Category Archives: Uncategorized

Renter of York Gives Bedroom Investigation Veracity? The Bungled bedroom tax again.

Bedroom Tax regulations at B(13)(5) would say a family comprising of a couple with 1 daughter aged 10 and 1 daughter aged 8 would be entitled to and have a housing need for 2 bedrooms. YET a Local Government Ombudsman report from October 2012 in York found that such a household was overcrowded…AND the council in York accepted this as being correct.

The report says at [28]:

28. When Mr Green and his family moved into their property their household was 3.5 people in terms of sections 324 -326 Housing Act 1985. But, given the size of the second bedroom, the house was overcrowded by .5 of a person from the moment they moved in.

You will note I have highlighted and emphasised “...given the size of the second bedroom” and that bedroom deemed by the LGO to be too small for two girls of 10 and 8 years old to share was 7.77 square metres which is 82.88 square feet.

At [23] of the LGO report the Ombudsman says:

My investigator made further enquiries on the same day querying how the offer complied with the law, given that Mr Green’s daughters, at the time of the offer, counted as 1.5 people under the relevant legislation (and within less than 12 months would count as 2 people). A room of 7.7 m2 was only big enough for one person.

Now what all the above means is that there could be many bedroom tax affected households containing a couple and 2 children of the same sex in (allegedly) 3 bedroom properties yet (bed)rooms 2 and 3 will both be too small to be deemed a bedroom and thus has the bedroom tax been levied in error?

There is certainly a strong appeal case in these situations as for any of rooms 2 and 3 to count as bedrooms for avoiding overcrowding purposes they would need to be 110 square feet or 10.22 square metres.

So if room 1 is 120 sq/ft thats one bedroom; yet if room 2 is 90 square feet and room 3 is 63 square feet then that under overcrowding regulations is a property with 2 bedrooms. [Note well here the living room in this property had a gas fire and so could not count as a bedroom]

Let’s put this into a very local context of York Council who agreed with the LGO report and agreed they were overcrowded.  York UA has 940 bedroom tax imposed households and we can take it as read that many will be household of a couple with 2 children of the same sex under 16 in an alleged 3 bed property for which they are hit with the bedroom tax.  York, like every other local council, will not have gone out and visited all these properties before it made the bedroom tax decision and given that as a corporate body the council agrees that such a household could be overcrowded or at worst suitably accommodated with no spare bedroom then how can they impose the bedroom tax?

I am aware of scores of cases locally to me in which this household configuration of a couple with two same sex children reside in a purported 3 bed property yet both alleged bedrooms 2 and 3 are not 100 square feet yet the bedroom tax has been imposed.

This is just another of the perverse vagaries of the sham bedroom tax decisions that were made.  Yet given that the LGO found overcrowding and that a room of 82.88 square feet was only suitable for one child over ten AND that the council admitted and agreed to this then such an argument is just another persuasive argument for a bedroom tax appeal on room size and number of that mystical term ‘bedroom’ that IDS wants tribunals to believe is merely 4 walls built around a single bed giving a floor area of just 21 square feet or 1.95 square metres.

Just another bedroom tax appeal argument to add to the many already known!

 

 

Shove your housing ‘subsidy’ where the sun doesn’t shine!!!???

Housing associations correct name according to the housing regulator is PRIVATE Registered Providers. They are private companies not public sector companies as a matter of fact and many don’t see that given their charitable origins and status. Yet that is what they are.

All social landlords (HAs 60% and 40% council landlords) get derided with the tag that they are subsidised, which they are and yet they are not.  Social landlords receive grant of £1.125 billion per year as the latest settlement was £4.5 billion over 4 years as seen below.

capital funding

So yes social landlords collectively receive capital grant or capital subsidy – they are ‘subsidised’ but this is acutely misleading as it is never considered what they provide in return.  Or put another way WHY has successive governments ‘subsidised’ them as it is not for any altruistic purpose.

Firstly social housing is the ONLY place where the SODS can live – Sick, Old, Disabled, Supported tenants as the private rented sector landlords do not accommodate these ‘problem cases’ (excuse the language) as they simply do not fit into the profit-making PRS model.  The PRS do not do sheltered housing, they do not do adapted housing for those with disabilities etc as it costs too much.  Given that social housing is the only place where the SODS are able to live then it has by definition far more HB claimants and that also plays a part in the pejorative perception.

Secondly, and in purely economic terms, in return for this capital subsidy social landlords charge much cheaper rents and that translates into less cost for the taxpayer and public purse in terms of Housing Benefit.  If we look at the official HB data we see social landlords receive on average £85.66 per household in HB yet the private landlord charges and receives £106.80 per week.

This means the initial capital subsidy returns a saving of £21.14 per week or £1,100 per property per year LESS is paid by the taxpayer to the social landlord than to the private landlord.

The same latest figures have 3.34 million social tenants claiming HB and so if this ‘subsidy’ was not paid these social landlords would be charging the public purse and the taxpayer £1100 more on 3.34 million properties – or about £3.67 BILLION per year more.

In simple terms the subsidy that is always referred to in negative and pejorative terms actually saves the taxpayer a huge amount each year.  It is quite simply an invest to save project and has benefited all governments over many years.

SO – and here’s a really radical thought – why don’t housing associations tell the government to stick their subsidy where the sun doesn’t shine.  Bugger off minister we don’t want your pittance and instead we are going to charge the HB bill the same as the private landlord in HB.

Yes pretty far-fetched but not something to be dismissed as pie in the sky as the figures show.

Average PRS rent level is £165 or so per week and PRS landlords receive an average of £106.80 in housing benefit towards that.

If Housing Associations were to put up their average rent from £89.94 per week to this £106.80 per week – and note this is still significantly cheaper than PRS rent levels – then they would receive £16.86 more per week in Housing Benefit.  HAs have 1.925 million tenants claiming HB and so they would receive about £1.7 billion per year more in HB.

This of course would see the remaining council landlords all transfer their stock to become PRIVATE Registered Providers too and suddenly, the taxpayer is faced with a further 1.42 million ex-council rents receiving a further £2 billion per year in Housing Benefit.

That of course is NOT going to happen.  As apart from the huge taxpayer increase in cost it also means so many more will be made unemployed as current social housing tenants could not afford their existing jobs as their rent has increased.  It would also mean that all social housing becomes PRIVATE and so they could tell government to go bugger off in terms of accommodating the SODS – the Sick, Old, Disabled, Supported – which they alone do now.

Looking at social housing in this way, however much a flight of fancy in that such a move will never happen, is the right way to look at what social housing is.  Social housing provides huge economic benefits and economic savings to the public purse and it needs to be presented that way rather than seen as some dinosaur model of post-war council house building that is not fit for the 21st Century.

Where all of the above figures could and should be used, but never are, is in negotiations with the government of the day in which the social housing ‘sector’ is extremely weak and has been for decades as the old council house model has fallen out of political fashion. Social housing is not seen it is economic light which the above crudely outlines yet it needs to be. Instead we see this by stealth as HAs become the largest part of social housing by far accounting for 60% or more while the council housing percentage shrinks ever more.

Those HAs are increasingly becoming more and more private by the day as they develop their private arms and build more house for sale and introduce AR models, though perversely take on more responsibilities from ASB and now positioning themselves as best placed for work incentives for their tenants. Yet such services are bound to reduce as direct payment of HB is made to tenants shortly and all social landlords will not be able to afford to do such ‘housing plus’ services.

This incremental privatisation of social housing will lead to the radical position above of telling government to stick their subsidy where the sun doesn’t shine eventually as the social housing model is eradicated piecemeal by radical attacks such as the welfare reforms.  Social landlords have a strong negotiating position here of leading the agenda and being proactive with government rather than tugging their forelock and accepting whatever morsels the latest administration throws at them.

Time the ‘sector’ got off its backside and forced that agenda onto government and got government to cough up a realistic level of subsidy, oops sorry investment, that is in the best interest of the tenant, the landlord, the taxpayer, the employer and everyone else.  Social housing is a very cost-effective invest to save programme and all governments as well as Joe Public needs that ramming down their throats.

It is all too easy, and remiss, for the ‘sector’ to blame Right To Buy, albeit correctly, for the mess social housing is in and yes it is governments of all persuasions over the last 30 years that have not been supporting the social housing model when it is clearly in the best economic interest of the country and individual taxpayer to fully support it.  Those within the ‘sector’ – there is not even one lobby and one voice for it – need to look at themselves and their own roles in this demise.  They have not promoted social housing, never have yet badly need to and especially its huge economic benefits.  Instead they have sat idly by simply moaning about the problem rather than focusing on the solution to it.

The ONLY way social housing can be saved is if it gets its head out of its proverbial backside and starts selling the huge benefits of social housing; yet on past performance we can say that is not going to happen and the social housing model is dead and the speed of that death is rapidly accelerating for every day they sit blithely by and do bugger all about it.

I note there is going to be a housing demo marching to Westminster shortly and (no this is not made up) this is by ticket only invitation!! What the F…!   Somehow can’t see a noisy march with the chanting of

You can stick your housing subsidy up your arse,

You can stick your housing subsidy up your arse

You can stick your housing subsidy

Stick you housing sub-si-deee

Stick your housing subsidy up your arse!

Ah well, plus ca change!

UPDATE 22.40pm Mori just issued the top ten election priorities of Joe Public. Now surely the housing crisis is bound to make the Top Ten eh reader?  Ah!… What’s that couldn’t lobby their way out of a wet paper bag.  You may say that I couldn’t possibly comment!

mori hsg not in top 10

 

 

 

 

Why Farage should be FACT off

Farage is a snake oil salesman that for some reason the British electorate take at his word as is evident in opinion polls emerging last night that UKIP has 19% or almost one in five of the popular vote.  Farage is a one-trick pony and everything is the fault of the EU and the EU immigrant.  The EU has flooded or swamped poor old Blighty.  Yet the facts prove otherwise:

Is EU immigration a problem?

There are as many British people living in the 28 EU countries as there are EU citizens from these 28 countries living in Britain. Farage wont tell you this of course but the facts do and instead he promotes a line of lets ban EU nationals from living and send them back to these 28 countries.  Of course these 28 EU countries would play tit for tat and send back the Brits living there and we still have exactly the same number of people in the UK! So much for Polish plumbers or Romanian hop pickers stealing all our jobs.

All we have achieved is pissing off 28 countries with whom collectively we have the majority of our trade with. Here are the damn pesky facts which spoil the UKIP and Tory arguments and which have led to mass hysteria in the gutter press and all other media in the UK as they dance to the tune of Farage.

Is the EU a problem?

Those burghers in Brussels telling us what to do all the time is the essence of the UKIP message.  Now we see Cameron fearful for his political life stating – and yes actions do speak louder than words – that the EU can bugger off asking for £1.7bn more.  This all plays into the EU as bogey man myth and an organisation that dictates to us and to our sovereignty that emotive word which laughingly presumes the UK has any power to go it alone in the global economy.  (As an aside quickly search on “Bretton Woods” an international finance agreement the UK signed  in 1944 and any semblance of sovereignty was lost then)

So what does the EU do for us?  The following came on Twitter last night and note the provenance of this which is British business, the Office of National Statistics and the Treasury.   The vast majority of our trade is done with the EU which is what the Eurosceptics always say it was intended for in the first place, which of course the Eurosceptics simply try to brush off.  Notice too how suitably vague they are when questioned what happens to British trade should we pull out of the EU and what impact this will have on jobs which in turn affect every town, city, community and individual Brit.

eumembership

The above simple but stark graphic is what Farage doesn’t want the British public to see or know.

Personally I am very and unashamedly  Pro-EU which is not what you hear or read many admit to and purely because it is in the best interests of the UK to be in the EU based on a consideration of fact and not propaganda and myth spread by Farge, UKIP or the Daily Mail.  There are plenty of anti-EU persons in all major political parties of the left as well as the right and everyone should make up their own minds based on fact and not on the propaganda of the likes of UKIP.

Instead of simply believing whatever snake oil salesman like Farage says about good old Blighty being swamped or deluged with Johnny Foreigner look at fact and seek it out. Instead of straight bananas and all the huff and puff of the Daily Mail and others all aimed at painting the EU as crackpots and interfering so and so’s ask why this came about – which was to protect the banana crop our and the French former colonies in the West Indies against the dollar banana plantations of Ecuador, Costa Rica and elsewhere.

One final point.  Free movement.  That means we can retire or life and work in Spain or France or Italy or wherever, it is a two-way street.  It means nationals from the other EU28 can come and work here or retire here should they wish.  Free movement is one of the so called ‘four freedoms’ of the movement of goods, services, capital and people that was enshrined in our law in the 1986 Single European Act.

The Prime Minister then was Thatcher that well known lover of all things European! The PM adored by Farage and Cameron who raced this through the UK Parliament. The only positive policy she ever did.

Get a job or get evicted! The Tory benefit cap message and the end of social housing!

Social landlords are stupid enough to let the Tories kill off social housing as they simply don’t get what the welfare reform policies are all about.  None more so than the Overall Benefit Cap which social landlords stupidly believe is only a problem for the private landlord and in high rent areas.  Here is why social landlords are that stupid and why their apathy and lack of thought and lack of challenge will see the social housing model as we know it now disappear.  Time social landlords got angry and time they got off their backsides to challenge the highly dangerous and ill-conceived welfare reform policies rather than say there is nothing we can do!  Read on.

The Tories are set to announce that the overall benefit cap will reduce from £26,000 per year to £23,000 and thus ensure the end of social housing as we know it.  It is about time the apathetic social housing sector woke up and smelled the coffee as this proposal means they can no longer AFFORD to accommodate the same families they do now and they cannot AFFORD the risk of accommodating any family with 3 or more children.

According to the Daily Mail

Tens of thousands of families will have their benefits slashed by up to £60 a week under a new welfare cap, David Cameron will propose today.

Households would be unable to claim more than £23,000 a year in handouts for housing and living costs if the Conservatives win the next election.

And jobless youngsters would be stripped of benefits altogether under radical plans to save £300million.

Two years ago I spoke at a number of housing conferences in Birmingham and London and I told each audience that the overall benefit cap (OBC) would mean they could no longer afford to accommodate the larger family.  That argument was supported with detailed figures and based on the assumption then that the cap figure of £500 per week would rise with wage inflation and rents and welfare benefit levels would rise faster than this – the systemic flaw in the OBC I developed in 2012 which has not been disproved and cannot be.

The proposal to reduce the cap figure to £23k of £440 per week is an 11.5% further drop and makes the position of social housing so much worse than the systemic flaw I detailed.

The posit that social housing could not afford to house the larger family went down like a lead balloon with these housing audiences who (a) maintained the OBC only affected private rented housing and then only in the like of London and this is despite the OBC impact assessment saying 46% of those affected lived in social housing; and (b) social landlords maintaining that it is our ethos and we will always house those most in need – a laudable principle yet one that social landlords cannot sustain financially with a £26k cap and at £23k per year means radical change and the end of the social housing model as we know it.

Let’s look at the very basics of the OBC and social landlords once they see the figures this reduced cap figure gives WILL get the point that they cannot AFFORD to house the larger family any longer.

The overall benefit cap – How it works

How the cap works is very simple as you start with the cap figure and then take away the amount of welfare benefits received to leave the maximum residual HB or LHA that is payable.  With the current £500 per week cap take away the £396.69 of welfare benefits received which leaves a maximum and residual HB contribution of £103.31

The £396.69 per week is an exact figure which is the national amount of welfare benefit a couple with 4 children receive and note well that welfare benefits are at the same level whether you live in Land’s End or John O’Groats.

The £103.31 maximum HB payable will now reduce by a further £60 per week as the cap figure reduces from £500 to £440 per week and we have a couple with 4 children getting a maximum HB amount of £43.31 to pay for rent.

That couple cant afford social or any form of housing with the obvious outcome of get a job or get evicted.

Couple with 3 children – This 2 Parent 3 child (2P3C) household receives £330.32 in welfare benefits leaving £109.68 per week as the maximum HB payable if and when the cap figure reduces to £440 per week.  That will afford most social housing in the provinces, unless this household lives in an AR tenancy or in London.

The 1 parent 4 child (1P4C) household – receives £355.43 in welfare benefit leaving £84.57 as the maximum payable in housing benefit which is unlikely to cover rent in any social housing property across England.

Other factors play a key part to for social landlords.

The introduction of direct payment to the tenant that in and of itself creates huge financial risk to the social landlord needs to be viewed even more circumspectly in this reduced cap context.

Monthly payment of benefit to the social tenant and the ability of managing money is another factor.

The increased demands on social landlords as private tenants will undoubtedly be evicted and local councils will only be able to place these homeless families in social housing as that is the only suitable provision.  The 2P3C household with a maximum HB of £109.68 per week cant afford private housing right across the country.

The 2P2C household will have a maximum HB/LHA entitlement of £176.04 which will afford a social housing rent for a 3 bed property yet is not enough for a 3 bed private rented property right across the whole of the South East, Oxfordshire, Berkshire, Bath, Bournemouth, Hertfordshire, Southampton and Edinburgh to name but a few.  Such 2 parent 2 child households will undoubtedly be evicted from the PRS and local councils will be demanding social landlords take these homeless families.  Yet what if they then have another child and their maximum HB reduces from £176.04 per week to £109.68 per week?

Forget any moralising here that such a family should not have any more children as quite often many children are unplanned and these things happen.  The same issue can be seen with a working family with 3 existing children and one on the way and then the lone breadwinner loses his or her job.  Or the sole breadwinner gets sick or is disabled with diabetes or COPD or some other issue – their social housing tenancy becomes hugely at risk and it is these risks that social landlords have to look at very closely rather than brush aside the overall benefit cap thinking wrongly this is only a high rent private housing matter.

Of course what the benefit cap reduction means is that the public purse pays out more in temporary housing for those made homeless.  Yet central government don’t give two hoots for that as this is just (another) transfer of cost and financial risk from central to local government, yet still a public purse cost increase.  Social landlords who are not council landlords are and will be coming up with more and more ways to put two fingers up to councils who will want these housing associations to take these higher risk cases – not because HAs want to do that, but because they will have to do that in order to survive financially!

Yes the relationship between councils and housing associations is going to become very strained with the OBC reduction and is yet another example of how the welfare reforms are a direct attack on the social housing model itself.

And of course the systemic flaw is still there too as it appears highly unlikely that the cap figure will rise along with wage inflation or rise at all.  Then throw into the mix that the Tories are proposing to increase HB by just one per cent from 2016 onwards regardless of how much the landlord increases the rent level. Yes that means no social tenant will be getting full rent paid and the social landlord will have to incur far greater rent collection costs too to get this shortfall (a mini bedroom tax anyone?) from all tenants including the pensioner – and I can’t see social landlords harassing them with red-inked letters as they have done with the bedroom tax household can you?

To cut to the chase the social landlord is in the shit if the Tories are not voted out and the benefit cap is reduced to £440 per week.  The social landlord will have to become acutely risk averse and cannot afford to house the larger family household as they do now and do now in massive proportion to the PRS.

These dimwitted Tories with their back of a fag packet policies are dictating that social housing no longer takes the type of households that social housing is now the only option for.  So where will such households go?  There is nowhere for them to live!  Outside of sterilising every female or selling the odd child to Madonna in order to keep a roof over one’s head where the hell will such families live!!!

Get a job or get evicted – I don’t care if you’re disabled – get a job or get evicted – I don’t care if your child is disabled and you have to care for them – get a job or get evicted – I don’t care if you are your partners full time carer and you are saying the public purse hundreds of thousands – get a job or get evicted!

That is Tory policy – get a job or get evicted – cue unscrupulous employers rubbing their hands with glee as the cannon fodder of National Minimum Wage workers has just grown dramatically so they can expand dramatically just as workfare expands as God knows how many more households will get sanctioned and social housing becomes ever more a financial risk too far and social landlords have to red-ink and doorstep the social tenant just as the social tenant takes control of the payment of rent with direct payment!

So dear social landlord, if you think the benefit cap only affects private rented properties in high rent areas keep making the annual pilgrimage to Cloud Cuckoo Land!

_______________________________________________________________

I haven’t discussed the even more naive proposal to stop HB to 18 – 21 year olds as the proposal is bizarre and under developed.  The Daily Fail suggests this will affect 30,000 single people yet that bears no correlation to the number of 18 -21 year old claiming HB currently as they record 130,361 single people under 25 with no child dependents and also 14.207 couples under 25 with no child dependents making 144,000 or thereabouts.  The 18 – 21 year olds should make up 4/7ths of this figure or about 82,000 of them so how the 30,000 figure is arrived at is anyone’s guess and a clear and obvious guess of the Daily Fail and the Tories.

Yet as PRS landlords will stop housing any young person because of this and also because such a policy is an incentive to have a child in order to get a roof over ones head….Yes you begin to see just how fucking naive and stupid this policy is too don’t you reader!

No need to say it also means 16 – 21 year olds can pay tax but not get HB; that soldiers injured and unable to work can’t get HB; that single women aged 16 – 21 can’t flee domestic violence and abuse as a refuge can’t afford for them to stay there given they will get no HB….oh and what about all those non-dependent deductions your tenants with 18 – 21 year olds at home will now get and they cant afford the rent?

Yes its a really fucking insanely stupid idea isn’t it reader and one dreamt up because the Tories believe the general public are stupid enough to believe their myth and spin about the benefit claimant …which the general public and the social landlord have done bugger all to challenge when they should have done… Oops this is turning into a rant…just as it did two years ago when social landlords ignored what the OBC means and told me that their ethos will mean they will always house the vulnerable!

Naivety writ large.  Apathy writ large.  Inability to see the woods from the trees writ large.  Oh but please carry on blaming this messenger and carry on developing AR units with foundations in quicksand as it mirrors your abilities in thought over the benefit cap.

Stop and think social landlord.  I rant because I am angry at what ill-considered and highly dangerous policy is doing to social housing.  You should get bloody angry about it too!

Lord Freud is not the L’Oreal man – His worth? Time he was FACT off

Lord Freud’s remarks were, by his own admission, offensive.  If he had said ‘blacks’ or ‘women’ or ‘gays’ were ONLY WORTH £2 per hour the true offence of his words come to the fore.

Note well I use ‘blacks’ and not black people as that is the same offensive and condescending label Freud use of ‘the disabled’ when he referred to this group of people.  The true offence of his words and thoughts were heightened by this condescension and bigoted use of language and especially in the context of discussing their worth.

It is extremely dangerous ground for any politician to open a debate about people’s monetary worth as then it opens up the meritocratic debate about how much they are worth – and in Lord Freud’s case that becomes a minus figure per hour.

Lord Freud, the architect of the bedroom tax and the (unelected) welfare minister charged with reining in the ‘burgeoning’ welfare benefit spend which the ‘last lot’ left the country in a mess with in the coalition view.  So let’s have a cursor glance at how much his tenure over the radical welfare reforms have saved UK plc.

Ah!

Yes the first point is that the overall welfare spend has increased by 13% since the election and that is a 13% increase in welfare benefits and a 13% increase in working tax credits too.

welfarebenspendfreud

On that simple analysis Lord Freud has seen the ‘hard working taxpayer’ (strange how that term is never used!) having to find an additional £44 billion per year on his plans all aimed at reducing the welfare spend which he has ‘burgeoned’ through his own incompetent policies.

Ah you say but a large part of that is the pensioner bribe, which admittedly all parties do when in office, and which all parties fail to tell Joe Public they take more than £2 of every £3 spent in welfare benefits.

wb£

Yet as you can see this has increased some more under this coalition moving from 66% to 68%

Yet lets leave aside the contentious issue of the pensioner spend as just raising that FACT – yes its one of those bloody pesky facts again reader – causes outrage. How dare you call the pensioner a scrounger (by inference) etc, when the “poor” pensioner only gets double the minimum amount of welfare benefit that the scrounging single working-age person.

In Freud’s case let’s look at Housing Benefit which he and his coalition ministers cite as the largest welfare benefit spend after pensions and which is the key target for the bedroom tax, benefit cap and the rest of the welfare reform policies.  Let’s look at his record there.

A month after the last election and after the first budget the coalition stated they would reduce the overall HB bill by nearly £2 billion per year by 2014/15 from the outrage of £20 billion they inherited from the last lot who they say had doubled the HB bill.

Today’s HB bill is in excess of £24 billion or £4 billion per year more not £2 billion per year less and is therefore £6 billion more as a direct result of the policies of Lord Freud.

So reader how much is Lord Freud worth judged by his record?

And while on the subject of the last lot ‘doubling’ the HB bill here are some more of those damn pesky FACTS which show that Freud, McVey,IDS and the increasingly politicised DWP civil servants have been lying through their teeth when discussing Housing Benefit

HB bill blair v thatch

As you can see the HB bill went up by 78% in 13 years of the last lot, which compares to Thatcher increasing it by over 6 times in her 11 years.  And those of you who can do basic arithmetic can see from the above that the HB bill went up from £5.095 billion to £11.38 billion in the 6/ years under the Major administration.

In summary Freud should be sacked for his performance and not just for his incredibly offensive remarks over people with a disability.

 

PS – Of all ironies all the above figures come from official data on benefit tables and caseload figures released by DWP in the same month that Freud uttered these truly offensive remarks and available here

 

 

I hate lies, try facts (2) – The EU and migration – as many Brits abroad as EU nationals here

There are as many British people living in the 28 EU countries as there are EU citizens from these 28 countries living in Britain.

So lets ban EU nationals from living here as UKIP et al want and send them back to these 28 countries.

Then these 28 countries send back the Brits living there and guess what we still have exactly the same number of people in the UK!

All we have achieved is pissing off 28 countries with whom collectively we have the majority of our trade with.

What a great plan this is eh reader!!

Here are the damn pesky facts which spoil the UKIP and Tory arguments and which have led to mass hysteria in the gutter press and all other media in the UK as they dance to the tune of Farage.

 

 

 

Pay black people £2 per hour as that’s all they’re worth? Now you get why Freud has to be sacked

The scurrilous and offensive remarks of Lord Freud over people with disabilities should have seen him sacked.  Last night on BBC Question Time he was defended to the hilt in a disgraceful example of people not getting what he said.

The simplest way to GET what he said is to subititute “black” for “disabled” and THEN you get it so below I have simple cut and pasted my blog from Wednesday with that change

It reads:

Lord Freud, said by many to be the architect of the bedroom tax and some wider welfare reform policies has been recorded saying black people are NOT WORTH THE MINIMUM WAGE of £6.50 per hour and should be paid £2 PER HOUR FOR THE WORK THEY DO.

Here is a link to how Sky News report this which includes the tape recording of Lord Freud saying this.

There should be no need for any comment from me other than to say resign yet Cameron defended him at today’s Prime Ministers questions.

For every minute Lord DAFT (David Anthony Freud Tory) dallies and dithers as to resign or not the pressure on Cameron and the Coalition government to sack him rises ten-fold and if Cameron does not act swiftly then the political repercussions for the Tory Party are huge as the general public will believe Cameron and the Tories support his outrageous view.

The Sky News report reads:

In a direct challenge to David Cameron at Prime Minister’s Questions, Ed Miliband revealed comments made by Lord Freud at a think-tank event in which he suggested BLACK workers should only be paid £2 an hour and not the full £6.50.

Lord Freud made the comments after being questioned on BLACK people and the minimum wage by a Conservative councillor. According to sources at the event the question was specifically aimed at the mentally handicapped.

He said:

“Now, there is a small…there is a group, and I know exactly who you mean, where actually as you say they’re not worth the full wage and actually I’m going to go and think about that particular issue, whether there is something we can do nationally, and without distorting the whole thing, which actually if someone wants to work for £2 an hour, and it’s working can we actually … “

Resign or be sacked!

 

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,997 other followers

%d bloggers like this: