I can't be having a subsample, but that's too good not have a ROFLPMSL. The Carmichael effect nae doot.
We badly need a Scotland poll. Subsamples have a huge MoE, but do the Lib Dems even keep Orkney on 2% ?
We know: Labour are ahead in the UK and are steady on ~ 38% which will hand Ed th kys to power if it keeps like this. Scotland wants to stay in the UK.
Some specific Scottish VI would be handy - but it seems any Scotland poll is about independence.
Afaik Ashcroft's in October was the last one:
CON 18%(+1), LAB 40%(-2), LDEM 6%(-13), SNP 31%(+11), UKIP 2%(+1)
Hopefully interest rates will remain at rock bottom for years to come.
This please! People with mega mortgages are rejoicing at today's news. Lower inflation is good for all of us. Except the Treasury who are less able to inflate away their debts.
I can't be having a subsample, but that's too good not have a ROFLPMSL. The Carmichael effect nae doot.
We badly need a Scotland poll. Subsamples have a huge MoE, but do the Lib Dems even keep Orkney on 2% ?
We know: Labour are ahead in the UK and are steady on ~ 38% which will hand Ed th kys to power if it keeps like this. Scotland wants to stay in the UK.
Some specific Scottish VI would be handy - but it seems any Scotland poll is about independence.
Afaik Ashcroft's in October was the last one:
CON 18%(+1), LAB 40%(-2), LDEM 6%(-13), SNP 31%(+11), UKIP 2%(+1)
Latest ONS figures show that around 375,000 households across England and Wales are living in overcrowded homes in the social rented sector, a fact hardly ever referred to by Labour who left us with this problem.
And it is also clearly unfair to treat people differently in the social and private rented sectors.
Our changes mean that all housing benefit claimants of working age – be they in the social sector or the private sector – receive housing benefit for the number of bedrooms they need. Some households will choose to downsize, which will free-up properties for families now living in overcrowded homes.
Latest ONS figures show that around 375,000 households across England and Wales are living in overcrowded homes in the social rented sector, a fact hardly ever referred to by Labour who left us with this problem.
And it is also clearly unfair to treat people differently in the social and private rented sectors.
Our changes mean that all housing benefit claimants of working age – be they in the social sector or the private sector – receive housing benefit for the number of bedrooms they need. Some households will choose to downsize, which will free-up properties for families now living in overcrowded homes.
Just been looking at the Boris Island plans. Hard to believe it will probably be harder to get to than Heathrow from East Anglai/Cambridge. But looks as though it will be.
It's bollocks, who on earth is spending the money on the plans?
Uh oh - here come the luddites.
Eeeh in my day a bi plane took off from field - and we got free Hovis.
Have you been to Hong Kong airport tim ?
It's on the wrong side of London, end of.
Not for the channel tunnel, the city, Kent, Essex, east coast mainline etc etc etc
Also 24hr landing and take off - no NIMBY's to upset.
Try having some ambition for a change.
Convenient for the east coast mainline? You're joking right?
To get from Cambridge to Heathrow by public transport, I would have to get a train down to either Liverpool Street or Kings Cross, then either the Piccadilly line direct, or get the tube to Paddington, and then the Heathrow Express. King's Cross to Heathrow via the tube takes around an hour.
An east of London airport could be served from St Pancras International, which is right next door to Kings Cross. Currently, Eurostar trains reach Ashford International in just under an hour - i.e. about the same time. It will depend on the details, but it looks as though an estuary island *may* be just as convenient from the King's Cross area as Heathrow.
The journey time by tube from Euston to Heathrow seems to be about the same as well.
As ever, the devil will be in the details. But it is certainly possible for an estuary airport to be faster to get to from Kings Cross, Euston and St Pancras than Heathrow currently is.
Latest ONS figures show that around 375,000 households across England and Wales are living in overcrowded homes in the social rented sector, a fact hardly ever referred to by Labour who left us with this problem.
And it is also clearly unfair to treat people differently in the social and private rented sectors.
Our changes mean that all housing benefit claimants of working age – be they in the social sector or the private sector – receive housing benefit for the number of bedrooms they need. Some households will choose to downsize, which will free-up properties for families now living in overcrowded homes.
Latest ONS figures show that around 375,000 households across England and Wales are living in overcrowded homes in the social rented sector, a fact hardly ever referred to by Labour who left us with this problem.
And it is also clearly unfair to treat people differently in the social and private rented sectors.
Our changes mean that all housing benefit claimants of working age – be they in the social sector or the private sector – receive housing benefit for the number of bedrooms they need. Some households will choose to downsize, which will free-up properties for families now living in overcrowded homes.
IDS is fucking thick. There aren't enough properties- forget the politics this is about maths. And he failed.
There are loads of vacant properties across the UK, theyre giving them away in Stoke on Trent for £1. Why do we need to subsidise London landlords or provide a palace for Frank Dobson ?
Latest ONS figures show that around 375,000 households across England and Wales are living in overcrowded homes in the social rented sector, a fact hardly ever referred to by Labour who left us with this problem.
And it is also clearly unfair to treat people differently in the social and private rented sectors.
Our changes mean that all housing benefit claimants of working age – be they in the social sector or the private sector – receive housing benefit for the number of bedrooms they need. Some households will choose to downsize, which will free-up properties for families now living in overcrowded homes.
IDS is fucking thick. There aren't enough properties- forget the politics this is about maths. And he failed.
You are the one who is fucking thick.
What did you expect when you allow mass uncontrolled immigration, a million homes would appear overnight? Labour allowed the huge population increase, why didn't they build extra housing?
What have you got to say about Harman lying about the situation in her constituency, you know the one she walks about in wearing a stab proof vest?
The BBC reports a slight fall from a record in UK house prices month on month. the overall recent increase is being driven by the south of England according to the ONS, prices elsewhere are stable and in some cases falling.
For the Tories, it’s Europe. For Labour, it’s Blairites against Brownites. The Lib Dems, devoid of principle, go in for limp-wristed back-stabbing. Now Ukip, in a sign of its growing political maturity, has become distracted by cynical, and at times thoroughly unpleasant, infighting as those close to Nigel Farage seek to maintain his leadership cult.
Latest ONS figures show that around 375,000 households across England and Wales are living in overcrowded homes in the social rented sector, a fact hardly ever referred to by Labour who left us with this problem.
And it is also clearly unfair to treat people differently in the social and private rented sectors.
Our changes mean that all housing benefit claimants of working age – be they in the social sector or the private sector – receive housing benefit for the number of bedrooms they need. Some households will choose to downsize, which will free-up properties for families now living in overcrowded homes.
IDS is fucking thick. There aren't enough properties- forget the politics this is about maths. And he failed.
You are the one who is fucking thick.
What did you expect when you allow mass uncontrolled immigration, a million homes would appear overnight? Labour allowed the huge population increase, why didn't they build extra housing?
What have you got to say about Harman lying about the situation in her constituency, you know the one she walks about in wearing a stab proof vest?
letting 4 million people in to the country and providing no housing for them is called "joined up government", it's Tony's story and he's sticking to it.
Latest ONS figures show that around 375,000 households across England and Wales are living in overcrowded homes in the social rented sector, a fact hardly ever referred to by Labour who left us with this problem.
And it is also clearly unfair to treat people differently in the social and private rented sectors.
Our changes mean that all housing benefit claimants of working age – be they in the social sector or the private sector – receive housing benefit for the number of bedrooms they need. Some households will choose to downsize, which will free-up properties for families now living in overcrowded homes.
Latest ONS figures show that around 375,000 households across England and Wales are living in overcrowded homes in the social rented sector, a fact hardly ever referred to by Labour who left us with this problem.
And it is also clearly unfair to treat people differently in the social and private rented sectors.
Our changes mean that all housing benefit claimants of working age – be they in the social sector or the private sector – receive housing benefit for the number of bedrooms they need. Some households will choose to downsize, which will free-up properties for families now living in overcrowded homes.
Latest ONS figures show that around 375,000 households across England and Wales are living in overcrowded homes in the social rented sector, a fact hardly ever referred to by Labour who left us with this problem.
And it is also clearly unfair to treat people differently in the social and private rented sectors.
Our changes mean that all housing benefit claimants of working age – be they in the social sector or the private sector – receive housing benefit for the number of bedrooms they need. Some households will choose to downsize, which will free-up properties for families now living in overcrowded homes.
For the Tories, it’s Europe. For Labour, it’s Blairites against Brownites. The Lib Dems, devoid of principle, go in for limp-wristed back-stabbing. Now Ukip, in a sign of its growing political maturity, has become distracted by cynical, and at times thoroughly unpleasant, infighting as those close to Nigel Farage seek to maintain his leadership cult.
at some point Farage will switch from cheeky chappy frontman to irritating git a la Michael O'Leary. If he doesn't build a team around him then UKIP will go nowhere, it will stay a one man band.
The Turkish government is planning a new six-runway hub airport near Istanbul, capable of serving 150 million passengers a year. To compare, Heathrow currently handles 70 million.
The interesting things about it from the 'Estuary Airport' perspective is:
1) The size. Six runways will give massive capacity, and far more than could possibly be squeezed into the Heathrow site. It will be exceptionally future-proofed. 2) Location. The new airport is planned to be to the west of Istanbul, away and across the Bosphorus from the bulk of the country. Indeed, it is hundreds of miles away from the country's capital (although we can thank Ataturk for that).
Latest ONS figures show that around 375,000 households across England and Wales are living in overcrowded homes in the social rented sector, a fact hardly ever referred to by Labour who left us with this problem.
And it is also clearly unfair to treat people differently in the social and private rented sectors.
Our changes mean that all housing benefit claimants of working age – be they in the social sector or the private sector – receive housing benefit for the number of bedrooms they need. Some households will choose to downsize, which will free-up properties for families now living in overcrowded homes.
And those who are not able to downsize because there are no available properties will just have to pay more or end up homeless. Lucky them.
Like they did in the Private Sector when Labour introduced the bedroom tax there?
The profile for those renting in the private sector is very different to the profile of those in social housing; leases are generally much shorter and rents are much higher. There is no like for like comparison to be made.
Briefing against Diane James is just dumb - what's her problem - her gender, or her electoral success?
Probably a combination of both. Thing is, the tories can attack UKIP as a party more interested in preserving the cult of Farage than getting Britain out of the EU.
Just been looking at the Boris Island plans. Hard to believe it will probably be harder to get to than Heathrow from East Anglai/Cambridge. But looks as though it will be.
It's bollocks, who on earth is spending the money on the plans?
Uh oh - here come the luddites.
Eeeh in my day a bi plane took off from field - and we got free Hovis.
Have you been to Hong Kong airport tim ?
It's on the wrong side of London, end of.
Not for the channel tunnel, the city, Kent, Essex, east coast mainline etc etc etc
Also 24hr landing and take off - no NIMBY's to upset.
Try having some ambition for a change.
Convenient for the east coast mainline? You're joking right?
Remember 1997-2010 ? The long grass years - no infrastructure, no new hubs, no high speed trains, no big projects , no new power stations - just a paucity of vision and a reluctance to engage in anything exciting or ambitions.
P.S. Hub planned for St Pancras - Edinburgh > KX > Short walk to check in..
What percentage of Heathrow passengers arrive by train compared to road?
I've no idea. Although I'd guess that an awful lot will arrive by air. ;-)
I'd be interested in any figures.
But there might be a flaw in that argument - with more land taken up by a third (and possibly fourth) runway on an increasingly cramped Heathrow site, there might be no room to park anyway!
Latest ONS figures show that around 375,000 households across England and Wales are living in overcrowded homes in the social rented sector, a fact hardly ever referred to by Labour who left us with this problem.
And it is also clearly unfair to treat people differently in the social and private rented sectors.
Our changes mean that all housing benefit claimants of working age – be they in the social sector or the private sector – receive housing benefit for the number of bedrooms they need. Some households will choose to downsize, which will free-up properties for families now living in overcrowded homes.
And those who are not able to downsize because there are no available properties will just have to pay more or end up homeless. Lucky them.
Only a fool would classify a 60 square foot box room as a spare bedroom , step forward IDS
Link?
Even if true, edge cases do not unravel the whole principle.
And there are plenty of "swaps" available, for those who say there are not enough smaller properties.
What is the principle involved ?
So, no link then?
If you do not understand the principle of dealing with the spare-room subsidy, then that explains your strange remarks.
We have a housing crisis. This scheme well help "right-size" people in social housing, which benefits everyone who is in, or will need, social housing. How can you have a problem with that?
And there are plenty of "swaps" available, for those who say there are not enough smaller properties.
Link?
'Scotland’s largest local authority, Glasgow City Council, know they have 13,253 tenants deemed to be living in a property with an extra bedrooom. However, they could not say how many of their 22,175 one-bedroom properties were vacant and available for rent. In Aberdeenshire, 703 tenants are considered to have one extra bedroom but there are only 86 single-bed properties available. Falkirk Council do not even have enough one-bedroom properties in total to help their 2645 tenants considered to have one extra room. In North Lanarkshire, 5219 residents are believed to be affected but there are only 83 one-bed properties available.'
Latest ONS figures show that around 375,000 households across England and Wales are living in overcrowded homes in the social rented sector, a fact hardly ever referred to by Labour who left us with this problem.
And it is also clearly unfair to treat people differently in the social and private rented sectors.
Our changes mean that all housing benefit claimants of working age – be they in the social sector or the private sector – receive housing benefit for the number of bedrooms they need. Some households will choose to downsize, which will free-up properties for families now living in overcrowded homes.
And those who are not able to downsize because there are no available properties will just have to pay more or end up homeless. Lucky them.
Like they did in the Private Sector when Labour introduced the bedroom tax there?
The profile for those renting in the private sector is very different to the profile of those in social housing; leases are generally much shorter and rents are much higher. There is no like for like comparison to be made.
As assertions go that's in the IDS class - don't you want to throw in some dodgy stats to complete the job?
The new Social Democratic leader in Sweden, Stefan Löfven, has been doing very well, up until this week. Earlier this week he decisively crushed the former "Red-Green" coalition under which his (dire) predecessor fought the 2010 GE. He said that he was willing to go into coalition with *any* other parliamentary party (there are 8 in total), except the anti-EU/anti-immigration Sweden Democrats.
I personally thought that this was the cleverest thing that he had done since becoming leader of the opposition, but social democratic sympathisers clearly do not agree! Shows what I know.
Yesterday's headline in the top-selling, centre-left Aftonbladet:
S rasar – mot 2010 års katastrofnivå (Social Democrats Collapse Towards the Catastrophic Level of 2010)
59,000 households are overcrowded in Scotland. This represents 3 per cent of the total number of households in Scotland. Of these households 36,000 (61 per cent) are families with children.
"Len McCluskey, general secretary of the Unite union, said that decisive action was needed to maintain the airport's status. "Our economy desperately needs an airport infrastructure which is better than the patchwork provision we currently have around the capital," he said.
"Our politicians must think big and act in the national interest. We need an aviation strategy that acknowledges Heathrow as a hub, and we need it now.""
And there are plenty of "swaps" available, for those who say there are not enough smaller properties.
Link?
'Scotland’s largest local authority, Glasgow City Council, know they have 13,253 tenants deemed to be living in a property with an extra bedrooom. However, they could not say how many of their 22,175 one-bedroom properties were vacant and available for rent. In Aberdeenshire, 703 tenants are considered to have one extra bedroom but there are only 86 single-bed properties available. Falkirk Council do not even have enough one-bedroom properties in total to help their 2645 tenants considered to have one extra room. In North Lanarkshire, 5219 residents are believed to be affected but there are only 83 one-bed properties available.'
Of course some of those currently in one-bed room properties (and it's not only one-bedroom properties) are overcrowded and will move into the freed up larger properties. Thus vacating a smaller property for someone else to move into.
You are focusing on the current free float, not on the size of the pool
And there are plenty of "swaps" available, for those who say there are not enough smaller properties.
Link?
'Scotland’s largest local authority, Glasgow City Council, know they have 13,253 tenants deemed to be living in a property with an extra bedrooom. However, they could not say how many of their 22,175 one-bedroom properties were vacant and available for rent. In Aberdeenshire, 703 tenants are considered to have one extra bedroom but there are only 86 single-bed properties available. Falkirk Council do not even have enough one-bedroom properties in total to help their 2645 tenants considered to have one extra room. In North Lanarkshire, 5219 residents are believed to be affected but there are only 83 one-bed properties available.'
Latest ONS figures show that around 375,000 households across England and Wales are living in overcrowded homes in the social rented sector, a fact hardly ever referred to by Labour who left us with this problem.
And it is also clearly unfair to treat people differently in the social and private rented sectors.
Our changes mean that all housing benefit claimants of working age – be they in the social sector or the private sector – receive housing benefit for the number of bedrooms they need. Some households will choose to downsize, which will free-up properties for families now living in overcrowded homes.
And those who are not able to downsize because there are no available properties will just have to pay more or end up homeless. Lucky them.
Like they did in the Private Sector when Labour introduced the bedroom tax there?
The profile for those renting in the private sector is very different to the profile of those in social housing; leases are generally much shorter and rents are much higher. There is no like for like comparison to be made.
As assertions go that's in the IDS class - don't you want to throw in some dodgy stats to complete the job?
In other 'news' Derek Mackay, SNP Chairman & Local Govt & Planning Minister has come out as gay - to almost no reaction (other than supportive) whatsoever - a mark of how far we've come:
Given that the polling was carried out between Friday 8th and Sunday 10th November, UKIP polled 2% better than last time out, and Farage performed well on best PM ratings, is it fair to conclude that Farage isn't losing his touch & the public didn't see Thursday's (7th Nov) QT anti UKIP pantomime performance by Soubry in the same way that many on here did?
Of course some of those currently in one-bed room properties (and it's not only one-bedroom properties) are overcrowded and will move into the freed up larger properties. Thus vacating a smaller property for someone else to move into.
You are focusing on the current free float, not on the size of the pool
'Falkirk Council do not even have enough one-bedroom properties in total to help their 2645 tenants considered to have one extra room.'
So, in your Panglossian scenario, how does Falkirk Council (how topical) make up the shortfall?
Given that the polling was carried out between Friday 8th and Sunday 10th November, UKIP polled 2% better than last time out, and Farage performed well on best PM ratings, is it fair to conclude that Farage isn't losing his touch & the public didn't see Thursday's (7th Nov) QT anti UKIP pantomime performance by Soubry in the same way that many on here did?
Your massively overestimating the impact of Question Time in general.
But the fact you're still defending Farage several days on, says a lot.
For the Tories, it’s Europe. For Labour, it’s Blairites against Brownites. The Lib Dems, devoid of principle, go in for limp-wristed back-stabbing. Now Ukip, in a sign of its growing political maturity, has become distracted by cynical, and at times thoroughly unpleasant, infighting as those close to Nigel Farage seek to maintain his leadership cult.
I suppose that forming blocks and cliques within political parties goes with the territory of forming a major political party. Still it's disappointing that it is happening in UKIP at the present time. However it would be even more remarkable if there were no people jockeying for position, such is life.
Latest ONS figures show that around 375,000 households across England and Wales are living in overcrowded homes in the social rented sector, a fact hardly ever referred to by Labour who left us with this problem.
And it is also clearly unfair to treat people differently in the social and private rented sectors.
Our changes mean that all housing benefit claimants of working age – be they in the social sector or the private sector – receive housing benefit for the number of bedrooms they need. Some households will choose to downsize, which will free-up properties for families now living in overcrowded homes.
And those who are not able to downsize because there are no available properties will just have to pay more or end up homeless. Lucky them.
Like they did in the Private Sector when Labour introduced the bedroom tax there?
The profile for those renting in the private sector is very different to the profile of those in social housing; leases are generally much shorter and rents are much higher. There is no like for like comparison to be made.
As assertions go that's in the IDS class - don't you want to throw in some dodgy stats to complete the job?
Of course some of those currently in one-bed room properties (and it's not only one-bedroom properties) are overcrowded and will move into the freed up larger properties. Thus vacating a smaller property for someone else to move into.
You are focusing on the current free float, not on the size of the pool
'Falkirk Council do not even have enough one-bedroom properties in total to help their 2645 tenants considered to have one extra room.'
So, in your Panglossian scenario, how does Falkirk Council (how topical) make up the shortfall?
How many people in over-sized flats are in 3 beds looking for 2 beds?
How many could move into private sector housing and allow someone in private sector housing to move into social housing?
OK let us examine how your principle works in practice , let us look at Acacia Avenue
No 1 deemed to be over occupied by a 63 year old widower , he has to pay spare room subsidy or move to a smaller property . No 2 same size property but occupied by a 65 year old retired widower , he can stay and pays no spare room subsidy No 3 also over occupied by a 62 year old widower but the government is giving him £ 80,000 discount so he can exercise his right to buy No 4 deemed over occupied by a 50 year old disabled person . The council has spent £ 30,000 on adapting the house to his needs but he still has to pay spare room subsidy or move to a spare 1 bedroom 2nd floor flat . No 5 deemed to be over occupied by a severely disabled person but he has been awarded temporary help from the hardship fund so he can stay without paying extra rent . No 6 is occupied by someone in an almost identical situation to No 5 but the council has now spent up all it's allocation of the hardship fund so he has to find the extra rent himself or move No 7 was sold under right to buy some years ago . it is currently being rented by the MP for Portsmouth North who is claiming £ 23,000 a year in expenses so she can under occupy the property once or twice a week .
How does all of this help achieve your principle ?
The devil is in the detail with ICM. The Con and Lab numbers are basically flat from October (before any changes) but this month the don't knows are down from 27% to 19% (so the VI numbers go down anyway after excluding these don't knows) and this month the Tories do worst out of the adjustment. Hence Tories down quite a bit rather than any increase in Lab vote.
Labour people jumping for joy about an 8% lead will probably only be disappointed next month (depending on whether anything happens in the meantime).
OK let us examine how your principle works in practice , let us look at Acacia Avenue
No 1 deemed to be over occupied by a 63 year old widower , he has to pay spare room subsidy or move to a smaller property . No 2 same size property but occupied by a 65 year old retired widower , he can stay and pays no spare room subsidy No 3 also over occupied by a 62 year old widower but the government is giving him £ 80,000 discount so he can exercise his right to buy No 4 deemed over occupied by a 50 year old disabled person . The council has spent £ 30,000 on adapting the house to his needs but he still has to pay spare room subsidy or move to a spare 1 bedroom 2nd floor flat . No 5 deemed to be over occupied by a severely disabled person but he has been awarded temporary help from the hardship fund so he can stay without paying extra rent . No 6 is occupied by someone in an almost identical situation to No 5 but the council has now spent up all it's allocation of the hardship fund so he has to find the extra rent himself or move No 7 was sold under right to buy some years ago . it is currently being rented by the MP for Portsmouth North who is claiming £ 23,000 a year in expenses so she can under occupy the property once or twice a week .
How does all of this help achieve your principle ?
The Tories haven't really thought this through, have they?
But then, we all knew that already.
The next English GE will be about competence. Who is the least incompetent?
OK let us examine how your principle works in practice , let us look at Acacia Avenue
No 1 deemed to be over occupied by a 63 year old widower , he has to pay spare room subsidy or move to a smaller property . No 2 same size property but occupied by a 65 year old retired widower , he can stay and pays no spare room subsidy No 3 also over occupied by a 62 year old widower but the government is giving him £ 80,000 discount so he can exercise his right to buy No 4 deemed over occupied by a 50 year old disabled person . The council has spent £ 30,000 on adapting the house to his needs but he still has to pay spare room subsidy or move to a spare 1 bedroom 2nd floor flat . No 5 deemed to be over occupied by a severely disabled person but he has been awarded temporary help from the hardship fund so he can stay without paying extra rent . No 6 is occupied by someone in an almost identical situation to No 5 but the council has now spent up all it's allocation of the hardship fund so he has to find the extra rent himself or move No 7 was sold under right to buy some years ago . it is currently being rented by the MP for Portsmouth North who is claiming £ 23,000 a year in expenses so she can under occupy the property once or twice a week .
How does all of this help achieve your principle ?
I think you are confusing "principle" with "some cases that may or may not be true".
By using financial pressure to right-size people's social housing, there will be benefits for all.
It may be that some of the rules will need to be adjusted over time, but that doesn't change the purpose or achievements of the principle.
How many could move into private sector housing and allow someone in private sector housing to move into social housing?
Even disregarding the disinclination of private landlords to take tenants on benefits ('would suit professional' is the usual code), there are currently a total of 91 single bedroom properties for rent in Falkirk and within a 5 mile radius on Rightmove. Not much of a dent in 2645.
What I don't get on the bedroom thing is, don't councils already have an incentive to get people into cheaper places? If not, why are the government dicking around counting bedrooms instead of fixing that? If they do, why is the central government trying to micro-manage it?
Latest ONS figures show that around 375,000 households across England and Wales are living in overcrowded homes in the social rented sector, a fact hardly ever referred to by Labour who left us with this problem.
And it is also clearly unfair to treat people differently in the social and private rented sectors.
Our changes mean that all housing benefit claimants of working age – be they in the social sector or the private sector – receive housing benefit for the number of bedrooms they need. Some households will choose to downsize, which will free-up properties for families now living in overcrowded homes.
IDS is fucking thick. There aren't enough properties- forget the politics this is about maths. And he failed.
Do you really believe the nonsense you spout? Do you know anything about social housing. Do you know the breakdown of social housing size of properties in this country? The majority of the stock is 1 & 2 bedroom flats, these are filled with people wanting a move to larger accommodation. There is no reason for anyone in any part of the country who is living in under crowded accommodation who could not swap with someone who is in overcrowded accommodation. Simple, now stop talking rubbish. You could of course prove me wrong, why not ask a local authority housing officer who manages their transfer list. Do you know in some areas they even pay people who are in under crowded accommodation to move to smaller accommodation. The nonsense spouted as truth by some on this site is amazing
OK let us examine how your principle works in practice , let us look at Acacia Avenue
No 1 deemed to be over occupied by a 63 year old widower , he has to pay spare room subsidy or move to a smaller property . No 2 same size property but occupied by a 65 year old retired widower , he can stay and pays no spare room subsidy No 3 also over occupied by a 62 year old widower but the government is giving him £ 80,000 discount so he can exercise his right to buy No 4 deemed over occupied by a 50 year old disabled person . The council has spent £ 30,000 on adapting the house to his needs but he still has to pay spare room subsidy or move to a spare 1 bedroom 2nd floor flat . No 5 deemed to be over occupied by a severely disabled person but he has been awarded temporary help from the hardship fund so he can stay without paying extra rent . No 6 is occupied by someone in an almost identical situation to No 5 but the council has now spent up all it's allocation of the hardship fund so he has to find the extra rent himself or move No 7 was sold under right to buy some years ago . it is currently being rented by the MP for Portsmouth North who is claiming £ 23,000 a year in expenses so she can under occupy the property once or twice a week .
How does all of this help achieve your principle ?
I think you are confusing "principle" with "some cases that may or may not be true".
By using financial pressure to right-size people's social housing, there will be benefits for all.
It may be that some of the rules will need to be adjusted over time, but that doesn't change the purpose or achievements of the principle.
How is it going to achieve your principle to use financial pressure to get the single mother and her child in No 8 Acacia Avenue to downsize from her 3 bedroom house to a 2 bedroom tower block flat when the local council has a policy of not housing children in tower blocks ? If a principle is unjust in it's application then it must be ditched .
How is it going to achieve your principle to use financial pressure to get the single mother and her child in No 8 Acacia Avenue to downsize from her 3 bedroom house to a 2 bedroom tower block flat when the local council has a policy of not housing children in tower blocks ? If a principle is unjust in it's application then it must be ditched .
In that it is the local council's policy that is unjust: they have implemented a policy that forced a mother to suffer a financial penalty because they won't offer her an existing alternative.
Perhaps this may cause Tim to veer towards an estuary airport.
Testrad who are developing a plan for an estuary airport, claim the existing Heathrow site could, once closed, have £45 billion development value, and provide homes for 300,000 people. All in an area with very good transport links.
Note the source, and I sort-of disbelieve their figures when they make the typo of "Houses for 300,00 people" ;-)
"If a principle is unjust in it's application then it must be ditched".
You have not established that it is unjust with a few (alleged) special cases.
There are thousands of these "special cases" well documented in the media everywhere . The blinkered supporters of government policy however unjust such as yourself may ignore them but they will not go away .
"Nigel Farage: 'Blunkett right to warn Roma migrants could trigger riots' Ukip leader says former home secretary "should be admired" for speaking out about issue."
Given that the polling was carried out between Friday 8th and Sunday 10th November, UKIP polled 2% better than last time out, and Farage performed well on best PM ratings, is it fair to conclude that Farage isn't losing his touch & the public didn't see Thursday's (7th Nov) QT anti UKIP pantomime performance by Soubry in the same way that many on here did?
Your massively overestimating the impact of Question Time in general.
But the fact you're still defending Farage several days on, says a lot.
UKIP = The Fuzzy Wuzzies.
They don't like it up 'em
Hardly.
It was Mike that wrote an entire thread titled "Suddenly people are wondering whether Farage is Losing it?" on the back of the Question Time programme.
Non UKIP PBers were tripping over each other to say how wonderful Soubry and how poor Farage was. Then The Mail came out in favour of Farage, then The Sun, now ICM
I'm just pointing out that the polling taken after the programme, which is surely the most reliable source, says no he isn't.
How many travel to Heathrow by train compared to road?
I'm fine btw with building a new hub airport on the right side of London, which Boris' Fantasy Island isnt
On what basis do you define the 'right' side of London? Do you know the figures for where passengers arrive from within the UK by ground means (car, bus, rail etc), and what their requirements are?
I've got no idea what the figures are, and they are vital (even though a hub airport will, by its nature, have people transferring onto connecting flights without leaving the airport).
I've no idea whether Heathrow, an estuary airport, or a.n.other solution is best. I'm just not ruling anything out at the moment, because all the plans are so uncertain. Hopefully the Davies report will give us a firmer idea.
The Office for National Statistics said the fall [in inflation] was driven by the biggest drop in transport prices since July 2009.
One major transport cost factor came from fuel price cuts at many major supermarket chains engaged in a price war.
"Falling petrol and diesel prices seem to have done the most to drag the inflation rate down, and the ongoing softness in Brent crude prices means there may be a little more of this to come in the months ahead," said economist Rob Carnell at ING.
Given that the polling was carried out between Friday 8th and Sunday 10th November, UKIP polled 2% better than last time out, and Farage performed well on best PM ratings, is it fair to conclude that Farage isn't losing his touch & the public didn't see Thursday's (7th Nov) QT anti UKIP pantomime performance by Soubry in the same way that many on here did?
Your massively overestimating the impact of Question Time in general.
But the fact you're still defending Farage several days on, says a lot.
UKIP = The Fuzzy Wuzzies.
They don't like it up 'em
Hardly.
It was Mike that wrote an entire thread titled "Suddenly people are wondering whether Farage is Losing it?" on the back of the Question Time programme.
Non UKIP PBers were tripping over each other to say how wonderful Soubry and how poor Farage was. Then The Mail came out in favour of Farage, then The Sun, now ICM
I'm just pointing out that the polling taken after the programme, which is surely the most reliable source, says no he isn't.
Well you're reading far too much into a 2% movement.
For example, the YouGov published Friday morning (and the fieldwork conducted before QT) had UKIP on 11%, this morning's YouGov, had UKIP on 11%.
Given that the polling was carried out between Friday 8th and Sunday 10th November, UKIP polled 2% better than last time out, and Farage performed well on best PM ratings, is it fair to conclude that Farage isn't losing his touch & the public didn't see Thursday's (7th Nov) QT anti UKIP pantomime performance by Soubry in the same way that many on here did?
Your massively overestimating the impact of Question Time in general.
But the fact you're still defending Farage several days on, says a lot.
UKIP = The Fuzzy Wuzzies.
They don't like it up 'em
Hardly.
It was Mike that wrote an entire thread titled "Suddenly people are wondering whether Farage is Losing it?" on the back of the Question Time programme.
Non UKIP PBers were tripping over each other to say how wonderful Soubry and how poor Farage was. Then The Mail came out in favour of Farage, then The Sun, now ICM
I'm just pointing out that the polling taken after the programme, which is surely the most reliable source, says no he isn't.
Well you're reading far too much into a 2% movement.
For example, the YouGov published Friday morning (and the fieldwork conducted before QT) had UKIP on 11%, this morning's YouGov, had UKIP on 11%.
Exactly! So the Answer to "Is Farage Losing It?", the question posed here on Friday, would seem to be "no".
I think if UKIP were down a couple of points, those that want them to fail would have referenced QT, but maybe I am wrong.
Only a fool would classify a 60 square foot box room as a spare bedroom , step forward IDS
Sheesh. 9ft by 7ft is a reasonable room size. I spent my first 18 years in one just like it - quite happily. More than adequate.
I may be wrong ( as it may only be the policy of some councils ) but I believe the minimum legal size room to be let to a lodger is 70 square feet .
You may well be right. Lodging - often with all your worldly possessions - is not the same as a room for a child or young adult in your own family. Or an elderly relative for that matter.
So to clarify after 13 years of a Labour Government which had the worst social housing building record in history, those who disagree with the spare room subsidy restriction think that the state should pay for a single person to live by themselves in a 3bed house, whilst a family with kids should continue to live in over crowded accommodation. No doubt its all the coalitions fault for not building enough social housing and what Labour did between 1997-2010 is forgotten. Surely this policy is just a realistic approach to the situation that exists in social housing and the deficit that exists in this country
Given that the polling was carried out between Friday 8th and Sunday 10th November, UKIP polled 2% better than last time out, and Farage performed well on best PM ratings, is it fair to conclude that Farage isn't losing his touch & the public didn't see Thursday's (7th Nov) QT anti UKIP pantomime performance by Soubry in the same way that many on here did?
Your massively overestimating the impact of Question Time in general.
But the fact you're still defending Farage several days on, says a lot.
UKIP = The Fuzzy Wuzzies.
They don't like it up 'em
It was Mike that wrote an entire thread titled "Suddenly people are wondering whether Farage is Losing it?" on the back of the Question Time programme.
99% of what we discuss on here does not directly affect polling - but what is discussed can affect 'the narrative' - how the media portray politicians - and if the story on Farage moves from 'walking on water' to 'passing water under stress' then it may well have an impact on polling longer term......
wtf? No wonder working class tories are flocking to UKIP!
Its posh for 'increased ice cream sales lead to more wearing of bikinis'...
Talking about bikinis.
Bikinis are a lot like statistics, what they reveal, that's interesting, what they hide, that's much more fascinating
Here endeth my Swiss Toni impression.
My grandpa occasionally used the phrase 'a politician's speech should be like a young lady's skirt: short enough to be interesting, but long enough to cover the important bits"
Comments
Although I do hope that's a scene from Episode VII
Wrong about everything, always
An east of London airport could be served from St Pancras International, which is right next door to Kings Cross. Currently, Eurostar trains reach Ashford International in just under an hour - i.e. about the same time. It will depend on the details, but it looks as though an estuary island *may* be just as convenient from the King's Cross area as Heathrow.
The journey time by tube from Euston to Heathrow seems to be about the same as well.
As ever, the devil will be in the details. But it is certainly possible for an estuary airport to be faster to get to from Kings Cross, Euston and St Pancras than Heathrow currently is.
Like most people, I'm damned if I have a clue.
What did you expect when you allow mass uncontrolled immigration, a million homes would appear overnight? Labour allowed the huge population increase, why didn't they build extra housing?
What have you got to say about Harman lying about the situation in her constituency, you know the one she walks about in wearing a stab proof vest?
http://www.conservativehome.com/localgovernment/2013/11/from-harryph-harriet-harmans-dodgy-dossier.html
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/alexwickham/2013/11/how-paranoia-and-bitter-infighting-are-tearing-ukip-apart/
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/442536/David-Dimbleby-shows-off-his-new-scorpion-tattoo
That is a fascinating article about anyone who dares to challenge the Farage-istes of UKIP.
Even if true, edge cases do not unravel the whole principle.
And there are plenty of "swaps" available, for those who say there are not enough smaller properties.
The Turkish government is planning a new six-runway hub airport near Istanbul, capable of serving 150 million passengers a year. To compare, Heathrow currently handles 70 million.
The interesting things about it from the 'Estuary Airport' perspective is:
1) The size. Six runways will give massive capacity, and far more than could possibly be squeezed into the Heathrow site. It will be exceptionally future-proofed.
2) Location. The new airport is planned to be to the west of Istanbul, away and across the Bosphorus from the bulk of the country. Indeed, it is hundreds of miles away from the country's capital (although we can thank Ataturk for that).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Istanbul_New_Airport
Probably a combination of both. Thing is, the tories can attack UKIP as a party more interested in preserving the cult of Farage than getting Britain out of the EU.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-24910099
Britain 2018, after 3 years of Miliband imposing the same type of policies as Hollande has done.
At some juncture Ed might have to explain the differences between himself and Hollande. That should take a good thirty seconds....
"tattoos involving.....a scorpion, another sign of having HIV in the gay community. The stinging tail of the scorpion alludes to the virus
http://edition.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/08/10/hiv.tattoos/
P.S. Hub planned for St Pancras - Edinburgh > KX > Short walk to check in..
I'd be interested in any figures.
But there might be a flaw in that argument - with more land taken up by a third (and possibly fourth) runway on an increasingly cramped Heathrow site, there might be no room to park anyway!
If you do not understand the principle of dealing with the spare-room subsidy, then that explains your strange remarks.
We have a housing crisis. This scheme well help "right-size" people in social housing, which benefits everyone who is in, or will need, social housing. How can you have a problem with that?
http://yougov.co.uk/news/2013/11/11/french-sour-european-union/
France now almost as Eurosceptic as Perfidious Albion.....and very gloomy about prospects.....
'Scotland’s largest local authority, Glasgow City Council, know they have 13,253 tenants deemed to be living in a property with an extra bedrooom. However, they could not say how many of their 22,175 one-bedroom properties were vacant and available for rent.
In Aberdeenshire, 703 tenants are considered to have one extra bedroom but there are only 86 single-bed properties available.
Falkirk Council do not even have enough one-bedroom properties in total to help their 2645 tenants considered to have one extra room.
In North Lanarkshire, 5219 residents are believed to be affected but there are only 83 one-bed properties available.'
http://tinyurl.com/pv4ocgk
What are they going to ask?
Why didn't we incentivise doctors working anti-social hours when we negotiated their contract?
Go on David Cameron, get out of that one.
It is heavily unionised....
I personally thought that this was the cleverest thing that he had done since becoming leader of the opposition, but social democratic sympathisers clearly do not agree! Shows what I know.
Yesterday's headline in the top-selling, centre-left Aftonbladet:
S rasar – mot 2010 års katastrofnivå (Social Democrats Collapse Towards the Catastrophic Level of 2010)
http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/article17817780.ab
Looks like the prospect of a Social Democrat/Green/Liberal/Centre coalition has scared a lot of social democratic leaning voters off the party.
Meanwhile, the much-despised Sweden Democrats (think BNP-lite or UKIP-max) have become the 3rd largest party in the polls.
59,000 households are overcrowded in Scotland. This represents 3 per cent of the total number of households in Scotland. Of these households 36,000 (61 per cent) are families with children.
http://scotland.shelter.org.uk/housing_policy/key_statistics/the_facts_about_scotlands_housing
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2012/mar/06/unions-industry-heathrow-third-runway
"Len McCluskey, general secretary of the Unite union, said that decisive action was needed to maintain the airport's status. "Our economy desperately needs an airport infrastructure which is better than the patchwork provision we currently have around the capital," he said.
"Our politicians must think big and act in the national interest. We need an aviation strategy that acknowledges Heathrow as a hub, and we need it now.""
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/115509/elizabeth-warren-hillary-clintons-nightmare
You are focusing on the current free float, not on the size of the pool
That is not the same as only looking at vacant properties.
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/social-and-private-renters
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/snp-minister-announces-he-is-gay-after-separating-from-wife.22674882
http://www.houseexchange.org.uk/
Given that the polling was carried out between Friday 8th and Sunday 10th November, UKIP polled 2% better than last time out, and Farage performed well on best PM ratings, is it fair to conclude that Farage isn't losing his touch & the public didn't see Thursday's (7th Nov) QT anti UKIP pantomime performance by Soubry in the same way that many on here did?
So, in your Panglossian scenario, how does Falkirk Council (how topical) make up the shortfall?
But the fact you're still defending Farage several days on, says a lot.
UKIP = The Fuzzy Wuzzies.
They don't like it up 'em
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24903883
Reminds me of when some big firms took out injunctions preventing newspapers reporting what was said in Parliament.
How many could move into private sector housing and allow someone in private sector housing to move into social housing?
OK let us examine how your principle works in practice , let us look at Acacia Avenue
No 1 deemed to be over occupied by a 63 year old widower , he has to pay spare room subsidy or move to a smaller property .
No 2 same size property but occupied by a 65 year old retired widower , he can stay and pays no spare room subsidy
No 3 also over occupied by a 62 year old widower but the government is giving him £ 80,000 discount so he can exercise his right to buy
No 4 deemed over occupied by a 50 year old disabled person . The council has spent £ 30,000 on adapting the house to his needs but he still has to pay spare room subsidy or move to a spare 1 bedroom 2nd floor flat .
No 5 deemed to be over occupied by a severely disabled person but he has been awarded temporary help from the hardship fund so he can stay without paying extra rent .
No 6 is occupied by someone in an almost identical situation to No 5 but the council has now spent up all it's allocation of the hardship fund so he has to find the extra rent himself or move
No 7 was sold under right to buy some years ago . it is currently being rented by the MP for Portsmouth North who is claiming £ 23,000 a year in expenses so she can under occupy the property once or twice a week .
How does all of this help achieve your principle ?
Labour people jumping for joy about an 8% lead will probably only be disappointed next month (depending on whether anything happens in the meantime).
House prices across the UK have dropped back slightly, according to the Office for National Statistics (ONS).
Last month, the ONS reported that prices were at their highest since records began in 1968.
However, in a surprise development, its house price index fell from 186 in October to 184.9 in November.
Once the figures have been adjusted for seasonal fluctuations, prices showed no change between the months of August and September.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-24909678
But then, we all knew that already.
The next English GE will be about competence. Who is the least incompetent?
a) Cameron
b) Miliband
Labour lead equivalent to 49 respondents.
Labour lead in the North of England = 49 respondents.
Game on everywhere else.
By using financial pressure to right-size people's social housing, there will be benefits for all.
It may be that some of the rules will need to be adjusted over time, but that doesn't change the purpose or achievements of the principle.
The majority of the stock is 1 & 2 bedroom flats, these are filled with people wanting a move to larger accommodation. There is no reason for anyone in any part of the country who is living in under crowded accommodation who could not swap with someone who is in overcrowded accommodation. Simple, now stop talking rubbish. You could of course prove me wrong, why not ask a local authority housing officer who manages their transfer list. Do you know in some areas they even pay people who are in under crowded accommodation to move to smaller accommodation.
The nonsense spouted as truth by some on this site is amazing
If a principle is unjust in it's application then it must be ditched .
Perhaps this may cause Tim to veer towards an estuary airport.
Testrad who are developing a plan for an estuary airport, claim the existing Heathrow site could, once closed, have £45 billion development value, and provide homes for 300,000 people. All in an area with very good transport links.
Note the source, and I sort-of disbelieve their figures when they make the typo of "Houses for 300,00 people" ;-)
http://testrad.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Thames-estuary-brochure.pdf
"If a principle is unjust in it's application then it must be ditched".
You have not established that it is unjust with a few (alleged) special cases.
White supremacist discovers he is part black
http://www.independent.ie/world-news/americas/white-supremacist-discovers-he-is-part-black-29747583.html
"Nigel Farage: 'Blunkett right to warn Roma migrants could trigger riots'
Ukip leader says former home secretary "should be admired" for speaking out about issue."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10443498/Nigel-Farage-Blunkett-right-to-warn-Roma-migrants-could-trigger-riots.html
It was Mike that wrote an entire thread titled "Suddenly people are wondering whether Farage is Losing it?" on the back of the Question Time programme.
http://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2013/11/08/suddenly-people-are-wondering-whether-farage-is-losing-it/
Non UKIP PBers were tripping over each other to say how wonderful Soubry and how poor Farage was. Then The Mail came out in favour of Farage, then The Sun, now ICM
I'm just pointing out that the polling taken after the programme, which is surely the most reliable source, says no he isn't.
I've got no idea what the figures are, and they are vital (even though a hub airport will, by its nature, have people transferring onto connecting flights without leaving the airport).
I've no idea whether Heathrow, an estuary airport, or a.n.other solution is best. I'm just not ruling anything out at the moment, because all the plans are so uncertain. Hopefully the Davies report will give us a firmer idea.
One major transport cost factor came from fuel price cuts at many major supermarket chains engaged in a price war.
"Falling petrol and diesel prices seem to have done the most to drag the inflation rate down, and the ongoing softness in Brent crude prices means there may be a little more of this to come in the months ahead," said economist Rob Carnell at ING.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-24910587
Falling petrol prices haven't had any impact on polling so far
For example, the YouGov published Friday morning (and the fieldwork conducted before QT) had UKIP on 11%, this morning's YouGov, had UKIP on 11%.
I think if UKIP were down a couple of points, those that want them to fail would have referenced QT, but maybe I am wrong.
My final thought on the subject
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24911979
I consider it my contribution to the big society to remove that chip from your shoulder educate the masses.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc
Michael White on DP : " Labour has never had an MP called Tim"
I'll have you know, I was told on Comment is Free, that since I was a Latin speaker, that made me part of the aristocracy.
Bikinis are a lot like statistics, what they reveal, that's interesting, what they hide, that's much more fascinating
Here endeth my Swiss Toni impression.