THE BEDROOM TAX - AN E-MAIL EXCHANGE
I recently exchanged e-mails with someone representing the Tory administration respecting The Bedroom Tax. Although this exchange was essentially private in nature it covers an important area of public policy, so I am reproducing it here. I have omitted real names and have deleted aspects concerning some areas of my private circumstances All deletions are indicated. Ellipses indicate where names have been removed.
Dear A Tory,
I am an infrequent protester, am a poor demonstrator, a lousy marcher and even worse shouter of political slogans, no matter how good. But on Saturday I stirred my self, [DELETED] and I travelled to Trafalgar Square and joined the assembled crowd to protest at the ‘Bedroom Tax.’[1]
I have been following politics since the late 1960’s but have never come across a crueller or more grotesque measure; even the poll tax trails a poor second to this vile legislation. Underlying it is a deep contempt for the tenants of Social Housing and an attempt to de-legitimise the right to call rented social housing, home. [2] People are being asked to leave areas where they have set down roots, have friends and support networks; in short are being forced to abandon their homes. This measure of course, as with so much of the governments Welfare ‘reforms,’ hits the disabled and vulnerable the hardest.
As I say I don’t often protest, but this particular measure sickens me.
Yours sincerely
Alex Talbot
Dear Mr Talbot
I am sorry to learn of your anger at this proposal. There seems to have been a degree of mystification about it – in essence, all the policy intends to do is to bring those living in social housing into line with those who pay for a private rent [sic] with housing benefit. As you say, it would not be a tax but a reduction in benefit for those under-occupying social properties.
I realise there will be little I can say to change your view, but the rationale for the proposal is that the space is desperately needed for those with growing families. It has been calculated that there are currently almost 1 million spare bedrooms, with an estimated cost to the taxpayer of up to half-a-billion pounds a year, and it is hoped this measure would be an incentive for those who are under-occupying to move to somewhere more suitable.
Moreover, if an individual can demonstrate a convincing need for the extra bedroom, they can apply for a Discretionary Housing Payment from the Council which would cover the difference. This exemption would also apply to pensioners, foster carers, members of the Armed Forces and those with disabled children where it is clear that sharing a room with siblings would not be appropriate.
I hope this provides some reassurance about the measure, and I will ensure that ….is aware of your comments. However, do let me know if you have any further questions.
With kind regards
A Tory
Dear A Tory,
[DELETED] Thank you for responding to my e-mail so promptly, which is more than can be said for some of the people I have contacted. Let me pay you the compliment of taking your arguments head on.
Firstly however, do not be sorry about my anger, my anger [DELETED] is what gets me out of bed in morning.
No mystification, least-ways not from my end of the argument, so let me expand.
I will say I find the proposition that this measure was born out of indignation at the plight of those living in overcrowded conditions risible, and it is, with great respect, as I think I am supposed to say, piffle. Moreover it is piffle on stilts dancing the can-can. The solution to overcrowding is to build more homes, not least more homes at rents in line with the living wage. Perhaps you could tell me, given the governments concern with the plight of those living in overcrowded and sub standard accommodation, how many such homes have been even started, let alone completed since it came to power; and yes I know about Labour’s abysmal record in this area too.
However I will say that even if this is what motivated this smelly little legislation it would still be wrong; forcing people out of the homes they have lived in all their lives, decreeing how much space children require, deciding what constitutes under occupancy, smacks of the worst excesses of totalitarianism, it is morally repugnant and if you cannot see that then you cannot see that.
[DELETED] As it happens I live in a one bedroom flat with no spare capacity, but for the sake of argument suppose that I did. I have lived in this community for thirty years, in this particular flat for over 28 years. I have support networks here, relationships with people stretching back decades.
[DELETED PARAGRAPH]
I must say I love your sinister little sentence ‘…this measure would be an incentive for those who are under-occupying to move to somewhere more suitable.’ ‘Get out of your flat and move to somewhere else otherwise you will be evicted,’ could I suppose just about be described as an ‘incentive,’ certainly the kind of 'incentive' the mob would recognise.
No, both you know and I know that what really motivated this legislation has been the soaring housing benefit bill. Here, you may be surprised to find I agree with you, this needs urgently to be addressed. I would go even further and say that this soaring bill, out of which the community gets nothing is a scandal;[3]] Of course Housing Benefit payments do not line the pockets of the tenants but of private landlords, often the same landlords providing the overcrowded and sub standard accommodation that keeps Lord Freud up at night.
I know of one instance were a young woman was moved into a council flat in Westminster in the early eighties; with the assistance of her parents she invoked the ‘right to buy’ with a huge discount provided by the taxpayer, she promptly moved back in with her parents, let the flat and with the surplus income invested in more property, which she has let to people on HB at rocketing rents. Perhaps you approve, for she is a staunch Tory and knows who is looking after her interests. Yet what has she done for society, in what way has she contributed? In reality she contributes to the welfare of society much in the same way as the fleas on a dogs back contribute to the welfare of the dog.
Want to deal with the scandalous HB bill? Then cap rents, or tax unearned income from rented properties at a high rate. In this way much of the excessive amounts of money paid in HB could be recovered for the taxpayer. If this discourages the private rented sector then local authorities should be given the resources to take any properties that then become vacant into the public sphere, which could then be provided as housing for, let us say overcrowded families.
It is true there will be some exemptions, though some of these had to be forced out of the government by public pressure. In all his anxiety to relieve the plight of the poor huddled masses Lord Freud simply ignored the needs of foster parents and those with servicemen serving overseas. Whilst the discretionary housing payment, is just that, discretionary, i.e. charity; a very limited pot of money, that, I will hazard a guess, will run out in K&C by around September time.
I hope this clarifies more accurately my views; perhaps I have even persuaded you of my case? Who knows, stranger things have happened.
Best wishes
Alex Talbot
Dear Alex,
I am grateful to you for taking the time to respond. It is always enjoyable to read an argument well-put, and yours is put most clearly. It is evident that you firmly believe this measure is wrong. I wish I had equal conviction! In my opinion it is one step towards improving our system of welfare, but only time will tell if it has been successful.
Adequate housing stock is, as you rightly say, another part of the solution, but it is sometimes difficult to balance this need with the need to conserve the green belt. Obviously, this is not a concern in Kensington. The problem here is lack of housing stock altogether, and I don’t see how that can be improved in any meaningful way other than to ensure most efficient use is made of the space available.
I have a great deal of sympathy with much of what you say. Where I cannot agree with you is that it is unreasonable to ask those in a suitable position to downsize in order to allow others to move out of over-crowded accommodation. The Government has a duty to the taxpayer, and I don’t think it unreasonable to ask those under-occupying to make way for those with a need for the space.
To me it seems that, as far as reasonably possible, those who would be unreasonably affected by the proposal have been exempted from it, although I do not think I will convince you of this!
In any event, I am sure …. would be pleased to put your concerns to the Minister if you wished. Do let me know if this would be helpful.
With kind regards
A Tory
Dear A Tory,
Please do ask that my concerns be raised, though I doubt it will make much difference. I note that you do not respond to the majority of points that I made. This does not surprise me for there is no legitimate answer to the key points, in particular those I emphasize below. Whenever ministers are challenged about these aspects of this immoral legislation they act like children who stuff their fingers in there ears shouting at the top of their voice “LALALALALA I CAN’T HEAR YOU.”
You state:
‘The problem here is lack of housing stock altogether, and I don’t see how that can be improved in any meaningful way other than to ensure most efficient use is made of the space available.’
I can’t think of any measure more ‘meaningful’ a you put it than building more homes. (Incidentally is this the government line?)
'I don’t think it unreasonable to ask those under-occupying to make way for those with a need for the space.'
Really, where? Councils sold their properties – and Osborne wants them to sell what's left. Housing associations built for families. In Hull there are 5,500 people told to chase 70 one-bedroom properties.*
'To me it seems that, as far as reasonably possible, those who would be unreasonably affected by the proposal have been exempted from it, although I do not think I will convince you of this!'
Oh really, perhaps most cruel of all, the tax will not apply to foster families who look after one kid, if you foster siblings, then tough; But these kids are often the hardest to place. Thanks to George Osborne and IDS, their chances just got worse. And even if your son or daughter is in barracks in Afghanistan, then don't expect peace of mind as the government still has to come clean on plans for their bedroom.*
'In my opinion it is one step towards improving our system of welfare, but only time will tell if it has been successful.'
Well while this little experiment is being tried out the lives of countless numbers will be disrupted and in some cases ruined, some of these the most vulnerable members of the community. What I find most disturbing, and yes offensive, is the cavalier attitude to people’s homes, which you seem to think that the government can just re-distribute as they see fit.
If you want genuine ways in which people could be supported into smaller properties, provided those properties exist, I would be happy to supply this information.
Finally if Lord Freud, who owns two homes, with a combined 10 vacant rooms, is so worried about overcrowding why not give up his mansion outside of London as a respite for overcrowded families whilst they await re-housing. (Sorry I dozed off for a moment and started dreaming.)
Your sincerely
Alex
*I am grateful to the Daily Mirror for this information.
Dear Mr Talbot,
Many thanks for your email. I am sure you would wish me to be frank, and the reason why I did not respond to every point was that, I am sorry to say, I seldom have the luxury of enough time to do them justice. I hope you will understand that we have a great number of active cases ongoing (approx. 2000 at present), and I must be fair to all of them.
I will make one further point however – as I explained in my email below, it is not as simple as just being able to build more homes. Where do you find the space in Kensington, for instance? And out of the Borough, the lack of suitable brown field sites is the main obstacle to rapid construction of housing.
As you will be aware, the Government is keen to change the rules in order to facilitate such rapid construction, but has come up against a depth of opposition against a relaxation of the rules necessary to build on green field sites. As in all things, it seems to be a fine balancing act, but I know the Government is keen to promote the building of more homes as soon as possible.
Finally, assuming all this was possible, it is important to note that the Government does not build homes, the construction industry does, and they may simply decide now is not the right time to build.
With kind regards
A Tory
At this point I chose to draw the conversation to a close. I leave you to draw your own conclusions from this discussion and look forward to hearing any comments you may have below.
ALEX TALBOT APRIL 2013
[1] David Cameron becomes mildly apoplectic when you call it this and of course the description is inaccurate, it is not literally speaking a tax. However the high comedy in this is that Cameron imagines that calling it the ‘spare room subsidy’ sounds better!
[2] There was recently a radio phone in focusing on the topic ‘can rented accommodation ever be called home?’
[3] I note that ministers, particularly IDS usually invoke ‘the taxpayer,’ i.e. Not so secret code for those working, not the feckless poor. Well even those on benefits pay a contribution toward the Community Charge and of course pay VAT. Indeed the poor pay a higher proportion of their income in tax than any other group. True this income may come from benefits, so a proportion of benefits then are clawed back through VAT.
Having visited this page I would be grateful for your feedback, either tick one of the boxes below or make a comment via the comments button.
