Councils trying to bend rules to protect benefit claimants

Have your say

From: Martin Fletcher, Savile Close, Emley, Huddersfield.

IT is bad enough that the Government is castigated for telling the truth about the benefits culture but now we have politically corrupt councils bending and cheating on the rules, in order to keep their core vote.

Step forward not a small obscure council, but Leeds City Council which has decided they are going to bend the rules so people do not have to pay for the extra bedroom they do not need, classing down houses with so-called box rooms.

If this is the case why were they classed as a bedroom in the first place and why is it that my actual one-bed flat is classed as a two-bed as you can put a sofa bed in the lounge? This is according to Kirklees Council.

I am told that I cannot have a two-bed house as I do not need one but I am willing to pay the extra myself and I get no benefits anyway.

So, does this mean that if I apply for a two-bed property, even if it is a box room, in Leeds, I will get one because according to them it is a one-bed? You could not make it up. And if they drop a four-bed to a three-bed with a couple with three children in it will they have to give them a bigger house, not a smaller one?

The Government should nip this in the bud now. I am fed up with paying taxes so someone else can have extra beds for nothing but I am not allowed to even pay for one myself. Ed Balls and David Miliband take note, I am working class and an OAP now. Not non-working class, the only people you look after.

From: Geoff Sweeting, Wressle, Selby.

WITH all the publicity surrounding the changes in the benefit system, the electorate will at least have a clear choice at the next election.

We can vote for the spendthrift Labour Party, which has all but bankrupted the country for the second time (the first time being when the IMF had to bail us out in the 1970s), or we can vote for the Conservative Party, which is trying to bring spending under control.

When listening to the rhetoric from Ed Balls, it is obvious that Labour has no intention of changing its spots, as he gives no indication as to how he would pay for his spending.

In my view the Lib Dems forfeited any rights to government when Nick Clegg voted against the boundary changes in a fit of pique. These changes would have got rid of about 50 MPs and their associated costs, probably saving £50m per year – forever.

The biggest problem for the Tories is the improved support for Ukip, as its policies resonate with the mood of the public. If the support continues, the result of the next election may well be a walk-in for Labour, the last result that the country needs.

From: Tim Mickleburgh, Boulevard Avenue, Grimsby.

IF councils had been allowed to build homes to replace those sold, we wouldn’t have so many having to seek accommodation in the more costly private sector.

If heavy industries such as mining hadn’t been destroyed, we wouldn’t have seen the levels of structural unemployment that have meant generations of families living on benefit. Also, if we still had our mining industry then there wouldn’t be the problem of what to do about future energy supplies. If the finance industry hadn’t been deregulated, then we wouldn’t have had this recession in the first place. Our late Prime Minister’s policies have a lot to answer for.