[mattomac]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011 ... ?fb=optOut" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Anyone think this lot are starting to collaspe under the strain.

[Daley Mayle]

I'm a graphic designer and design magazines for various clients including a housing association. I had a meeting with the client yesterday and I asked whether Cameron's Cruel Cuts have had any impact on their work. She sighed and said that grants to HAs for building social housing have been cut. In the past they would apply for a grant that provided about 55% of the funds and the HA would go to a commercial lender such as building societies for the balance. Now that the grant has been reduced they are having to find a higher proportion from a lender which causes the final rent to the tenant being much be higher. HAs have to show they are financially prudent and can't offer rents at a loss.

In the case of my client she said her HA had built up a land bank over the last 25 years and bought at a much lower cost than at present. They have planning permission on various sites and ready to go when they get funding but they're all on hold and have 4000 people on their books desperate for social housing. The area is in West Wales where there's a similar problem to the West Country where prices have been driven up by retiring incomers and housing stock depleted by second home owners. She was in despair: Cameron is now trying to sell off the few council houses left thus losing more social housing. He says that money raised can be ploughed back into building more social houses, this might be the case but there's fewer social houses being built because of the cutting of grants.

Here's my cynical guess at what the Tories will do next: they will be licking their lips at the thought of all the land that has been purchased and held in readiness by HAs along with all those juicy planning permission, they'll cherry-pick the most valuable and tell the HAs to sell these to private developers to raise funds for social housing.

And which sector supports the Tories with funds?

[Tubby Isaacs]

I yield to no-one in my hatred of Iain Duncan Smith, but I think there's a bit of overstatement by the CPAG here. Given that the most expensive area is Central London, "social cleansing" is putting it a bit strongly. There are thousands and thousands (though not enough) council flats in the central boroughs.

Not saying it's a good policy, of course.

[Big Arnold]

Anyone think this lot are starting to collaspe under the strain.

Yes. Unemployment is rising. The economy isn't recovering as Cameron claimed to believe it would. Too much of government policy means it isn't likely to any time soon.
I don't think widespread public unrest is far off. They must be having nightmares about it overshadowing the Olympics next year.

[Samanfur]

I've found this quite useful when asked to justify my opinion on these things.

[mattomac]

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-s ... ote-forced" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The fact he has mentioned it means he won't, I thought the coalition agreement allowed them to abstain, sorry that makes them sound like 5 year olds, he could have voted against but then he would have lost his position. That is why he didn't vote for it, he wasn't forced he's just like a chicken with no eggs.

[Messianic Trees]

Losing IDS would be a disaster... so will the Lib Dems allow Cameron to appease the Eurosceptic 'sh**s'?

Read more at: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/artic ... -sh-s.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[smod]

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-s ... ote-forced

The fact he has mentioned it means he won't, I thought the coalition agreement allowed them to abstain, sorry that makes them sound like 5 year olds, he could have voted against but then he would have lost his position. That is why he didn't vote for it, he wasn't forced he's just like a chicken with no eggs.

I mean there were a few abstaining Tories, so it's a bit odd he chose to vote. Then again, it's probably some external pressuring to get some concessions from Cameron to appease those lovely skeptics.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Gee, I think we'd manage without IDS, somehow. What with all this up and coming talent we're told they have in the Commons- eg Douglas "Bermuda" Carswell and Priti "Bahrain" Patel.

[Tubby Isaacs]

IDS right at the centre of this bollocks, with Cameron:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 77588.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Courts will be given the right to demand payments of £25 per week instead of the present £5 maximum to show offenders they cannot get away with paying "the bare minimum", the Prime Minister said.

I bet you can walk into a job with a criminal record at the moment.

It wasn't soft justice before. It just gave you longer to pay off the fine, you muppets.

Anyway, Cameron and IDS. Have you any idea what happens when you give people in trouble less money than they need to live on? The burden falls on the other, probably law-abiding, members of their family. Still, seeing you're prepared to kick them out of their homes to get some nice headlines, you might as well kick them in the teeth again.

[AOB]

IDS right at the centre of this bollocks, with Cameron:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 77588.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Courts will be given the right to demand payments of £25 per week instead of the present £5 maximum to show offenders they cannot get away with paying "the bare minimum", the Prime Minister said.

I bet you can walk into a job with a criminal record at the moment.

It wasn't soft justice before. It just gave you longer to pay off the fine, you muppets.

Anyway, Cameron and IDS. Have you any idea what happens when you give people in trouble less money than they need to live on? The burden falls on the other, probably law-abiding, members of their family. Still, seeing you're prepared to kick them out of their homes to get some nice headlines, you might as well kick them in the teeth again.

A £25 hit would represent around 37 per cent of the present rate of jobseeker's allowance.

That would leave them with £42 per week. Here are at least two more possible ways people on benefits may be hit;

1) If you are a social tenant with a "spare" bedroom you will soon only receive housing benefit equating to the amount payable for a property with the same amount of bedrooms as tenants. Yet "spare" bedrooms are no such thing in many households as it may be used for equipment for the disabled, disabled carers staying overnight, children staying with a divorced parent etc etc. Article here.

2) From 2013 the Government is cutting Council Tax Benefit by 10%. It is giving the councils the whole Council Tax Benefit money in a lump sum, less 10%, and telling the councils to distribute it as they see fit. You can see the logic in the Tory thinking there. People will vent their spleen at their local council and not the Government.

And all this while we learn directors of FTSE 100 companies averaging 49% pay rises. Sickening stuff.

[mattomac]

Well that benefit cut is even more for people under 25 it is nearly 50% of the weekly payment as 18-24 year olds it is only £53.

[Tubby Isaacs]

They'll hide behind the judge when disastrous cases hit the papers.

[AOB]

Well that benefit cut is even more for people under 25 it is nearly 50% of the weekly payment as 18-24 year olds it is only £53.

Other debts can be deducted from benefits too. Arrears for Council Tax and CSA for example. Wonder if those creditors will argue for similar deductions to clear their customers debts quicker. Benefit amounts are calculated by the Government who then officially state this is what individuals need to live on. Deductions of £3 to £5 a week as it stands for various debts/arrears/fines seem reasonable but these £25 proposed deductions fly in the face of that. If people get a criminal fine, then have virtually nothing to live on then they'll just stick with crime as a means of getting by. Which defeats the point. But the Tories have always been incredibly out of touch with the reality of life for the vast majority of the people they govern so we shouldn't expect any different.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Some bizarre residual "IDS cares" stuff in the Guardian.

The evidence was an alleged argument between himself and Osborne. Apparently Osborne wants to uprate benefits less than IDS does.

We had a rumour of IDS being prepared to "walk out" over "Europe". Any chance of him walking out over benefits?