United Kingdom General Election 2015

[justintime129]

I didn't say anything about social housing, I said people should look at renting a room out, helping people stay in their current homes and others to find a place to live. Young people setting out in the private sector regularly have house shares because it is all they can afford, why should people on benefits get a better deal, just because they are not paying for it.

There was a trailer on TV for a programme about benefit tennents, a participant said that people renting should have the same rights as those who buy. Doesn't happen when you rent anything else so why should it apply when you borrow a house or flat.

The majority of people on housing benefits are living in social housing. So if circumstances changed and you had to claim housing benefit would you went a room. The majority of people claiming housing benefit live in social housing and through no fault of their own are having to pay out of their benefits.

 

[Gord]

For those thinking of supporting the Labour Party, a little info'

[TABLE="class: MsoNormalTable, width: 100%"]
[TR]
[TD]

[TABLE="class: MsoNormalTable, width: 450"]
[TR]
[TD]

[TABLE="class: MsoNormalTable, width: 450"]
[TR]
[TD][TABLE="class: MsoNormalTable, width: 100%"]
[TR]
[TD]
Miliband -vs- democracy
5 questions for Ed Miliband & Labour candidates on an EU referendum



Dear Supporter,

'My view on the EU means you can't have a say'.

That's the confrontational message Labour leader Ed Miliband yesterday chose, to kick off his party's general election campaign.

To launch his bid to become prime minister, he (a) repeated that he will not hold the EU referendum that a large majority of people clearly want and (b) said that's because we might vote the 'wrong' way.

As a strategy to win people's trust and our votes, it couldn't be worse.

According to Mr Miliband, giving us all a vote on the EU's significant role in how we are governed would be "playing political games."

Let's face it; citing the alleged consequences of Britain leaving the EU to deny us an EU referendum seems little different in principle to citing the potential outcome of an election to cancel it.

It's a view that reveals an alarming attitude to democracy.


EU referendum questions

Mr Miliband’s speech yesterday was billed as Labour’s 'big offering' to business. Except that polls show a big majority of businesses back an EU referendum.

The British Chambers of Commerce and the Institute of Directors have both backed an EU vote, the BCC poll showing by 77% of 4,000 businesses surveyed.

So here are our five questions for Ed Miliband and Labour candidates seeking your vote on 7th May:

1. Why is it necessary to wait for more EU power transfers to be proposed, before deciding about the past 40 years of changes to our EU membership? You oppose an 'arbitrary' date for a referendum, but you propose an arbitrary wait. Doesn’t this just make it clear that you’re seeking to kick the issue into the long grass and actually avoid giving people a say?
   
2. Why is it “playing political games” to vote in a referendum on how Britain is governed by the EU, yet you don’t seem to take the same view about voting in an election on which party governs Britain - a contradiction, surely?
   
3. Couldn’t your entire case against holding an EU referendum, based as it is on opposition to one particular outcome, also be made against holding a general election – and where does that leave your commitment to democracy?
   
4. Isn’t the EU referendum policy you repeated today neatly shooting yourself in both feet; refusing to grant a democratic exercise that a majority clearly wants, and justifying that refusal with the idea people might end up disagreeing with you? Democratically dubious and signalling a lack of faith in your convictions; could there be a worse election proposition?
   
5. Why do you think your current and former front-bench colleagues like Steve McCabe, Jon Cruddas, Ian Austin, Tom Watson, Gerry Sutcliffe and Tom Harris, together with senior former ministers like Keith Vaz and Andrew Smith, plus numerous other Labour MPs like John Mann, George Howarth, Rosie Cooper, Natascha Engel, John Cryer and more all disagree with you and have all come out in support of a clear pledge to consult people on EU membership?
   

Election action

Ahead of 7th May, please press your local Labour parliamentary candidate for answers to these questions.

More than 30 Labour MPs – many pro-EU – and many Labour candidates too are snubbing Ed Miliband's policy and are backing an EU vote. You can see whether your local Labour MP is among them by looking up their record on our website.

But when it comes to a potential prime minister, so far it appears that Ed Miliband does not understand the democratic case for an EU referendum and is not serious about giving people a proper debate and vote on the EU’s role in how we are governed.

In the next few weeks, please take every opportunity to talk with your friends, neighbours and work colleagues about the case for an EU referendum, follow and retweet us on Twitter, like us and share on Facebook, print off our registration form to sign-up others, order our free leaflets to pass on or put through local letterboxes - and if you can, please make a donation to our campaign fund to help us to keep fighting for your right to vote on Britain's membership of the EU.

Thank you for your continued support,
Stuart, Marc and the People's Pledge team

[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]

[TABLE="class: MsoNormalTable, width: 450"]
[TR]
[TD] [TABLE="class: MsoNormalTable, width: 100%"]
[TR]
[TD="colspan: 2"]

follow on Twitter | friend on Facebook | forward to a friend ​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 350"] Published and promoted by:
The People's Pledge
- the cross-party campaign for an EU referendum
-------------------------------------------------------------------
83 Victoria Street, London SW1H 0HW
[/TD]
[TD="width: 190"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="colspan: 2"]

unsubscribe from this list | update subscription preferences ​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
​

I'm not in a position to do anything of course since I don't live in the UK and therefore cannot vote but just thought perhaps this info' should be put out there for all to see as this faux par might not be publicised in some of the more Labour oriented areas of the UK since the majority of the people in the country seem to want the opportunity to vote on EU membership but so far have been denied and Millipede seems intent on continuing that denial.

 

[Rugby-Jock-Lad]

UKIP :-D!!

Different, barmy and you can't help but like Farage!! Now if only Boris was in charge of the Conservatives (hears clown circus tunes) :-D!!!!!

Lib Dems in with a shout then I see DT_Xtremez_30:!!!

Well after looking at my constituency electionees have a massive choice of:

Conservative, Liabour, Da SS-NP, and Lib Dems DT_Xtremez_25:. NO UKIP THEN!!!!

 

[busby1971]

The majority of people on housing benefits are living in social housing. So if circumstances changed and you had to claim housing benefit would you went a room. The majority of people claiming housing benefit live in social housing and through no fault of their own are having to pay out of their benefits.

This is what is wrong with some people having a sense of entitlement, the state should help you find housing that is suitable for your circumstances. Are you saying that people who pay tax should pay more in order for benefits claimants to have a bigger home than they need. Should people in the forces go without so that social tennents can have a bigger home than people who have to pay for their own homes.

Touch wood I would never need to but if the only accommodation I could afford was a room in a HMO or a house share then I don't see anything wrong with that.

 

[justintime129]

This is what is wrong with some people having a sense of entitlement, the state should help you find housing that is suitable for your circumstances. Are you saying that people who pay tax should pay more in order for benefits claimants to have a bigger home than they need. Should people in the forces go without so that social tennents can have a bigger home than people who have to pay for their own homes. Touch wood I would never need to but if the only accommodation I could afford was a room in a HMO or a house share then I don't see anything wrong with that.

it's not a sense of entitlement. People have been living in their council houses for years then the Tories come along and say you either move to a smaller house or you pay for thst extra room you've got. Now tell me where these smaller houses sre because there's none out there.

 

[FOMz]

So a pist from a lobby group who want to force an EU referendum and youkap it up Gord... Of course it couldnt possibly be weighted against anyone who doesnt agree with them.

 

[busby1971]

it's not a sense of entitlement. People have been living in their council houses for years then the Tories come along and say you either move to a smaller house or you pay for thst extra room you've got. Now tell me where these smaller houses sre because there's none out there.

My brother lives on disability benefits and had a two bedroom flat paid for by benefits. Labour came along and cut his benefit because he only needs one bedroom, he had to move. Why should people in social housing be treated differently.

 

[briggfairy]

it's not a sense of entitlement. People have been living in their council houses for years then the Tories come along and say you either move to a smaller house or you pay for thst extra room you've got. Now tell me where these smaller houses sre because there's none out there.

that's where taking a lodger in or having a shared house comes in, if i couldn't afford my mortgage on a big house the bank wouldn't just say oh that's okay because you've lived there for years, i'd have to move or take in a lodger.

social housing should be for people who have nowhere else to live and as the old saying goes beggars can't be choosers.

 

[justintime129]

that's where taking a lodger in or having a shared house comes in, if i couldn't afford my mortgage on a big house the bank wouldn't just say oh that's okay because you've lived there for years, i'd have to move or take in a lodger.

social housing should be for people who have nowhere else to live and as the old saying goes beggars can't be choosers.

Scenario. Couple live in a 3 bedroom house in receipt of housing benefits. Bedroom tax comes in only receive will have to pay extra for 2 rooms. Ask council for a move to a 1 bedroom house. None available. So move out to private sector 1 bedroom house. Rent is more than what they were receiving for 3 bedroom house but because they're in a 1 bedroom house the local council will pay the rent.

I live in a 3 bedroom council house with my partner. We moved from a 2 bedroom flat, the only reason we were able to get the house is because of the bedroom tax. My area have a surplus of 3 bedroom houses they are unable to rent out because people who.are only entitled to a smaller house will not move in.

So the bedroom tax is not saving as much as the government predicted.

 

[Barch]

Scenario. Couple live in a 3 bedroom house in receipt of housing benefits. Bedroom tax comes in only receive will have to pay extra for 2 rooms. Ask council for a move to a 1 bedroom house. None available. So move out to private sector 1 bedroom house. Rent is more than what they were receiving for 3 bedroom house but because they're in a 1 bedroom house the local council will pay the rent.

I live in a 3 bedroom council house with my partner. We moved from a 2 bedroom flat, the only reason we were able to get the house is because of the bedroom tax. My area have a surplus of 3 bedroom houses they are unable to rent out because people who.are only entitled to a smaller house will not move in.

So the bedroom tax is not saving as much as the government predicted.

You forgot to add ...

Family that was a 3 bed private rental paid for by housing benefits move into 3 bed council property making a substantial saving for the benefits system even taking the other move into consideration.

 

[Kryten]

UKIP apparently wants to tax childless women. The Party is calling the policy the Spare Womb Tax….

 

[justintime129]

You forgot to add ...

Family that was a 3 bed private rental paid for by housing benefits move into 3 bed council property making a substantial saving for the benefits system even taking the other move into consideration.

No because it doesn't happen why do they need to move.

 

[Blue72]

Aren't things so simple in your world. Where is this social housing available for those people to move down.

There's plenty of space left in the country to build houses on, there just isn't anywhere to work in the places they could build houses. Plus there is the whole green belt / brown belt business (which to be honest I think are unsustainable and unrealistic given the UK's current population).

Put some good infrastructure / manufacturing in the Welsh Valleys / Scottish highlands / Penines, and create other places to live and work!

In the South East this is definitely not the issue - the issue is that younger people with their name on the housing lists won't accept something that they see as "not good enough" - in Southern East Anglia where I am there is masses of housing standing empty, and always has been, but people now see it as their "human right" to have a big place/modern kitchen/spare room/garden etc. I beg to differ - there should be a strictly laid down set of guidelines IMO as to what a particular "type" of proposed tenant is entitled to - and that should be what they get. So a single person, no disabilities, no kids - 1 bed flat on any floor of any sort of building. Mum, Dad and 2 kids under 4 - ideally a 3 bed to "future proof" them, but if all that's available is a 2 bed - that's what bunk beds were invented for and they should be told as much. I remember being told when I first started working that I "should" get my name on the council list for a place ASAP - and was absolutely baffled - I wasn't brought up to looking for someone else paying my way for me and it seemed an absolutely alien concept to me to be applying for a place with subsidised rent when I could go the private route. On the flip side, I have an acquaintance - single lady in her 40's, 2 kids (different fathers and not in contact with either of them) - been in council housing and receiving benefits of all sorts for years and has no intention of changing that, yet she earns substantially more than I do, and in fact about as much as myself & my husband combined. Yet STILL the benefits keep coming - it can only be fraudulent and really hacks me off I'm afraid!

 

[busby1971]

No because it doesn't happen why do they need to move.

That's the wrong question, it should be why shouldn't they move?

If they are not paying for where they live how can they expect to have a choice.

Social housing should be a stepping stone not a permanent solution.

Individuals who can afford to should be forced into the private sector, to not do so stops more deserving cases from receiving the support they deserve, results in a higher cost to the tax payer with less money available for the NHS, the Police, the Forces or any other government department that faces cuts.

 

[justintime129]

That's the wrong question, it should be why shouldn't they move?

If they are not paying for where they live how can they expect to have a choice.

Social housing should be a stepping stone not a permanent solution.

Individuals who can afford to should be forced into the private sector, to not do so stops more deserving cases from receiving the support they deserve, results in a higher cost to the tax payer with less money available for the NHS, the Police, the Forces or any other government department that faces cuts.

But it is a permament solution. Millions have lived in council houses over the last hundred years. Do you propose to do away with this. Nearly every European country as social housing, there's nothing wrong with it.

 

[Barch]

But it is a permament solution. Millions have lived in council houses over the last hundred years. Do you propose to do away with this. Nearly every European country as social housing, there's nothing wrong with it.

There is nothing wrong with social housing.

There is a problem with Housing Benefits that are used to pay for housing that is larger than the requirement.

 

[justintime129]

There is nothing wrong with social housing.

There is a problem with Housing Benefits that are used to pay for housing that is larger than the requirement.

You don't get it. A person moves out of 3 bedroom council house cos he has to pay bedroom tax he then moves in to 1 bedroom private house which and council will pay that rent which is more than 3 bedroom council house rent. How us that saving mobey

 

[Stevienics]

You don't get it. A person moves out of 3 bedroom council house cos he has to pay bedroom tax he then moves in to 1 bedroom private house which and council will pay that rent which is more than 3 bedroom council house rent. How us that saving mobey

because at the the end of the year, if that 3B asset isn't utilised it can be possibly disposed of. The point is that the rent paid on the 3B asset IS indeed less than a 1B private renting, but that lesser public asset rental goes to the Council, meaning a lesser return on on the investment than can be realised in disposal, with the added plus that there are no maintenance of management costs to pay on it, which also come out of the public purse.

 

[justintime129]

because at the the end of the year, if that 3B asset isn't utilised it can be possibly disposed of. The point is that the rent paid on the 3B asset IS indeed less than a 1B private renting, but that lesser public asset rental goes to the Council, meaning a lesser return on on the investment than can be realised in disposal, with the added plus that there are no maintenance of management costs to pay on it, which also come out of the public purse.

How will it be sold. The majority of social housing us owned by housing trusts. My housing trust as houses standing vacant which have to be monitored for vandalism while the council is paying out for private housing. Doesn't make any sense. But thats the Tories fir you. Doing things without thinking it through. If the housing was available then I could accept the bedroom tax.

 

[Barch]

You don't get it. A person moves out of 3 bedroom council house cos he has to pay bedroom tax he then moves in to 1 bedroom private house which and council will pay that rent which is more than 3 bedroom council house rent. How us that saving mobey

Because a needy family that requires 3 bedrooms could be moved out of a 3 bed private rental that is a damn site cheaper than a one bed private rental.

In every post you seem to ignore the savings made in other areas.

None are as blind as those that don't want to see !!