The ugly face of so called British democracy?

I totally agree with you , it was sickening to watch. I watched with family who were all shocked by the bad behavour

shame all the labour MPs did not turn up to vote , this includes 10 labour Scottish MP's

edit Tel if you believe for one minute that UKIP are the answer and will not lie cheat and thieve then you are naive , they will let you down too

The way democracy works is that more votes win against fewer votes.

And one can't even get into the debate - if one insists on misusing words - calling an attempt to re-distribute tax-payer funded social housing a 'bedroom TAX ' - when in reality it's an attempt to cut back on BENEFIT excesses.

MOST changes involve winners and losers - and naturally enough losers complain the loudest.

Yes - like most new measures our MPs introduce, there were some gaps/hardship cases etc not taken into account.

But is not the case it was mainly Labour councils who jumped the gun - with threatened eviction notices ? In a vain, callous attempt to discredit the new measures - causing UNdue distress to those they BOAST they are THERE to defend ?

My local council is Conservative - and all of us 'social housing' occupants were given plenty of info on the new measures - Help lines for those likely to be affected - with some degree of assurances that difficult situations would receive full consideration.

As and when you can study the details - the DIFFERENCE BETWEEN effected/affected - a TAX and BENEFIT restriction - you might be better placed to vent your spleen - in a more logical way.

NO offence meant , of course - but I feel obliged to register objections to we Conservatives being besmirched with accusations of sneering, contemptuous DISregard of those in need.

Successive governments have mulled over the question of over-occupancy and none until now has attempted to do anything about it!

The real (and humane) answer would be to insist that all new housing developments contain a percentage of old peoples bungalows with a small manageable garden space, especially to the rear and slightly wider doorways which could accommodate wheelchairs if necessary) this would entice many an old 'un to move and downsize because there comes a time when many of them find lugging a hoover upstairs and decorating to be hard graft so a pleasant small unit which they could move into and remain independent for longer would be ideal and downsizing would cut their heating bills at a stroke!

Governments past and present simply lack imagination!

It is not cost effective to have all social housing residents living in 2 ,3 or 4 bedroom houses if only 1 person lives in the property.

That's the problem, 'Democracy' isn't fair, or honest, it's majority-rules, and often the weak, the sick, and the elderly are the first to get negative treatment, because they can't fight back.

It's why Plato was right, that the root of all that's bad is POLITICS, working agendas, and interests always comes at a cost, often paid for by the people that can afford it least.

I'm sorry but that was the whole reason for this bedroom tax, to free up the bigger properties which are going to be needed for bigger families come January the first, think about it, what happens on January the first.

Democracy is about what the people vote for. The British people repeatedly vote for low taxation. Because previous governments have not cut back on spending, we're £1 trillion in debt. Restricting Council Tax Benefit to people living in social housing who have more bedrooms than they need, is a direct consequence of democracy. Calling the policy a bedroom tax and politicising disabled children shows that the Labour Party is totally devoid of ideas.

The country is desperately short of social housing and one reason is that people are living in homes with more bedrooms than they need. If they are not prepared to move to a smaller home or take in a lodger, why should the rest of us have to subsidise them? Nobody voted to do that and there's nothing democratic about it.

Not only do they not want to scrap it, they do not even want to reform it. The fact is that as it is pushing more people into the private rented sector it is costing the taxpayer more. It is causing disabled people, who have had their homes adapted at the cost of thousands, to move. It is tearing apart single parents who have their children stay over at the weekend. Shame on the Lib Dem MPs who voted for this. I am sure very few Liberal voters ever wanted this vile tax. Nothing surprises me from the Tories, they have always hated the poor, but the Lib Dems have sold out for 30 pieces of silver. Good to see Labour actually stand up for those effected. This tax does not save any money, but it costs a lot, both financially and socially.

It's architect, Ian Duncan Smith did not even bother to turn up to last nights vote. Get them all out next election, they disgust me.

It reminds me of the American liberals who sneer at President Obama health reforms calling them wrongly "Obama care"

You. the asker is doing the same with his use of the "bedroom tax" Of course the correct name is the "Social sectors size criteria"

I have enclosed a link so the asker can fully understand the act.

I am not sure where "disabled children" come into it ? Looking into it I can see its the Daily Mirror who is whipping up trouble about the government winning the vote. They do have a majority. That's how it works.

We have to make accommodation for the thousands expected from overseas. Jack Straw has accepted Labours mistake in allowing immigration at such a rate from Eastern Europe.

EDIT Not much democracy on Answers when I can be thumbed down for giving my answer. A disgrace.

Never mind Jack,a child raping illegal immigrant Somalian who was allowed to stay here,is to get compensation because he was jailed for too long.

So you can rest easy,that good old British democracy and fair play,is still working.