Thought Id start this one going because its rather dead on this board at the moment and I suppose all my usual muckers are either at the Stella tennis event watching Dim Tim (lose again) or at Henly Regatta eating cucumber sandwiches (they wish,...NOT).

Anyway please feel free to just talk to yourself blast away and let it go on any company or subject you wish. Just wish Id thought of this one before.

cheers GF.

UNBELIEVABLE.........

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 2014

Richard Benyon's Housing Benefit hypocrisy


If you ever needed another example of the vile hypocrisy of the Tories, you should check out some of the stuff that Richard Benyon, the Tory MP for Newbury, has said about benefits and the welfare system.

He repeatedly uses the term "something for nothing" to slam benefits recipients, yet he himself is a much bigger benefit recipient than any unemployed person, or member of the ever increasing demographic working poor.

What he fails to mention every time he rants about the size of the welfare state, is that he is one of the very biggest beneficiaries of the welfare system, as his company (Englefield Estate Trust Corporation Limited) raked in £625,964 in housing benefit from West Berkshire council last year. It is likely that his company receives much more from other councils too, given that it holds land and property all over the United Kingdom.

What people fail to realise about housing benefit is that when it is paid out to help poor families cover the cost of private rents, the idle rentier class (like Richard Benyon) are the beneficiaries, not the tenants themselves. The DWP themselves admit that it costs well over £1,000 extra per year in housing benefit for every tenant that is housed in private accomodation, rather than social housing.

Since the Tories came to power and launched their economically illiterate austerity experiment, the size of the already bloated housing benefit bill has grown dramatically to £24 billion in 2013, as hundreds of thousands of families (mainly the working poor) have been driven into such poverty that they have become entitled to help with the cost of their rent. The number of working poor families reliant upon housing benefit has soared 104% between 2009 and 2013. The beneficiaries of this soaring housing benefit bill are not the tenants themselves, but private landlords like Richard Benyon.

Here's a direct quote from Richard Benyon's website:
"The Government is reforming Labour’s ‘something for nothing’ welfare culture, by capping the amount one household can get in benefits"
Given that his company rakes in hundreds of thousands per year in housing benefit, this simply isn't right, because the amount of cash his household receives in housing benefit hasn't been capped at all.

Yes, the government has capped the amount that "the lower orders" can claim in welfare, but there is absolutely no limit on the amount that the aristocracy and the idle rentier class can siphon out of government coffers through housing benefit.

Here's a response from Eileen Short, of Defend Council Housing:
“How dare Richard Benyon lecture us about ‘something for nothing’ when he is living off the poorest and milking taxpayers all the way to the bank?"
And here's a quote from David Orr, chief executive of the National Housing Federation, on the subject of housing benefits:
"We hear a lot about 'making work pay', but a decent job won't even cover the cost of a home in England. Billions of pounds of taxpayers' money is wasted, lining the pockets of private landlords, when it could be better spent building more homes people can afford"
If the government were serious about cutting the benefit bill, here's what they would do:
1. Cap private rents. So that private landlords can only charge the same as social housing rates. This would save £billions every year.

2. Bring the private rental sector up to the same standards as the social housing sector. This would prevent slumlords cashing in on housing benefits by renting disgracefully poor housing stock to the poor.

3. Build more social housing. This wouldn't actually cost money in the long run, because the construction of social housing is one of the strongest fiscal multipliers going.

4. Establish a national house buying scheme. Lots of idle slumlords will see their profit margins disappear if they are forced to rent their properties at reasonable rates, and keep them decently maintained too. The government should offer to buy up their property assets and convert them to social housing.
A Tory led government would never do any of these things because it would harm the financial interests of Tory MPs like Richard Benyon, as well as the interests of countless Tory party donors that also cash in on the housing benefits gravy train as they slam their own tenants as "something for nothing" scroungers.

The Tories have absolutely no intention of cutting the vast flow of welfare payments that find their way into the bank accounts of the wealthy rentier class, so all of their so-called "welfare reforms" are aimed at cutting the amount that goes to the people the welfare system was actually designed to help (the unemployed, the disabled, the working poor and pensioners).

In conclusion, The Tories are quite happy to allow the idle rentier class to keep pillaging the welfare system, and Richard Benyon is a grotesque hypocrite, who bitterly criticises the welfare state over and again, yet he sucks out far more cash from the welfare budget than any benefit claimant could ever dream of getting.

He is not benefitting from benefits. He is just getting rent. Why would he care where the rent comes from?

i know sticky has squelched me, as if one cares one iota, but you're right hays
why should any mp or anyone else not benefit from rents paid by the taxpayer?
i do and i'm pretty sure sticky does too, though it would be inconvenient for him to admit it

that this chap receives a large slab through the benefit system could even be argued that he is acting in a socially responsible and beneficial way, for he is prepared to let out his properties to those on benefits, whereas a great many landlords refuse point blank .... imagine the outcry if he was one such!

it is true that the tories could have built more low end housing, and i am puzzled to scandalised that boris seems to have badly underspent on this sector ..... however, how much emphasis did labour ever put on building such accommodation or better still, rejuvenating existing properties?

Hays hes getting it from the same welfare system that he loves to take a swipe at.

If their was no welfare system would he have the same demand for his property, very unlikely given that welfare is subsidising stingy employers who pay the minimum wage or less.

The welfare system is in fact under housing benefit helping to push up private rents. Let to buy lenders know their is a safety net. Their is a shortage of social housing dating back to Thatchers right to buy. 2/3rd of council houses sold under that now in the hands of private landlords. 'they saw her coming'.

I have a few houses I rent which use housing benefit as part payment but unlike this chap I dont go around calling my tenants scroungers.

Wheres all this morality fat Dave talked of last week.

welfare is subsidising stingy employers who pay the minimum wage or less.
what a preposterous and stupid statement that i'm afraid sticky trots out on a regular basis

gf's comments have some logic, although he wouldn't like the conclusions drawn from them.

Yes, it is possible that benefits may help keep rents up. It is also true that this government is attempting to do something about the problem by having a benefit cap. This should stop people on benefits getting the rent to expensive property paid for them.

i thought it was already capped for "normal" couples or single parent at about £700 pm

Manuel,

"cynic Send an email to cynic View cynic's profile - 25 Feb 2014 14:41 - 37115 of 37117

welfare is subsidising stingy employers who pay the minimum wage or less.
what a preposterous and stupid statement that i'm afraid sticky trots out on a regular basis"


Engage your brain before rushing to print. You will find it behind the eyes and between the ears, if it hasn’t already deteriorated too far.

Take the "stingy" out of the statement and examine the "statement" again.

---------------

What I have never understood is how palming out a state run service to a "private company" is successful.

I can see the "efficiency" and cost effectiveness of contracting out to a "technical development company" or similar small highly "intellectual" units while introducing new “machinery”, or even evolutionary techniques.

No problem.

But, if such are ongoing innovations then surely it is better to incorporate these “areas” into the main “business”.

Then the “savings” go into the original business and the cost of running the “new innovations” are kept in house and “profits of improved, or efficient services” go back into the original “business” to improve it further, rather than into the share holders’ pockets of the advising company.

To say a large public organisation can run an efficient cleansing agency within its own management is daft.

Losing money paying a smaller company to do so, and having no direct control over it is madness.

(I am in a hurry.)

fossy - like you, the statement is still a load of shit ..... you obviously didn't listen to Leahy this morning, as otherwise you might have learnt something

whether or not the minimum wage should be higher, or perhaps weighted according to region, is another matter, but even that may easily cause its own problems ...... but then of course you didn't watch and listen did you

therefore, engage your brain, eyes and ears before rushing to print

Manuel,

"i know sticky has squelched me, as if one cares one iota, "

Why mention it?

because it was relevant when written - since you seem to want to know

DLT RETRIAL: Why is a BBC dj more important as a cps sex-crime target than a former Home Secretary?

By John Ward February 24, 2014





It’s a reasonable question to ask. Dave Lee Travis is being retried on two charges of sexual assault, dating from the period when – according to pinched-goblin Miranda Moore QC – he had suddenly morphed from “aggressive sexual predator” to “dirty old man”.

The usual Plod Stepford wife crap about “girls as young as fifteen years old” continues to be trotted out. But there was one accuser who was aged 15 in 1976, and the jury dismissed the charge in short order.


More: http://hat4uk.wordpress.com/2014/02/24/dlt-retrial-why-is-a-bbc-dj-more-important-as-a-cps-sex-crime-target-than-a-former-home-secretary/

Off the politics....take a look at Costain....looks good for 400p......

why? .... i've just posted a 5 year chart there and your optimism for 400 seems to have no foundation to me

Undervalued....and the way the sp has been moving suggests a sharper move upwards from now....

When did this become a share discussion thread and can anyone join in?

So is Afren undervalued , Barclays today set a overweight and target price of 225p

CEY also undervalued , but a little more speculative

AFR - yes almost certainly, not least because its considerable KRG assets are in the books at cost only, yet are due to start delivering in the very foreseeable future