TUC National Demonstration Against Cuts

"Most private landlords won't let to anyone on housing benefit. "

how ridiculous a statement is that? If it were true the housing benefit bill would be very small!

Housing benefit was not an issue until Thatcher abolished the fair rent system. This also was a major factor in creating the current house price bubble which is causing so much misery both for people who can't afford to buy and those who have bought at inflated prices.

The way to cut the housing benefit bill is to bring back rent regulation.

yes, even Boris [maybe he has a heart, or at least pretends to have one, every now and then?] !

The plan is to remove the poor from "Tory" areas.

And this...
Changes to housing benefit to make a third of England unaffordable for low income households in a decade

EVEN Boris doesn't think it's on!!!

The CPAG are doing this:

www.cpag.org.uk/press/2011/070311.htm

"The Government has failed to have due regard to the general equality duties under the Race Relations Act 1976 and the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 because ethnic minorities and lone parents will be disproportionately hit by the two cuts being challenged".

"These cuts are likely to have a dramatic effect in London in particular. The Mayor of London has said that around 9,000 London households will have to leave their homes. This could mean upwards of 20,000 children will have to move, 14,000 out of their local area".

poor kids. how can we, as mothers, support this and think it is ok?

Xenia - you're so right! Why on earth are we doing, us being one of the richest countries in the world and providing people with decent housing and all? And a home to boot, not just a temporary roof over their heads? Scandalous.

Again, I'm intrigued by where your knowledge about social housing comes from.

Most private landlords won't let to anyone on housing benefit.

People like I am on what I earn can't afford to live in the centre of London (and I'm not that poor) but the poor can live in areas only the very very rich can afford. The rest commute in frm the country, Luton, rougher areas and the like in London. The £20,400 new upper cap for housing benefit is what is being introduced, not what now exists (for London).

Anyway we have a very long way to go. We also need to get those out of social housing who start to earn too much to live there and move people into smaller places when only they are occupying the 4 be dcouncil house on their own. We have hardly begun in trying to sort all this stuff out.

Xenia Housing benefit at over £20k? You're right, it's wrong: It's high time private landlords and buy to letters were told where to get off, the greedy bastards!
As for the poor living near where they work, how dare they expect to be able to do that?! Don't forget that housing benefit is often claimed by those who do actually work Xenia.

I remain intrigued about where your information about how the poor live comes from, Xenia.

Housing benefit at over £20k? It's high time it were reduced. It means the poor can live in much better conditions and regions than the working middle classes can.

Indeed, trosca. It's incredible that people are buying the shallow rhetoric about 'committed to support of welfare state' in light of issues like the link that you've just posted, the outsourcing to 'work for welfare' to Cameron's incompetent mates and the viscious capping of HB which is going to effectively push poorer people out of many areas, particularly in the south-east.

Still, as long as there are enough poor people to be shipped in to clean the houses and offices of the rich and serve their coffee, who give a shit, eh?

He says 30% cuts and Labour wanted 20%.

Who cares what Labour wanted? If Labour were in power, we would be fighting Labour. They aren't. The coalition of sociopaths and millionaires are in power instead.

I really don't think there's a massive difference except the Coalition will also reduce business tax and that will lead to more prosperity

Business tax is already one of the lowest in europe, and tens of billions of pounds are already lost annually due to tax evasion and even more to tax avoidance. Businesses should be paying more (that is, their fare share) in taxes, not less.

and a better ability to fund those who really can't work and need the support of a welfare state to which this Government is committed as much as any other.

It's telling the the Tories and their supporters can't even be honest about their own agenda because they know it's so objectionable to the vast majority of the public.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12955845

I doubt the Daily Mail would do an interview with him.

Maybe that's why they interviewed Bob.

Not to those of us who have read the FT and who have heard Lionel Barber and Gillian Tett.

That's a surprise.

Xenia you're right. I don't think the FT is right wing.

He says 30% cuts and Labour wanted 20%. I really don't think there's a massive difference except the Coalition will also reduce business tax and that will lead to more prosperity and a better ability to fund those who really can't work and need the support of a welfare state to which this Government is committed as much as any other.

Thatcherite cuts agenda exposed ? video of Tory MP Greg Barker

www.coalitionofresistance.org.uk/2011/04/thatcherite-cuts-agenda-exposed-video-of-tory-mp-greg-barker/

The FT is going on about cuts ad nauseum at the moment - almost a full page on it today - don't assume it's right wing. From memory he was talking about having been at Rules the week before with union friends. It's just amusing that because he lives in massively subsidised housig despite being on over £100k a year and whatever the mother of his 4 children is on he can afford to eat there or may be the union was paying.

His trade union career is one thing but he's standing in the elections in May along with the party I'm a member of in a coalition called TUSC. He could be a bona fide leader to a valid alternative to the mainstream political parties. If so I reckon he should quit lunching with the capitalists' bible. Just my humble opinion.

PS. For the record, I like him :)

Not sure how much it will harm his career Glasnost. He's built a succesful trade union career for himself over the last 20 years to the point where he's now the most recongisable face of trade unionism to most people in the street.

Not sure he cares whether people like him or not.

And I actually thought the FT article was pretty sympathetic.

Exactly Rambling. There's alot of folk out there who are unable or unwilling to cut through the propagandistic guff written spewed forth in the vast majority of mainstream media. Anyone can put a positive or negative spin on a person or a story if they've the whim.

My only beef with Crow was the fact he ate with the FT hounds in the first place as is bound to get their fleas. Smacks of naivety to me. He shouldn't have been interviewed by them and should certainly NOT have been taken out to lunch by them. Error of judgement that doesn't bode well for is future political/unionist career.