Torys to cut housing benefit of young

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

Interesting how the marital age starts to rise as Thatcher starts to take apart council housing. Correlation != causation, but...

If you're going to provide data, you should probably have a go at reading what it says, rather than what you seem to want it to say.

Age of first birth and age of marriage very clearly, according to that graph, abruptly started to climb about a decade before Thatcher came to power. The right to buy legislation then came into effect a year after her election win, in October 1980. Without having looked up the data, I postulate that any resultant shortage in council stock would have then taken a few years to reach problematic levels.

Availability of housing would be an obvious contributory factor, but it clearly isn't the driving force according to that graph. I would suggest that the boomer generation emerging from the 1960s into full-blown adulthood, with all the usual boomer assumptions about getting things their own way, would be at the root of it.

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by martyh

Are you even reading the links provided .There was a specific exemption for parents mentioned.

Yes Marty, I am reading the links. There was a specific mention of an exemption back in September 2014. Has that been mentioned in the current reportage which the OP linked to or the link in the article to the Telegraph? Not as far as I can see. What is reiterated in both is "Another £120 million would be derived from removing housing benefit from 18 to 21 year olds on Jobseekers' Allowance." and "The rest of the money will be paid for by removing housing benefit from jobless 18 to 21-year-olds."

For the reason stated above I do not think an exemption due to being a parent is workable simply because it will lead to a boom in childbirth in order to qualify and that will put further strains on budgets.

Originally Posted by martyh

Not really ,we are talking about adults here not children.

You said "I can't think off the top of my head of any reason why a single unemployed 19 yr old without disability and without children should be able to leave home and get housed by the state " I simply offered you two sets of circumstances which are recorded as legitimate reasons for them to do so.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by Chris

If you're going to provide data, you should probably have a go at reading what it says, rather than what you seem to want it to say.

Age of first birth and age of marriage very clearly, according to that graph, abruptly started to climb about a decade before Thatcher came to power. The right to buy legislation then came into effect a year after her election win, in October 1980.

Then pretty much level out during the 70s and accelerate again from the early 80s onwards and have carried on.

Apologies if my criticism of Thatcher's cynical bribery disguised as housing policy was misplaced.

[nomadking]

How could "right to buy" affected housing availability? Just as much housing was available as if "right to buy" had never happened. It was just a transfer of ownership.

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by RizzyKing

In the last three years a slew of housing is full of eastern Europeans undercutting local labour who can't undercut back as they have all the bills many migrants don't bother themselves about. Nothing against the eastern europeans id do the same in their position but expecting british youth to compete with them is ridiculous. Have a guess which generation usually says "I won't get out of bed for less then 25k" hint it isn't the young I can't believe how easy it has been for this government to get us all at each others throats at a time when cosy stitch ups have been the norm.

Actually, you will find that it was labour who let the first slew of migrants in saying that we would only get 15 000 and then apologized years later when it turned out that many, many more had come over.

Housing benefit bill has exploded because so many private renters have been allowed to charge stupid rents and rather then anyone telling them to come back to planet earth we hit those who have no other choice great plan.

Stop talking rubbish. I'm sick and tired of people sounding off about rents and landlords.
Have you done the maths? Have you looked at house prices, looked at buy to let interest rates+solicitors fees+stamp duty+arrangement fees+estate agent fees+capital gains tax. Then looked at what the rent a landlord needs to charge in order to break even on his/her investment?
If you had done the sums (and I have) you would have found that the profit margins on what landlords make are slim (and that's before you take into account the threat of labour getting into power and bringing in rent controlls/another recession dropping house prices and thus rental incomes). Stop your populist whining and join the real world.

---------- Post added at 23:15 ---------- Previous post was at 23:13 ----------

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

Apologies if my criticism of Thatcher's cynical bribery disguised as housing policy was misplaced.

No, that I agree about. It was all about buying votes.
In spite of the fact that you will never get a left wing supporter to never ever admit to the great socialist ideal having had a failure.....

---------- Post added at 23:21 ---------- Previous post was at 23:15 ----------

Originally Posted by RizzyKing

All political colours use and abuse the welfare system when it suits them hence none of them implementing real meaningful reform just piecemeal cost cutting dressed up as reform and swallowed whole by a large selection of the public. We minions spend so much of our time tearing each other apart on the belief of political ideologies that don't really exist anymore no matter what colour the monkey wears scratch the surface and they are all the same. Politics has stopped working in the interests of the people and the state a while ago and now only works for the vested interests that give them the best return, there may be a few genuine ones left but less and less each general election.

As far as able to work is concerned if anyone can say that walking 20 metres even if in pain and not able to repeat everyday of a five day week is fit and able then we really are in trouble . I live across the road from a school and that is over 30 metres away how many people live within 20 metres of their job ?. People need to stop taking the word of politicians on anything and look for themselves as what your told and what's actually happening these days is rarely ever the same.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by RizzyKing

All political colours use and abuse the welfare system when it suits them hence none of them implementing real meaningful reform just piecemeal cost cutting dressed up as reform and swallowed whole by a large selection of the public. We minions spend so much of our time tearing each other apart on the belief of political ideologies that don't really exist anymore no matter what colour the monkey wears scratch the surface and they are all the same. Politics has stopped working in the interests of the people and the state a while ago and now only works for the vested interests that give them the best return, there may be a few genuine ones left but less and less each general election.

As far as able to work is concerned if anyone can say that walking 20 metres even if in pain and not able to repeat everyday of a five day week is fit and able then we really are in trouble . I live across the road from a school and that is over 30 metres away how many people live within 20 metres of their job ?. People need to stop taking the word of politicians on anything and look for themselves as what your told and what's actually happening these days is rarely ever the same.

Really? Where does it say that? Things like pain and speed and safety are meant to factored in. Eg if you can walk a several hundred metres but can only manage it at half the normal speed, then you are meant to be treated as completely unable to walk.

In explanatory notes accompanying the previous (second) draft of the PIP assessment criteria the Government made it clear that an individual would have to be able to complete an activity descriptor “reliably, repeatedly, safely and in a timely manner”, and if they could not they should be considered unable to complete the activity described at that level. The notes explained:
Reliably means to a reasonable standard.
In a timely fashion means in less than twice the time it would take for an individual without any impairment.
Repeatedly means completed as often during the day as the individual activity requires. Consideration needs to be given to the cumulative effects of symptoms such as pain and fatigue – i.e. whether completing the activity adversely affects the individual’s ability to subsequently complete other activities.
Safely means in a fashion that is unlikely to cause harm to the individual, either directly or through vulnerability to the actions of others; or to another person

The same goes for ALL the PIP activities.

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by nomadking

Really? Where does it say that? Things like pain and speed and safety are meant to factored in. Eg if you can walk a several hundred metres but can only manage it at half the normal speed, then you are meant to be treated as completely unable to walk.

Doesn't matter what the notes say, the important words in your statement are "meant to be".
Let me elaborate. I am slightly to the right of Margaret Thatcher but the injustices that I see heaped upon the disabled and infirm by the benefit assesors are awful. There are many disabled people in this country who are denied dla and other benefits because of evil minded assesors who ( I can only assume) are being paid a bonus for each disabled person that they turn down for dla etc....

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Ramrod

Doesn't matter what the notes say, the important words in your statement are "meant to be".
Let me elaborate. I am slightly to the right of Margaret Thatcher but the injustices that I see heaped upon the disabled and infirm by the benefit assesors are awful. There are many disabled people in this country who are denied dla and other benefits because of evil minded assesors who ( I can only assume) are being paid a bonus for each disabled person that they turn down for dla etc....

Where that is the case, then the person will win at the reconsideration or tribunal appeal stage.

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by nomadking

Where that is the case, then the person will win at the reconsideration or tribunal appeal stage.

In an ideal world that's a nice idea but they don't bother going to appeal/tribunal because it's not worth the time and aggro to get nowhere again.
Look. I'm a right wing, self employed, capitalist. Whose birthright was stolen by socialists and whose grandfather was lead off into the forest to be shot by soviet troops simply because he was a educated landowner. I despise left wingers/socialists.
In spite of all that, even I can see that certain sections of our society are being treated in a terrible manner.

Tribunal yes last I heard it was an eighteen month waiting period to get one and there was a huge backlog then who knows what it is now. Even if the tribunal rules in your favour your back in for assessment within a month then back on the tribunal merry go round again thousands are already on it.

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

Then pretty much level out during the 70s and accelerate again from the early 80s onwards and have carried on.

Apologies if my criticism of Thatcher's cynical bribery disguised as housing policy was misplaced.

Your criticism of Thatcher's attempt to create a socially responsible, property-owing democracy was somewhat misplaced, yes, IMO.

There are all sorts of factors at play here. You have picked one that scratches a particular itch, but you have ignored, for example, the fact that fewer, later marriages, and smaller, later families are widespread phenomena in developed western countries. They are a function of healthcare, career opportunities and increased female participation in the workplace: things that are common across borders, rather than social policies unique to one particular place or time.

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

Yes Marty, I am reading the links. There was a specific mention of an exemption back in September 2014. Has that been mentioned in the current reportage which the OP linked to or the link in the article to the Telegraph? Not as far as I can see. What is reiterated in both is "Another £120 million would be derived from removing housing benefit from 18 to 21 year olds on Jobseekers' Allowance." and "The rest of the money will be paid for by removing housing benefit from jobless 18 to 21-year-olds."

For the reason stated above I do not think an exemption due to being a parent is workable simply because it will lead to a boom in childbirth in order to qualify and that will put further strains on budgets.

.

I don't understand your refusal to believe what has been written so i'm not to try .The fact is that this policy will only affect childless,single, jobless 18-21yr olds whether you believe it or not ,that is what has been announced and what will go in the manifesto.As for saying the policy will lead to a baby boom because young people will simply go and get pregnant to get a house on the state ,that is already happening and has been happening for some years because we have been to free with housing benefit .

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

For the reason stated above I do not think an exemption due to being a parent is workable simply because it will lead to a boom in childbirth in order to qualify and that will put further strains on budgets

Maybe on the estate where you live.

I would argue most 18-21 would have higher aspirations than that.

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by martyh

I don't understand your refusal to believe what has been written so i'm not to try .The fact is that this policy will only affect childless,single, jobless 18-21yr olds whether you believe it or not ,that is what has been announced and what will go in the manifesto.

Notwithstanding the fact that the manifesto hasn't been written / published as yet I'm sure you are well aware that manifesto pledges frequently never materialize.

Originally Posted by martyh

As for saying the policy will lead to a baby boom because young people will simply go and get pregnant to get a house on the state ,that is already happening and has been happening for some years because we have been to free with housing benefit .

So what is the supposed point of the policy not applying to people with children? If access to housing benefit in the 16-21 year old age group becomes essentially dependant on whether or not they have children what exactly is it about this supposed manifesto policy that fills you with such confidence that there will be a reduction in child birth in that age category and, consequently, a reduction in demand for / entitlement to Housing Benefit for that particular social demographic?

[nomadking]

It is strange that where a young girl has a baby whilst living at home, it requires a council house/flat, whereas if the mother of the girl had the baby it wouldn't. Same amount of room required, but only in one case is a new house/flat needed.