That housing benefit controversy

[Hopeless Romantic]

I cannot say that I am entirely happy with the proposed changes to housing benefit and remain concerned at their impact on disabled people in particular. I do find the hysteria generated by Boris Johnston and Labour MPs hard to follow however.

Rent of £400 a week can get you decent accomodation even in Central London. Official figures show that 96 per cent of 642,200 claimants whose handouts will be reduced will face rent shortfalls of £20 a week or less, and 79 per cent of £10 or less. The proposal does not affect the millions of tenants in social housing.

Rather than lose their tenants, the Government expects the vast majority of private landlords to cover the shortfall by making a small reduction in their rents. Nevertheless, there does need to be a bit of a rethink before I am content the Government has got it right.

But the real hypocrisy appears to lie with the Labour Party, who are throwing personal abuse about like confetti and even make the outrageous claim that changes will lead to the 'cleansing' of poor people from the better parts of London.

Some consistency on their part would go a long way because if you look back at their 2010 manifesto, written by the current Leader of the Opposition, Ed Miliband we find this:


'Housing Benefit will be reformed so we do not subsidise people to live in private sector accomodation on rents working families couldn't afford'


That is of course the purpose of the Coalition's reforms, so what are Labour on about and how can they square their inflammatory language with their own manifesto commitment?

http://peterblack.blogspot.com/2010/10/that-housing-benefit-controversy.html

[TheBigotBasher]

1. The cap and the reduction to the 30th percentile are the wrong areas to look at.

LHA became so expensive because the broad market rental areas were too big. In the Shires it forced up the rents of the outskirts but those in the main towns (eg Oxford) did not have their rent covered.

It was badly implemented by Labour, who took a simple solution and made it ridiculously complicated.

I'm glad I didn't vote as none of the three Parties have proven themselves to be worthy of anything.

These are just some of the issues at stake:

The sick will be hit hard. It is proposed that after a year Employment Support Allowance becomes a means tested benefit. It is not clear whether they will retain the long-term additions that are awarded after the assessment period has ended or whether it will resort back to being the standard income based level of £65 per week. If it simply resorts back to the Income Based Level of ESA, those who are seriously ill and unavailable for work could find their incomes drop by one-third.

The coalition also wants to cap the maximum benefit that can be paid to a family. While the Universal income is being phased in, Local Councils will be expected to implement the cap. The cap is effectively a restriction on the numbers of children a family in receipt of benefits can have.

The proposal is that from 2013 the total benefit paid will not exceed £500 per week for families (including lone parents) and £350 per week for a single adult households. It is supposed to ensure that no family can receive more in benefit payments than the median after tax earnings for working households. It exempts claimants in receipt of Disability Living Allowance, War Widows benefits and families claiming working tax credits.

Local Councils will be expected to implement the cap when claimants apply for Housing and Council Tax Benefits.

The applicable amount (the minimum amount that the government expects someone to live on) is £350.43 for a couple with 3 children, calculated using 2010/11 figures. That means that their maximum Housing Benefit would be £149.57 per week. Have another child, the benefit you get to pay your rent falls.

The solution appears obvious – if you can not get a full-time job get a part-time job and claim tax credits. That option is however also facing the axe. As of now, Working Tax Credits are currently paid to those working 16 hours or more. From 2014/15 Working Tax Credits will only be paid to those working 24 hours a week (total savings £390 million per year). If you are in a couple those 24 hours can be split but one of the couple must work at least 16 hours and the level of child care subsidy will be reduced from its current 80% to 70% (saving £385 million per year).

So families with 3 children will need to move to an area with rents below £150 per week. The problem, there are very few areas with rents for 3 bedroom houses available at or below £150 per week – even using the new maximum levels of Housing Benefit that the Government wants to set.

http://thebigotbasher.com/2010/10/30/the-real-impact-of-the-coalition-benefit-cuts/

It is clear that the Department of Work and Pensions and the Treasury gave Ministers a series of options, some left over from the Labour administration, about which benefits to cut. The Coalition in all of their newness and in their desire to meet the targets of Osborne accepted the lot without any real thought to the implications.

[LeftishBrit]

2. Peter Black lives in Wales, where presumably housing is less expensive...

I don't think he fully recognizes how difficult it is to get affordable housing in Oxford or London.

There may be *some* housing available at a rent of £400 in central London - but enough for all who need it? I don't think so.

In any case, it is perfectly true that Labour moved far to the right, ganged up with right-wingers, and betrayed its voters. But that is not an excuse for the LibDems doing so as well. 'If Tony jumped off a bridge, would you do so too, Nick?' 'Yes!' Not inspiring, either for New Labour, or for 'New Lib Dems'.

(Glad to note that at least Mr. Black *does* want some rethinking, at least about the effect on disabled people - though I doubt that he has much influence on the matter.)

[TheBigotBasher]

3. I love the irony of the anti cuts video on his blog.

http://www.southwaleslibdems.org.uk/

Wales meets the Teabaggers.