The catholics have had that one sorted out for hundreds of years.

Its a tad unfortunate that its now illegal to use children in such a way but there you are.

So, because they've got unfortunate, uncaring or stupid parents, we should just pretend that the kids don't need our help then?
OK, I'm starting to get the hang of this Christianity lark.

Most people do. Some people don't. Accidents happen.

Also, amongst people who choose to have children will be a number for whom the choice was perfectly sensible at the time and then their situation changed. Maybe a divorce, loss of a partner, or loss of a job. What do you suggest they do with their kids at this point? Put them into care?

And finally - no matter how feckless you might consider any given parent to be, the children are utterly blameless. Penalising them therefore seems to me to be a tad harsh.

I think some people are missing the point, if these people on housing benefit apart from pensioners, disabled or people with disabled children are upset about losing benefits because they have an extra bedroom why don't they do what the rest if us have to and work/study hard to get the job that can pay for their extra bedroomed house whether it be private rented, LA or owned.

Me and my fiancé have had to do it, the many years since leaving school/college/Uni of hard work, crap jobs and living on low wages and using contraception to get to the position where we are now to have a good/well paid job, nice house and ready to start a family.

Not everyone's life goes to plan and I know jobs are scarce so why doesn't the Govemment do something about the job situation first then implement this idea?

1) There are few one-bed properties. 1a) There are an awful lot of properties where a second (or third) bedroom is a bedroom in name only.

2) Once everyone has aspired their way into super-duper-paying jobs, whereby they can afford a mortgage on a £250,000 one-bed flat in somewhere as posh as downtown Hackney, who is going to do the low-paid jobs? And why should people doing low-paid jobs that society needs doing – cleaning is just one example – be on such grindingly low pay that they require benefits and then can be penalised for that?

Specific example: can John Lewis – a very successful British company – do without having anyone clean its stores, offices, depots etc? If not, why should it get away with paying its cleaners so little than many cannot live without recourse to in-work benefits, including housing benefit?

This is the perfect illustration of why we need social housing that is affordable. And by 'affordable', I don't mean £125k for a one-bed flat to someone who qualifies as a 'key worker'.

Maybe this is exactly their plan, but to get there they have to claim housing benefit for a while?

I was a tax payer, once. I paid something called National Insurance on my full time and two part time jobs that I worked 7 days a week. Now I'm a social failure, oh the shame

It wasn't 'judgement'. It was facts. Housing is a massive cost that at means that many people are going to struggle to get a roof over their heads.

I get no housing benefits at all and I just get 25% off my Poll Tax.

The new NHS Party has been aiming them in his direction already.

If you mean you get a discount off your council tax because you are a single person, don't worry you will be next in line to have that "benefit" removed.

The same argument will apply to you. It will be if you don't want to pay the full council tax for a property of the band you live in, go and buy one in a lower band.

... or go and educate yourself or train to get one of the millions of better-paid jobs that are out there.

Went to a SWP meeting last night. Apparently the revolution is imminent. Is that the same one that was imminent last time I went, 35 years ago, or a new one?