This government is THE worst I can remember for coming up with ideas that are basically unworkable or even down right illegal (Mrs May leading the way on that one). At least under Thatcher while you might disagree with what they were doing they gave the impression of basic competence. And when they did screw up it was still a time where ministers resigned!

IDS will when he appears before that committee just do his usual and shout louder.

God knows what would have happened had he won an election when he was leader of the Tory party.

I would disagree however with the notion that it is deliberate that things progress as you say where they legislate and then sort out the legalities afterwards. I really do believe that they do not think things through and it is basic incompetence that leaves them open to legal challenge.

IDS and Co certainly have an agenda IMO and it is a nasty one but I don't think they are competent enough to see their own legislation through without being caught out.

I've told the story before, but ticking on for two years ago, when negotiations were taking place with government over its planned changed to the public service pensions schemes, the lead government negotiators were Francis Maude and Danny Alexander.

The various unions had balloted for industrial action on the issue and, having received the results, were busy setting dates etc.

The government suggested that they delay the date of any action. It was explained to them that, under employment legislation that had been enacted by Conservative administrations of yore, this could not be done. Action has to be taken within a set, limited time after the result of any ballot (30 days, IIRC), or there has to be a new ballot (a costly exercise).

Mr Maude, who is a lawyer apparently, suggested that they could 'suspend' the law for a week or so.

It was suggested to him that you cannot just 'suspend' law when convenient.

He sent away a civil servant to check.

The civil servant returned to confirm that no, you cannot simply 'suspend' a law when it takes your fancy.

This is the stuff of [iThe Thick of It[/i.

Armando Iannucci must've thought all his birthdays had come at once when this bunch came to power. He should be eternally grateful for them writing his scripts on his behalf. Talk about life imitating art

Nah, Major, Blair and brown were all capable of coming up with some poor legislation, they were just better at putting a coat of gloss on it.

I don't think any of those governments had to actually back track on their legislation or rush out amendments anything like as often as this one which was the point I was making. Things like selling off woodlands and the pasty tax spring to mind.

All those governments enacted poor legislation but at least they seemed to know how to do it!

I don't recall them having a vote of no confidence in their own Queens' speech either.
Or having to enlist the opposition to push a bill through that they couldn't get support for in their own party.
Bloody hopeless.
No wonder they haven't won a majority in a general election for two decades.

The last government were experts in the art of leaking ideas, the ones that got the headlines and people outraged got binned, this mob are just not as well schooled in the art.

rlhttps://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/05/30/grant-shapps-benefit-reform-watchdog-uksa-_n_3357945.html?utm_hp_ref

Grant Shapps only slightly misinterpreted "benefit cheats" numbers too.

I suppose its easy to mistake the number 20,000 and read 900,000 instead though - if your incompetent or a spiv.

Some of the stuff this lot do is done not because they didn't think to test it out because it might be unpopular - they don't care about that. They still end up having to have a rethink because they made a balls up of drafting the legislation in the first place and the rethink isn't always to withdraw it either but to try and fix it.

Exactly. I am in a small 2 bedroom, 1 reception room bungalow. There are approximately 15 or so bungalows of this style in my cul de sac. None of them have their lofts converted. At least 6 of those use their "spare bedroom" as either a dining room or a utility room as the kitchen is very small. I don't as we have a conservatory that acts as my dining room, but even so, I don't have a bed in my "spare bedroom". We are mortgaged so the bedroom tax doesn't effect us but if it did and I wasn't disabled I would seriously be arguing about what my "spare room" is used for. Unless it specifically states on the plans of the property who are they to judge what is a bedroom and what isn't?

It would appear, according to the article that I linked to at the start, that the only requirement for a bedroom to be classed as a bedroom is if it says bedroom on the lease - if you've rented a "three bedroomed house" for instance and you declare that you and your two boys aged under 10 yrs will be living there, then that is as much information as they need to reduce your housing benefit, it really seems to be that simple.

I'm inclined to believe that its been drafted so simply as well because the solution from Leeds City Council is so simple as to not actually be a loophole but to have found a wide open gate through which to casually stroll without shutting it behind you.

The only downside I suppose is that their rental income may reduce in future if they have to reclassify three bed houses to two beds and an unclassified room, but maybe that won't happen either and in any case its still cheaper, and therefore more cost effective to me as a ratepayer, than having to prosecute thousands of council house tenants who are in arrears with absolutely no chance of ever repaying - it also saves me the embarrassment of having to walk through this city in future and see families of former council house tenants living rough on the streets or being thrown out of B&B accommodation during daylight hours.

Still no further response from Barry Anderson.

He must be very busy.

I am agreeing with you, I'm just pointing out that the last lot were just as bad when it came to poor legislation.

It'd be cheaper anyway mate, as has already been shown in London. Some families have already been evicted but the council has a legal duty to house them, so they're paying for B&B, or paying even higher rents (with concommitant higher housing subsidy) for a smaller unit in the private sector.

As has already been said, it's "The Thick Of It" in real-time