We hear endless sob stories on the BBC about tenants having to move house due to the governments ‘bedroom tax’….or spare room subsidy reduction if you prefer.
We hear the ‘vulnerable’ are being targeted and discriminated against, the poorest in society victimised and cities being ‘cleansed’ of the poor.
Well you can argue about that endlessly but what about at the other end of the scale….those high earners who refuse to budge from their social housing subsidised by the tax payer?
Guido certainly had several pops at the likes of Bob Crow who has such a home.
But how often do we hear about the government’s ‘Pay to Stay’ initiative where the higher your income the more you must pay to stay in social housing?
Can’t say I have ever heard the BBC mention it.
In the Guardian there are objections to taxing the rich!:
The Joseph Rowntree Foundation and others have persevered with ideas of mixed communities and the benefits of mixing households with different income levels in the same physical space. Now it’s full steam ahead for the ghetto.
Inside Housing objects too claiming it is more a political stunt than a proper policy:
Pay to stay has probably already achieved its political purpose in generating headlines about Bob Crow and Frank Dobson. As a housing policy it is at best a contradictory distraction from the real issues.
‘…on a deeper level it’s hard to avoid the conclusion that this is really about accelerating the Conservative end-game for social housing: reducing it to a residualised rump reserved for the very poorest while leaving everything else to the market.’
Well…er….yes…isn’t that the idea of council/social housing…to provide subsidised/low rent homes for those on low incomes?….or are we to look on the likes of Bob Crow as some sort of missionary? Before we had well intentioned priests who used to travel to darkest Africa to bring civilisation to the natives…now it’s the well heeled union barons bringing ‘gentrification’ and fine dining to the ‘Chavs’.
Guess when you are a Tory led government you just can’t win.
Would be nice to hear Victoria Derbyshire and Co expand their repertoire and at least pay lip service to the fact that the rich are being targeted along with the poorest….the rich of course being hit with proportionately far bigger tax rises than any other income level.
Just finished listening to Derbyshire’s show on Five Live in the respect of the spare room subsidy (call it what you like, but it isn’t a tax).
So, so, so many sob stories you’d think there was only one side of the story – what’s that definition of bias again?
We had one wheelchair user who has two spare bedrooms. One which his daughter uses on her return from Uni and one which he uses for storage (oh how I dream of having an extra room for storage).
The classic was the final caller – referred to several times as a “natural Consevative voter” – what do you think his position was? He was hugely against of course – mighty, might upset that the nasty party was shafting the vulnerable again.
Do you see what they did there? – get a (so called) Tory voter on (and make sure the listeners know that) and then give him plenty of air time to slag the Government off.
Do you see how the balance is therefore achieved?
Bias bias bias – the fact that it is getting/has got less surreptitious is beyond a joke
I CAN’T BELIEVE ITS NOT NUTTERS pt1
also on the same excuse for a show, vikkie toe was interviewing a disabled wifie who said she was going to be losing around £11 due to the terrible bedroom tax and that the council had told her she may have to sell her car, this is my lifeline and I would be isolated, not only that, i have rent and housing arrears, never manage to afford to go anywhere etc etc. Vicky toe then asked her if she was living alone, no doubt looking for the killer punch, but it turns out she is living with her husband who also has a car, but he has had health problems too but was now looking for work.
HELLO! IS THERE ANYBODY THERE?
WTF.
My sympathies to those that tuned in to Dame Nicky and VD. I on the other hand this morning turned on the radio as usual, heard the bull that was emanating from Dame Campbells show and promptly tuned into Planet Rock where the dial has stayed and will do til at least 6 pm. It really is kinder on ones blood pressure.
Indeed I was feeling very sorry for this woman until I heard she had a husband with a car, to be fair to Victoria she did quote a listener who made the point that this couple CHOSE to live in a village without facilities, and they should consider moving to a town where she would have access to shops.
£11 per month is £132 per year the woman would be worse off……….still less than the TV BBC Licence Tax!
He must have repeated the claim to be a Conservative voter at least 8 times during his rant.
Of course he will not vote Conservative again.
He was given an inordinate amount of air time to make his “speech”.
Methinks he protest too much !!
‘Methinks he protest too much !!’
—
It presents an interesting technique in any forum of debate… Especially one controlled by the filter droids who can tune who gets on and what gets said.
So a claimed silent majority previous supporter is at last moved to speak, and speak they do, as much in sorrow but mostly in anger.
They used to be supporters, you know. But no longer.
Imagine if this was ported across as a posting technique, say… on blogs holding the BBC to account?
Lucky that the BBC can be trusted that folk are who they say they are. ‘Cos they say so.
I, too, had the misfortune to get a dose of VD this morning. She had a full cast of sob-story whingers lined up, so they decided to ignore the High Court ruling and pretend that the government’s policy was discriminating against the disabled. Not once did I hear her ask any of the scroungers why they thought we should pay to give them a bigger house than the average working family. Full-on BBC bias.
Leave the besieged rich alone! Better cash be directed straight back into the economy for more jobs and general investment than sunk into the coffers of ever yet more costly and inefficient government. If taxes were at least halved !!! just watch the nation thrive.
Surprised to see this headline front and center of BBC news website.
“Housing benefit challenge dismissed by High Court”
and no “bedroom tax” or “so called bedroom tax” in site. Maybe they are listening!
And then you read the content
Guido writes
Lord Justice Laws has ruled that these are changes to “a means-tested benefit”.
Amusingly he points out that this “is well known”.
Try telling that to the BBC…
I think perhaps the Beeb was uncomfortable going with ‘bedroom tax’ on this occasion due to the judge’s words. Give it a little time and they’ll get back to using it.
Now the “BBC TAX” is tax, you pay them hard earned money. You don’t pay the tax you get a criminal record and even go to prison. The other is a small reduction on your labour freebies.
I don’t understand why the BBC are ramping this story up and using wheelchair users as poster boys. I would have thought a large proportion of the renting disabled were living in state owned properties. In which case they lost their spare room subsidy under Labour not the Tories?
When, I wonder, was the last time the BBC mentioned that the new changes are to bring privately rented properties in line with council owned ones?
I don’t remember this fuss when Labour were being the nasty party?
Oddly they never show the mother who has to put four children in a single room because Derbyshire’s guests are hogging the larger flats. Or the family that has to go without a holiday this year to pay the taxes that fund these extra rooms.
pah
“I would have thought a large proportion of the renting disabled were living in state owned properties. In which case they lost their spare room subsidy under Labour not the Tories?”
Wow. As I write this “22 likes” for pah’s post; even though he’s got it completely the wrong way round. The current government’s policy applies to “state owned” council properties – not those privately rented. You know, where a large proportion of those renting disabled just happen to live.
Yup, got that the wrong way around but the point still stands. Apologies for the misleading info.
Where was your indignation when Labour were applying this to disabled people in private housing? Were they too Tory for you?
And why did Labour not include those in council properties? After all a council house usually costs less than a private house to rent (when I was last renting my one bedroom in a shared flat cost more to rent than a four bedroomed council house). Something to do with votes perhaps?
When I listen to the debate on this subject, I just wonder who it will be moving into these two and three bedroomed homes and who it will be, moving out? Have the BBC given any clues as to this conundrum?
Indeed given the fact that immigrants normally trump the disabled for Auntie, I would expect the BBC to welcome ethnic British disabled being kicked out of their larger homes so that foreign families can move in. Could they just be looking for any old excuse to knock the Tories? Can’t help thinking if Milliband were doing this they’d be cheering him on.
Have yer noticed how they are all chummy-wummy first-namey – victoria this, nikki tha, shelagh the other. A bit too reminiscent of Nuliar and their trying to convince you that Tony, Gordon, John. Alistair, Alastair, and Harriet were yer bezzies.
Anyhoo fair play to Pigthickshire. When she was interviewing that lad in the wheelchair and his wife and she finished the call with,
‘Do you know what, I feel so much for the position you’re being put in that you can come and live with me. Forever.’
My – what a lady.