Skip to main content

The bedroom tax is cruel because it is indiscriminate and fails the test of justice.

Since publishing my previous article on the cruelty of  the 'bedroom tax', several readers have pointed to the unfairness of people occupying houses with 'spare' rooms whilst others are in need. It is an argument repeated by government ministers. Often they cite the numbers of empty houses, as if the two could easily be matched.

But pointing to one unfairness, the shortage of suitable homes, cannot justify another, the indiscriminate injustice of forcing the poorest deeper into poverty, or for them to lose their homes. It is  particularly unjust if it is unlikely to resolve the problem, for it cannot then be justified on any utilitarian ethical consideration. It fails to give an equal consideration to the genuine interests and needs of all concerned. It neither addresses the plight of the homeless or those in overcrowded accommodation, nor does it address the problem of low pay and families struggling to pay their bills. Justice requires that people should be treated fairly.

The 'bedroom tax' is cruel because it is indiscriminate in its effect. It fails to take account of circumstances and real availability of housing stock. It seeks to turn one sector of the community against another. And it should be clear, the objective of the 'bedroom tax' is to reduce spending, not to solve the housing shortage. It is disingenuous for government ministers to suggest otherwise.

The Secretary of State, Mr Ian Duncan Smith says “These changes are about fairness. We will be able to make better use of our social housing stock, and help more families into their own home whilst keeping the welfare budget sustainable.”  This is not so.

Freeing up accommodation according to  'need' is at best a secondary objective, and from the studies cited in the DWP impact assessment,  is unlikely to be effective. Indeed, this is acknowledged by the DWP  in their impact assessment:

 "If all existing social sector tenants wished to move to accommodation of an appropriate size, there would be a mismatch between available accommodation and the needs of tenants."

The real cause of the shortage of suitable homes is the lack of social housing stock, not under-occupancy.  The stock of social housing is pitifully low.

But there are  two problems with the the empty housing argument. It makes the assumption that 1) a 'spare' room is not 'needed' and 2) that matching those who might need to move with available empty properties would be easy.  Simply counting the numbers of unoccupied social houses doesn't make them available or suitable for those who might be forced out of their homes by the 'bedroom tax'. It assumes the homes will be located suitably for available work, schools, transport links. it also fails to address the social cost of families being forced to move from communities where they have established ties. Focusing on the number of empty properties distracts us from the real need to build more homes.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Bad trade kills the planet.

One problem with the financial crisis of 2008/9 is that it focused attention on the banking system as if it could be separated from global economics.  It fostered the notion that all that was needed was to reform the banks and all would be well.  The underlying assumption was and is that global economics didn't and doesn't need fixing.  Everything works well but for the financial system.  Let's all keep calm and carry on.

Yet, the focus on a bad banking system hides an underlying economic malaise,  The economy depended on banks lending, and growth was predicated on debt, debt and more debt.  This was not simply a problem of the banking system.  It was, and remains a problem arising from the mythology of economic growth.

Politicians have long fostered the mythology of growth.  Growth became a  mantra.  Growth is good.  Good is growth.  Let's grow! Growth as and is presented as a miraculous cure.

Let's call this the first neoliberal myth.  The second neoliberal myth…

Hummingbird exposure to pesticides

Many have responded to the campaigns to stop the use of pesticides killing bees.  Bees are not the only animals affected.

Hummingbirds are noted as a species of conservation concern by Partners in Flight, and their populations are estimated to have declined by 60% between 1970 and 2014.



New research reveals that hummingbirds and bumble bees are being exposed to neonicotinoid and other pesticides through routes that are widespread and complex. The findings are published in Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry.

To measure exposure to pesticides in these avian pollinators, investigators made novel use of cloacal fluid and fecal pellets from hummingbirds living near blueberry fields in British Columbia. They also collected bumble bees native to Canada, and their pollen, and blueberry leaves and flowers from within conventionally sprayed and organic blueberry farms.

The researchers detected pesticides and related compounds in cloacal fluid and fecal pellets of hummingbirds revealing…

Brexit won't save the planet

Brexit isn't an ideal. It might break the cosy economic and political illusion that all growth and trade is good. But there is little thinking behind it. It won't lead to better trade. It won't save our planet.



No plan for Brexit The UK is  now just months away from leaving the European Union, yet still the government has no plan for Brexit. Sector after sector of British society are registering their concerns about the consequences of a 'no deal' Brexit.  The country is in the dark about what the future might hold.  Key issues remain unresolved, yet it is as if it doesn't matter.   Brexit, remember, means Brexit!  
Whether we are for or against Brexit we should be concerned that the government can't agree on what kind of deal they want with our biggest trading partner - the European Union.  
There is no idealism behind Brexit, and no vision for the future.  Instead, there is a blind hope that it will be 'alright on the night'.  That somehow a…