If David Cameron Admits He Was Wrong About Bedroom Tax Could He Win

[gordiescotland1]

I don't know what other abs think but if David Cameron admits he was wrong about bedroom tax could he win? What do others think of the bedroom tax?

[jim360]

Well, it's not a tax for starters.

[ummmm]

Like Jim says, it's a reduction in benefits, not a tax.

[jno]

Labour might do well to renounce their mansion tax, which is basically a London tax because property in the rest of the country is much less expensive. They're confident they will win in London anyway, but they might be surprised.

[naomi24]

I don’t think that in principle he is wrong, nor that his success or otherwise at the polls will depend upon what people think of the ‘bedroom tax’.

[Old_Geezer]

I doubt it'd make any real odds whether he says he is right or wrong. I suspect he'll most likely be the leader of a minority government either way. (Barring some strange coalition deal - but they started it !)

As for the "Bedroom Tax" itself, it ought not be an issue. If councils were doing as they should and charging the going rate for a house of a particular size already, it wouldn't matter how many people were in there. There would be no sudden hike for folk to get upset about. That said these houses are rented not owned by the occupants and so have limited justification regarding anger about rental changes.

The raison detre for these houses are to house those unable to afford the local rents or mortgage needed. Whilst folk who could afford commercial rates or mortgage cling on as if there was a right to be housed cheaply by the public, or insist on keeping a house that has patently become too large for the present occupants, then there are going to be problems. Tenants should understand they need to be flexible and move when appropriate; but councils should act with compassion also, particularly when dealing with older folk who have lived in a place a long time.

[Old_Geezer]

Yes and I know it isn't a tax (request for more) but a smaller benefit (getting less of what was previous agreed to be needed, but it is all rather pedantic. It's still a bigger differential between income and outgoing no matter how one looks at it. Less money for other things. What it is called isn't the issue.

[jim360]

It's an important piece of pedantry though, because it shapes the debate. Label something a tax (and in this case entirely wrongly) and it sounds like the government is taking away money that people are rightly entitled to -- which, in turn, has stirred up all the hatred and protest against it.

Giving it its proper name at least allows the debate to be conducted in the right context; that this is a reduction in benefit for those people who are occupying a house with more bedrooms than there are occupants -- and, hence, people whoa re living in houses that are too big for them, really.

I'm not saying I like the idea of cutting benefits for such a reason (it can get horribly arbitrary, for example) -- but at the very least it should be recognised as not a tax. Calling it such is only for propagandist reasons.

[Old_Geezer]

Some might put forward the opinion that they believe they are rightly entitled to the benefit. That by no longer covering the cost it results in righteous anger. I think too much is made of the name. Everyone knows the situation.

[tonyav]

IDS has no regrets !.
http://www.expressandstar.com/news/2015/04/08/no-regrets-in-the-bedroom-says-iain-duncan-smith-as-he-pops-1bn-question-to-rachel-reeves/

[fiction-factory]

It was badly implemented in that people weren't given enough time to find alternative housing and there weren't enough smaller properties with fewer bedrooms, but the principle was not unfair. Someone who was working rather than being on benefits and who had more bedrooms than they needed and could afford would have to find smaller property so why shouldn't the same considerations apply to those on benefits (with exceptions for disabilities and special cases)

[Baldric]

A fact that Labour are keeping quiet about is that they introduced a similar restriction on Housing Benefit for tenants of private landlords (they called it Local Housing Allowance) in 2008 but then it was acceptable to for the government to “to provide an incentive for those on Housing Benefit to find cheaper accommodation.” Does Labour think that those lucky enough to be in social housing shouldn’t have the same incentives?

[Baldric]

Labour hav organised demonstrations against what they call the Bedroom Tax, ignoring the fact that it is neither a tax nor is it being charged on all bedrooms. They have spent much effort in the past putting out misleading information on the Under-occupancy Surcharge, scaring old people (existing pensioners are exempt), those not getting Housing Benefit (the Surcharge is just on those who receive it) and many others, just to score party political points over the Coalition Government.

[Baldric]

///No amount of bluster can change the facts, the “Bedroom Tax” is a Labour initiative, and it has been since 2001.///

http://thebackbencher.co.uk/bedroom-tax-every-inch-a-labour-policy/

[Baldric]

The bedroom tax is Labour policy – Gordon Brown introduced it for private-sector tenants back in 2008, Labour has even admitted that were it to be elected in 2015 it would NOT repeal the tax, merely tinker at its edges.

(wingsoverscotland.com)