Next Tory leader

[birchesgreen]

Corbyn doesn't go down well with the general public, though he is very popular with certain sections. I think he is nice enough but there is usually a reason why someone spends decades on the back benches.

There is indeed a lack of talent across the board, and a lack of big ideas - though a lot of this is due to the erosion of a government's actual power and room for maneuver these days due to pan-national bodies and big business.

 

[3141]

The Conservative Party will tear itself apart because you have the moderates on one side and you have the hard-right Brexit element on the other....Personally I'm hoping they rip themselves apart once and for all. They almost killed the party in the late 90s. Here's hoping they do it again.

But there's always an alternative view, and here's one from a report on BBC News about the cost of not switching your energy supplier - it's comment no. 668 at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-42885651 , which says

"Labour are rubbish, with the Conservatives it's only May that's rubbish. Once we get rid of her and replace her with Jacob Rees-Mogg they will be great. That will also be the final nail in the socialist coffin."

 

[Busaholic]

God, I feel so old on this forum sometimes! Trouble is, like lots of oldies I can remember things from my youth quite clearly, like Baron Home of the Hirsel becoming Conservative PM in 1963. He later took advantage of Anthony Wedgwood Benn's getting the law changed in order to renounce his peerage and was elected as an MP in 1964, but lost the General Election that year. In any case, the DUP leader is not an MP and just see what political influence she wields!!

 

[3141]

Being probably of around the same vintage as you, my recollection is that he renounced his peerage in order to become Prime Minister. Additionally, I recall that he actually renounced thirteen peerages. Even after that he still had a baronetcy, and was therefore Sir Alec Douglas-Home.

 

[DenmarkRail]

For the first time in a long time, I don't know who I'd want to vote for, and I don't know the core messages of the parties. All I know is May is Strong and Stable, and Corbyn is power to the people. It has become far too American, where candidates throw big words around, to hope that we all notice! That needs to stop, and real policy needs to be debated, on real issues, that affect real people.

I don't relate to Theresa May, or Jeremy Corbyn, or any parties, left or right.... I think the partisan way that our politics have worked over the past 35 years (where Thatcher and Blair had super majorities) has caused the demolition of services, like the railways, and the NHS. I'm blaming both parties, not just one. It has to stop!

 

[bramling]

For the first time in a long time, I don't know who I'd want to vote for, and I don't know the core messages of the parties. All I know is May is Strong and Stable, and Corbyn is power to the people. It has become far too American, where candidates throw big words around, to hope that we all notice! That needs to stop, and real policy needs to be debated, on real issues, that affect real people.

I don't relate to Theresa May, or Jeremy Corbyn, or any parties, left or right.... I think the partisan way that our politics have worked over the past 35 years (where Thatcher and Blair had super majorities) has caused the demolition of services, like the railways, and the NHS. I'm blaming both parties, not just one. It has to stop!

Portillo just made a point on this week that a threat to democracy is making spending commitments which then have to be borne by future generations. A fair point to me.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Portillo just made a point on this week that a threat to democracy is making spending commitments which then have to be borne by future generations. A fair point to me.

I'm not clear exactly what is meant by 'spending commitments which then have to be borne by future generations'. Presumably he's referring to accumulating Government debt, which causes interest payments far into the future. If so, you could argue about the desirability of that, but I can't see how it poses a threat to democracy. After all, Governments have been paying interest on previous loans for many decades now without any obvious harm to our democracy (It's possible it may have harmed the economy in some way but that's an altogether different thing).

 

[AlterEgo]

It's genuinely sad the amount of US style hyper-partisanship that has seemingly infected the political dialogue in this country recently.

It is, but consider it a ticket to the travelling freak show.

I’m one of life’s passengers, just observing. Everyone seems to be having tremendous fun.

 

[Ambient Sheep]

Views can vary on *some* of those - for example I would support the "bedroom tax" if, and only if:

1. It doesn't apply if you have put in an application to move to a smaller property, regardless of whether one is available or not.
2. When you make the move assistance is available to decorate etc (as Council properties often take some effort) and with the move itself.

It makes absolute sense to have people live in the right size of Council property where available.

Well yes, up to a point I agree in an ideal world, but in practice what of the human cost?

A friend of mine had had a two-bedroom council flat for nearly 25 years, ever since her early twenties. Having grown up nearby she'd lived there, worked there, brought up her daughter there, made her friends and her life there.

Eventually when her daughter was about 20 she moved out, although leaving her bedroom still half-full of her stuff; she would also go back to her Mum's occasionally for overnight visits.

Then came the bedroom tax. Unfortunately due to health problems my friend was no longer working and thus couldn't afford to pay it. Thus the council were obliged to move her to a one-bedroom flat, and the only one available was in the next town over.

So she was chucked out of the place that had been her home for nearly 25 years to somewhere cut off from her friends and family, her daughter & partner could no longer come and visit overnight, she basically lost her whole support network. It also became further and more difficult to get to her regular hospital appointments.

(To add insult to injury the new place had a mice infestation that the council refused to do anything about; she'd regularly wake up with mice dirts across her duvet and on her bedroom floor. In the end she took to sleeping on the sofa herself for a few months until she'd managed to trap them all.)

The resulting depression in her, the changes I've seen, the loneliness and isolation, has been painful to watch.

The intent of the bedroom tax may have been good (although that's debatable) but the results can be evil.

 

[3141]

I'm not clear exactly what is meant by 'spending commitments which then have to be borne by future generations'. Presumably he's referring to accumulating Government debt, which causes interest payments far into the future. If so, you could argue about the desirability of that, but I can't see how it poses a threat to democracy. After all, Governments have been paying interest on previous loans for many decades now without any obvious harm to our democracy (It's possible it may have harmed the economy in some way but that's an altogether different thing).

Yes, there's been the National Debt for 300 years, but possibly what Portillo was referring to was spending commitments at a much higher level, such as Quantitative Easing since the financial crisis starting in 2007, which can result in the costs of servicing the debt reaching such a high proportion of annual expenditure that investors start worrying about a country's ability to continue paying the interest, and which also constrain a government's ability to invest where necessary or to respond to future crises. There is a view that in a democracy the political parties gradually promise more and more in order to attract votes, using other people's money. Squeeze the scroungers, tax the rich, borrow now and still be repaying it in 150 years' time, for example.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Ambient Sheep - But then there will have been another side to that very story - the joy of a young family being able to move out of a too-small home or temporary accommodation into a home suitable for them to grow.

Thinking about that situation, I would add a criterion of limiting the distance a person can be made to move because of things like support networks and difficulty of travel for people in poor health. Other forms of assistance could also have been found, such as the funding to spend a few hundred on a decent sofa bed for someone visiting and staying over. Or perhaps her daughter and partner could buy one for her.

But unless funding can be found to build an adequate number of houses of all sizes, unfortunately it is necessary to think of the greater good and not simply of individual stories.

There is certainly no sense in spending public funding on providing what is essentially a self-storage facility for adults not entitled to accommodation. So the case for the adult "child" leaving stuff there is itself irrelevant - if she requires self storage, that should be at her cost. Perhaps she could have paid the "tax" for her mother to allow her to keep use of that room for her stuff.

As to the mouse issue - that is unacceptable - some Council properties are in an unacceptable state and that needs fixing. They all need to be decorated to an acceptable basic standard (often they are not decorated at all, and that causes part of the "but it's my house" issue; it would be better if they were like private rentals decorated with quality, resilient paintwork in a neutral colour to allow people to accent them using other possessions, carpeted/floored and with basic white goods provided) and properly professionally cleaned when people move in.

But money is always a constraint. Moving to a smaller property when your kids move out is a common thing to do for owners and private renters. I see no reason why it should not be for Council tenants too, especially given limited funding.

We just need to be careful that it does not cause too many issues by applying the rules to a rather too strict letter. In most cases, it won't cause a major issue at all.

 

[Bromley boy]

Well yes, up to a point I agree in an ideal world, but in practice what of the human cost?

A friend of mine had had a two-bedroom council flat for nearly 25 years, ever since her early twenties. Having grown up nearby she'd lived there, worked there, brought up her daughter there, made her friends and her life there.

Eventually when her daughter was about 20 she moved out, although leaving her bedroom still half-full of her stuff; she would also go back to her Mum's occasionally for overnight visits.

Then came the bedroom tax. Unfortunately due to health problems my friend was no longer working and thus couldn't afford to pay it. Thus the council were obliged to move her to a one-bedroom flat, and the only one available was in the next town over.

So she was chucked out of the place that had been her home for nearly 25 years to somewhere cut off from her friends and family, her daughter & partner could no longer come and visit overnight, she basically lost her whole support network. It also became further and more difficult to get to her regular hospital appointments.

(To add insult to injury the new place had a mice infestation that the council refused to do anything about; she'd regularly wake up with mice dirts across her duvet and on her bedroom floor. In the end she took to sleeping on the sofa herself for a few months until she'd managed to trap them all.)

The resulting depression in her, the changes I've seen, the loneliness and isolation, has been painful to watch.

The intent of the bedroom tax may have been good (although that's debatable) but the results can be evil.

That is a sad story but if someone reaches the point where they no longer need a two bedroom council property they should certainly be required to move into a smaller one.

Moving to a smaller property, another town or even to another area of the country is nothing new to a great many homeowners and private renters, many of whom have far less security of tenure than council tenants. Many of these private sector owners/tenants also wouldn't have a cat in hell's chance of getting a council property themselves, due to the chronic property shortage.

There does seem to be an assumption that those living in council accommodation should be subjected to some kind of privileged existence where they are never required to move or adapt according to changing circumstances.

EDIT: the bedroom "tax" is also nothing of the sort. It is a reduction of housing benefit for those occupying a larger property than they need.

 

[DarloRich]

That is a sad story but if someone reaches the point where they no longer need a two bedroom council property they should certainly be required to move into a smaller one.

Moving to a smaller property, another town or even to another area of the country is nothing new to a great many homeowners and private renters, many of whom have far less security of tenure than council tenants. Many of these private sector owners/tenants also wouldn't have a cat in hell's chance of getting a council property themselves, due to the chronic property shortage.

There does seem to be an assumption that those living in council accommodation should be subjected to some kind of privileged existence where they are never required to move or adapt according to changing circumstances.

EDIT: the bedroom "tax" is also nothing of the sort. It is a reduction of housing benefit for those occupying a larger property than they need.

No problem with any of that - as long as it applies equally to rich Tories living in massive houses they no longer need as well as the council house scum. And it is a tax. It is a tax on poor people designed to punish them for being poor and not owning their own home.

Of course we could just build more cheap houses for people to live in............

 

[Bletchleyite]

EDIT: the bedroom "tax" is also nothing of the sort. It is a reduction of housing benefit for those occupying a larger property than they need.

It's not even that. It's paying the amount of housing benefit required for the size of home required rather than the size of home desired.

 

[DarloRich]

It's not even that. It's paying the amount of housing benefit required for the size of home required rather than the size of home desired.

so speaks someone never having being in a position to claim such benefit!

 

[507021]

No problem with any of that - as long as it applies equally to rich Tories living in massive houses they no longer need as well as the council house scum. And it is a tax. It is a tax on poor people designed to punish them for being poor and not owning their own home.

Of course we could just build more cheap houses for people to live in............

Good post, agree 100%.

 

[Bletchleyite]

No problem with any of that - as long as it applies equally to rich Tories living in massive houses they no longer need as well as the council house scum

If someone wishes to pay their own money for a larger property that is up to them. And that includes Council houses. You could actually argue that the rule should be that, provided a property is available and a transfer request is made, that you only get a house of a specified size with no negotiation possible. The "tax" (it is not a tax) at least allows people to prioritise, or perhaps in a case like this for family to contribute based on what they themselves are gaining such as a self-storage facility which would cost money elsewhere.

And it is a tax. It is a tax on poor people designed to punish them for being poor and not owning their own home.

It categorically is not. It is paying housing benefit based on need, which is precisely how it should be paid.

Of course we could just build more cheap houses for people to live in............

We do need to build more Council housing, but as the need for it is so great, and as so many people are homeless, I can see no case not to spend the available money building a larger number of smaller homes rather than a smaller number of larger homes, and to insist on people who are receiving public funding to pay for their housing occupying a home of the size that they actually require on a day to day basis.

 

[DarloRich]

It categorically is not. It is paying housing benefit based on need, which is precisely how it should be paid.

have you ever claimed housing benefit?

 

[Bletchleyite]

so speaks someone never having being in a position to claim such benefit!

What's that got to do with it? I spent my first 10 years in MK living in a tiny one bedroom flat because that was all I could afford to private rent (and I could barely even afford that; many such people start out in an HMO). I now live in what is *technically* a 3 bedroom house, but it's really a 2-bed with an extra wall because the third bedroom will barely fit a single bed in it, let alone anything else (it'd be suitable for a very young child's bedroom, just), while the master bedroom only *just* takes a double with little room for much else, but I have a lodger living in the other bedroom that's big enough to actually be a bedroom.

I don't see a problem there. It's not like Councils are putting people into HMOs like many are forced to do when renting privately. One person, one one-bedroom home, is a very, very good deal compared with what many are getting.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Good post, agree 100%.

Unrealistic post in the present financial climate.

I've said many times I would like to see a substantial increase in income tax to allow such things to be funded (even as high as 10p on the higher rate, and yes I am a higher rate taxpayer). But the primary need, as DarloRich has acknowledged before, is to get people off the streets, so for the foreseeable future that would in my book be going on building studio and one bedroom flats, and people would still have to occupy, when on benefits, a property suitable for their needs at that time.

 

[Bromley boy]

No problem with any of that - as long as it applies equally to rich Tories living in massive houses they no longer need as well as the council house scum. And it is a tax. It is a tax on poor people designed to punish them for being poor and not owning their own home.

Of course we could just build more cheap houses for people to live in............

But rich tories (only rich tories? Not rich labourites like Blair, Shami Chakrabati, the Millibands etc.?), living in massive houses aren't claiming benefits and aren't taking up subsidised accommodation which is a very scarce commodity. Cheap political shots don't change the reality.

It was under the last labour government that the housing market entered its current broken state, was it not?

I wonder if the people round my way paying £1500 + /month to rent a 2 bed flat to raise their kids in feel a great deal of sympathy for shock horror council tenants being required to move from a big subsidised flat into a smaller subsidised flat based on need.

Fully agree on the last point the question is who is "we"? Developers will build but only where they can make a profit. They're unlikely to build large numbers of houses in areas where the increased supply will depress prices for obvious reasons.

 

[DarloRich]

On topic - Jacob Rees-Mogg - 7/1 Boris Johnson - 4/1. ffs.

What's that got to do with it? I spent my first 10 years in MK living in a tiny one bedroom flat because that was all I could afford to private rent (and I could barely even afford that; many such people start out in an HMO). I now live in what is *technically* a 3 bedroom house, but it's really a 2-bed with an extra wall because the third bedroom will barely fit a single bed in it, let alone anything else (it'd be suitable for a very young child's bedroom, just), while the master bedroom only *just* takes a double with little room for much else, but I have a lodger living in the other bedroom that's big enough to actually be a bedroom.

I don't see a problem there. It's not like Councils are putting people into HMOs like many are forced to do when renting privately. One person, one one-bedroom home, is a very, very good deal compared with what many are getting.

So the answer is no then. Thanks.

Unlike many here I have claimed benefit. I have claimed HB and JSA. It was a while ago but I can project my position then into what it would be like now. Had I not been in that position I might subscribe to your views. My own experience means I cant and explains why I have sympathy for people in that position. It is easy to criticise when one has never been there.

But rich tories (only rich tories? Not rich labourites like Blair, Shami Chakrabati, the Millibands etc.?), living in massive houses aren't claiming benefits and aren't taking up subsidised accommodation which is a very scarce commodity. Cheap political shots don't mask the realities.

But they do. Those rich Tories living in their grand houses when they only need a one bad granny flat are blocking up the housing ladder. Move them out, move families in and let everyone move up a rung. Why should they be exempt but the council house scum are punished for exactly the same thing? I am not forcing anyone to move and it is no problem if you want to stay. However, you do have to pay us a penalty tax for doing so, just like the scum. What is wrong with that?

Oh and many of them DO claim benefits. They take a pension or winter fuel allowance for instance. As an aside I would sell up in an instant if I were in that position. Take the money and enjoy life. You cant spend it once you are gone.

It was under the last labour government that the housing market entered its current broken state, was it not?

The info from Nationwide, for example, doesn't quite support that. There were large year on year ( often double digit) rises between 1983 and 1989. There were falls ( but less than the rises) between 1990 & 1996 and then rises at a similar level to the 80's ( if not quite as large year on year) until 2008/9 & 2011/12 followed generally with a rise thereafter. The trend since 1952 is for rises almost every year. There were some massive rises in the mid 70's.

I wonder if the people round my way paying £1500 + /month to rent a 2 bed flat to raise their kids in feel a great deal of sympathy for shock horror council tenants being required to a smaller subsidised flat based on need.

I bet they don't ( and as i said above had I not had personal experiences I might agree with them) but I wonder why they don't have such fury towards private home owners blocking the chain? I wonder how their views change if they ever find themselves needing the very benefits they castigate. We are all only a few steps away from that position. I have been there.

Fully agree on the last point the question is who is "we"? Developers will build but only where they can make a profit. They're unlikely to build large numbers of houses in areas where the increased supply will depress prices for obvious reasons.

Government, Councils, developers - everyone. However your last point is the truth. The government wont do that as home ownership is seen as the ideal target. It also forms, for many people, their pension fund. Reduce that and the government has a bigger issue.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Unlike many here I have claimed benefit. I have claimed HB and JSA. It was a while ago but I can project my position then into what it would be like now. Had I not been in that position I might subscribe to your views. My own experience means I cant and explains why I have sympathy for people in that position.

But one can have sympathy for someone without necessarily believing they are the highest priority for limited funding.

If money grew on trees everyone could have £50K per year UBI and a 5 bedroom detached house. But that would be silly. So we have to match need with provision. In the private sector this is mostly done by the cost of a larger home being prohibitive (either you can't afford it or you have better things to spend the money on).

In the public sector there are people who have no house. Therefore, giving people spare rooms funded by the public purse is illogical.

It is easy to criticise when one has never been there.

I don't recall having criticised anyone, merely having expressed the view that the housing benefit paid to someone should reflect their actual housing need at the time, not a desire for additional space, subject to a suitably-sized property actually being available in the local area.

 

[Bromley boy]

I’m about to rush out so don’t have time to write a full response.

Unlike many here I have claimed benefit. I have claimed HB and JSA. It was a while ago but I can project my position then into what it would be like now. Had I not been in that position I might subscribe to your views. My own experience means I cant and explains why I have sympathy for people in that position. It is easy to criticise when one has never been there.

I’ve claimed benefits in the past when I was unemployed. It was a safety net I availed myself of at the time until I was able to get back on my feet. It isn’t something that should ever be allowed to become a permenant lifestyle choice.

I would suggest the people subsidising the welfare state have equal or greater moral standing to discuss it than those who benefit/have benefited from it.

But they do. Those rich Tories living in their grand houses when they only need a one bad granny flat are blocking up the housing ladder. Move them out, move families in and let everyone move up a rung. Why should they be exempt but the council house scum are punished for exactly the same thing? I am not forcing anyone to move and it is no problem if you want to stay. However, you do have to pay us a penalty tax for doing so, just like the scum. What is wrong with that?

It’s you (and only you) that keeps saying “council estate scum”. Surely you can see beyond your endless bias against evil Tories that there is a limited supply of houses available for social housing? One practical solution that has been proposed on this thread (and intended by the bedroom tax (which isn’t a tax)) is requiring social tenants to live in a property according to their needs.

Your solution appears to be confiscation of property, North Korea/communist Russia style, so nobody can ever own anything = anarchy!

The info from Nationwide, for example, doesn't quite support that. There were large year on year ( often double digit) rises between 1983 and 1989. There were falls ( but less than the rises) between 1990 & 1996 and then rises at a similar level to the 80's ( if not quite as large year on year) until 2008/9 & 2011/12 followed generally with a rise thereafter. The trend since 1952 is for rises almost every year. There were some massive rises in the mid 70's.

Anecdotally a huge change happened between 1997 and 2015 - looking mostly at London house prices here. Labour did bugger all to address it.

I bet they don't ( and as i said above had I not had personal experiences I might agree with them) but I wonder why they don't have such fury towards private home owners blocking the chain? I wonder how their views change if they ever find themselves needing the very benefits they castigate. We are all only a few steps away from that position. I have been there.

So have I. In any case it’s irrelevant! You don’t occupy kind of moral high ground because you’ve been through hard times.

You live between Darlington and Mk because of work. Why shouldn’t social tenants be required to make similar compromises if the only property suitable for their purposes is elsewhere in the country?

 

[DarloRich]

I’ve claimed benefits in the past when I was unemployed. It was a safety net I availed myself of at the time until I was able to get back on my feet. It isn’t something that should ever be allowed to become a permenant lifestyle choice.

I agree entirely - but little is done to prevent that - or provide suitable employment in areas of poor economic performance. Of course to admit that might mean admitting that Saint Margeret of Finchely might have caused some of the problems!

I happily concede successive governments have done little to fix this imbalance but the damage was done on her watch.

I would suggest the people subsidising the welfare state have equal or greater moral standing to discuss it than those who benefit/have benefited from it.

Everybody subsidies the welfare state. Everybody benefits to some degree.

It’s you (and only you) that keeps saying “council estate scum”. Surely you can see beyond your endless bias against evil Tories that there is a limited supply of houses available for social housing? One practical solution that has been proposed on this thread (and intended by the bedroom tax (which isn’t a tax)) is requiring social tenants to live in a property according to their needs.

Your solution appears to be confiscation of property, North Korea/communist Russia style, so nobody can ever own anything = anarchy!

Don't be silly. I simply say that the rules should apply to all. If you live in a house that is too big for your needs you pay a punitive tax to the state. What is wrong with everyone being subject to the same rules? I would have to pay. I have two bedrooms but only need one. Take that money and build more houses.

BTW: I am quite happy to move tenants around. They should live in the right sized house as there are loads of people waiting for a house. The problem is that there often aren't the right sized ( especially 1 bed flats) available. Should you be punished for being unable to comply with a government directive? That doesn't seem fair. However, as always with the Tories nothing is done to fix the issue when it is easier to blame the symptom.

Anecdotally a huge change happened between 1997 and 2015 - looking mostly at London house prices here. Labour did bugger all to address it.

Maybe - the data from nationwide about the national averages is here: https://www.nationwide.co.uk/-/media/.../house-price.../uk-house-price-since-1952.xls

So have I. In any case it’s irrelevant! You don’t occupy kind of moral high ground because you’ve been through hard times.

Perhaps not but it does allow you to see both sides. It does allow you to identify how, as always with the Tories, the application of the policy is done in such a cack handed and unpleasant manner. It is almost as if they do it on purpose.............

You live between Darlington and Mk because of work. Why shouldn’t social tenants be required to make similar compromises if the only property suitable for their purposes is elsewhere in the country?

I don't live in Darlo anymore but it will always be home in a way MK never will be. It is worth noting that I moved down here with no friends or support network. I don't have much of one now. If I fall on hard times again they will be much harder because of that. That is part of the problem with the bedroom tax. You are taking people, often in difficult personal circumstances, and moving them away from their established support network. That dislocation and isolation doesn't seem to matter.

I don't recall having criticised anyone, merely having expressed the view that the housing benefit paid to someone should reflect their actual housing need at the time, not a desire for additional space, subject to a suitably-sized property actually being available in the local area.

Indeed - but the problem comes when that suitably sized house isnt available. The tax isnt postponed so you are punished for having no options. That doesn't seem right to me.


All that said we have a problem coming with housing. We don't have enough and we don't have enough that is affordable. We have to fix that.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Indeed - but the problem comes when that suitably sized house isnt available. The tax isnt postponed so you are punished for having no options. That doesn't seem right to me.

And that is what primarily needs fixing about it now.

 

[DenmarkRail]

I don't agree with the bedroom tax, because I don't agree that any goverment should be able to interfere in these more family matters.

 

[AlterEgo]

No problem with any of that - as long as it applies equally to rich Tories living in massive houses they no longer need as well as the council house scum. And it is a tax. It is a tax on poor people designed to punish them for being poor and not owning their own home.

Of course we could just build more cheap houses for people to live in............

Privately owned massive houses they bought themselves? Or massive council houses?

 

[AlterEgo]

I don't agree with the bedroom tax, because I don't agree that any goverment should be able to interfere in these more family matters.

It’s not a family matter - it’s a matter of managing very limited resources.

 

[WelshBluebird]

I don't live in Darlo anymore but it will always be home in a way MK never will be. It is worth noting that I moved down here with no friends or support network. I don't have much of one now. If I fall on hard times again they will be much harder because of that. That is part of the problem with the bedroom tax. You are taking people, often in difficult personal circumstances, and moving them away from their established support network. That dislocation and isolation doesn't seem to matter.

And of course, moving people away from their friends and families when they depend on those people for support due to whatever circumstances, means that that person will have to depend on the state to provide that support. A great example is someone who is cared for by a relative. If you move that person away from their family, then they will need care provided by the state (at a significant cost to the state).