Are landlord councillors resorting to illegal antics to enforce Bedroom Tax evictions?

One of the most useful made up words I’ve come across is ‘Democrapologist’. This was coined by an American journalist in the 1970s, and refers to the kind of politician that talks a lot about democracy, but really doesn’t believe in it whatsoever. Judging by this article, it seems that the landlord councillors on Powys council and their friends in the Shires Independent Group are a whole bunch of such people in their efforts to curtail the debate on a ban against the eviction of tenants for non-payment of the ‘Bedroom Tax’. Mike demonstrates that their demands for councillors, who are tenants or know tenants, to withdraw from the debate for the same reason of personal interest by which councillors, who were landlords, were forced to withdraw, is completely invalid. The book ‘Essential Local Government’ states that exemptions can be made to the rules governing debates in which there is a personal interest, such as that allowing councillors, who are tenants, to vote on issues regarding council housing. Once again, in the attempt to block the Labour motion against the eviction of social housing tenants for non-payments of the iniquitous tax, we see Tories’ and their coalition partners’ complete rejection of any kind of compassion or social responsibility. Regarding democrapology, the Tories are full of it.

Mike Sivier's blog

It seems the ruling group of Powys County Council, here in Mid Wales, has challenged the law in its attempts to block a ‘no-eviction’ motion on the Bedroom Tax.

The Labour motion was put forward at a meeting of the full council on October 24. It called on councillors to note the comments of Raquel Rolnik, the UN’s Special Rapporteur on Housing, who said that the Bedroom Tax policy could constitute a violation of the human right to adequate housing, and asked them to pledge that Powys will not evict tenants who fail to pay their rent because of it.

Councillors who are also private landlords were forbidden from speaking or voting on the motion. They have a financial (or pecuniary) interest in the matter as they stand to benefit if social housing tenants are forced to seek accommodation with them as a result of the policy. This meant around…

View original post 456 more words

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.


%d bloggers like this: