Cameron's Benefit Cuts (again).

So we now have a return of the 'Nasty' Party, but the silly sod hasn't thought through what he is advocating, but then that's typical!!!

So lets examine just what he is suggesting. It is being said that he intends to cut all of Housing Benefit to those under 25. And what would be the result??? Firstly those with young children are likely to lose their (independent) accommodation be it Council, Hosing Association or privately rented. The Tories' intention being to force younger claimants off Housing Benefit with an attempt to save £2Billion and getting them to return to the parental home. But now these children have children of their own, so is their the additional space in the parental home??? What if not - what then. Irrespective of any changes in Housing Benefit per se, families in need of alternative accommodation satisfy the 'Priority Need' category under the Homeless Persons Act which means that local authorities MUST find room to rehouse them. If children cannot be adequately housed, then Social Services will have to be brought in to intervene and take any young children they deem 'at risk' into care, this will place an additional burden on already overworked Social Workers and foster carers.

Is Cameron's policy likely to achieve the savings envisaged??? - Unlikely. What does it cost to house a child in a local authority foster home or placed in foster care??? - multiply that cost by the thousands that are likely to be affected by Cameron's policy and that £2Billion saving will be very quickly eaten into by the additional costs incurred ifnot totally eliminated altogether and then some!!!

Then there is the additional pressure on trying to provide local authority housing. We already have a grave shortage of affordable local authority housing.

Re: Cameron's Benefit Cuts (again).

The benefit system was instigated to help those who, for no fault of their own, needed help. No one would argue with that principle. Unfortunately SOME people regard it as providing an easy passage through life. No one would agree with that. So, the problem is how to provide the first while denying the second. Answers on a postcard please.

Re: Cameron's Benefit Cuts (again).

But not all under 25's!
DC and is cronies should get a life, they just haven't a clue, they are not in the real world.

Re: Cameron's Benefit Cuts (again).

Yes Arthur matey, Cameron swallowed the silver spoon he was being fed on and now its sticking out his a*se!!!

Re: Cameron's Benefit Cuts (again).

The problems that his proposed cuts will cause must be frightening for those under 25 year olds who have families of their own.
Driving these people to seek refuge in the parental home is a ludicrous notion. I would imagine that some parental homes would not accommodate a family of three or four.
It could well mean that families will separated and cause untold heartache.
While no decent parent would see their grown children and their family homeless, it is unfair on parents to be forced into that position.

I wonder how many of us had children by the time we were 25 years old, I had two. Fortunately, we never needed to depend on the benefits system.

I wonder if Cameron would like to be separated from his family.

There is a very real human element, which he chooses to ignore. He is doing a very good job of demonising the most vulnerable in our society and people are willing to go along with it.
It is the worse off who are having to pay for the greed of others.

Re: Cameron's Benefit Cuts (again).

The main problem here is the out of control benefit system itself. Over the last decade benefits have been dished out like sweeties to keep the working class in penury and beholding to the (Labour) government that provided them. What's that old saying, "Pregnant and barefoot at the sink"

Tories now are damned if they do, and damned if they don't try to change a system which will, eventually, bankrupt us. I think that you will agree that it's absolutely unfair for some to spend their whole lives on benefits, never attempting to find a job, and be better off than people who work for a living. There has to be something wrong with that isn't there?

Now it's OK to be against something and not agree with something, but where are your ideas about alternatives? The status quo certainly cannot be maintained. What would you do to redress the balance (apart from drive all the wealth creators out of the country with punitive tax rates)?

Re: Cameron's Benefit Cuts (again).

Not all the under 25's that claim housing benefit are out of work though. Some are supporting families on minimum wage & deserve a bit of help to pay their way. What is going to happen to them?

Re: Cameron's Benefit Cuts (again).

Baryy, Barry, Barry, let me give you a little history lesson. It was your beloved Margaret Hilda (phth, phth, phth) who first introduced Housing Benefit in 1983. She also abolished much of the housing legislation which gave security of tenure to many tenants, which then allowed Landlords to increase, increase and increase again the rental value of their properties. Since Thatcher (phth, phth,phth) had seen fit to abolish the Local Government Rent Officers, local councils were in no position to challenge the rentable value of the private sector rents and hence Housing Benefit burgeoned. It is no longer possible to reduce rents and therefore reduce Housing Benefit, but it is possible to 'hold the line' by re-introducing Rent Officers again and re-establishing some form of security of tenure in the private sector.

Re: Cameron's Benefit Cuts (again).

I tend to avoid political discussions but i have to state that in my opinion Cameron has overstepped the mark, it won't work, i can see so many loop holes and problems this will cause, and will end up costing the country more in the long run.

Re: Cameron's Benefit Cuts (again).

That is precisely the point I too was making Kitty darlin'.