[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by smudgie

I wonder how much is down to the tenants now receiving the money to pay their rents instead of it going directly to the landlords.

That doesnt happen yet. Thats when universal credit starts.

[Santa's NaughtiNess]

Thank god i have a one bedroom flat then.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

That doesnt happen yet. Thats when universal credit starts.

That's going to be a huge strain on some people, those in debt will skyrocket!

[Mrluvaluva]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

That doesnt happen yet. Thats when universal credit starts.

It's already come into play in some areas. Ashton-Under-Lyne being one local to myself. I read a week or so ago that as much as Ł200 million spent on the Coalition’s main welfare reform programme may have been wasted due to mis-management, lack of planning and delays caused by the new system. Ł34 million spent on computer systems and services for the project has been written off because it delivered no value for taxpayers. And this system was designed to save money?

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Mrluvaluva

It's already come into play in some areas. Ashton-Under-Lyne being one local to myself. I read a week or so ago that as much as Ł200 million spent on the Coalition’s main welfare reform programme may have been wasted due to mis-management, lack of planning and delays caused by the new system. Ł34 million spent on computer systems and services for the project has been written off because it delivered no value for taxpayers. And this system was designed to save money?

Oh yeah, I forgot UC was being trialled in some areas. I actually agree with the idea behind UC but as usual, its being implemented wrong IMO.

The 'spare room subsidy' (for arista..and the rest who get hung up on the wording) was never going to save money, nor could it ever 'free up larger' housing when the smaller places just arent there. People can't pay what they don't have, and cant move to non-existent preoperties. All that happens is councils end up with a load of tenants who are in debt, so the councils lose money. Meanwhile the odd tenant may kill themselves due to debt worries, but thats one number off the books so who cares...

Honestly, I dont think the goal of the recent benefit changes was ever to save money. It was to punish the poor for being poor. I know I am crossing into conspiracy theory territory there though

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

Oh yeah, I forgot UC was being trialled in some areas. I actually agree with the idea behind UC but as usual, its being implemented wrong IMO.

The 'spare room subsidy' (for arista..and the rest who get hung up on the wording) was never going to save money, nor could it ever 'free up larger' housing when the smaller places just arent there. People can't pay what they don't have, and cant move to non-existent preoperties. All that happens is councils end up with a load of tenants who are in debt, so the councils lose money. Meanwhile the odd tenant may kill themselves due to debt worries, but thats one number off the books so who cares...

Honestly, I dont think the goal of the recent benefit changes was ever to save money. It was to punish the poor for being poor. I know I am crossing into conspiracy theory territory there though

Well I think you have summed it all up perfectly and it is a pity the heartless Ministers of Govt. cannot read and take on board what you have outlined.
Really well said absolutely.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

Oh yeah, I forgot UC was being trialled in some areas. I actually agree with the idea behind UC but as usual, its being implemented wrong IMO.

The 'spare room subsidy' (for arista..and the rest who get hung up on the wording) was never going to save money, nor could it ever 'free up larger' housing when the smaller places just arent there. People can't pay what they don't have, and cant move to non-existent preoperties. All that happens is councils end up with a load of tenants who are in debt, so the councils lose money. Meanwhile the odd tenant may kill themselves due to debt worries, but thats one number off the books so who cares...

Honestly, I dont think the goal of the recent benefit changes was ever to save money. It was to punish the poor for being poor. I know I am crossing into conspiracy theory territory there though

It's not really a conspiracy theory, it's economic fact... The current government have had a sustained agenda to "blame benefits" and to turn the middle wage earners against low / no wage people (cant even say middle class / working class in regards to this any more as increasingly, there are many "traditionally" middle class people stuck on low wages).

They've done this quite successfully and kept the bulk of the population in a festering state of playing the blame-game, which stops them from wondering what the real problem is, and turning their gaze towards the malignant shambles that is modern politics, to the corrupt banking culture, or to themselves (for the 2 decades of spending money that never existed) as a big part of the blame. The easiest people to make a target for blame are those with no realistic prospect of fighting back. They dont have the financial power to fight back legally, and if they use people power to take to the streets in protest they will instantly be branded rioters / thugs.

It's also easy to remove empathy for them by saying "look! They're all drug users and alcoholics, they manage to find money for that!" and therefore dehumanise them. Conveniently ignoring that the culture of alcohol and drug abuse is caused BY, not the cause OF, generations of low socioeconomic status.

[smudgie]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

That doesnt happen yet. Thats when universal credit starts.

Oh dear....it can only get worse.


I am surprised the house builders aren't looking into building one and two bedroom flats on brownfield sites. Keeping it as basic as possible for low rental fees.