Douglas Alexander Fails To Vote Against Bedroom Tax

[houston_bud]

The motion to repeal the bedroom tax was defeated by 26 votes. The majority of Lib Dems toed the Conservative party line and what looks like around 30 Labour MPs failed to vote. Local MP Douglas Alexander being one.

Other notable absentees; Gordon Brown, Jim Murphy, Anas Sarwar. What an absolute shower.

On my phone so can't seem to post the link.

[salmonbuddie]

Can't see anything anywhere to confirm this but I'd guess they were paired and didn't have to vote. And I'm not defending anyone, either.

[houston_bud]

Pretty sure pairing isnt used any more.

Not sure though.

[salmonbuddie]

According to Wiki it's still in use for one or two party whip votes ("minor" votes).

[houston_bud]

Ah ok. So if it had been a 3 line whip they'd have lost anyway. Still I dont think that's an excuse. They get paid handsomely for doing their job, and are there to represent their constituents. Just looks like Labour dont care (rightly or wrongly). Total own goal here.

[stlucifer]

Ah ok. So if it had been a 3 line whip they'd have lost anyway. Still I dont think that's an excuse. They get paid handsomely for doing their job, and are there to represent their constituents. Just looks like Labour dont care (rightly or wrongly). Total own goal here.

Let's be honest.

If it were a three line whip, or any kind of flagellation device, they wouldd all be queuing up!

Edited November 13, 2013 by stlucifer

[Hollz]

According to twitter, he was at an event about the Holocaust in Auscwitz. Well not sure if he was actually there or it was a conference but he wasn't voting anyone on an issue many constituents care a lot about - the bedroom tax.

[houston_bud]

I don't doubt he was doing something worthwhile, but you are right to say this is an issue many of his constituents care about and may be affected by. For the Labour party to call this motion then have 47 (or thereabouts) abstentions seems ridiculous.

[thomsons dropped it]

That ginger Alexander twat posing as our local MP up here didn't turn up either

[thepaisleypanda]

Full story here - Parasites indeed!

http://wingsoverscotland.com/parasites-on-the-nation/

[Guest TPAFKATS]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=guQw3nSkXMY

[buddiecat]

it's not a tax - it;s a reduction in benefit for under-occupancy, and it was completely wrong to introduce it to those already in occupancy. it should have been introduced for tenants moving into homes after the decision to introduce it and only to those who cannot prove they need an extra bedroom or who are unable to get a tenancy with the correct number of rooms i.e. let people move into empty homes until there is suitable accomodation available, and allow those in under occupied houses to remain there with no reduction in benefit until they choose to move.

it's a boot in the baws from the tories and one of many to come yet, because cameron has already stated that his "short term" austerity measures will now in fact be long term and benefits are number one on his chopping list

[Stuart Dickson]

it's not a tax - it;s a reduction in benefit for under-occupancy, and it was completely wrong to introduce it to those already in occupancy. it should have been introduced for tenants moving into homes after the decision to introduce it and only to those who cannot prove they need an extra bedroom or who are unable to get a tenancy with the correct number of rooms i.e. let people move into empty homes until there is suitable accomodation available, and allow those in under occupied houses to remain there with no reduction in benefit until they choose to move.

it's a boot in the baws from the tories and one of many to come yet, because cameron has already stated that his "short term" austerity measures will now in fact be long term and benefits are number one on his chopping list

Nah, I can't agree with that.

The root of the problem lies in how housing benefit and social welfare were formed. People thought that once they got a council house that was it, they were there for as long as they wanted it regardless of their work situation and their ability to pay rent. It's the same "entitlement" complex that so many people appear to have as a result of decades of state handouts.

Edited November 14, 2013 by Stuart Dickson

[bluto]

Nah, I can't agree with that.

The root of the problem lies in how housing benefit and social welfare were formed. People thought that once they got a council house that was it, they were there for as long as they wanted it regardless of their work situation and their ability to pay rent. It's the same "entitlement" complex that so many people appear to have as a result of decades of state handouts.

does that entitlement complex also apply to councils who have received rent over generations of occupancy, far beyond the worth of the property? Has that entitled the councils to now demand extra income on top of the rent, for something that was already paid for?

Your logic defies analysis and your 'morality' has never been in doubt.

[stlucifer]

Nah, I can't agree with that.

The root of the problem lies in how housing benefit and social welfare were formed. People thought that once they got a council house that was it, they were there for as long as they wanted it regardless of their work situation and their ability to pay rent. It's the same "entitlement" complex that so many people appear to have as a result of decades of state handouts.

So. Do you advocate eviction due to non ability to pay?

Perhaps the poorhouse should be reinvented.

Those who can't afford to pay a ridiculous tax, (and make no mistake, it IS a tax. It's taxing for those least equiped to pay) could send their kids up the chimney or down the mine. Oh. Wait a minutwe. Our government destroyed those mines so the latter is a non starter. just need to get them out on the streets with the begging bowls.

Underoccupancy is a nonsense. The majority of those who are in oversized accomodation can't get a smaller habitat in an area equivalent to their current abodes.

YES. Make those who are screwing the system tow the line as much as is possible while ensuring NO innocent party/ies is/are hurt.

I'd much rather accept the fact that some guilty get away than one innocent is hung out to dry.

[Reynard]

See my signature.

[bluto]

Impossible on an iPad.

Fortunately.

Probably.

[oaksoft]

People thought that once they got a council house that was it, they were there for as long as they wanted it regardless of their work situation and their ability to pay rent.

Yes because those are the rules aren't they?

I have a problem with the Tories selling off social housing in the first place.

HOWEVER, I have a MAJOR problem with people who could afford to buy their own place and remain in the cheaper council house.

This means our scarce supply of housing isn't available to people starting out.

There's something to be said for being able to live in a council house until you're income gets above a certain level.

It's harsh to move people on but it's harsher on those who currently have no house.

The balance of fairness whilst our council house stock is so low would be to help those at the very bottom.

One of the union heads was earning over £100k and still living in a council owned house (Bob Crowe??).

In a time of dire shortage, THAT is an appalling abuse.

If we really want a decent society there needs to be understanding and movement on both sides.

Edited November 14, 2013 by oaksoft

[beyond our ken]

Yes because those are the rules aren't they?

I have a problem with the Tories selling off social housing in the first place.

HOWEVER, I have a MAJOR problem with people who could afford to buy their own place and remain in the cheaper council house.

This means our scarce supply of housing isn't available to people starting out.

There's something to be said for being able to live in a council house until you're income gets above a certain level.

It's harsh to move people on but it's harsher on those who currently have no house.

The balance of fairness whilst our council house stock is so low would be to help those at the very bottom.

One of the union heads was earning over £100k and still living in a council owned house (Bob Crowe??).

In a time of dire shortage, THAT is an appalling abuse.

If we really want a decent society there needs to be understanding and movement on both sides.

One of the guys who works for me retired from the mines at the age of 42 with a 300k pension fund and a massive lump sum. he now earns in excess of 45k/year, has an investment portfolio of (he claims) more than 500k and he still lives in a 3 bed council house in Glasgow. To be honest, it sticks in my craw, he should be freeing that house up for someone who really needs it

[bluto]

One of the union heads was earning over £100k and still living in a council owned house (Bob Crowe??).

In a time of dire shortage, THAT is an appalling abuse.

If we really want a decent society there needs to be understanding and movement on both sides.

One of the guys who works for me retired from the mines at the age of 42 with a 300k pension fund and a massive lump sum. he now earns in excess of 45k/year, has an investment portfolio of (he claims) more than 500k and he still lives in a 3 bed council house in Glasgow. To be honest, it sticks in my craw, he should be freeing that house up for someone who really needs it

Sorry, guys, but I don't see the relevance of those examples (distasteful as they may be) to those at the bottom of the heap, often disabled, who are now required to pay a Bedroom Tax?

[Stuart Dickson]

does that entitlement complex also apply to councils who have received rent over generations of occupancy, far beyond the worth of the property? Has that entitled the councils to now demand extra income on top of the rent, for something that was already paid for?

Your logic defies analysis and your 'morality' has never been in doubt.

See I could easily turn this around and say that I can't understand your logic either. A rental agreement is what it is. Someone entering into a rental agreement should understand that they will be expected to pay the rent to the owner for the period they intend to use the item they are renting without ever taking ownership. Even in the 50's and 60's this type of agreement would have been well understood as many people had experience of renting a radio set, TV, or even their telephone handset. You never owned the item you were renting, it was always going to have to be given back when you stopped paying for it.

In the 80's Thatcher's government, faced with a rapidly dilapidating housing stock that was desperately in need of large capital investment to bring those houses up to a modern day living standard took the decision to offer council tenants the opportunity to purchase their houses at a large discount. Many took the opportunity - and whilst I agree with the argument that the money raised should have been used to build new council houses for rent the fact is it wasn't and successive governments since have also failed to restart the house building process. Indeed if you watched last weeks This Week programme you would have seen Alan Johnston tell the viewer that Tony Blair and Gordon Brown's governments had the money to build new council houses but they instead opted to spend vast sums of money on improving their existing housing by fitting new kitchens, bathrooms, roofing, doors and windows.

Those tenants that you are talking about will have enjoyed the free upgrades to their accommodation. They will have enjoyed the protection against having to pay for their own repairs. Many won't have paid the full market rental for their property over all the years of their tenancy, indeed most affected by the so called bedroom tax may NEVER have paid the going rate for their property. They will have been offered the opportunity to buy the house at substantial discount, there were even finance companies willing to lend at cheap rates to those on benefits who wanted to buy that meant their monthly payments would have been less than their rent. The opportunities have been afforded to them. Now, in the same way as I fail to see why a cleaner or a bus driver should be expected to pay for the university education for a politician, a GP, or for a solicitor - I also fail to see why anyone should have to subsidise a person living on benefits living in accommodation that is larger than he or she needs. Rather than my morality being in question it is the morality of those who have enjoyed use of a property that didn't belong to them and who now don't want to move on despite the property being too big for their needs when others are left in inappropriate living conditions for the size of their families and who can't move in to the right sized houses because those with extra rooms refuse to move on.

[Stuart Dickson]

So. Do you advocate eviction due to non ability to pay?

Perhaps the poorhouse should be reinvented.

Those who can't afford to pay a ridiculous tax, (and make no mistake, it IS a tax. It's taxing for those least equiped to pay) could send their kids up the chimney or down the mine. Oh. Wait a minutwe. Our government destroyed those mines so the latter is a non starter. just need to get them out on the streets with the begging bowls.

Underoccupancy is a nonsense. The majority of those who are in oversized accomodation can't get a smaller habitat in an area equivalent to their current abodes.

YES. Make those who are screwing the system tow the line as much as is possible while ensuring NO innocent party/ies is/are hurt.

I'd much rather accept the fact that some guilty get away than one innocent is hung out to dry.

Erm - I think you will find that the reason that many of these houses are under occupied is because the children have now grown up and moved away. Sending them up the chimneys might be a bit tough, but I would like to think that many of them will have gone out to work. I say I'd like to think but I know that in reality many of those kids will have acquired the skill of passing the begging bowl around the benefit system bemoaning the fact that they are being forced to use their housing benefit to pay for rents for cramped houses that don't fit their families - blissfully ignoring the fact that their own parent is one of the causes of their problem.

[Stuart Dickson]

Yes because those are the rules aren't they?

I have a problem with the Tories selling off social housing in the first place.

HOWEVER, I have a MAJOR problem with people who could afford to buy their own place and remain in the cheaper council house.

This means our scarce supply of housing isn't available to people starting out.

There's something to be said for being able to live in a council house until you're income gets above a certain level.

It's harsh to move people on but it's harsher on those who currently have no house.

The balance of fairness whilst our council house stock is so low would be to help those at the very bottom.

One of the union heads was earning over £100k and still living in a council owned house (Bob Crowe??).

In a time of dire shortage, THAT is an appalling abuse.

If we really want a decent society there needs to be understanding and movement on both sides.

f**k me - you've posted something I actually agree with.

[Stuart Dickson]

Sorry, guys, but I don't see the relevance of those examples (distasteful as they may be) to those at the bottom of the heap, often disabled, who are now required to pay a Bedroom Tax?

Oh FFS, most of them are exempt from the "bedroom tax" Bluto. Stop with the bleeding heart shite.

I know a lady in her 50's who is deaf. I've known her all my life. She was my Dad's badminton partner and a close friend of the family. She's worked at various points in her life but has now been unemployed for the past 9 years. She's always lived on her own and thanks to the council she's landed up living in a two bedroom house in Castlemilk. Just after the news of the "bedroom tax" broke we were at a family night out which she had been invited along to. I spoke to her about it and she shrugged her shoulders. She said she had the option of moving to a one bedroom flat, or just making do with a tenner less. She said she loved her house so she'd just have to make do. In the end she managed to get an exemption from her housing association and she hasn't had her benefits reduced. She's only deaf Bluto - and whilst that is a real disability it doesn't affect the individuals ability to work. If she is exempt then so would the ones your heart bleeds for.

Edited November 14, 2013 by Stuart Dickson

[stlucifer]

Oh FFS, most of them are exempt from the "bedroom tax" Bluto. Stop with the bleeding heart shite.

I know a lady in her 50's who is deaf. I've known her all my life. She was my Dad's badminton partner and a close friend of the family.She's one of the few who will listen to me!

Sorted.