[Durham Giant]

this is what the CUTS mean : Thu Feb 14, 2013 12:28 pm  

I will keep updating the first post on what the cuts mean . http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/feb/1 ... nefits-cap Hundreds of families have to move home. Hospital waiting lists rise http://www.channel4.com/news/hospital-w ... igh-in-a-e

I will keep updating the first post on what the cuts mean . http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/feb/1 ... nefits-cap Hundreds of families have to move home. Hospital waiting lists rise http://www.channel4.com/news/hospital-w ... igh-in-a-e

[Durham Giant]

Re: this is what the CUTS mean : Thu Feb 14, 2013 12:34 pm  

Many people have bought into the idea that the cuts are all neccesary to reduce the benefits.
The usual arguments will come out about statistics and ideology.

The reality is that REAL peoples lives will be blighted.

Imagine living in LONDON and being forcibly removed to Bradford, losing family and friends, children losing their friends and schools. The social costs of all of this.

Moving poor people from the south to the North. .

There are many other examples of what the cuts mean.

in 3 months time the family court system will start to collapse. This wil have a huge effect on the most vulnerable children in society.

More emotionally damaged children, more dead children. More people looking for scapegoats when the dead babies start mounting.

Those who support the cuts will be responsible and will have no right to criticise the failings of the public services as Local Authorities and the welfare state starts to collapse.

Re: this is what the CUTS mean : Thu Feb 14, 2013 12:36 pm  

It's disgusting isn't it ?

Re: this is what the CUTS mean : Thu Feb 14, 2013 12:47 pm  

Can you tell me why it's wrong to move people who aren't able to afford the housing they are in?

If I failed to make repayments on my mortgages, the lenders would take those properties from me. So why should Council House occupants be able to live in housing they can't afford?

It's harsh on the kids that are forced to relocate, as it's not their fault, but their parents could go and find other housing at a price they can afford, they don't have to rely on the state.

Re: this is what the CUTS mean : Thu Feb 14, 2013 12:58 pm  

Saddened! wrote:

Can you tell me why it's wrong to move people who aren't able to afford the housing they are in?

If I failed to make repayments on my mortgages, the lenders would take those properties from me. So why should Council House occupants be able to live in housing they can't afford?

It's harsh on the kids that are forced to relocate, as it's not their fault, but their parents could go and find other housing at a price they can afford, they don't have to rely on the state.

Would you like to be moved 200 miles from where you live to some strange place ?

Re: this is what the CUTS mean : Thu Feb 14, 2013 1:00 pm  

Saddened! wrote:

Can you tell me why it's wrong to move people who aren't able to afford the housing they are in?

If I failed to make repayments on my mortgages, the lenders would take those properties from me. So why should Council House occupants be able to live in housing they can't afford?

This is a complete red herring.

We're not talking about people who fail to make repayments on a mortgage or even on their rent.

Saddened! wrote:

It's harsh on the kids that are forced to relocate, as it's not their fault, but their parents could go and find other housing at a price they can afford, they don't have to rely on the state.

Yeah. 'Cos that's so easy, isn't it? I mean, there's absolutely tons and tons of really cheap housing going begging.

The whole thing about the cost of housing benefit is another red herring that disguises the fact that the main problem is the shortage of housing and the concomitant cost of housing.

How about we manage to come up with some serious proposals for rent capping?

It manages to work in plenty of countries that are light years from being 'socialist', so why not here?

And incidentally, I'd introduce it for commercial properties too. Just watching Hackney's own greedy, grabbing barsteward personified, Roger Wratten, drive business after business out of business by a constant process of hiking rents is entirely enough to convince me of this.

Re: this is what the CUTS mean : Thu Feb 14, 2013 2:40 pm  

Durham Giant wrote:

..
Imagine living in LONDON and being forcibly removed to Bradford,....

Result.

Re: this is what the CUTS mean : Thu Feb 14, 2013 3:20 pm  

Its a choice we (collectively) made, all be it that we didn't actually make the specific choice of having a coalition, we did (collectively) make the choice of a minority Tory government.

Hands up those who didn't expect a Tory government to cut public services, just the stupid ones at the back then.

We (collectively) have another choice to make in a couple of years time by which time these sort of reported things will either be fact, worse, or deemed acceptable to us (collectively) - it will be interesting to see what happens.

[Durham Giant]

Re: this is what the CUTS mean : Thu Feb 14, 2013 3:43 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

Result.

Probably the only way you could get people to move to Bradford !!!!

Re: this is what the CUTS mean : Thu Feb 14, 2013 3:47 pm  

JerryChicken wrote:

Its a choice we (collectively) made, all be it that we didn't actually make the specific choice of having a coalition, we did (collectively) make the choice of a minority Tory government.

Hands up those who didn't expect a Tory government to cut public services, just the stupid ones at the back then.

We (collectively) have another choice to make in a couple of years time by which time these sort of reported things will either be fact, worse, or deemed acceptable to us (collectively) - it will be interesting to see what happens.

Well, Labour said "Cuts but not too deep and not too quick" and the LibDems also said "Cuts but not too deep and not too quick" and it was only the Tories who said "Cut now and cut deep".
Then the Tories failed to get a majority and formed a coalition with the LibDems ... and it was only at that stage where Clegg changed the LibDem policy to agree with the Tories.

So ... (and this is what I'm leading up to, thanks for waiting) ... you could say the majority actually voted for "Cuts but not too deep and not too quick".