It's a complex situation that needs addressing. But I don't think the bill should go through unless there are changes.

Like I said, it's a complex issue and as the bill stands it will affect many people who will suffer as a result- read the link I provided earlier.
My thoughts on this are not as black and white as you portray. Yes, there is a need to move people from houses that are too big for their needs, however there are grey areas which the bill does not cover- see the link earlier again.

Alternative solutions to the housing problems...
Many second properties lay empty. Compulsory purchase them and use them as social housing. It's a travesty that there are more housing spaces than people who require housing, it's just they cant access them.
Shelving is also a good idea. A three bedroom house can sleep 8 to a room if the right sort of shelves are used- or perhaps hammocks.
Maybe the poor should be forced to eat their young ( a Swiftian solution admittedly [Link] )that way the problem of housing and food shortages could be solved.

Oh come now Nick you can do better than that. An idea has been put forward that is a fairly good one Yes there are flaws but really not that many that can not be worked out. And you make the assumption that people will just be thrown out of their properties. I think the reality will be very different as this is a longer term solution not a quick fix.

Lets just get straight to it. You mainly object to this why. Because it affects you and yours maybe (not an accusation but you have offered little reasoning as to your objections) or maybe because of where it comes from and your unnatural hatred of all things tory.

This idea that we should fund people for what is a luxury and not a necessity is barmy. You seriously can not be arguing that it is ok for the tax payer to subsidize social or private property for those who do not need it. How is it wrong to get people to downsize.

I notice that in your solution you fall back to your comfort zone of attacking those you perceive to be better off than you. Your solution, as you well know, is completely unworkable in the real world (not least the legal aspect) and so you will always be able to point and say "look at those evil people who are richer than me". Not to mention the fact that it is unlikely that your solution would affect you financially. Now i would agree that we should start to look at limiting second home ownership at least until we go on a monster house building session.

Your solution is as silly as the ones you offer at the end which are clearly there as a mocking tool to hide the inadequacy of your objections.

Now pefwin i agree older people have rights but (despite it not really being their fault) we are in a situation where by enforcing these rights others are suffering. I am not suggesting throwing people out of their homes overnight but you can not argue that it the best use of a limited stock of housing when you have 1 or 2 people in a multi-bedroom house. When it comes to privately owned property it is simply that, the state should not be able to intervene, we are only talking of property that is subsidized through benefit or because it is social housing.

Finally i don't know why you get the impression that i am some young whippersnapper looking at the older generations with some envy. I'm not that young and my views on this are unlikely to change. You say youngsters want instant gratification and in part you are right but not in this case. It should simply be about the best use of council stock. The council should not be there to provide you with a specific house for life.

If you read what I have written, I haven't actually objected to the bill, just the bill in it's present form, for the reasons listed earlier which I shall repeat.

Others threatened with benefit cuts include lone parents or grandparents who use their 'spare' bedroom to share the care of their children or grandchildren, couples who sleep separately for medical reasons and disabled people who have had their homes specially adapted for their needs.

Crucially, that extra room often isn't 'spare'. It is the place a family carer stays when a parent is ill, or the space a teenage child needs for privacy and study. It is part of normal life. We believe that penalising some families for living the lives most people lead is unfair and unjust. Yet that is what is going to happen from April 2013 if the Welfare Reform Bill goes through unamended.

I've also said...

My thoughts on this are not as black and white as you portray. Yes, there is a need to move people from houses that are too big for their needs, however there are grey areas which the bill does not cover- see the link earlier again.

Something that you have chosen to ignore.

Now posters like you automatically think that I set to a Tory idea = bad default setting. I do not, you just project that onto me. I suggest that you read exactly what I post, rather than just having a go.

Edited by nickgusset (31 Oct 2012 7.53pm)

What happens where its an ex-offender, for example, or someone with mental health issues, or disability etc can you just stick them in someones spare room?

I can see the future headline 'Released Paedophile Housed with Family'

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Well don't declare it then .....most don't.
Actually this caught my eye it was to the right of Gussets article and much more interesting.......

[Link]

Pro USA & Israel