Talk:Welfare Reform Act 2012

Politics of the United Kingdom High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sociology Low‑importance

	Society portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Home Living Low‑importance

	Housing portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Home Living, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of home-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Home LivingWikipedia:WikiProject Home LivingTemplate:WikiProject Home Livinghome articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Bedroom tax[edit]

The query "Bedroom tax" at this moment redirects to this page. I understand that the name is controversial, but the redirection is unappropriate. I do not live in the UK and I want a neutral point of view on an expression that appears in newspapers headlines. The redirection is in effect a refusal of service. It tells the user "you don't have to know either what it is or why it is called that way". -- 10:24, 31 March 2013‎ 83.202.60.88

It would be appropriate to greatly expand this article, since it seems to be a widely controversial, has given rise to several protests, etc. AnonMoos (talk) 14:22, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect is warranted if no other article has a claim to that phrase, and is now covered by the lead as an alternative title for a section of the article. If disambiguation is needed, a hatnote here would cover the other uses (or vice versa). I created a section for reception of the law, which is needed to cover the image. Widefox; talk 18:07, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect is fine. "Bedroom tax" is a popular name in the media, but it's pretty inaccurate as (a) it only refers to one part of the legislation and (b) it is technically not a tax anyway. It seems to have been coined by detractors to draw an association with the Poll Tax controversy of the 1990s. The article introduction now contains a neutral explanation of the popular name so there should be no problem understanding the expression.Cnbrb (talk) 15:51, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree this article shouldn't be disproportionately expanded to describe the ramifications of the Bedroom Tax, there may soon be a good case for writing a separate article on it. After all, a national newspaper is running a campaign against it, there has been the early stages of a campaign launch in Scotland and very recent coverage about a suicide related to the tax. After all, "popular... in the media" normally equates to WP:GNG. Sionk (talk) 11:35, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal[edit]

Proposal: merge the content in Bedroom Tax protests into a section on this article.

The reasons are simple -

1) Bedroom Tax protests is essentially a WP:POVFORK carrying only critical opinion of the Act.

2) Bedroom Tax protests is short, and would be even shorter if POV material and WP:SOAPBOX material were removed. The best analogy is to the young children of a pop-star: no need for a separate article.

3) The material on Bedroom Tax protests that qualifies as NPOV almost entirely duplicates what is on this page.

4) Bedroom Tax protests lacks the necessary context that this article would give it.

Votes

Support - as mover FOARP (talk) 13:28, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments section

Comment - The page Bedroom Tax protests appears to be an attempt to allow the POV and inaccurate term "Bedroom Tax" to live on in Wiki in another form, even after it has been abandoned by major media outlets like the BBC, who have thankfully switched to more NPOV terminology. FOARP (talk) 13:28, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since no-one has responded, I'm going to go ahead with merging as per WP:SILENCE FOARP (talk) 08:41, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't got a problem with the merger, but I would disagree that "Bedroom tax" is innaccurate or POV - it is very widely used throughout the national media to refer to the consequences of the Bill. To deny that the term "Bedroom tax" is widely used is POV too. Sionk (talk) 13:54, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge with Welfare Cap[edit]

Proposal to merge Welfare Cap to section Welfare Reform Act 2012#Benefit Cap and redirect. (Similar to above merge):
What started as a WP:POVFORK of Welfare Reform Act 2012#Benefit Cap and now more of a WP:CFORK - not justified by article size of parent for spinout - grow in article first - now the appropriate thing is to merge and redirect. The capitalisation is also wrong - this is not a proper noun and sources use lowercase. This is currently filling out with WP:NOT#NEWS type sources, when it should be grown out of the parent article per WP:SPINOUT. Widefox; talk 17:38, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Reaction and analysis" section[edit]

The section has too many opinions that may be too soon to reflect the long-term effects of the Act itself. Also, Cameron is still the PM, while other party Leaders resigned (id est Milliband and Farage). Is condensation needed, or is the section adequate? If adequate, subheadings are needed. --George Ho (talk) 11:52, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]