Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chrisawhitmore)
    People seem to get rather annoyed by MPs having second homes, yet I've still never heard anyone explain a good way to have, for example, Mark Durkan, the MP for Foyle in Northern Ireland, work in westminster while maintaining links to his constituency. He could commute, but it'd be a 20 hour drive each day, which would probably interfere with his work.
    He's got a good excuse, but what about all the other mp's who live within 3 hours commute of London?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Agree with OP.

    It's not a tax, it's a f***ing reduction in benefits. So stupid all the tiff about this.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Izzyeviel)
    He's got a good excuse, but what about all the other mp's who live within 3 hours commute of London?
    Is that 3 hours one way or round trip, because an MP who spends 6 hours a day commuting is going to be next to useless. Assuming they work 9-5, that would require them to get up at about 5a.m. and not get home before 8pm, which, given that ministers get red boxes of paperwork to take home with them, would mean ministers operating on about 4-5 hours sleep a night, which is not usually conducive to good government.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chrisawhitmore)
    Is that 3 hours one way or round trip, because an MP who spends 6 hours a day commuting is going to be next to useless. Assuming they work 9-5, that would require them to get up at about 5a.m. and not get home before 8pm, which, given that ministers get red boxes of paperwork to take home with them, would mean ministers operating on about 4-5 hours sleep a night, which is not usually conducive to good government.
    Plenty of people live in Cardiff, Manchester, Bristol etc work in London and yet manage to do the above. Poor excuse.

    Especially when you consider other Civil Service staff work 2-3 hours away from London themselves.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Izzyeviel)
    He's got a good excuse, but what about all the other mp's who live within 3 hours commute of London?
    To be honest, I would prefer my MP spent more time working rather than travelling 6 hours a day.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DorianGrayism)
    To be honest, I would prefer my MP spent more time working rather than travelling 6 hours a day.
    If prefer it if my mp didn't have 12 weeks holiday, be able to claim multiple expenses whilst expecting 2.5million people to live off £53 a week.

    Each to their own.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hopple)
    What would you do if you were in a position to make the decision about two families and one home which had enough space for both of them? The point is someone has to make those choices, what would you do if you were them?



    I didn't say anything about scum, my motivation for this is to get more people into housing. Why must you see this as an attack? See it from the homeless person's perspective too.

    As for your family's specific problems, it seems like you'd be better off living apart, or at least with someone who wouldn't put up with violent outbursts? In need of mental health help at the very least anyway. Unless you're claiming you grew up in an asylum (and I wouldn't believe that either), no, I won't believe your family is the norm anywhere.
    Do you fail to see the familys who dont get get into social housing get housing benefit to rent privately.

    The only solution is to build more your point makes NO sense.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paul514)
    Do you fail to see the familys who dont get get into social housing get housing benefit to rent privately.

    The only solution is to build more your point makes NO sense.
    What you're saying here is we have to build more houses then put families in them, which makes sense. I don't see why people keep pointing out we need more houses as if that's contrary to what I'm saying. However, given the current situation we have, a good way to get more people into housing whilst we build more is to get them to share, using the data already collected from the "Bedroom Tax".
    (Original post by Izzyeviel)
    If prefer it if my mp didn't have 12 weeks holiday, be able to claim multiple expenses whilst expecting 2.5million people to live off £53 a week.

    Each to their own.
    Don't forget that many MPs are so committed to their job serving their constituency/country that they take 2nd or even 3rd jobs on the side.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hopple)
    What would you do if you were in a position to make the decision about two families and one home which had enough space for both of them? The point is someone has to make those choices, what would you do if you were them?


    As I have already explained bigger social house rarely become available. This is one of the positive points of the 'bedroom tax' There are many people on waiting lists who do require 3/4 bedrooms. Therefore when a 4 bedroom house comes up it will go to the family highest up the list who require a 4 bedroom property.


    In the highly unlikely event that there is no one on the list who requires a 4 bedroom property then it will be offered to a family in smaller social housing who are deemed to be overcrowded and require a 4 bed property. This then frees up their old property for one of the smaller families.

    On housing lists people are prioritised according to how bad their current housing situation is e.g a family in temporary B&B accommodation would have priority over a family who are staying in a 1 bed private rental etc and many other factors, usually they are allocated points according to each factor considered and the highest points are at the top of the list. If 2 families are on equal points then the family who have been on the list longest get the property. Please note those being newly allocated social housing are not placed in an under occupancy situation.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Hopple we have no need to stick them in houses inbetween, they could start building houses this year and simply pay private landlords inbetween most of the cuts that are now coming in after the 20% cuts already are not needed all we need to do now is focus on the economy something major housing projects would help.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chrisawhitmore)
    Yeah. That's why we don't do this at say, every university in the country. All the time.
    Honestly, it's not the same and you know it.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by slacker07906)
    Honestly, it's not the same and you know it.
    It's putting people who don't know each other in the same house, and assuming they won't murder each other, and it seems to work fine.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chrisawhitmore)
    It's putting people who don't know each other in the same house, and assuming they won't murder each other, and it seems to work fine.
    Not remotely the same for more than one reason:

    1) There is an element of choice in becoming a student and moving into student accommodation. With the proposal being discussed people will be forced to accept it or accept homelessness simply because they have fallen on hard times.
    2)All roommates have chosen to become students and move into student accommodation as above so are in the same boat. Just having being poor in common leaves scope for a much wider range of differences.
    3)Students are adults, at least 18 they are not imposing sharing on children.
    4)Student lets are of limited length ie there is a light at the end of the tunnel if it's not all rosy with the proposal being discussed the situation would be indefinite because when you fall on hard times there is no way of knowing how long it will take for things to improve, certainly not how long they will take to improve enough to afford to move. No light at the end of the tunnel is a vile way to exist.
    5)When the accommodation is University run (IME anyway) there is much better management of extremes of anti-social behavior than councils ever manage.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hopple)
    What would you do if you were in a position to make the decision about two families and one home which had enough space for both of them? The point is someone has to make those choices, what would you do if you were them?



    I didn't say anything about scum, my motivation for this is to get more people into housing. Why must you see this as an attack? See it from the homeless person's perspective too.

    As for your family's specific problems, it seems like you'd be better off living apart, or at least with someone who wouldn't put up with violent outbursts? In need of mental health help at the very least anyway. Unless you're claiming you grew up in an asylum (and I wouldn't believe that either), no, I won't believe your family is the norm anywhere.
    And that's because you are completely IGNORANT of how the other half live. Ive lived in a house 18 years and I'm telling you it's the norm where I lived. The streets bursting with alcoholics, 2 drug dealers, drug addicts, everyone has open domestics daily for everyone to hear, nearly everyone I'm close to on my estate suffers from depression or some other mental health issues police visit the street at LEAST once a day. It is just ludicrous to suggest merging these units together! Behind closed doors everyone has their own stuff going on, their own stories, these aren't just pieces of crap you can throw around, they are human beings.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by slacker07906)
    There are so many unsuspected dangerous people in the world such as rapists and murderers.

    How do you you think it would be a good idea to let a stranger who may be capable of harming others, share a house with an innocent individual?

    You are what's wrong with this country.

    Slackers* like you are the problem!
    Misusing welfare and giving all the genuine needy claimants a bad name!


    Well people have to mix on public transport

    People could be vetted before.

    *from your name btw
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    I'd like someone to give me a % breakdown of the welfare budget so we can actually see how much money is going where...


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    It's interesting that arguments against Housing Benefit reductions for under occupation weren't so prevalent when the same thing happen in private sector housing a few years ago.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LexiswasmyNexis)
    I'd like someone to give me a % breakdown of the welfare budget so we can actually see how much money is going where...


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I can tell you just over half the welfare bill goes on pensions.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paul514)
    I can tell you just over half the welfare bill goes on pensions.
    That sounds about right 46% pensions, 5% pension credit and 2 % winter fuel allowance.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Keckers)
    I am not everyone else, therefore I cannot speak on their behalf. But if you have to use threat of force to coerce me into surrendering my property to a third party that is theft.

    Also everyone else? I'm not sure those civilians who were killed in Iraq or Afghanistan (but it's ok, they were only collateral damage) benefited from the tax money spent on funding an immoral and even illegal war.
    perhaps if you had a sense of compassion and society you wouldnt need forcing

    yes because a thread on the tories assaults on the poor really has relevance to tony blairs illegal wars. jog on.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: April 12, 2013
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What's your favourite Christmas sweets?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.