A council motion opposing the ‘Bedroom Tax’ has been “watered down”, according to the Plaid Cymru councillors who proposed it.
From April 1 this year, changes to housing benefit by the UK Government meant that working-age recipients faced a cut of 14% to their payments for one spare bedroom, and a 25% cut for two spare bedrooms or more.
Critics have labelled the reduction a ‘Bedroom Tax’.
Opposition Plaid Cymru councillors had put forward a motion seeking to propose a series of measures to protect tenants – including a promise not to evict people because of ‘Bedroom Tax’ arrears – something introduced by Brighton and Hove City Council.
The motion was considered by the Caerphilly County Borough Council’s Policy and Resources Scrutiny Committee but was amended.
Cllr Colin Mann, leader of the Plaid group, said: “Plaid had requested a series of actions to protect people and for the council to look at ways of mitigating this iniquitous tax
“Labour councillors were happy to hand in a large petition of over 2,000 signatures collected by campaigners, but when faced with real suggestions of ways to help refused to do so.”
Fellow Plaid councillor John Taylor said: “We got some fine words from Labour but not a lot else. I guess they haven’t taken a strong stance against the UK Government because the Labour leadership at Westminster has made it clear that they will not scrap it if they win the next UK General Election.”
Councillor Mann added: “Our motion was an opportunity for every councillor in Caerphilly to come together to oppose this tax in the strongest and most wide-ranging way possible. But Labour watered things down and that is very disappointing.
“This was an opportunity for Labour to stand up for the most vulnerable in society – and they’ve failed the test.”
Cllr Hefin David, the Labour chair of the Policy and Resources Scrutiny Committee, said: “I’m sure that every member of our scrutiny committee and indeed the council as a whole opposes the ‘Bedroom Tax’.
“The committee discussed the options that the council has to reduce the impact of the tax on the most vulnerable.
The committee agreed that the council’s Caerphilly Homes Task Group would seek the views of tenants, other social landlords and other local authorities as to measures that could be taken to support tenants. Investigations would take place and report back to Policy and Resources Scrutiny Committee in early October.
“At the same time, officers from across the council were asked to work together to provide more detail about measures that may manage the impact of the tax. With this in mind, the committee voted by a majority not to commit to any action now that may later prove to be open to legal challenge or may carry a financial or reputational risk for the council.”
Cllr Gerald Jones, Deputy Leader of the council, added: “We believe that it is cruel and callous to impose an extra charge on tenants, many of whom have lived in their family home for many years and cannot afford to pay more for their accommodation.
“This charge attacks people who are already suffering from the effects of the government’s ‘austerity’ cuts. Many Labour Councils across the UK have agreed to demand the repeal of the ‘Bedroom Tax’.
“We will work with our colleagues in the UK Shadow Cabinet to ensure that they get the information they need to expose the damage that is being done.”
Latest information from the council shows that Caerphilly County Borough has approximately 2,741 social housing tenants affected by the ‘Bedroom Tax’. Of these, 560 are Registered Social Landlords tenants and 2,181 are council tenants.
Of the 2,181 council tenants affected by the change, 78% are under occupying by at least one bedroom and the rest (22%) by two or more. Under-occupancy by one bedroom will reduce housing benefit by an average of £11 per week and an average of £21 per week for two bedrooms.
I'm glad the opposition has been watered down. I fully support the bedroom tax and any other reductions in welfare payments. AS a taxpayer, I am fed up helping those people worse off in society live in houses that are too big for them. The proposals have already been altered so they don't affect those who foster or those who are elderly with grandchildren who may sometimes come to stay. Before you ask, yes, I do live in a house with extra bedrooms but I saved up the money, I bought the house and I didn't expect the taxpayer to help me meet the costs. The state doesn't help pay the mortgages of people, the state doesn't help pay off loans people might have so why should it help pay rent? Opponents object to those who have to move but think, a young family of four can't move into a much needed house as it's occupied by a middle aged couple of two whose children have moved out. Arguments raised by Plaid and Labour saying that it will affect the disabled hold as much water as a pair of nun's tights. being disabled doesn't mean that you can't work to pay your rent neither does it mean that you can't be efficient in the way you live. Please Mr Cameron, go further abnd cut all subsidies for rent.
What a load of uniformed claptrap Dean Sicco vomits in his comments.
Lets be clear about this situation, most, a huge majority, of people effected by this `window tax`, work hard, including all the disabled who live amongst us, and I for one am proud of all the help society gives them, but, because of the low wages paid by the chinless guffawing Tory owners of businesses in this country, and, the lack of available smaller housing units being supplied by social housing landlords, people are paying this `tax` with their arms being forced up their backs, as a result they are being forced to decide to pay for food or utility bills or pay the rent.
Such `families` are being forced further into child poverty and people like `Sicco` are happy about that??? what a disgusting stand to take, but, hay ho, the country will soon be rid of Cameron and crew, and we can get back to some sort of decent society, I am ashamed to be reading such vitriolic detritus from someone living in my local community, unless he`s a Londoner planted to make such appalling comments and express such uniformed views. There is hope, I am proud that both Plaid Cymru and Labour Councillors are not too far apart in their opposition to this odious repulsive London Government and the dismantling of the Welfare State. How about working just a `little` closer on these issues?.
Trefor, you need to read about what's happening. I don't care if they do work hard or if they are low paid. My two brothers work hard and aren't paid the highest salary so should the government help him pay his mortgage?
It's about equal rights. If you have a mortgage and can't repay it then you downsize. You don't expect the government to pay it for you.
Wages are only at the level they are due to competition from other countries. Would you be happy working for 9.5p per hour which is the average wage cost in China? (no wonder manufacturing is moved abroad) That's also why the mines were closed (more closed under Labour than the Conservatives just to make that point) They could not compete globally.
Beggers can't be choosers and if you're renting you are begging for the state to pay your rent. In an ideal society there would be job seekers allowance, incapacity benefit and a living wage. Let's end this something-for-nothing welfare state (unskilled workers claim more than they contribute) Drive around Trecennydd or Penyrheol, which have a high number of council houses, and look at the satellite dishes on the side, Range Rovers or similar cars, high end laptops, high end smartphones, 3D Plasma TV's or similar etc… Very few are on the bread line, they are better off than they make out and love to claim money from the state, money which they don't repay.
You talk of Labour but that shows the lack of understanding in your comment. Labour have publicly said they would NOT reverse the spending cuts. Labour use the bedroom tax as a political tool to gain voters. They then stab those voters in the back and don't change it.
Why do you get personal? You insult the views and not the person. Insulting the person is a tell tale sign that you are losing the arguments. Read recent polls, most working class people agree with the policy. The ones who disagree are those left wing socialists who don't inform themselves of the bigger picture or a small minority of people who don't want to pay more rent.
Dean: Dear O` Dear, you really should wind your neck on this issue.
And to somehow extrapolate that anyone who lives in and around social housing estates are all scroungers and welfare recipients is a measure of your total lack of knowledge on which you depend on this and probably any other social issues which effect poor communities, where on earth do you get that idea from? don't tell me, Sick Tory Propaganda?.,
you say in your comment:-
"Drive around Trecennydd or Penyrheol, which have a high number of council houses, and look at the satellite dishes on the side, Range Rovers or similar cars, high end laptops, high end smart phones, 3D Plasma TV’s or similar etc… Very few are on the bread line, they are better off than they make out and love to claim money from the state, money which they don’t repay",
How on earth do you suggest these families are all welfare recipients??? most work hard and pay for all the items you list, they pay tax and national insurance contributions, and they pay their way in all other aspects of their life, to suggest anything less is a disgusting misrepresentation of the facts, although, you do generally follow the mind set of your leader, you have been indoctrinated my friend. Get off that high horse and join the real world.
Again more personal attacks and left wing, poppycock come from Trefor's camp.
"…they pay their way in all other aspects of their life…" Why not pay their way in ALL aspects of life? I went to school, I went to university, I earned a degree and I now have a well paid job that allows me to pay my own way in life and not rely on the state. They could have done the same as me.
Why do you fail to answer the idea of a bedroom tax? You fail to answer why they should be helped out with their rent and why people should not receive help with their mortgages.
They're not all scroungers but you can almost guarantee that anyone living in a council house claims benefits and is a claimant rather than a giver. A claimant being someone who claims more from the state compared to what they contribute back to it in the form of taxes etc…
Are you honestly trying to say that all those with Range Rovers and Sky dishes don't claim benefits? Most of them do and most of them use the welfare money not on food or clothes or energy bills but on cars, TV's or other luxury items.
If these people who will be so greatly affected work hard then why don't they give up their council houses with their tax payer subsidised rent and move into to private accommodation which they will have to pay for themselves and give the house they were in to those who are disabled?
Answer these few questions ( or at least try to as you have a habit of criticising without putting any valid points forward or without answering the questions the preposition raise [preposition being those who support the rent deductions]).
1. Why should the state pay out welfare payments at all?
2. Why should the high earners have to pay a higher percentage rate of tax? If everyone paid the same percentage, the higher earners would still pay more as a total.
3. Why do you believe Labour are different when they have declared that they would not reverse the cuts?
One more thing Trefor.
"Get off that high horse and join the real world." Just to add, the real world is not claiming benefits and relying on the state to help you fund your life. The real word is working hard, achieving the qualifications for a good job and paying your own way in life.
Again more personal attacks and left wing, nonsense come from Trefor’s camp.
“…they pay their way in all other aspects of their life…” Why not pay their way in ALL aspects of life? I went to school, I went to university, I earned a degree and I now have a well paid job that allows me to pay my own way in life and not rely on the state. They could have done the same as me.
Why do you fail to answer the idea of a bedroom tax? You fail to answer why they should be helped out with their rent and why people should not receive help with their mortgages.
They’re not all scroungers but you can almost guarantee that anyone living in a council house claims benefits and is a claimant rather than a giver. A claimant being someone who claims more from the state compared to what they contribute back to it in the form of taxes etc…
Are you honestly trying to say that all those with Range Rovers and Sky dishes don’t claim benefits? Most of them do and most of them use the welfare money not on food or clothes or energy bills but on cars, TV’s or other luxury items.
If these people who will be so greatly affected work hard then why don’t they give up their council houses with their tax payer subsidised rent and move into to private accommodation which they will have to pay for themselves and give the house they were in to those who are disabled?
Answer these few questions ( or at least try to as you have a habit of criticising without putting any valid points forward or without answering the questions the preposition raise [preposition being those who support the rent deductions]).
1. Why should the state pay out welfare payments at all?
2. Why should the high earners have to pay a higher percentage rate of tax? If everyone paid the same percentage, the higher earners would still pay more as a total.
3. Why do you believe Labour are different when they have declared that they would not reverse the cuts?
Dean: always willing to oblige.
one: Think about the conditions that hundreds of thousands of people lived in, and remind yourself why they demanded change. We have council housing because the free market gave us slums, where entire families lived in one room and shared a toilet with everyone in the block. We have an National Health Service because before that, people died from treatable diseases, or lived for years with debilitating symptoms because they couldn’t afford to see a doctor. Neither the NHS nor social housing is perfect, but they’re a hell of a lot better than anything the market you so freely support Dean provided.
Recently we’ve seen old ideas about the “deserving” and “undeserving” poor creep back into popular use by your odious Tory friends, but these need to be firmly shoved back into the history books, where they belong. When people voted for the welfare state in 1945, they didn’t vote for a system which would pick and choose who to support; they voted for a system which would look after everyone who needed it. So if you ever feel that you need to be reminded of why we have a welfare state, ask someone who remembers the time when we didn’t. Ask them, and be appalled at what society used to accept, for the sake of what your revered leader David Cameron calls “fairness”.
Two: Because the money can!
Three: Dis I say they were different???
Correction Dean
Two: Because they can afford too
Three: Did I say Labour were any different?, I happen to think they are but it is pointless debating that with you on these pages if you dont aleady know the difference.
The welfare payment is what is wrong with the society. It goes too far. It needs to be means tested and not a 'take as much as you want' system. Caps are only now being placed. Why did you bring up the NHS? I never mentioned that. I disagree with the welfare not the NHS (even if it us inefficient) Slums only formed as there was no minimum wage so employees paid little. Introduce a living wage and cut benefits to create an intensive for people to work. There are jobs available but unfortunately they aren't skilled to do them. Partly due to the cutting off apprenticeships under Labour and partly due to laziness. Not all claimants are lazy but many are. According to you, people need to claim benefits to prevent slums rather than earning their own money.
You are basically saying that they should pay more because they can pay more. What an awful attitude to have. It's wrong that the wealthy are taxed more than the poor. Wealth should be encouraged, not discouraged. You have no valid arguments hence the simplistic and weak responses you gave.
Actually yes! You did say they were different. Read your first comment. More specifically the last four lines in it. Again, a simplistic and weak response given by you.
It's all jealousy from the poor. The poor are envious of those who are wealthy and want their wealth. They want the rich to keep them, yet the rich only have the money as they worked at school and work damn hard now. Compare a doctor to a street cleaner. Should hard working, talented doctors really pay the rent of unskilled, untalented street cleaners?
Now, we could continue this debate. If you want to call it a debate that is as you present no water holding arguments. Or we could end it here and go our separate ways as we will not see eye to eye.
So the state provides no funding for Dean and his lifestyle. Which of course means private healthcare along with insurance, education and of course pension.
As his two brothers are by his standards not high earners. I do so hope for their sake that they are not welfare dependent. Which in effect means under the age of twenty five and childless.
As for his claims, many people are helped with their mortgage by the state. Be it in the form of subsidised childcare, tax credits of any form and of course help with interest payments for the unemployed.
This is the ongoing problem of right wing propaganda fuelling the rhetoric of the ignorant and the uninformed. Private rentals will increase rather than decrease the housing benefit bill. If the objective is to reduce costs then the bedroom tax will not achieve this. However, there are those who delight in the suffering of others as it makes them feel better about themselves. For those of such a persuasion the costs will be less important and somewhat secondary to say the least.
Yes Helen. The state provides ZERO funding for me. I do have private healthcare and my children are privately educated. My brother is in much the same boat as me as he has family to help him.
Helen, you have missed my point. I'm not against receiving money from the state AS LONG AS YOU CONTRIBUTE. I'm against people claiming when they DO NOT contribute. It's almost as if you're so caught up in left wing, pro-Labour claptrap that you fail to see any right wing points.
Private rentals decrease the housing bill as there will be less council houses needed and less rent for the government to meet. Childcare, tax credits and the rest is all worthless.
Aghhhh! I'm a little caught in the middle…then again, I am a liberal (not a "Liberal"). The welfare state DEFINITELY needs to be reformed. I know people, as Dean states, that get luxeries off the state and haven't really put anything in. I'm a mature adult who has a degree and works full-time, part-time and voluntary, yet I cannot get a social house and I can't claim benefits (even one time when I was made redundant), yet somebody down the road who hasn't really ever worked or their partner was able to get a brand new house for them and their 4 children (which they cannot afford)…yet I have to live with my parents and struggle to get on the housing ladder (or rent) and my parents (who worked) had to buy what they could afford…I bet they wished they had a brand new house for free!!! I also see the other side as there are some people, for example the disabled (those that LITERALLY need someone else's help) that will be badly affected as they need the extra space for all their equipment and I know someone who was told they could work, but obviously couldn't becuase of their mobility, respiratory and other problems and won their appeal. I just don't understand when I have worked hard since I was 16, I can't get a house, etc, yet someone who does nothing can get a free brand new home, no bills to pay, can afford to buy a car and pay for PCs, mobile phones, widescreen TVs, Virgin TV, laptops, gaming machines, etc with MY taxes!!! Trust me, I know there are people out there.
A question for Dean. Did the state provide zero funding for you when you were born in an NHS Hospital or educated in a state school?
The Bedroom Tax is a vindicive tax against those who have the least in society. Hundreds of thousands of those affected are in work but on low pay. There aren't smaller social properties to move in to and this needs to be addressed.
Naturally I want the Bedroom Tax to be abolished at the next possible opportunity. This should be a mass campaign and not a party political point scoring exercise by a party who wanted to sell off our housing stock!
Clearly Cllr James Pritchard you haven't read ALL of my comments. I don't mind people claiming as long as they contribute more to the state than they claim from it. As to the "born in an NHS Hospital or educated in a state school?" remark, I was born in a private hospital and I have never attended a state school.
I did my research though and it turns out that you are a Labour councillor. How do you feel about your party announcing that it would not reverse the bedroom tax or other spending cuts if it wins the 2015 election?
It is good to see that Dean is not the `norm, Born in a Private Hospital, Educated in a private school, has a mother and father and brothers who have never had to look sideways in their lives, and, I am grateful that he does not have to take anything from the state, including of course, for his health needs, but, I am eternally grateful to him, and his lot, for paying their taxes so that those, disabled, old, sick, and otherwise disenfranchised amongst us can be aided by the state.
One point, if Dean was involved, regrettably, in a road accident, and I hope it never happens, would he wait for a `private` paramedic`, a private ambulance, whilst being cared for by a Private ` policeman` to be taken to the nearest Spire Hospital I suppose?, and then, if the worse thing were to happen, would he then rely of private insurance payouts to live if he could not work, he would not, on his own submission make any claims on the state of course, because, he contends it should not exist.
At least he was able to discover that Jamie Pritchard is a Councillor, no-one can identify Dean `Sicco` of course. I wonder if he is a `Troll` and we are wasting our time even bother what he thinks.
Trefor, you keep missing the point! You still fail to answer my questions of Labour..
You should only be allowed to claim from the state provided you have contributed an equal amount to the state! I can't make it any clearer.
I think you're getting it Dean. I pay so much in tax and I dislike the idea that some of that money goes towards helping people pay rent. The amount of tax I have paid offsets the cost a an ambulance, a road closure, fire and rescue team and the other services involved. I wouldn't feel guilty relying on the state. Why? I've met the cost of it through taxes previously. People who need help with rent have not met the cost of their rent previously. I would live off my savings instead of claiming from the state.
I feel rather insulted Dean. I am no a troll. I moved to the Caerphilly area to invest and for love so criticising me based upon my right wing views is childish. You don't know me, I don't know you. I don't call you a left-wing socialist troll.
Thank you for agreeing that my taxes fund the lifestyles of many people who are, in my opinion, not worthy of receiving help.
No id you excuse me, I won't be able to reply in a while as I work to earn money to then pay the taxes that fund the lifestyles of others.
As a correctional point, I would apologise for the mistakes made. I've used Dean when I should be using Trefor and I didn't proof read before posting hence the grammatical errors. I'm in a rush at the moment.
I must say I have enjoyed following the discussions above.
As a social landlord provider (not-for-profit housing association) albeit not in the Caerphilly area, ex-Caerphilly resident with family residing within the borough, let’s examine some facts.
Greater than 85% of our Tenants rely on housing benefit.
90% of these Tenants are in rental arrears.
The demographics of these Tenants are diverse by age, race, employment status etc.
The bedroom tax has had a detrimental affect on the social housing landlord. Why? As we have had to find more appropriate accommodation for our Tenants or alternatively invest in major housing alterations or re-register our housing stock to comply with the new housing legislation.
The level of arrears is not solely due to the bedroom tax, as we had made provisions to mitigate the impact, but to the blatant misappropriation of Tenants funds, preferring to prioritise life’s indulgences and extravagances above their living commitments such as rent and bills.
The universal credit will further compound this situation.
The impact of the bedroom tax has affected the social household landlords immensely, as we have to make financial concessions (which we can ill-afford) to compensate for these freeloaders on society.
As a social housing landlord, I am all for helping the disadvantaged or needy but draws the line at assisting those who have no intention but to continually sponge off society and take advantage of our good-will.
Although the concept of the bedroom tax is morally right, I concede the qualifying criteria and implementation has not been given much thought by this government, across the full spectrum.
Supporting the needy, whether it is social housing, education or healthcare etc. is a fundamental quality of a progressive and compassionate society.
However, we have to be brazen enough to draw a line in the sand, as society will regress in terms of providing effective future services etc.
Our social expenditure is and has been out of control and we need to pull in the purse strings.
Tax the well-off more. Fair enough you may say. But we need people to spend on British made products to keep British people in jobs to create wealth, in order to come out of a recession and sustain growth. Where’s the money going to come from? Certainly not the poor unless they tie themselves up in debt, but the wealthy. So we need to be practical and resolute.
I commend those who work hard and pay their way like Dean; this should be encouraged. Where is the money coming from to subsidise the welfare state. But at the same time, no-one undeserving should be given a free ride.
Dean attempts to put his arguments in such simplistic terms which simply doesn't stand up to scrutiny when you analyse it. He says "You should only be allowed to claim from the state if you contribute". I take it from this he means financially.
I would like Dean to ponder what he would say to somebody who is incapable of working through a debilitating illness that confines them to 24 hour care. Would you say that because you have not paid tax through an inability to work, we are denying you state support?
Perhaps he can answer his own question in the seventh comment. Why should the state pay out welfare benefits at all? The answer, to support people in society who require it.
I also, have been following this spat and I can honestly say that Dean`s comments and statements are not creditable.
People who earn or make enough money to boast about the benefits of Private Health Care, Private Education, and, have such a loathing for any sort of compassionate welfare state cannot have many friends who are like minded, particularly on the battleground of financial survival here in Wales, food banks, record levels of rent arrears, in both social and private housing sectors, records levels of child poverty,longer medical waiting lists, ( high levels of sickness and disabilities.
I suppose he feels he has the perfect solution to ` sort this out` i.e make everyone pay their rent without the safety net of housing benefit, which was his first contention, lets examine the consequences of that policy: rent arrears because of high rents charged by private Rachmanist landlords, evictions of individuals and families, more homelessness, more rough sleepers, more children taken into care rather than the ` state` letting them sleep on the streets,( unless of course Dean contends than they should, sleep on the streets that is?), working adults unable to work because their families are homeless, and the cycle goes on and on and people fall deeper and deeper into despair, where does Dean draw the line before a compassionate society does something about it?.
His ramblings are crass rubbish, and I for one don`t believe the picture of himself he tries to project, he probably lives in a house provided and subsidised by the state, he probably drives a reasonably sized and priced car which we, working plebs also subsidise, and he probably picks up his giro and, after paying for his Internet connection, squanders it on fags and booze, but whats so wrong with that?, Unless you are Dean of course.
In response to Cllr James Pritchard. READ MY COMMENTS! I have explicitly said that I support incapacity benefit and job seekers allowance. The former would cover the situation you propose.
You would be surprised Jeff. Many, many people in the middle to upper classes (the ones who create the majority of a country's wealth) are fed up of subsidising people who don't really need help. The people who my arguments were aimed at. That was clearly expressed too. It it seems to be the case that you read one sentence of mine and respond straight away without reading the rest.
You seem to be one who listens more so let's discuss the finer details. You need three benefits in my idea along woth a living wage. Unemployed, incapacity and child benefit. Theoretically, no matter the situation you are in and provided that you genuinely need help, you will always be covered by the state.
To avoid the situation you present a maximum charge should be set on rent. That way people aren't overcharged and they are capable of meeting the costs themselves. No one will be on the streets and everyone will know that no matter their situation, there will always be a minimum standard of living available. I've never been against incapacity benefit as a previous comment of mine clerly says.
Under your system, people claim and there's no cut off point. You seem to think that all welfare can be funded by taxing the rich more. What do you do when the rich move out? Increase the taxes even more on the new rich? You'll forever have a growing base of claimants and a shrinking sector of people who contribute. The number of people who are poorer in society is growing at a faster rate as the number of people who are rich.
Should I even bother give a full response to those childish insults at the end of your comment?
The Social Welfare system does need to be reviewed/adapted to modern life.
There are genuine people, through no fault of their own, that are unable to work and require help from benefits but likewise there are many more people who claim benefits who are able to work but CHOOSE not to work.
It is those people who would rather not work and 'sponge' off society that I feel Dean has contentious issues with….and rightly so. Why should tax payers money be spent on keeping people in lavish lifestyles when they themselves are not prepared/don't want to contribute to society through paying taxes?
As a retired high tax payer then I feel like Dean, that not everyone deserves to be able to claim benefits. I don't know the answers as to how to make the system fairer so only those who deserve help gets help and those who 'sponge' gets nothing. But the system does need to be improved.
I also feel that the onus to the country being able to afford a universal social benefits scheme should not fall completely on the shoulders of the high earning tax payers as they are usually the ones who contribute more but receive less from the state as they usually have private health care and choose public schooling for their children.
It is imperative that the benefits system is overhauled but it takes a greater man than myself to know how.
As a side not to both Trefor and Geoff.. to argue well is to be able to argue without getting personal.
Dai, I agree, getting personal is not good news, but, if you check Dean`s comments you will see that, friend, Dean, ( Mexico) gets very personal with everyone living in Treceydd and Penyheol in Caerphilly, such sweeping generalisations can only be drawn by a philistine.
Oh Jeff…. Let's be fair to Dean. You may not agree with all he has to say and neither do I but you contradicted yourself. It was a generalisation, you admitted it yourself, it wasn't personal. No person in particular was mentioned either.
(Sorry I spelt your name wrong in my previous comment)
Dai, you are too generous, Dean `whoeverheis` was, clearly, disrespectful to ALL residents of Trecenydd and Penyheol.
You be fair to Dean and his objectionable references to social housing tenants if you want too, but, I happen to respect all inhabitants of my community ( Caerphilly) whatever their ` social position` and I do not judge anyone for living in social housing, first and last.
With respect Jeff, Dean didn't 'diss' (to use a word in my Grandson's vocabulary) all residents of Trecenydd or Penyrheol at all. He actually wrote..
Drive around Trecennydd or Penyrheol, which have a high number of council houses, and look at the satellite dishes on the side, Range Rovers or similar cars, high end laptops, high end smartphones, 3D Plasma TV’s or similar etc…
To me he is simply making an observation, albiet, not a fair one.
As far as respecting all inhabitants of the community…to me respect has to be earned and those who simply 'sponge' off the state have yet to earn my respect. Obviously those who undoubtedly need to claim benefits through no fault of their own deserve our respect.
Could `Dai` be `Dean, not much difference I suspect
Jeff…I can categorically assure you that I'm not Dean.
Just because my views differ from yours does not mean I'm masquerading as someone else. Shame on you for thinking otherwise.
My views are not as 'right wing' as Dean's. I'm more Liberal as you should have realised from reading my comments.
Dai… More Liberal?…You should not then support such illiberal views as those expressed by our Friend Dean.
Dai… Dean said, "you can almost guarantee that anyone living in a council house claims benefits and is a claimant rather than a giver". and this referred to those living in Trecenydd and Penyheol specifically, and he used this as his example of the point he was so appallingly intending to make. You agree with that do you???? I see that Jeff and others do not agree.
If you are saying, as a liberal, that his attack on Council house tenants is fair in any respect then I hope you shout that from the rooftops so that we can all understand the `tainted` veiw Liberals are taking now having spent three years in bed with their Tory friends.
Thing is Trefor, the quotation is a fact. The rent councils charge is at a lower rate than that of private landlords. The difference could be down to private landlords making profit but it's mainly down to councils subsidising the costs of it so charge tenants less rent in effect mean making all those living in council houses claimants. When talking about other benefits, official information (census and FoI's released by council) roughly 98% claim benefits. Whether they are deserving claimants is another story…
Reference all the above comments.
Your points of view are just that – simply points of view with no substance.
Put aside your political persuasion and look at the problem with factually based evidence. And unless you work for the Council and are privy to such information / data or a Housing Association etc. I guess it will impossible to quantify the problem effectively and establish the root causes.
So until you start introducing factually based evidence, as I have previously done, your arguments are based upon intuition as opposed to quantifiable data and facts.
The bedroom tax is a smoke screen to a fundamental and more contentious issue. Does the benefit system require an overhaul? If we are honest, I think we would all agree. Yes.
And this is the problem with political posturing. Although a party member may agree in principle with change – they stand united behind the party position. Then where does that leave common sense?
In principle I personally think that the bedroom tax is a good idea. However, in practise it will be difficult to implement to ensure that only those who need and should receive help remains able to claim help.
There are people who genuinely need help from the state to survive and these people should not be 'punished' (for want of a better word) by having to pay for extra bedrooms. But at the other end of the spectrum there are many people who claim benefits because they are job shy. It is these people that, in my opinion, do not deserve help. How this differential can be made I have no idea.
We can not say that all council tenants are worthy of benefits just as we can not say that all council tenants are not worthy of benefits.
D.Owen in his comment above quoted some interesting figures. We should all read his comments and absorb his words. After all, he has first hand experience of tenants in social housing.
"D.Owen in his comment above quoted some interesting figures."
There were no figure in his comment. It was a pointless comment. The debate is over the principle of benefits. Should the state look after people. Figures don't relate to that debate. I think the state should pay and Dean doesn't. It's as simple as that. I think Dai is D. Owen. Dia Owen maybe? Look at the times the comments were posted. It's as if the person wrote one and then wrote the other.
James…you obviously didn't read D.Owen's comment further up the page.
If you want to follow a discussion then it's best to read ALL comments.
Dai, D.Owen, Dean, whoever these people are are not of this world.
There are people about, but very few, who hold the same ultra right wing views expounded by this, sorry, `these`,local commentators, Liberal, Tory, or anyone extreme right of center would promote this debate, they see all council house tenants as layabouts and scroungers, takers and not givers, they consider anyone in social housing as `unworthy`,and where they get the idea that all these tenants are on ` welfare benefits` is drawn from ignorance and stupidity.
I challenge any of the above named individuals to identify themselves or button it, they are not entitled to such extreme views unless they are prepared to, `put up`. None of them will identify themselves of course because they probably do not all exist, We do know that `Dean` goes under the name of Dean Mexico, mexico? for goodness sake get a grip.
Well done Jeff, Trefor, and James for reasonable measured comments in the face of all the claptrap written by other, uninformed, contributors.
Fact: Most council Tenants work and contribute fully to society, and look after their families. They pay their taxes.
Fact: Most private tenants in Social Housing Work and contribute to society and look after their families.
Fact: Most right wing, Tory property owning private property landlords rip off their tenants and rip of the state in the process by charging high rents, the amount tenants would need to claim if a cap was put on the maximum rent a Tory ` Rachman` landlord could charge this would, at a stroke, reduce the housing benefit paid out.
Fact: For each Tenant that may be evicted under this Tory Lib Dem Policy
it will increase the cost on the public purse by 200% in order to deal with the homelessness it would create.
Arthur…and how do you know all you have written are facts?
Arthur needs to learn the definition of what a fact is. I challenge him to provide evidence to support his facts
"increase the cost on the public purse by 200% in order to deal with the homelessness it would create." Thats internal Labour rubbish. A 200% increase is double the current amount added onto the current amount. Do you honestly believe that it would cost 3 times what we are currently paying to house evicted tenants?
Not to all: Mecksicco is an Italian name…
Dean…So your an Italian then?. It actually cost more than three times the original rental housing cost to deal with a family under the homelessness persons Act, Court Cost and time, social workers to ensure safety of children, Council officials and Court Bailiffs, transportation and special grants to the homeless families, lock smiths and all sundry building works in securing and keeping the empty property secure.
Then, we have to deal with time and effort of Homelessness officers of the council having to secure Bed and Breakfast Accommodation, and, guess what, the family still qualify for housing benefits to pay for the accommodation ( bed and breakfast or Hostel accommodation) which the council then have to provide, schools have to put in special measures for homeless children caught up in this process, education is disrupted, employment is disrupted, and guess who picks up the bill? that`s right, the same people who paid the rent on the house the people were evicted from in the first place, only this time, the total accumulative cost to the public purse is MORE than 300% the original costs.
I have learned a lot about the so called 'bedroom tax' from the comments, both left and right wing, posted here. The idea seems all very neat, move people into a size of house that suits the number of occupants. An examination of the practicalities reveals that it is not so neat and, as some comments have pointed out, will actually end up costing the tax payer more. This is exactly the opposite of the intended outcome.
I think we will remember this in the same vein as other regrettable Tory policies such as,
• Taking Britain into the EU without a ballot. (Yes it was them, under Heath)
• Shutting the two best schools in Caerphilly. (Boys and Girls Grammar, made comprehensive when Thatcher was education secretary)
• The dash for gas to generate electricity. ( This quickly used up our gas reserves and left us dependent on foreign fuel because we also shut perfectly good coal mines. This was under Thatcher and Major)
• Fighting a war in Iran. (Not the equally stupid Blair war, but the first conflict arranged by John Major)
I could go on, the poll tax debacle, etc, but I think the point is made. The Tories always manage to produce some weird policies. The leadership of the party itself calls the membership “swivel eyed loons” so perhaps they formulate policy to keep these ‘loonies’ happy. The bedroom tax will be short lived but I predict it will cause a lot of hardship to many poor people and will cost us all plenty of money too.
– Closing down of the mines (more were closed down under the Labour gov. Than they were under Thatcher)
– Signing Lisbon Treaty
– Iraq 2003
– Afghanistan 2001
– Failure to equip troops properly in both wars
– Brown preparing Britain for the Euro
– Selling off gold
– Failing to control public spending
– Failing to control immigration
– Tax based system for automobiles
– Backwtabbing public (opposing policies but not committing to reverse them)
– 69 different tax in cases
– Cutting the order for 15 Type 45's down to 6
– Cash for passports
– Dodgy donations e.g. Eccleston
– Incase in special advisers and civil servants increase beaurocracy
– Brown 's raid on pensions
– Hound hunting debate fiasco and the despicable way they bypassed the house.
– Proposed merging of VE and VJ Day
– Working tax credit and child tax credit
– Loosening laws on foreign companies buying out British firms and dealing in Britain
-£13bn on NHS IT system which didnt work properly.
– Promotion of multicultural Britain of traditional culture led to segregation in British cities. Many cultures have come together in harmony but many more haven't.
– SA80 assault rifle fiasco and forcing troops to use the unreliable weapon until they could spend billions more on modification programme which took place in Germany
– Creating a level playing field by lowering standards whether it be in education or wealth instead of in casing standards
History shows that the Labour Party is the party of mass failures.
Backstabbing*
Tax increases*
Cllr. Richard Williams, I have also learnt a lot from the previous comments. It appears we are in agreement on becoming better informed. However, I must correct you on some points:
1 – The UK joined the European Economic Community (EEC) on 1st January 1973, along with Ireland and Denmark as you said, however, due to arguments about whether we should have joined in the first place, the newly elected Labour government in 1974 renegotiated the UK's membership terms, and a referendum was held on 5th June 1975 on the question '"Do you think the UK should stay in the European Community (Common Market)?". There was a turnout of 64.5% and every county except the Shetland Islands and the Western Isles voted "yes", the overall result being 17,378,581 (67.2%) yes, 8,470,073 (32.8%) no.
2 – All governments were equally responsible for the decline of the North Sea oil and gas industry. Whereas Norway has used its North Sea revenues to amass a sovereign wealth fund that will help the country adjust to an ageing population. Britain used its oil and gas receipts to pay for mass unemployment, tax cuts and current government spending.
3 – Evidence has shown that 290 mines closed under Wilson in all his time in office, and about 160 under Thatcher. At this time 65 pits were in operation.
Putting aside this political one-upmanship, both Labour and Tory governments have made political faux-pas.
Historical events should be used to help define us in the future, not to be used as propaganda. There is so much political self-importance that common sense does not seem to prevail.
Reading some of these comments, I don’t know why it is called common sense as it is apparent that it is not that common!
Ignore my previous comment, I'll correct it.
– Closing down of the mines (more were closed down under the Labour gov. Than they were under Thatcher)
– Signing Lisbon Treaty
– Iraq 2003
– Afghanistan 2001
– Failure to equip troops properly in both wars
– Brown preparing Britain for the Euro
– Selling off gold
– Failing to control public spending
– Failing to control immigration
– Tax based system for automobiles
– Backstabbing public (opposing policies but not committing to reverse them)
– 69 different tax increases in 13 years
– Cutting the order for 15 Type 45?s down to 6
– Cash for passports
– Dodgy donations e.g. Eccleston
– Increase in special advisers and civil servants leads to increased bureaucracy
– Brown's raid on pensions
– Hound hunting debate fiasco and the despicable way they bypassed the house.
– Proposed merging of VE and VJ Day
– Working tax credit and child tax credit
– Loosening laws on foreign companies buying out British firms and dealing in Britain
-£13bn on NHS IT system which didnt work properly.
– Promotion of multicultural Britain over traditional culture led to segregation in British cities. Many cultures have come together in harmony but many more haven’t.
– SA80 assault rifle fiasco and forcing troops to use the unreliable weapon until they could spend billions more on modification programme which took place in Germany
– Creating a level playing field by lowering standards whether it be in education or wealth instead of in casing standards
Enough said Deanio boyo.. So you appear to support the ripping apart of hunted wildlife with packs of baying hounds? Such pastimes are only enjoyed by cretins and idiots. Take your pick.
Couple with seven children under seven want bigger house – they sleep in just two bedrooms
http://www.parentdish.co.uk/2013/08/09/couple-wit…
Parasites……I am working class. I have 2 jobs. I work all hours God sends to put a roof over my family’s head and put food on the table and these parasites spend my cash. What’s worse is the council let it happen and the Councillors do nothing and blame everyone else.
I am going to sign on and draw a giro. Get intimate with my wife and babies. And maybe I will get a bigger house. Result 🙂
Come on Jokio learn to read. It's the fiasco I hated and the use of the Parliament act not the law itself.
Isn't it interesting, as soon as anyone is critical of a political party its members and apologists immediately think that you belong to the main opposition, the Labour Party in this case, and vent their fury on the record of that party.
Carry on gentlemen, I am not in any political party nor am I elected to represent one. My prioroty is the people, of all political persuasions, who live in my ward. The bedroom tax will make some of them have to move, some of them live on a reduced income and will make most of them pay extra tax for an ill considered policy. I don't have to think for very long to see that this silly policy will not last long. Possibly not even as long as the Tory-Lib Dem coalition, which has a limited shelf life itself.
Come on Dean Son, you disagree with hunting with baying hounds then?
The destruction of those dogs when they can no longer keep up with the cretinous riders that they run with? and, the ripping apart of wildlife for nothing more than a pass-time enjoyed by people who love to see the entrails and blood of foxes and domestic pets trailed over the country side for pure `enjoyment`, and dont come back with some claptrap about freedoms of the individuals etc yawn yawn.
A simple Yes or No will do, we can then all add this to the judgment we all make about contributors and put their views on all other matters in perspective.
I know you're an independent Richard. it's just that we haven't had an Independent PM or a Liberal PM in recent years so it's natural to criticise the opposition who are, in this case, Labour.
That's right Jokio. I AGREE with the ban on hunting. I despise the way it was brought about though. Labour were scared that the HoL would refuse it so used the Parliament act.
Interested point Richard raised. "…nor am I elected to represent one." In my ideal world, that would be how all politicians are. They are elected by the people and SHOULD represent the people and vote with the people instead of voting with the party. Anyone who says they agree 100% with a political party is lying. That's why I vote Independent, albeit the centre right Independents. If there isn't one then I go to UKIP or the Conservatives.
I, also notice that Cllr. Richard Wiliams represents Inhabitants of Caerphilly Town as an `Independent Councillor`, I bet he`s pleased to have your endorsment Dean, A self confessed Ultra Right of Centre `flog em and `hang em political ally, but I bet his constituents won`t be too pleased with his new bedfellow.
As long as he takes the views of all of his constituents into proper consideration no matter how controversial they might be, then the people of Caerphilly Town would be lucky to have him as a councillor. Where I am, the councillors vote with the party even if it means voting against what the majority of the local residents want. Crazy?!?
I don't think the people of Caerffili take any notice of who others vote for Jokio. More than half of them don't vote anyway because there are too many politicians who always follow their party line and have ceased to take notice of the opinions of the electorate.
Dean knows I disagree with the 'bedroom tax' (for reasons I have given in a previous post) but recognises that I do listen to views from across the political spectrum.
Once upon a time party politics worked well because a range of views were allowed within it. As an example, in the 1970's Labour party, Harold Wilson was broadly in favour of what was then called the common market. Senior Labour figures of the time such as Peter Shore and Tony Benn were strongly opposed as they could see where this project would lead. There was energetic debate but the views of all were respected. Can you imagine a shadow Labour minister being allowed to speak in favour of an immediate withdrawal from the EU now?
Until we once more recognise that a political party should be a 'broad church' where those of a generally like mind feel free to speak on issues where they differ from the party line we will continue to have low election turnouts. This is very bad for democracy and I worry about that far more than who votes for me.
Councillor Williams.. You give a perfect example of how Plaid Cymru emerged as a credible `Political Party` many years ago. Plaid Cymru drew together people of all political views with one aim, `Free Wales`.
In Caerphilly Town we have Elected representatives to the Council who supported the main political Parties, one of them was a Conservative supporter, often seen propping up the bar in the local Conservative Club, to do so he would have had sign `the pledge` to the conservatives.
A second was a members of the Labour Party and a youth supporter within that party. The third, who knows? `joined for the money perhaps?.
But if all three now support the movement for a Free Wales, they are being true to their principals, or are they?. Do they represent all the voters in the ward for which they were elected, some say they do not?.
Are they these independents that Dean and Cllr Williams so aspire too?.
Definition of "Principals" Rhebekka.
prin•ci•pal
[prin-suh-puhl]
adjective
1.
first or highest in rank, importance, value, etc.; chief; foremost.
2.
of, of the nature of, or constituting principal or capital: a principal investment.
3.
Geometry . (of an axis of a conic) passing through the foci.
noun
4.
a chief or head.
5.
the head or director of a school or, especially in England, a college.
6.
a person who takes a leading part in any activity, as a play; chief actor or doer.
7.
the first player of a division of instruments in an orchestra (excepting the leader of the first violins).
8.
something of principal or chief importance.
Yes, you are probably right. I think I prefer people with "Principles" which has another meaning entirely.
Thanks for the spelling lesson Councillor Williams; The fact remains you clearly know what I mean ?, So, do we all take it you are grateful, with the views expressed on these pages by Dean and his `few` misguided Liberal` supporters to have judged you and your `princip`pals` to best represent them? We would all like to know where we stand when you again seek our votes in an election, and, if indeed you do hold the same views as some of the hang em and flog em brigade (as Jokio called them) commentators you will certainly not get elected in Caerphilly. To clarify this opinion, I point to the fact that no-one with such right wing views has ever been supported in Caerphilly or these valleys, lets have some clarity on the matter, now, or, when you stand again and ask us all to support you.
The bedroom Tax does need moderating, the Welfare benefits system does need moderating, but the views of `out of sight right wing thugs and bullies` also needs moderating, we still live in a compassionate and caring civilised country, Wales being just a little more civilised than England due to the devolution issues which we can influence for ourselves, but, for so long as we don`t want children living and begging on the streets, thousands of homeless rough sleepers, a totally disproportionate level of have`s compared to the have` not s`, and, third sector groups and organisations having to feed the needy, clothe the children, tend to the elderly and disabled, and, bury the dead, then Dean and Co, including elected Councillors, MP`s ans AM`s who may support those views really have to examine their mind sets and think just a little bit further forward than `today`. Civil disobedience maybe the way forward for all those genuine benefit claimants who would have their support sucked away under Dean and his friends radical policies, and Principals.
Rhebekka I think I do make 'where I stand' abundantly clear. The bedroom tax does not need "moderating" it needs scrapping. Is that clear enough?
That is my own view and I do not expect everyone to agree with me but I am perfectly prepared to listen to others and to debate this or any other issue. As for "hanging a flogging" I am firmly against capital punishment and, ironically, was persuaded to hold this view by a speech made by a Tory. That was Douglas Hurd speaking, somewhere or other, over 20 years ago. Which goes to show that a person with an open mind can learn from others, even if their politics are different.
Why is it Rhebekka that anyone holding right wing views are"out of sign right wing thugs and bullies" but anyone holding left wing views are automatically correct when arguably, left wing policies have led to circumstances such as rapists and murderers having more spent on feeding them than hospital patients?
Your debating platform is fundamentally flawed. You not only disrespect a view but you disrespect the person also. I disagree with Richard's views about corporal punishment and the bedroom tax but I realise that he is a member of my community and I realise that we each have different opinions and I was prepared to respect him and listen to what he has to say. He did the same to me. At the end, I still don't agree but respect him as a councillor for listening to the views of someone in his community in a courteous way.
You also seem to lack the understanding of an independent. An independent councillor is not meant to champion his own views but instead champion the views of those is the community. Richard's own views do no matter during election time. He's not there to knock on the doors of people and say 'vote for me and I'll do this' he's there to knock on the doors of people and say 'I understand this is important to you so I suggest we do this. What do you think? '
In fact, all councillors, MP's and AM's should be doing that like they used to. Think back to Richard's comment about a shadow minister publicly holding a different view to that of his leader. Unfortunately, most politicians especially councillors are scared to champion views that differ to those of their party so become 'yes people'. They also want a cabinet position so never dare to criticise the views of those above them even if they know such views are different than the views held by the majority of the people who voted them in.
You can do an experiment to see my point in action. Phone you local councillor and complain about something which the party s/he represents support. Ideally, your views would be taken forward to the vote and factored in but they won't be. The councillor will side with you on the phone, say how they understand but as soon as the phone has been put down you are forgotten about. This is what's wrong with modern politics. Politics should be about respecting the views of others and representing the people but currently it's about insulting those with different views whilst promoting your own agenda.
At last, Dean, you promote a `moderate` view on how a Councillor should represent their community, I agree with that proposition.
There is a problem however when you say `Politics should be about respecting the views of others and representing the people but currently it’s about insulting those with different views whilst promoting your own agenda`. I have read again your original `scatter gun` comment which you made about those people who live in parts of Caerphilly, "you can almost guarantee that anyone living in a council house claims benefits and is a claimant rather than a giver. A claimant being someone who claims more from the state compared to what they contribute back to it in the form of taxes etc…
(Are you honestly trying to say) that all those with Range Rovers and Sky dishes don’t claim benefits? Most of them do and most of them use the welfare money not on food or clothes or energy bills but on cars, TV’s or other luxury items".
The areas you mention Dean happen to be original Council estates, many of those homes now owned by hard working industrious people supporting a home, a family and wide screen TV and a Car. You appear to be very disrespectful to those people?. Was it a mistake to make that original comment? or, is your latest more moderate contribution meant to divert attention from the true views of a `Righty`?.
I think you have misinterpreted my latest comment Trefor.
"Politics should be about RESPECTING THE VIEWS of others…"
I respect the views the people have. I respect you even though you have a different viewpoint than me and I respect your viewpoint even though I disagree. I think you would agree that I never once insulted you for having the opposite views that I do.
After rereading what I said I honestly, don't think it was disrespectful to people living in council estates. It would be disrespectful if I said that all people living in council estates claim and all don't deserve help but I didn't say that. I said that many claim and many don't need as much as they claim which is disrespecting only those who claim what they don't actually need, not everyone living in the estate.
Dean… You must be a politician of sorts.
What you ACTUALLY said was "you can almost guarantee that anyone living in a council house claims benefits and is a claimant rather than a giver", you then went on to say " Drive around Trecennydd or Penyrheol, which have a high number of council houses".
But, I have to concede that you are correct when you say you have never insulted me ( personally I suspect you mean when you say this) and, for what it may be worth you do appear to have redeemed yourself slightly, in my view, as a politically right wing promoter of all things hat doffing by the plebs, as I find myself agreeing with you about the failure of local elected representation, sycophantic back slapping by some local politicians in order to sit at the top table whilst two facing the electorate, if, that is, they will acknowledge you at all, between elections.
Some Local representation in Caerphilly is so poor as to be off the scale, Councillor Richard Williams, and his colleague Independent Councillor Eddie Talbot, are the exception in representing this Town, but in being the exception the other local elected Councillors have ignored them, it would benefit all inhabitants of the Town if all Councillors worked together and set aside personal political ambition, but again, there is an exception in that local Labour politicians do work closely with these Independent Councillors for the benefit of town and Caerphilly Basin Dwellers. So all in all, on this issue you are spot on Dean.
We all have secret lives… I still don't think it's directly offensive but let's not squabble over that.
I live in the Penyrheol and the councillors are terrible. They make promises, ask you your opinions and even offer to pass on problems. Labour even called out the First Minister in the recent by-election but now, following the election they don't care. they want your vote and nothing else. Local level politics would be a lot better if there were no political parties involved. It should be about bettering a community, not bettering a party. Hence my love for Independents. The only down side is covered allegiances. Some people, namely Ron Davies,brand themselves as independent but then go and side continually with Plaid. It's time that people such as him stop deceiving the voters. The mere fact that we agree demonstrates that this issue is cross party and leads to the mistrust and hatred of politicians that we all to often see.
Just to make things clearer Dean, I am against capital punishment, but not corporal punishment. I was caned at school and to use the old chesnut "it didn't do me any harm."
I actually think it modified my behaviour for the better. It is a pity that teachers are now not allowed to correct children. Being whacked with a dap or cane was to be avoided but infinitely better than my parents being told. That is another change, many parents now automatically side with their children against the teacher. During my school days parents default position was that the teacher was right. The opposite seems to be true now and teachers have to put up with the parents ire as well as having to teach their unruly brood.
Did you see the programme on Channel 4 last night at 9pm about the welfare state. What are your opinion on it?
I don't actually get to see much TV as I have not owned a set for more than four years. I don't miss it much either.
Regarding the welfare state it is going to be reformed in a major way, regardless who is in power, as we no longer manufacture enough to export goods to pay for it. We are actually still being spendthrifts on things we can do without. We borrow money to hand over as foreign aid whilst fighting a brushfire war in Afghanistan and cutting back on defence.
The crisis will hit home soon and I don't see any easy way out of it. Big changes need to be made and having many of our laws and regulations made for us in the EU is going to be a massive impediment to getting back to economic health.
So far government has fiddled about the edges, the bedroom tax for instance will just cause hardship but will probably cost tax payers more. We need to produce finished goods, create more jobs (not public sector ones either)and get on to firm economic footing where we can guarantee that the sick, disabled and the old are looked after. At the moment we are heading for the cliff edge and this will not be a nice country to live in when old, ill or both.
Frank Field, of the Labour Party, was prepared to reform the welfare system. Would his ideas have worked? We know not as Tony Blair pulled the rug from under his feet. Since the days of Field politicians have just tinkered around whilst the system collapses under its own weight.
I agree with you on the wars. If you take into account the minor skirmishes here and there and when one ends a new one starts, Britain has been fighting someone constantly for well over 100 years. Britain was built on war. It would be far more cost effective to stop foreign aid, stop the wars and use the saved money on funding the growing pensions bill.
How big of a supporter are you for the EU? Personally, I would ditch the EU and look to have a single market with the Commonwealth. Last year, the combined economy of the Commonwealth grew more than the combine economy of the EU. Britain turned away from its Imperialistic ways which made it rich and looked towards the continent and the Euro which is going really well…
As far as job creation goes, the Labour government was wrong to push university so much. We now have a situation where children are being encouraged to attend university when they aren't capable of doing it and they choose which provides them with no opportunities after graduation. It would be better to take money away from their university grants and fund apprenticeships that they could do. The only problem with industry is of course international competition. It's cheaper to build in China and export than it is to build in Britain. Yet Britain has a billion pound industry in making ARM chips for mobile phones, laptops, tablets and other similar products, but successive governments have turned their back on that and have instead promoted a Big Society, HS2 and manufacturing (the latter sounds great but competition is too great)
How do you fix it though? As we both agree, many people just expect the state to keep them and don't want to work or contribute but many people truly are needy and struggle to maintain a reasonable standard of living. How do you separate them? Is it feasible to meet them all and inspect their lifestyles?
I don’t' support the EU becoming a federal state in its own right which is what is happening. I am amazed that we sceptics are painted as right wing when politicians with impeccable left wing credentials, such as Tony Benn, foresaw the peril decades ago. Even High Gaitskill, considered a ‘moderate’ Labour man would be appalled at the road we have gone down.
I agree with you that university has been pushed too much along with codswallop such as ‘gap years.’ I left school at sixteen to become a labourer at an aluminium foundry, successfully got an apprenticeship and did not embark on a degree until I was thirty one years old. When O levels were introduced they were pitched to passable for about 40% of the population. We were later told that 50% should be in university doing degrees! This has led to a situation where our youngsters expect to do a degree and end up with a worthless piece of paper and a heap of debt. This is not progress, it is a betrayal of our young people who should be given the opportunity to work at sixteen, learn skills and earn a salary.
On international competition, it has always been there. The British were successful because they met the challenge head on and strived to be the best. Even during my lifetime a skilled person could very easily work abroad for a much larger salary than at home because the rest of the world had the utmost respect for our apprenticeship schemes. I know several Caerffili people who worked in such places as Saudi Arabia for two years and came back with enough money to buy a house here outright. We cannot compete on wage rates with emerging economies but we should be able to beat them on skills and quality. Germany does this comfortably because they do not value a banker above an engineer or scientist.
Regarding fixing it; a very big problem. I was sat in the pub the other night listening to a group of boys and girls of around 18-19 years old. Comments were along the lines of, “ I, Like, don’t want to do any, like, manual work. I want to, like, get into a really well paid role.” I used to interview young people with good ‘A’ levels seeking a job. They were incapable of writing lucid reports, taking direction, making good decisions, planning a job, working with tools or any of the skills that a Chinese or German person would easily be able to do. In short, although no less intelligent than I was at 18, they had not had any academic or vocational education that equipped them for earning a living.
I truly fear for the future of Wales. I have always believed that it is a duty to care for those who cannot work for reasons of age, infirmity or illness but we are staring into the abyss and it will take people of very special ability to lead us out of this mess. I do not have the answers, though I could see where we were going wrong more than thirty years ago. If we are to thrive in a capitalist world, and I can’t see us becoming communist anytime soon, we need to play to our advantages. We have plenty of coal, the remnants of a trained industrial workforce and, most importantly, an innovative culture. I have a feeling it is too late, I am not impressed with Labour and Tory solutions so far and minor parties like Plaid Cymru positively relish the prospect of a tiny little independent Wales being maintained by hand outs from the EU. They will be disappointed as the East Europeans are already sitting at the table. If I was 20 years younger I would be applying for jobs in Canada.
Dean finally someone on my wave length!! I've been trying to tell the over opinunated busy body's on inside housing the benefits of the bed room tax but it seems nobody wants to hear the good things it is doing only the bad!! I grew up in a council house & I live in a council house & 100% agree with everything you are saying!! I've always thought the system is completely unfair one rule for benifit claiments (eg free rent free council tax free gardening free service chargees in flats) yet if you work you have to pay all of these & live in cramped conditions because of all the people under occupying & top it off they do it for free!!!!!!!! Thank goodness Mr Cameron stepped in!
*