This depressed me hugely when I read it:

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7227667.stm

Aside from the fact that it's totally unworkable in practice, it's hard to remember that this is supposed to be a LABOUR government.

Can you imagine their howls and protests if the Tories had tried to introduce this into the legislature 20 years ago?

But "New" Labour seem happy to turn the clock back 150 years.

Or base their social knowledge on that week's episode of Shameless rather than actual experience.

Or perhaps they think that the point of taxes is not to help the poor and unempowered to contribute to society and make something of themselves but to subsidise dodgy building societies and the lifestyles of MPs' Hooray Henry offspring.

Meanwhile in America we have Barack and Hillary and McCain; all talking about the importance of real change and new beginnings.

And this is the best we can do in Britain?

As I say - depressing.

This was never a Labour government - just look at B-Liar (the Tories love him !). It was always a Tory government with red-tinges instead of blue !

As you say - completely unworkable (but when did that ever stop them passing laws?)

Well may sound hard...but I lived with a girl who came from the Homewood estate in Bradford back in the early 90s...and so many of the people living there were workshy to put it bluntly.
Ok forgetting economic factors/social conditioning etc...it does all boil down to lazyness,and the need to have an incentive to get on in life.
Should housing be there for the people who try? Or for those content to live off the others who have to support them by their trying?
Harsh perhaps,but kicking off drug addicts,and the intentional lazy may well be a good idea...just how to stop those in genuine need falling by the wayside?
That is the dilema any legal system will face.
Perhaps downgrading the housing allowance for those who don't try would be an alternative to complete removal,and giving better housing as ana incentive for those who work for minimum wages?

But would they be able to accurately seperate those who are workshy from those who cannot find work for genuine reasons? Everyone is entitled to a roof over their heads. Where do they suggest those who've been made homeless to live? Hostels funded by the taxpayer?

I don't think depriving people of a home is the correct way forward. Nor is putting them into a modern day workhouse. One of the consequences of a free society is that there will always be people wanting an easy ride - not that we have much of a free society anymore. Our society is now based on suspicion, mistrust and the assumption of guilt, and it must surely collapse at some stage.

Btw, ITK, not all Tories loved Tony Blair. I was a member of the Tory party for many years and have no liking for Blair or his policies. I now consider myself without a party because even the Tories are not Tories anymore.

Both the above posts have some merit, but (Solihull Exile) what is the point of evicting someone (with children) when the Council (that evicted them) have a legal duty to subsequently rehouse them?

And, Al, only those with children will be rehoused if made homeless - single people, and couples, will have to fend for themselves (which generally means, if they cannot afford the mortgage then they are unlikely to be able to afford rent - so will be on the streets).

Interesting programme on TV tonight (about 10.30) - "Repossession, Repossession" - which, in the current credit climate might be very interesting.

Shall we watch and then resume the debate?

Actually ITK I suggested downgrading the housing for the workshy,not hostels,or on the streets,and using the better stock of housing as a reward for those struggling by on minimum wage.
That said,it'll be a nightmare to operate,and could easily cost much more than it saves...
My view is quite simple here,in principal there is some merit,but in practice it's almost a non starter.
I too was a tory member for many years...but now no longer feel at home with any mainline party.