Bolitics The New Condem Government

[Gringo]

Today every working person in Britain is paying almost £700 a year for housing benefit

surely that figure is bollocks?

It better be...

If it is bollocks then no doubt we'll hear about that in the press tomorrow.

It's just abusing statistics really. Not all tax is paid by a "working person". Lots of people who don't work still buy goods, pay tax, companies pay corporation tax, even buying and selling shares will see you pay tax. And of course, not everyone pays tax at an equal level - so to say that "every working person in Britain is paying almost £700 a year for housing benefit" is in fact, bollex.

[kidlewis]

any party in power produces these bull shit statistics, and the party in opposition wanks out these figures left right and center to suit their personal vendettas.

The fact is the whole housing and welfare system in this country is failing even with huge increases in the amounts people get. I think the benefit system and it's cost to the taxpayer annually needs to reduce, because it's not sorted the problems out.

i'd rather take out a few hundred million from it and invest it into affordable housing.

For you finance chaps out there, what is to stop the government opening up their own mortgage department for people on low incomes (say £17k or less) where people on that income or less manages to save up a deposit for a shared ownership scheme or even a house of say £100k, can offer those people a mortgage at just above base rate (currently that would say be a mortgage at 1%).

what stops them offering people who are claiming LHA or living in a poor area, the chance to move out?

that would mean their mortgage repayments would be nearly half what they would be if they got a mortgage with an average interest fixed rate mortgage (roughly 4-5.5%)

with the shared ownership scheme this potentially means they could take up a 40% ownership and potentially down the line purchase a property they could never dream of, due to private banks interest rates.

for the banks left this recession is the best thing to ever happen to them. you watch.

[Gringo]

How about just building council houses that provide decent living space, a regular return on the investment in terms of rent and not flogging them off. As mentioned on previous pages, the state of housing benefits costs lead directly back to the 80's sale of council housing

[TrentVilla]

How about just building council houses that provide decent living space, a regular return on the investment in terms of rent and not flogging them off. As mentioned on previous pages, the state of housing benefits costs lead directly back to the 80's sale of council housing

Because that would mean large investment for a long term social and economic benefit and while it makes sense I think the current signs are that the current government isn't about either of these things.

[Awol]

How about just building council houses that provide decent living space, a regular return on the investment in terms of rent and not flogging them off. As mentioned on previous pages, the state of housing benefits costs lead directly back to the 80's sale of council housing

I think the coalition gov have plans to build 150,000 affordable homes in the next few years but they are focusing the majority of capital investment on infrastructure.

You may be right about the self off in the 80's but the following figures are worth noting:

Total number of local authority homes built in the ten years from 1998 to 2007 under T. Blair - 3,590

Total number of local authority homes built in the ten years from 1980 to 1989 under M. Thatcher - 392,090

The Tories built over 100 times more social housing during the 80's than Labour did under Blair.

Is it really all her fault?

[TrentVilla]

Interesting figures to be sure Awol and its certainly not all Thatchers fault. I would though be interested to see how many local authority homes were sold during those two periods? I would also like to see what the overall totals of local authority homes were in those two periods. Because while those figures you provide are interesting they don't I suspect tell the full story.

[TrentVilla]

The policy was massively popular, and served a number of ideological purposes for the Conservatives. Spreading home ownership - at the time, regarded as a critical part of individuals' economic self-sufficiency - Right to Buy also diminished the responsibilities and size of local authorities. Around 55 per cent of properties were inhabited by owner-occupiers in 1979: by 2003, this figure was 70 per cent.

In 1982, Right to Buy sales hit an all-time peak of over 240,000, and in 1984 the available discounts were increased. In 1985, Labour abandoned its opposition to the policy. 1989 saw sales exceed 200,000 for the second time. Between 1979 and 1995, 2.1 million properties were transferred from the public sector under Right to Buy.

Here

[Gringo]

The Tories built over 100 times more social housing during the 80's than Labour did under Blair.

Doesn't surpise me in the slightest - nulab did not roll back anything thatch introduced (apart from linking the pensions to the average wage - which will come in in 2012? - 15 years after gaining power)

Is it really all her fault?

She => Thatcherism. All the govts since her have followed her principles.

[Awol]

2.1 million? That's a lot! Interesting that Labour dropped their opposition though and at that time in particular,the miners had just lost the strike in 1985 and militant tendency were being a pain in the arse. As the policy was so popular with the public maybe they thought there was no sense in going against the grain when Labour had so many other problems?

[TrentVilla]

It is interesting that Labour dropped opposition and I'm not sure why to be honest. It could have been because it proved so bloody popular, it could have been they had a change of stance for economic, political or ideological reasons or simply as you suggest because they had other problems.

It does though put a very different slant on the previously produced figures in relation to the numbers build though doesn't it.

[drat01]

I see that a deflection to talk about Labour has been trawled out again, rather than discussing the point in hand here.

Ash - the figures that Jon produced are a political stats dream, but as you rightly point out do not tell anywhere near the full picture. This Gvmt were elected, OK they were not elected they are a bastardisation of two parties but that is now a side point, on the idea that they would be fair and all this "in it together" bollox that they announce. Today we hear about Cameron and his frankly disgusting claims on expenses, given the stance he is taking now, obviously though he is not part of the "we" he keeps bleating on about.

Council houses were snapped up under Thatcher as quickly as Take That tickets were on Friday. But for the council houses it was a ridiculously cheap offer with little done in respect of adding to the council housing in those areas. Again it was a idealogical scheme using the same principles we see now from Cameron and the rest of the ConDem's. It was a vote winner because many saw it as a windfall, a get rich quick scheme, but in the long term it has proven to be a massive problem and we are now really seeing the impact of such a scheme.

There is no clear policy from this Gvmt that helps the people who really need this. There is a whole series of headline's which typically are nothing more that distortions from the reality but pander to what certain elements in the media especially want to pump out.

[kidlewis]

How about just building council houses that provide decent living space, a regular return on the investment in terms of rent and not flogging them off. As mentioned on previous pages, the state of housing benefits costs lead directly back to the 80's sale of council housing

well the homebuy scheme is a half way house.

you construct housing which would be affordable to buy, with tenants option of buying 40-60% initially then the OPTION of purchasing in 5 years time or more.

rents for the other portion could be £80-£120 a month, on top of a mortgage,

however there are loads of people who could afford to buy a house but the banks keep interest rates for them at 5% plus when the base rate is **** all.

our mortgage at the height of the boom on fixed was 6.29 when the base rate was 4.5%.

the banks are literally extracting monetary urine from us, to pay us (the government) back.

the government knows the banks are too powerful and don't have the balls to do anything, I am sure if they said they would offer low income families the opportunity to get a mortgage at 1 above the base rate, there would be plenty more people getting on the housing ladder.

It would also free up more rental properties because at the moment that is what most people are doing, because it's too expensive to buy at the moment, largely due to the interest rates banks have on mortgages.

I bet the bosses of the banks masturbate over their profit margins ever night.

[snowychap]

Snowy, if the landlords - as the article suggests - lower their rents marginally in order to keep the tennants on board, then hopefully very few will lose out as a result and the taxpayer makes a considerable and necessary saving?

IF.

What is the source of this hope?

As the article actually says:

Rather than lose their tenants, the Government expects the vast majority of private landlords...

So the government expects? How has it come to those conclusions?

I think we need to put this in the same basket as Gordo's 'aspirations'.

In that paper that I linked there is quite a good look at the supply side angle of what might happen. It's worth a read.

Edit:

And back to the £10/£20 per week - I think that it's rather telling that the thinking in the coalition is that landlords will accept lower rents. Implicit in that thinking is an acceptance that those people whose HB is reduced by this 'mere' tenner or so won't be able to fund the shortfall themselves. Now I would agree with them on that - often because those people are already funding a shortfall - but I find it telling nonetheless.

Also, this is only the initial impact of the reduction to the 30th percentile. The analysis on what is quite likely to happen (should the pace of rent increases and CPI continue loosely on their current paths) in subsequent years would suggest that worse will be to come.

I'm not sure about the whole 'social cleansing' hoohah - I think there may have been a slight possibility that there would be the odd exodus or two (gentrification they used to call it, I believe) but I would posit that it is unlikely to be the case on the level that some have suggested as there will be a few softeners (already bits of them apparent with the emergency funding). What I see happening is something more gradual and more invidious: that over time those people in receipt of this benefit (and let's remember how many of those may well have fully paid their 'dues', may well be pensioners, people working on very low incomes, carers, &c. - so, a lot who 'play by the rules' as per Cleggle's terms) will see themselves inched out to the peripheries in every area (not necessarily the physical periphery but down to the very bottom of the rental market); they won't be able to afford social housing even if they were to qualify for it because the new level of intermediate rents will be higher than this bottom rate LHA amount, and then the universal credit will be introduced which will lump all benefit recipients together (though the pensioners might well be kept separate as a trump card) and make them even easier to demonize as a single, homogenous group.

Oops, that edit turned into a mini-essay. Sos.

[snowychap]

I think the coalition gov have plans to build 150,000 affordable homes in the next few years but they are focusing the majority of capital investment on infrastructure.

Do they? Or do they have a hope that their changes to social housing rules will mean that this happens?

[Awol]

I see that a deflection to talk about Labour has been trawled out again, rather than discussing the point in hand here.

Who is the MOD here, you or Ash?

Today we hear about Cameron and his frankly disgusting claims on expenses, given the stance he is taking now,

What stance? Link?

Council houses were snapped up under Thatcher as quickly as Take That tickets were on Friday. But for the council houses it was a ridiculously cheap offer with little done in respect of adding to the council housing in those areas.

Given Thatcher's evil scheme to turn council house tenants into home owners, what did the heroic socialists do between 1997 - 2010 to help reverse this dastardly policy? What's that, "nothing at all"? Saviour of the working class Labour were...

It was a vote winner because many saw it as a windfall, a get rich quick scheme,

Funny, but quite a few of my friends parents brought their council houses when I was a kid and they still live there now. Not exactly a "get rich quick" attitude.

What is the source of this hope?

.....

So the government expects? How has it come to those conclusions?

I assume these are rhetorical questions and you don't actually expect me to be able to answer you?

[PauloBarnesi]

Harriet calls Danny a ginger rodent

Much though I think Danny Alexander is a pretty poor excuse for a politician let alone a human being, Harman's comments are a pretty disgraceful way to 'conduct' political discourse.

The lectern at which she was speaking had on it something like '...because Scotland deserves better' - well it certainly deserves better than that, Harriet, and so do we all.

I think Ed needs to get a grip of his frontbench. The comment this week don’t exactly provide a credible base for the opposition.

Did seem to be a rather personal attack, from the woman who tries too hard to prove her credentials.

Anyway she’s apologised

Harriet Harman says 'ginger rodent' comment was wrong

Click to play

Click to play

Labour deputy leader Harriet Harman was speaking at her party's Scottish conference.

Deputy Labour leader Harriet Harman has apologised for branding Chief Treasury Secretary Danny Alexander a "ginger rodent".

Ms Harman - a former equalities minister - made the comments at the Scottish Labour conference in Oban.

Continue reading the main story

Scottish Labour Conference 2010

Brian Taylor's blog

Douglas Fraser's blog

Iain Gray: 'I am ready to serve'

Miliband: 'Fightback has begun'

A spokeswoman said later that Ms Harman admitted the comments were wrong and she had now "apologised personally by telephone to Danny Alexander".

Mr Alexander wrote on Twitter that he was "proud to be ginger".

The Lib Dem MP for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey added that "rodents do valuable work cleaning up mess others leave behind".

In her speech, Ms Harman said many people who voted Lib Dem in May "believed that they were a progressive anti-Tory party".

She said they "woke up" after the coalition deal to see Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg with Tory prime minister David Cameron in the rose garden of Number 10 Downing Street.

The deputy Labour leader said there was "incredulity" at seeing Mr Alexander, a Scottish MP, becoming "the front-man for the Tory cuts".

Danny Alexander is a Lib Dem MP in the north of Scotland

"Now, many of us in the Labour Party are conservationists - and we all love the red squirrel," Ms Harman said.

"But there is one ginger rodent which we never want to see again - Danny Alexander."

Ms Harman went on to attack Mr Alexander's other party colleagues north of the border, telling delegates: "There's something deeply unnatural that's happened in Scotland.

"Without asking anyone in Scotland, the government has been carrying out a programme of genetic modification - political genetic modification.

"This mutation has contaminated every Lib Dem councillor, it's affected every Lib Dem MP and Lib Dem MSP.

"They've all mutated into something alien to Scotland - Tories."

Ms Harman said: "There's only one thing left to do - these political mutants must be got rid of next May at the ballot box."

She insisted Labour had learned the lessons of its general election defeat.

Continue reading the main story

Related stories

People get red-dy

Ms Harman said the Scottish Parliament election will send a signal to the UK government - "it is the beginning of the end".

Mr Alexander later wrote on Twitter: "Red squirrel deserves to survive, unlike Labour."

Scottish Liberal Democrat election chairman, George Lyon, said: "There are no depths to which the Labour Party will not stoop.

"They aren't fit to be in opposition, let alone in government."

[snowychap]

What is the source of this hope?

.....

So the government expects? How has it come to those conclusions?

I assume these are rhetorical questions and you don't actually expect me to be able to answer you?

Unless you have become privy to the thoughts behind the machinations of those in government then yes, they were rather rhetorical.

[rjw63]

What's so bad about "ginger rodent"?

;-)

[leviramsey]

And on the point of Lib Dem MSPs "mutating into" Tories, it would seem to be that in areas where one of the Tory or Labour brand is toxic that people who lean toxic vote Lib Dem (e.g. Merseyside, where, as bicks reported in this or another thread, the Lib Dem councilors are effectively the Tories and various rural areas of England largely untouched by industrial class conflict where Labour is nonexistent so anyone who's left of the Tories tends to go Lib Dem or Green).

[peterms]

Here's an interesting photo.

It seems Ms May has popped in in her way to a Star Trek convention, while Mr Cameron has accepted a challenge to impersonate a bag of flour. Or Bernard Ingham, if there's a difference.

Who says our leaders lack a sense of humour?