Subrosa has published a guest post about housing benefit which is well off the mark.
Like many objections to welfare benefit reforms, it ignores the circumstances of people who don't enjoy housing benefit, and concentrates on those who are privileged to receive the bounty at taxpayers' expense. If under the new rental formula you have to move somewhere else, it is naturally "into a one bedroom slum". Naturally that is government policy.
It also majors on one case which was arguably bungling. Yes the implementation must be fair. One bad implementation does not damn a policy. These diatribes never ask: is the strategy fair, to both receivers and payers?
People whose rent is subsidised by the rest of us must be prepared to move if changed circumstances mean their accommodation is now too large for them. This is not victimisation, it is having due regard to those thousands of families who do not have anywhere suitable to live.
As usual, this angry protester wants to preserve the rights of those benefiting now, without considering taxpayers, or those whose needs might be greater.
You can almost see the the chip on this man's shoulder as he types his whining protest in favour of the status quo.
4 comments:
My sympathy for council tenants was reduced when I read this: http://www.birminghampost.net/news/west-midlands-news/2009/09/15/birmingham-s-jewellery-quarter-apartments-not-fit-for-homeless-65233-24697289/, in which we find:
"Edgbaston Conservative councillor James Hutchings told the scrutiny committee that some apartments in the Jewellery Quarter were “quite appalling”."
and
"the local authority has rejected all offers, declaring that the apartments are too close together, poorly built and not good enough for council tenants".
I was living in one of those overly dense, slum of the future apartments, in the Jewellery Quarter. It was quite educational to learn that, as a council tax payer, I was funding other people to have a better standard of living than myself.
It certainly make it easy for me to answers your question: "is the strategy fair, to both receivers and payers?"
Hi Stewart, interesting :)
I see that was in Sept 2009. Do you know what's happened to those flats since then?
I believe the apartment block I was living in is still privately owned. While I am not sure how many apartments in the area are vacant I can say that I have not seen any advertised at particularly low rents. Further, rents in general seem to have risen slightly in the area over the last two years.
Stewart I understand 100% what are saying.
I was in a similiar situation a few years ago. It is very unfair.
Post a Comment