Margaret Hodge must love the BBC, she gets consistent favourable PR even when she comes out with predictable dreary Labour propaganda.
The government will need to react quickly if a benefit cut for social housing tenants leads to rises in rent arrears and homelessness, MPs say. Public Accounts Committee (PAC) chair Margaret Hodge said it could have a “severe impact” on low-income families. Estimates supplied to the BBC by some of the largest housing associations suggest many tenants are not currently planning to move home to avoid the cut. The government said better use had to be made of social housing stock.
Does Hodge speak for all those on this committee? Do the Conservative and Lib Dem members of the PAC support her criticism of Coalition Policy? Is she simply posturing and using this soapbox to trot out her own bias which the BBC then presents as the agreed view of the PAC? Thoughts?
Licensed out to Labour(lol).
To call Boris a nasty piece of work, only then to let the likes of Hodge, Hewitt, Jowell, Thornberry and the other Labour Ladies who Lunch (out off the poor), get away is typical of the BBC.
Who`s that former trolling muppet who denounces this site for accusing Hodge of being a tax diddler…but won`t tell us why Hodge allowed kiddie fiddling whilst she was head of Childrens Servicing in Islington or wherever?
We`ll not be hearing from him anytime soon-hopefully the picture will draw him in to tell us why Hodges hubby is not a fatcat judge…and this would be independent of Labours lovely laws re yuman rites.
Where are F4J and their handcuffs when you need them?
I would have thought that caring/sharing housing associations would have been doing the utmost to protect their weak and vulnerable tenants. Why don’t they reduce their rents to match any reduction in government housing benefit. The caring/sharing housing organisations should absorb any rent losses by sacking the diversity worker, the diversity workers assistant, and any other supernumaries.
After all the prime role of the caring/sharing housing associations is to help the weak and vulnerable, and not use them as cannon fodder is some class war fantasy.
I look forward to Edward Mair raising this point in an aggressive-I-take-no-prisoners confrontation with Hodge or some other leftist clone.
Thanks for letting us know you don’t agree with Margaret Hodge.
There is no other substance to this than that.
‘the BBC then presents as the agreed view of the PAC?’
where was that again?
Translate please.
Buddha
Try reading the headline of the BBC piece – “Mps …….” – clearly referring to the Public Accounts Committee.
The piece then spends much of its space spouting Hodge’s personal views.
Time was, the PAC was the senior Committee of the House of Commons. Its Chairman was generally above the political fray – the task of the PAC was forensic assessment of public spending. Working with the National Audit Office. It would report on all this to the Commons – and the Chairman would usually present the report to the House. Hearings of the PAC are in public – but the Chairman did not usually seek media publicity in the way that Hodge does.
The Chairman was not a party operative pushing political attacks. I want to know what the PAC thinks. I do not want Hodge abusing her position as Chairman by purporting to speak for the Committee – in the same way that Keith Vaz does, another Labour person on the BBC’s Rolodex.
But then – Hodge and Vaz are “nasty pieces of work”
I took the point to be that the BBC due to their consistent pro-labour bias, give Hodge the dodge a free ride.
I think,saving your permission,that’s the case.
However I’m not clear whether you think that isn’t the the case or that they are right to do.
The headline refers to “MPs”, plural, and no other individual MPs are quoted. This implies that Hodge represents the agreed view of other MPs as well? Which ones?
The committee said this placed “greater responsibility on the Department to react quickly when the changes are made”.
Which is then followed by more statements from Hodge to support it. This does imply it’s the view of the PAC. It could be the view of the entire PAC, or Hodge’s statements are being presented as such. Never mind that the entire article is essentially an advocacy piece for one side of the issue.
She was on yesterday blaming the coalition for not anticipating the ‘baby boom’ which will result in a shortage of primary school places next year.
Now let’s see….when would those children have been born? And what was Labour spending the education capital budget on at the time (secondary schools and colleges is the answer)?
That’s leaving aside the biggest elephant in the room and the cause of the ‘baby boom’ – Labour’s mass immigration policy.
Still, they can spout this shite safe in the knowledge they won’t be challenged by the likes of Eddie Mair, Labour’s rottweiler in chief.
The MPs are those on the committee. Hodge is chair.
MPs, MPs, MPs:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/housing-benefit-bill-mps-warn-that-bedroom-tax-will-hit-poorest-8549132.html
http://www.politics.co.uk/news/2013/03/26/not-rational-mps-scathing-over-dwp-s-housing-benefit-clampdo
http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/public-accounts-committee/news/housing-benefit-report/
Sick of seeing opposition M.P.s on the box in posiotions of power, Hodge and Vaz never off the screen with their self important persona’s.
what’s going to cause rent arrears and homelessness is the fact that the tenants are going to receive the housing benefit directly as part of the universal credit, already trials are showing great increses in arrears as tenants decide to spend this money on things other than rent!
The recent changes are aimed at those in council/social housing and catch up with those made by Labour for tenants in private housing.
It has always been the case that private tenants (including those in social housing run by charities) could chose between paying their rent and, say, smoking fags. They were paid by cheque or bank transfer.
For council house tenants, who are the majority of those affected by this change, there is no difference to what has happened before as their benefit never leaves the councils bank account – they merely get a monthly credit on their bill.
So there won’t be that many tenants choosing between food or rent this time round. That’s just Labour lies.
“For council house tenants, who are the majority of those affected by this change, there is no difference to what has happened before as their benefit never leaves the councils bank account – they merely get a monthly credit on their bill.”
This may be the case in England but not in Scotland where all council’s are anticipating a rise in rent arrears in council, housing association and privately rented sector’s.
As Local authorities have a statutory obligation to house those who are homeless it is likely that they will also have to deal with those evicted from the private sector.
What does this have to do with BBC bias?
For the life of me I cannot understand why the self destructive Cameron wants to pay benefits monthly and pay rents to claimants not landlords. The whole point of paying landlords was because everyone knew that claimants couldn’t be trusted to pay rents when given the money.
Perhaps it’s the tiny amount of money to be saved from fewer payments, but then again it might be some kind of cleansing of the housing stock of the fools who fail to pay.
Why the bBC has failed to comment on this is beyond me, Camerons weak excuse that it’s to teach claimants how to budget is risible.
Does Hodge speak for all those on this committee?
Well, the report was issued by the committee as a whole, not Hodge – and its release on the House of Commons website includes the recorded minutes where the committee as a whole agreed the report and approved it for publication.
So I’d say that Hodge, in her position as chair, is perfectly entitled to represent the committee when discussing the contents and conclusions of that report.