Thousands of people across Norfolk and Suffolk will be affected when housing benefit changes are introduced by the government.

To send a link to this page to a friend, you must be logged in.

The reforms, dubbed the “bedroom tax” by opponents, will mean people of working age who receive housing benefit will lose part of their benefit if they have a spare room.

It will only affect people living in council or housing association homes rather than in private accommodation.

One bedroom will be allocated for couples, anyone aged 16 or over, two children of the same sex under the age of 16, two children under the age of 10 regardless of their sex, a carer if you or your partner need overnight care.

Campaigners fear it will affect couples where one acts as a carer and they sleep apart as well as divorced couples who live apart and have their children stay overnight or for visits.

If you have one spare bedroom your housing benefit will be cut by 14pc of the rent you pay every week. If you have two or more spare bedrooms, you will lose 25pc.

•Are you going to be affected by the “bedroom tax”? Contact reporter Tom Bristow on 01603772313 or email tom.bristow@archant.co.uk.

53 comments

  • @ jono - Are you saying that this will apply to ALL tenants in social housing in North Norfolk or just those in receipt of 100% housing benefit and are the extremes you quote for one bedroom at the lower end and for two bedrooms at the top end for a tenant in receipt of 100% housing benefit. You are right about the discount for second home owners. They should pay their dues in full but it is a net receipt for the council.

    Report this comment

    BG

    Wednesday, March 6, 2013

  • In a state of panic, having not read the "facts" correctly, I got a gang of East Europeans to pump a load of surplus concrete down my chimney to get rid of a room. Then I realised that it was my house anyway. Doh. The world is overflowing with professional dependency. Just reading an interesting book on parasitism.

    Report this comment

    Mad Brewer

    Friday, March 8, 2013

  • The obvious solution is for councils and social landlords to adjust rents downwards according to the number of bedrooms unoccupied, to compensate for their residents' loss of benefit. That way the poor beggars who cannot absorb this whack themselves will not be unfairly penalised. After all, many of the people soon to be subject to this 'tax' were not put into excessively large accommodation of their own choice. The decision would have been down to the councils or whatever body was operating the social housing list. Predictably this government's 'solution' does nothing to address that source of their perceived issue. Instead they are pandering to their core support by bashing 'malingerers on benefits'. You know the sort, in bed all day, smoking, drinking, obese from eating junk food, and watching Sky, while hard working families pay taxes to fund their work-shy lifestyles. I read that in the Express! What’s the contrived reason for not reducing benefit to those in a similar boat in private rented accommodation? Can’t have the gravy train derailed where the private sector is concerned? I await a swift rebuttal from a supporter of this latest nasty government cutback. Bedroom tax to fund ’freedom fighters’ in Syria? Money for games like that, no problem.

    Report this comment

    Police Commissioner ???

    Wednesday, March 6, 2013

  • Yes we are still spending big and letting people of taxes in a big way as well. Osborne was eager to embarrass himself voting against EU banking regulations, the only objection there was, poor mutt, but has failed since being elected 2 years ago, to regulate the fraud and tax evasion capital of the world. I expect concrete proposals on offshore tax evasion being stopped in this budget. The bedroom tax is a punitive measures, an exploitation that will lead to more homelessness as the properties required are not available or being built. The same with jobs, you can ask the 1 million unemployed youngsters, plus the hundreds of thousands who are not signing on, who are off the record all together, to get a job, but if these jobs are not available, then you are just making those willing to work, but unable to find it, angry.

    Report this comment

    ingo wagenknecht

    Friday, March 8, 2013

  • Milecross, it is a sad fact of life that if foreigners are prepared to work harder and are better educated that the local population THEY will get the jobs. If you bother to look at some real statistics (facts!) you will see that the biggest drain on the UK social services budget is UK born white people. Never mind though, you shouldn't let the facts get in the way of a good moan.

    Report this comment

    DocOhNo

    Thursday, March 7, 2013

  • Human beings are like parts of a body Created from the same essence When one part is hurt and in pain the others Cannot remain in peace and quiet If the misery of others leaves you indifferent And with no feelings of sorrow You cannot be called a human being. So what happens about the fact that many of the rooms taxed are not classed as full bedroom and so cannot be rented to a lodger because they are less than 70 sq ft. Last year a landlord was prosecuted and fined £2,500 for renting out a bedroom less than 70 sq ft. It is against the housing law for overcrowding 1985. But they will probably just ignore it. I am beginning to think they are insane they are talking about dining room tax now???????

    Report this comment

    Morry Dorry

    Sunday, March 10, 2013

  • BG said "what about those people who are in their accommodation, not in receipt of state aid, whose children have to share bedrooms" yes, I understand why they would feel hard done by but, financially penalising a family who's childen don't currently share is not going to help those families who are currently sharing!

    Report this comment

    catalonia13

    Wednesday, March 6, 2013

  • Does anyone GENUINELY think this will improve housing availability. Where are the smaller houses for people to move to? What plans are in place to build them? I need to be convinced that this isn't just another pre election stunt to bash the poor. Divide and rule.

    Report this comment

    DocOhNo

    Friday, March 8, 2013

  • andy, if you are so concerned about the inadequacy of Government tax revenues for meeting its spending commitments, please feel free to drop a line to Georgie imploring him to (1) reverse his tax giveaway to the supe-rich effective 1 April 2013, and (2) get serious with tax-avoiding multinationals that owe this country billions. I'm sure that wlil go some small way to putting things right, and I have asolute confidence in your ability to "make rational comments" on these matters without the need for ranty lefty fact-free overtones. Personally I am fed-up with subsidising wealthy tax dodgers at the expense of the poor.

    Report this comment

    Mr Cameron Isaliar

    Friday, March 8, 2013

  • Oh yes BG I notice this in my own workplace, they used to prefer Full time Staff, now we employ mainly part time staff, many are under 21 and they want more hours to be able to save up, move out of their parents home, buy a car..etc..but they are being held back. It makes no sense to me, as they get trained, and they leave to another full time job if they are lucky enough to find one or they find a job with a few more hours..and so the cycle starts again.

    Report this comment

    delgirl

    Thursday, March 7, 2013

  • omnishambles - My dear chap you really need to get down to spec savers. You obviously missed the word - certain. Your leader seems to have a rather perverse take on housing. He is against people not being paid for empty bedrooms but he appears to be quite happy to tax people for living in mansions. In London an expensive house can by no stretch of the imagination be called a mansion. Yet he wants to go along with the Lib Dems to penalise the owners for living in them. Now many of these houses will have been handed down through the generations and the occupants will indeed be asset rich; but income poor. What are they to do? – sell the family because they cannot pay Labour’s surcharge. Being opportunistic comes to mind.

    Report this comment

    BG

    Wednesday, March 6, 2013

  • BG doesn't think it's a tax. Does he take the view, like Cameron, that "you have to earn it first" for it to be a tax? If so will we all be getting a refund from VAT?

    Report this comment

    Jono

    Thursday, March 7, 2013

  • If you have a spare bedroom in north Norfolk you can be expected to lose between £567 to £1012 a year - no matter how poor you are - but if you have a second home? They'll give you a discount!

    Report this comment

    Jono

    Wednesday, March 6, 2013

  • Milecross: lets get things right Labour did not cause the financial crash and if you bother to research you will find the deficit they left was smaller than when the conservatives previously left power (deficits only become a problem when there's no growth and reduced tax receipts) and if brown had not rescued the banks and put forward a plan for not just us but most nations who followed it could have possibly been a hell of a lot worse that it is now i am not a labour supporter but thing should be seen for what they not twisted to suit others political purposes. The current coalition government has pursued austerity at the cost of growth and further unemployment those jobs what are being recreated are low paid resulting in people needing to claim additional benefits hence the welfare costs rising. The bedroom tax (or whatever its now called) is insidious as it targets the poorest in society this incudes those who are employed and work very hard each day for little reward and this just compounds their increasing poverty. its about time people woke up to what's going on around them rather than let the rich do as they see fit avoiding tax and demonising the poor sick disabled and those who through no fault of their own are semi abandoned by society.

    Report this comment

    MrB

    Wednesday, March 6, 2013

  • Taxing those already on benefits is a funny old way of tackling the shortage of social housing...lets think??? before 2001 the housing waiting lists were manageable but not perfect, inviting in 7 million poor migrants from the world over is the real cause why poor Brit natives must pay the price to house poor migrant folk...worrying times.

    Report this comment

    nrg

    Friday, March 8, 2013

  • The posters seem to have developed into categories. Those like BG who attempt to make rational comments and others who indulge in a left wing rant with little regard to facts. Why should tax payers be obliged to subsidise one sector of the population who are fortunate enough to enjoy 'social housing' which is in itself subsidised? If I want a bigger house with more bedrooms I have to pay for it, not ask others to pay me for the privilege. It is all about fairness and I can say this as a non tory voter. Gordon Brown set out to buy votes with a massive expansion of the benefits system and then compounded it with an increase of over a million extra public sector workers. He was attemtping to buy voters, pure and simple. He left the country with a massive debt problem caused by a tax and overspend policy having inherited a good budgetary position. Fact! For those who think we are in an austerity position, we are still spending over a £100bn more than we are getting in and funding it by borrowing. This is not sustainable and any private individual or business who tried to do something similar would soon go bust. There has to be reductions in welfare and many other things too as we are landing not only ourselves but future generations too with the heavy costs of paying for the increased borrowing. There are some who should be exempt from having to down size but there are many more, the majority in fact, who should no long receive excessive subsidies from other tax payers who have already have had to make that decision without expecting a subsidy from others. Until the protestors accept that fact, they do not have credibility.

    Report this comment

    andy

    Friday, March 8, 2013

  • poor bg is getting quite upset ! i guess he still calls the poll tax a " community charge "

    Report this comment

    Double Bill

    Wednesday, March 6, 2013

  • Those in receipt of housing benefit in the social housing sector feel that any loss to their housing benefit is unfair. Those who are not in receipt of housing benefit and who are managing to pay their own way, don`t have a great deal of sympathy as they do not see why people in work should have some, or all of their rent paid for by the state. As the former or more likely to be labour supporters and the later, right wing it is little wonder that Ed Miliband is making as much mischief as he can. Because of his rhetoric too many people, especially pensioners and certain disabled people think they are going to have this particular benefit cut, when in fact they are not. Gordon Brown drew too many people into welfare benefits and the money is no longer there to pay the ever burgeoning bill. We are now into a period of normalisation and Labour would have done the same thing were they in power. You don’t get state help for empty rooms in the private rental sector so why should it be any different in the social housing sector. I have single people, with no dependents, living in two bedroom social housing flats around me. They moved in as singles, it`s not a case that they have suddenly become single. It is just plain nonsense a) for them to occupy housing bigger than their requirements and b) for the state to continue paying the council for failing to match up tenants with their needs. Ps EDP. It`s not a tax - shame on you for not knowing the difference.

    Report this comment

    BG

    Wednesday, March 6, 2013

  • @Andy - some tenants do have a spare room but the majority DON'T, the room now deemed 'spare' is not actually spare, it is slept in every night: by the husband who's disabled wife needs a hospital bed and hoist, no room for him so he sleeps in the 'spare' room; by the disabled child needing constant attention throughout the night so cannot share with siblings; by the 9 year old boy so he doesn't have to share with his 3 year old sister; by the 14 year old girl so she doesn't have to share with her 2 year old sister; by the absents fathers 2 children in it every weekend (and more during the holidays) when they come to stay with Dad. With the new 'bedroom elegibility' rules NONE of the above cases will be entitled to their own room anymore, they will all have their Housing Benefit reduced by 14%, even those working but on a low income.

    Report this comment

    catalonia13

    Friday, March 8, 2013

  • BG believes Cameron that no disabled person will be affected. Believe that you'll believe anything, my friend!

    Report this comment

    Jeffrey Osborne

    Wednesday, March 6, 2013

  • it makes me sick all of these people getting off on attacking the poor thank goodness some will stand up for them

    Report this comment

    Double Bill

    Wednesday, March 6, 2013

  • Sweaty cheeks, don't you worry yourself about immigration, it has increased since Labour left power and expulsions of undesirables have fallen, both contrary to tory election promises. Never mind, keep you blaming Labour. Are we broke? Seems as long as there is all this ConDem bleating about 'austerity' no one has noticed they have borrowed almost as much in under 3 years as Labour did in 13 years. Don't tell me, Labour made them do that too. Fact is the tories have big plans if they win the next general election outright. Look at the comments of looney Liam Fox today, he wants to cut taxes big time and slash public spending way beyond the level of current cuts. NHS should not be protected, according to him, not that it is if the truth be told. It is having to find millions in savings; is that not the same as a cut?

    Report this comment

    Police Commissioner ???

    Monday, March 11, 2013

  • @Sweetcheeks - there are currently only 2 exemptions - 1. pensioners, even single pensioners in a 3 or 4 bed house and 2. disabled people who have a regular overnight carer who is not resident at the home The 'help' you refer to is the Discretionary Housing Payment (DHP), The National Housing Federation have estimated that that fund will help a mere 6% of disabled applicants!

    Report this comment

    catalonia13

    Friday, March 8, 2013

  • A tax is something you pay. No one is being asked to pay anything. For many years there has in the social housing sector been a spare-room subsidy. We need more living space, more places for people to live, but the tax-payer is paying for a million empty bedrooms. WHY?

    Report this comment

    canarygull

    Wednesday, March 6, 2013

  • Take a look round any social housing estate and you will see plenty of homes where people are living with spare rooms. Those who work struggle to pay bills whilst those who choose not to receive benefits to provide more than adequate housing. The whole thing needs a shake up, and no I have nothing against those who cannot work as there may be an underlying reason for that but they should be treated fairly and not reared into the same cattle pen as everyone else. I personally think that there's a lot of work needed for any major change to benefits. In my opinion benefits should be partially provided by other means other than all paid into a bank account, such as child benefit paid proportionally in shop vouchers or pre paid cards that can only be used against certain items. This does away with the few who choose to use it on wide screen tvs and other luxuries and makes sure the benefit is used in the correct way. The flip side is that it also supports jobs in the shops.

    Report this comment

    bananaman

    Wednesday, March 6, 2013

  • There were always concessions in place for foster careers and armed forces so nothing has really changed its just more in the public domain. Nobody minds looking after people in need its the lazy ones who are milking the system that need sorting out and Labour loves them because they get the vote being the waster party

    Report this comment

    Sweet cheeks

    Wednesday, March 13, 2013

  • Andy:quite simple equation for Mr Osborne and Co growth = increased tax receipts and a smaller deficit or possibly no deficit in long term. cable is right we need investment in long term infrastructure projects not quantative easing which effectively is giving hundreds of billion's to the faceless markets and has little positive long term effects for us as a nation (its buying debt by printing money) Austerity = no growth no full time employment and no future only continuing social unrest which im sure will happen again shortly.

    Report this comment

    MrB

    Saturday, March 9, 2013

  • Yes I agree BG that there is savings to be had somewhere..but why does it have to be with disabled people who live in 2 bed properties...buy yet a pensioner is exempt living a 3 or 4 bed house alone..I will tell you..because the Government know they have nowhere to house the elderly. We have a huge lack of sheltered housing schemes and bungalows for the elderly and many of them are too afraid to leave their large homes..or they just do not know how to go about it even if they did. As for people not wanting to work those extra hours to make shortfalls or from fear of losing benefits they do have, many people can't get the extra hours even if they wanted them. If this Government want to save in housing benefit it needs to look more closely at the private sector and start capping private rents. They seem happy to spend more money on 'keeping' people in a private rented house than a Council or HA property.

    Report this comment

    delgirl

    Thursday, March 7, 2013

  • @ delgirl " As for people not wanting to work those extra hours to make shortfalls or from fear of losing benefits they do have, many people can't get the extra hours even if they wanted them." - You exemplify my point all too well. Employers don`t want the hassle and expenditure that goes with full time staff if they can avoid it. Welfare was designed to help out those in need, not to subsidize certain sections of the workforce of this country. There`s no doubting it, we are in a real mess all round with welfare.

    Report this comment

    BG

    Thursday, March 7, 2013

  • There are 3068 households in the Norwich constituencies who will hit by this vile bedroom tax,23 of those affected are disabled.Pensioners with a partner of working age will be affected and so will disabled children despite the lies of Cameron at PMQs today.Carers and charities are opposed,demonstrations are planned for at least 40 locations in the UK and some are taking the government to court.The demonised are fighting back against this toxic tax from a toxic coalition government.

    Report this comment

    Peter Watson

    Wednesday, March 6, 2013

  • I can understand to a point the reason behind this idea..but when you looker deeper and talk to people about it, I notice so many flaws. I am currently running some Council exchange pages on facebook and have noticed an increase of members looking to downsize. I just wish that the disabled, and foster parents were exempt just as Pensioners are...there just aren't enough adapted properties for the disabled to move to..the homes they are in have had thousands spent on them to adapt them or they have been built for their need..and now they have to find another home suitable for their need..a very difficult task. A family of 4 with one boy and one girl, both aged under 10 would be expected to either move to a 2 bed house or to lose some benefit..and most people who claim housing benefit are in low income jobs..not everyone who claims this benefit is unemployed, that little bit of help with rent will help some families to get to the end of the week, or to help put over priced petrol into the car..to be able to get to work. There is a much wider picture which unless you see it yourself then you just won't understand it.

    Report this comment

    delgirl

    Thursday, March 7, 2013

  • Unsure as I am Faithless and Can't Get No Sleep Anyway :)

    Report this comment

    che bramley

    Wednesday, March 6, 2013

  • Don't just whinge about it, report him.

    Report this comment

    DocOhNo

    Thursday, March 7, 2013

  • Most of the homes that we speak about are generally 3 bed (as there are little or no 1 or 2 beds available) BUT, apparently one of the rooms that is being taxed in the 3 beds is under 70 sq feet so in law it is not classed as a full bedroom (this could be the case in 2 beds or higher) and again according to the housing law an adult cannot occupy that small space, however a small child up to the age of 10 is allowed because it is classed as half a room. So technically and within the housing law we are talking about 2 and a half bed house. The Government knew what they were doing when they would not state what was classed as a bedroom because they knew it would lead them into hot water and thus left it to the landlord’s discretion knowing full well that they would not want to down size it and thereby lose monies coming in. However it is still against the law and so people should not pay tax for half a room that an adult cannot occupy. So if a home is 2,3,4 whatever the size any room under 70 sq ft cannot be used to house an adult, see below Bedroom Tax - Overcrowding law - If you have a spare room in your house under 70sq ft. then it cannot be classed as a bedroom under the housing act 1985 section 326, instead it’s classed as half a bedroom or box room and you cannot be charged for a spare room on this room. Also if a tenant or landlord of any kind does put a lodger into a room less than 70 sq ft they are breaking the law and can be prosecuted for stating that it is a full bedroom when in law it is actually stated as being half a room. Last year Redhill resident (Landlord) was convicted of breaching overcrowding notice and fined £2.500 Also to be honest who in their right minds would want to rent a bedroom that small, where would they put any personal items????

    Report this comment

    Morry Dorry

    Saturday, March 9, 2013

  • There are some tenants that do have a spare room but for the majority the room now deemed 'spare' is not actually spare, it is slept in every night: by the husband who's disabled wife needs a hospital bed and hoist, no room for him so he sleeps in the 'spare' room; by the disabled child needing constant attention throughout the night so cannot share with siblings; by the 9 year old boy so he doesn't have to share with his 3 year old sister; by the 14 year old girl so she doesn't have to share with her 2 year old sister; by the absents fathers 2 children in it every weekend (and more during the holidays) when they come to stay with Dad. With the new 'bedroom elegibility' rules NONE of the above cases will be entitled to their own room anymore, they will all have their Housing Benefit reduced by 14%, even those working but on a low income.

    Report this comment

    catalonia13

    Wednesday, March 6, 2013

  • @ delgirl – The picture you paint is the direct consequence of Labour`s master piece of social engineering. What started out as a good idea with the minimum wage has had the consequence of creating a low paid work force. A considerable proportion of which is part time derived from the “ I can`t work anymore hours or I will lose my benefits” group. Employers are quite happy maintaining the status quo as they have very little to pay in NI and have a low paid workforce available at time of demand in the full knowledge that their wages will be topped up by the state. If anyone thinks the Labour government are going to unpick this if they get back into power are deluded. Its here to stay. Unfortunately there is a lot of misinformation being promulgated about the cuts to housing benefit. The EDP in their lead article today says that these changes will save £23bn from the welfare bill. Not so. The Welfare budget is £23bn, Savings by the end of this parliament are expected to be £1.8bn, not the whole £23bn. But the magnitude of the problem is that housing benefit is costing every household £900 a year. We just cannot carry on like this. Its spiralled out of control and although Labour said they would reform housing benefit at the time of the last election Ed Miliband appears to be extremely shy about what he would do. Unless of course he is intending to add it to his ever growing list of apologies and U turns.

    Report this comment

    BG

    Thursday, March 7, 2013

  • He has been several times but he gets away with it coz he lies and he has human rights which is another load of rubbish

    Report this comment

    Sweet cheeks

    Thursday, March 7, 2013

  • The sad fact is even people with good degrees over a certain age (after time out due to illness) cannot get work, I was told at one point that I would have to travel away and perhaps even abroad to get work as the lady told me that she had do in order to get a teaching job here. I was also told that I had “too many strings to my bow” whereas many teaching at the college that I applied to had only one????? I just cannot understand life today it seems to have turned upside down and spinning.

    Report this comment

    Morry Dorry

    Saturday, March 9, 2013

  • Catalonia 13 I suggest you look towards county for the foster carers as i have seen the letter to a carer and there is also a fund for people with disabilites and each case is looked at on its own merits. I admit you have to dig to find these things but they are there

    Report this comment

    Sweet cheeks

    Friday, March 8, 2013

  • How do you far right zealots feel now that IDS has announced a series of partial climbdowns today?

    Report this comment

    Police Commissioner ???

    Tuesday, March 12, 2013

  • It hasn't increased police boy its just starting to come to light how many labour let in as they had no idea, of course things will get worse before they get better because of the mess, dont get me wrong I do question several things that have happend to address the problem. The truth of the matter is if labour had of had any idea whats so ever they would of controlled there spending and had a sensible leader and they may of been in power today. Thank god they have red ed and that twit balls because that means they will never get back in, mind you if they wake up and get somebody with a brain thing may well change.

    Report this comment

    Sweet cheeks

    Tuesday, March 12, 2013

  • Just been doing some checking up with the council, If you are on disability benefit or you have a carer or you foster children there is help and exemptions, if you are an OAP it wont affect. Most people understand why this is happening and others dont like change, people moan about others who work hard and earn good money well I know people who screw the system and earn more on benefits. People shouldn't worry what everybody else is doing just look after your own affairs and benefits should be a short term help unless you are in need and not a career of sitting on your backsides. There is a bloke near me who milks the system but has two classic cars worth a fortune hidden away and benefits have paid for both of them, wish I could afford one of those but I work and pay tax

    Report this comment

    Sweet cheeks

    Thursday, March 7, 2013

  • @ catalonia13 – You make a good point but what about those people who are in their accommodation, not in receipt of state aid, whose children have to share bedrooms? Do you not understand why they feel hard done by when they see people, who are contributing little or zero to the economy of this country, getting all or most of their rent paid for and are now complaining about having to pay for the luxury of a spare room. And as for the Police Commissioner ??? I can supply you with many examples of the, “malingers,” to whom you refer. Your comments do more than demonstrate what I said earlier. I note your comment about making rents cheaper. Who do you suppose is going to make up the shortfall in income from council owned property. You know the money needed to maintain and refurbish these properties, especially after they have been trashed by tenants who don`t care about their homes because they don`t have to pay rent.

    Report this comment

    BG

    Wednesday, March 6, 2013

  • There were always concessions in place for foster careers and armed forces so nothing has really changed its just more in the public domain. Nobody minds looking after people in need its the lazy ones who are milking the system that need sorting out and Labour loves them because they get the vote being the waster party

    Report this comment

    Sweet cheeks

    Wednesday, March 13, 2013

  • Our Housing Associations are private companies, some are non profit making, but, why are they obliged to comply with Government decree's over their housing. Are they in charge of their housing or the Government? This bedroom tax should be stopped as it is a punitive measure. Tenants are expected to build their own one bedroom and tow bedroom flats are they? because our councils have never allocated housing according to which room might become empty in 5 or 10 years time. This tax is arbitrary and unfair as people are charged without being able to change their situation. And No it does not affect me.

    Report this comment

    ingo wagenknecht

    Thursday, March 7, 2013

  • Wake up everyone! The tories are out to totally trash the country during this parliament. This is a strategic move, in the hope they can con their way into majority power in 2015. They are creating a platform for total abolition of the welfare state and NHS as we know them today. They will say there is no other option because of the state of UK finances. The nutter Home Secretary hinted as much in a keynote speech today. The current cuts we are seeing will pale into insignificance.

    Report this comment

    Police Commissioner ???

    Saturday, March 9, 2013

  • It is no good BG constantly knocking Labour. The current situation, where wholesale numbers of public sector jobs have been cut, and the 'lucky' ones have managed to find low paid part-time jobs in the private sector, has been deliberately engineered by Cameron and Osborn. Forget the supposed ideological crusade to reduce an overweight public sector because it is too much for taxpayers to carry, we are talking about 6,000 nurses and 7,000 police since the last general election with many more to come. The true objective is revealed by the profit opportunity generated by the cuts. A large pool of unemployed people desperate for jobs, who will take the low paid part-time rubbish being created by businesses keen to cash in by offering what are effectively welfare-subsidised rates of pay. On 18th October 2010, the Telegraph published a letter titled 'Osborn’s cuts will strengthen Britain’s economy by allowing the private sector to generate more jobs.' The letter was signed by the CEOs and chairpersons of 35 companies, urging the ConDems to plough ahead with the cuts in the supposedly comforting knowledge that 'the private sector should be more than capable of generating additional jobs to replace those lost in the public sector.' Appearing two days before Osborn’s announcement of the spending review outcomes, the letter was a carefully crafted PR exercise to promote and legitimise the government’s austerity package. In fact the many new part-time jobs have been created at the expense of thousands of full-time roles that have gone to the wall in the very same companies as they aim for increased profits through reduced labour costs. What sort of people are promoting this new economic miracle? Look no further than Anthony Habgood, for example, the newly announced chair of the Norwich Research Park partnership. Ever wondered how these roles are filled, well one good turn deserves another. Anyone who heard David Willets MP eulogising about this appointment should be very suspicious. To cap it all, our desperately failing N&NUH Trust has benefited greatly from the services of the same Anthony Habgood as a non-exec director. Expect major improvements there no time soon!

    Report this comment

    Police Commissioner ???

    Thursday, March 7, 2013

  • Well police commissioner. Moan all you like and I know you have heard it all before but we are broke and we have to do something, the lazy labour rubbish put us here and if they get back in they will finish us off. People are using benefits as a career which is wrong, there are over a million more private sector job that have been created since 2010 and benefits should be cut even more as there are people in full time employment who do not bring home £26k after tax. Our country needs to wake up instead of moaning and Labour should never be allowed to govern again as they had no control over imigration or money or benefits, they sold our gold sold us in europe and made us the welfair capital of europe, people need to live with in there means and not on the labour credit card

    Report this comment

    Sweet cheeks

    Sunday, March 10, 2013

  • It is one thing for the coalition to be indifferent to the suffering they have caused but the worrying thing is that they seem to enjoy doing it.

    Report this comment

    Peter Watson

    Wednesday, March 6, 2013

  • Why is Housing Benefit "so high"? Perhaps to pay the extortionate rents that private landlords (Dave's mates) charge? If I genuinely thought this was to improve housing stock I might support it but it's just another way to bash the poor. Before I get the standard knee jerk reaction, I AM a "hard working taxpayer" and I DIDN'T vote for Gordon Brown.

    Report this comment

    DocOhNo

    Wednesday, March 6, 2013

  • Meanwhile the high earners are allowed by the government to continue with their tax avoidance system.. .. So why hit the lower paid... What a shame this country run by 650 MPs is doing such. Poor job... Equality is certainly not an option in their thinking... No wonder the majority do not bother to vote anymore .. Why should they...

    Report this comment

    Lionel

    Wednesday, March 6, 2013

  • I am most definitely not rich but an inconvenient truth for you is that no one has ever made the poor richer by increasing taxes, regardless of whether the tax payer is rich or not. The answer is to cut spending by cutting out much of the waste that is there now. Does any one seriously think that the massive increase in state spending over the last 15 years has actually made any significant improvement to our lives. We have to live within our means - pure and simple. The answer to real prosperity is to allow EVERYONE to keep more of their money, through reduced government spending and lower taxes for everyone. No country has ever succeeded in creating prosperity for everyone through ever higher taxes and ever higher state expenditure. I defy anyone to name a single country that has created short term gain through excessive expenditure and not suffered real longer term pain as a result.

    Report this comment

    andy

    Saturday, March 9, 2013

  • @BG - bedroom Tax is not just for those on 100% Houisng Benefit, it affects everyone on any Housing Benefit, so the working man on a low income would be entitled to some HB and therefore would still lose that 14%

    Report this comment

    catalonia13

    Wednesday, March 6, 2013

The views expressed in the above comments do not necessarily reflect the views of this site

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

Norfolk Weather

Partly Cloudy

Partly Cloudy

max temp: 20°C

min temp: 15°C

Five-day forecast

loading...

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT