Complex, confusing and impenetrable: no wonder ‘abolition of the spare room subsidy’ has not caught on

If it is true that “whoever controls the language, controls the debate”, then the bedroom tax is doomed. Why? Because it is called the “bedroom tax” and not the “abolition of the spare room subsidy”.

This week the expression “bedroom tax” became one of the Oxford Dictionaries “Words of the Year” – up there with such words vital to modern existence as “selfie”, “twerk” and “binge-watch” (as in obsessively consuming the latest series of Homeland in one sitting). The “abolition of the spare room subsidy” was nowhere on the list – or anyone else’s list of memorable phrases that trip lightly off the tongue. Indeed, if it is a matter of branding, one wonders what the government was thinking when the words “abolition of the spare room subsidy” first slithered off the tongue of their originator, flopped to the floor and lay there slimy, quivering and unloved.

The “bedroom tax” is clear and to the point and fits nicely in headlines (one reason you won’t find “abolition of the spare room subsidy” in the main headline above). It is also wholly misleading – which is why its almost universal adoption is such a coup for those who oppose the … er … bedroom tax.

This is a neat case of the Tories being hoist by their own petard. Since the Thatcher era “tax” has been a dirty word, unmitigated by communitarian notions of gathering funds for the public good. That’s why the Conservative government was so enraged when its cosy, touchy-feely “community charge” (introduced in 1989) was immediately labelled a “poll tax”. They lost control of the language, lost the debate and finally had to abolish it.

This time they were caught on the back foot; they didn’t even think to “brand” the new policy under a misleadingly appealing title. The legislation that brought it in is headed, none too racily, “Determination of a maximum rent (social sector)” and simply explains the new policy without giving it a name.

Hence it has no official title as such, though it is sometimes called the “under-occupancy penalty” as here in this (official) Hansard record. This again has unpleasant connotations – in some senses a penalty is worse than a tax, connoting a punishment for a transgression.

Oxford Dictionaries traces “bedroom tax” back to 2011. The Mirror said on 9 December: “Nearly 150,000 families will lose up to £1,400 a year under the proposed council house spare bedroom tax.” The next day the Yorkshire Evening Post had the headline: ” ‘Bedroom tax’ threat to struggling Leeds families”.

Once it caught on the phrase was doubtless seen for what it was – a dangerous threat to the whole policy. Much midnight oil must have been burnt by policy wonks to ponder an alternative and many emails sent to ensure everyone was on message. But it didn’t work. We all know it’s the bedroom tax, so Tory housing minister Lady Hanham couldn’t help herself on 24 July, saying: “My Lords, there is no evidence of the bedroom tax having affected homelessness.”.

Even those proponents of the bedroom tax who got the message nevertheless stumble over the authorised terminology. The New Statesman points to a Tory press release that says the “spare room subsidy” is “opposed by Labour”. This suggests the government has kindly initiated a subsidy for all those spare rooms their social tenants have – and that Labour opposes said subsidy. (It should be said that others, including the Guardian, have made this mistake.)

So, let us be clear. “Abolition of the spare room subsidy” is not the official designation for the policy. There is no such official designation. The phrase “abolition of the spare room subsidy” is just as misleading as “bedroom tax”.

There is no “subsidy” for people to live in more bedrooms than they need, so no “subsidy” to abolish. Instead it is a cut in housing benefit for those in social housing (local authority or housing association) with surplus bedrooms (as defined by the calculation in the regulations – which assumes up to two children per bedroom unless they are aged 10 or above and of different sex).

The reasons they have such “spare” bedrooms vary. In some cases children have left; in others the “oversized” homes may have been allocated to the tenants in the first place, because of a mismatch of sizes of home compared with demand. Whatever the reason, the benefit is cut and people have to find the shortfall from other resources.

The order outlining the changes to benefit legislation required to bring in the new system runs to 431 words. That’s just the amendments, not the legislation in full. It’s complex, confusing and impenetrable for any tenant wondering what they are due to pay. No wonder everyone just calls it the bedroom tax.

Media: Mind your language | theguardian.com http://www.theguardian.com/media/mind-your-language/2013/nov/22/mind-your-language-bedroom-tax