Get Beeney and Kevin Grand-Designs and you're on to a winner. trouble is, if that turned out to be feasible and actually worked and you could live a decent existence underground, we'd end up with the IDS mole tax 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted April 13, 2013 Share Posted April 13, 2013 trouble is, if that turned out to be feasible and actually worked and you could live a decent existence underground, we'd end up with the IDS mole tax There's always this kind of thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted April 13, 2013 Share Posted April 13, 2013 bugger clicked on the link without checking first but thanks anyway, if ever i want some safe not quite pervy couldn't prove anything teenage coming of age in lingerie news, I'll be straight back to the Daily Mail Online website Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted April 13, 2013 Share Posted April 13, 2013 Radio 4's any questions worth a listen on replay some good points on our right to protest and make it clear that if public money is being spent we have a right to peacefully make it clear that this is not DPRK and we don't all have one view of our dear leader not in our name, and all that 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villaajax Posted April 20, 2013 Share Posted April 20, 2013 Fitch have now downgraded the UK's credit rating. And the Treasury are now criticising Osborne's spare home subsidy Dave really needs to have a rethink, assigning cabinet positions by drawing them out of a hat really isn't working. Get someone in who understands economics, maybe even somebody who will do the job full time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr_Pangloss Posted April 20, 2013 Share Posted April 20, 2013 The thoughts and actions of 'credit ratings agencies' do not mean shit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villaajax Posted April 20, 2013 Share Posted April 20, 2013 But they do show that the Government's economics plans, as we know, are failing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr_Pangloss Posted April 20, 2013 Share Posted April 20, 2013 (edited) Whereas I agree that the 'plans' are failing, that's not being shown by what credit rating agencies do. CRA's en mass gave toxic derivatives AAA ratings, in fact Standard & Poors give believe that Cambridge University are less likely to go insolvent than the UK (LOL). They have been shown to be nothing but, well, no-nothings, and besides financial markets don't really care what they say either since they are always behind the curve. The best way to show the failure of austerity is to simply look at the data... Edited April 20, 2013 by Dr_Pangloss Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post chrisp65 Posted April 23, 2013 Popular Post Share Posted April 23, 2013 an excellent day's domestic economics today I'd run up credit card bills of £12,000 so last year I warned the wife and kids they were going to have to suck up some economic pain as I needed to pay down some debts. You can't sustain a borrowing of £12k. So, I've had the kids walking to school, the wife's sandwiches have been basic white bread and peanut butter. I've had to let the window cleaner go and I've cancelled the magazines the kids subscribed to. Personally, I've had a modest rise in my disposable income, but as head of the house, it's important I'm incentivised. I will try and cascade some of this spending of mine. Anyway, I'm glad to announce that household credit card borrowing this year has been reduced to £11, 976.00 It's true what they say, household and national finances are basically the same. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts