The changes to Housing Benefit payments introduced by Labour were an attempt to mitigate the profiteering from private landlords and were only introduced if and when someone moved into a privately rented property. Unlike the Bedroom Tax that was introduced retrospectively, irrespective of whether there were any suitably smaller properties for a tenant to move to. Hence the absolutely farcical situation where some tenants have moved out of council and housing association properties, into smaller privately-owned properties at an increased rent and thereby, an increased level of HB

care to point out any inaccuracies?

Care to point out the accuracies?

All of it

Now carry on, or will you do a runner from this thread? The same as you have on the Rotherham thread?

Where are the accuracies in what you said on the Labour introduction of the bedroom tax?

Labour did not introduce a bedroom tax, they introduced a cap on housing benefit that was not applied retrospectively. The cap only came into force whwn a new application for HB in the privte-rented sector was required.

The tories came up with the bedroom tax, a far more accurate description than their spare room subsidy.

The LHA was a needs based system, which is exactly the same as the 'bedroom tax'. Size of property & number of rooms according to actual need.

Remarkably tenants who did move were allowed to keep the difference between what they were paid in housing benefits & what they paid to their landlord. So their was no actual saving on the benefits bill.

Not for the first time, you appear to be comparing apples with oranges again

Both policies were about resource allocation. The right number of rooms being allocated on the basis of actual need.

How much Labour saved on the benefits bill by allowing tenants to keep any reduction in rent they achieved from their 'profiteering' private landlords?

How many people actually moved home as a result of the LHA?