Housing Benefit Cuts?

[Dandyman]

With even Bonkers Johnson (and Tim Loughton) warning about "social cleansing" resulting from Housing Benefit cuts where do the good people of NSC stand on the latest ConDem initiative?


Housing benefit cap plan will backfire, ministers told | Society | The Guardian


Government housing reforms were under attack on multiple fronts as council home associations predicted they would backfire by driving up overall welfare bills and Boris Johnson warned against "Kosovo-style social cleansing" of poorer people from cities such as London.

Downing Street moved to squash growing ministerial dissent by signalling there would be no retreat from the biggest shake-up to social housing since the welfare state was created, with a series of radical changes to rents and savage cuts to the budget for building new homes.

Last week George Osborne, the chancellor, announced that the housing budget for England would be cut from £8.4bn over the previous three-year period to £4.4bn over the next four years with any new properties being built by "massively increasing" rent to up to 80% of the market rate.

But the National Housing Federation, which represents housing associations, says the scheme would increase welfare bills as most tenants charged the new rates would have their rents paid for through housing benefit.

The federation says that in areas where rents are already high, such as the London boroughs of Camden, Hackney and Haringey, many tenants moving into new social homes would face bills of £340 per week for a three-bedroom property. Even if people could get a job, their earnings would disappear in high rent repayments.

This would mean they "would have to earn at least £54,000 before they could get off housing benefit and be in a position where they could keep the bulk of their additional salary and find themselves better off in work".

The changes, including the removal of lifetime tenure for council tenants, are designed to ease the pressures on social housing, with 1.8m households on the waiting list for a subsidised home – almost double the number since the Tories were last in government in 1997.

David Orr, chief executive of the National Housing Federation, said: "Because it is based on near-market rents, the new funding model will trap thousands of tenants in welfare dependency because they will simply not be able to earn enough money to pay for their homes without the support of housing benefit – which means the benefit bill for new low-cost housing will go through the roof."

He warned "the government's strategy will turn the traditional understanding of what constitutes social housing on its head by creating a system based around high rents and short-term tenancies. Ministers need urgently to rethink their plans and give housing associations the flexibility to respond to the growing housing crisis in the most effective manner possible."

The coalition has been under pressure for days over accompanying changes to housing benefit, designed to cut £2.5bn from public spending. The changes include a 10% drop in housing benefits for those out of work for more than a year and new caps of up to £400 a week for the largest homes.

Tonight the housing minister, Grant Shapps, insisted the government was not insensitive to concerns being put forward by housing groups. "I think that every family who has to move for whatever reason, that is somebody's life being deeply affected, I absolutely recognise that," he said an interview with the Guardian.

"Just because you are on housing benefit, that shouldn't give you the ability to live somewhere, where if you are working and not on benefit you can't. We'd all love to live in different areas, but I can't afford to live on x street in y location. The housing benefit system has almost created an expectation that you could almost live anywhere, and that's what has to stop."

Downing Street has moved swiftly to smother dissent over how the welfare bill is being slashed as the government tries to narrow its record budget deficit.

Johnson, the Conservative London mayor, had expressed concern about the possible effects of government plans to reduce social-housing subsidies, a step that may force people on low incomes to move to areas where rents are cheaper.

"The last thing we want to have in our city is a situation such as Paris where the less well-off are pushed out to the suburbs," Johnson told BBC London. "What we will not see and we will not accept is any kind of Kosovo-style social cleansing of London."

The business secretary, Vince Cable, said Johnson's language was "ludicrously inflammatory", while the prime minister's spokesman said: "The prime minister doesn't agree with what Boris Johnson has said or indeed the way he said it. He thinks the policy is the right one and he doesn't agree with the way [he] chose his words." Johnson later insisted he had been quoted "out of context".

His views were echoed in less lurid language by the children's minister, Tim Loughton, who stressed he was not criticising the reforms, but said they were "very real concerns about poorer families being forced out of central London into the outer boroughs and I think that's a very legitimate concern".

 

[Pot noodles for everyone]

Don't know enough about it and don't care enough to find out.

I blame Ben Thatcher.

 

[Tooting Gull]

I see. So the famously pinko, muesli-munching, sandal-wearing, sun-dried-tomato-eating, woolly-minded liberal that is, err, Conservative London mayor Boris Johnson thinks these ConDem charlatans are shafting the poor and about to create ghettos. I think he might be right.

 

[Mellor 3 Ward 4]

But can paying £1600.00 per month in Housing Benefit be right?

 

[beorhthelm]

ghetto: a section of a city, esp. a thickly populated slum area, inhabited predominantly by members of an ethnic or other minority group, often as a result of social or economic restrictions, pressures, or hardships.

Dictionary.com Unabridged

so its hardly going to create this problem, rather the opposite.

and why exactly is this even a problem. as i understand it, its a peculiarity of the UK that the inner residential areas of our cities are the place of the poor. i dont believe that it will really change much anyway, not in the wholesale way its being presented.

for perspective £400pw is £1600pm. thats a lot even in London and would only impact a few boroughs there and in other cities. no one against it is explaining why should we subsidise the unemployed to live in expensive accomodation, while middle income people cannot afford to live there - ironically then having to commute from cheaper areas? doesnt make alot of sence does it?

 

[Hatterlovesbrighton]

One change I totally agreed with was increasing the limit at which you get your own place, if you are single, from 25 to 35. That seems much more in line with what happens in the unsubsudised world.

While there are going to be problems around the edges why should people be garaunteed a place to live where they want, with no regard to the cost.

Me and my wife are looking to buy a house to raise a family in and while we would love to stay in Hove, there is no way we could afford to buy a house there, so will have to move away. Why should that be different for people who rely on the state to house them?

 

[User removed 4]

Dictionary.com Unabridged

so its hardly going to create this problem, rather the opposite.

and why exactly is this even a problem. as i understand it, its a peculiarity of the UK that the inner residential areas of our cities are the place of the poor. i dont believe that it will really change much anyway, not in the wholesale way its being presented.

for perspective £400pw is £1600pm. thats a lot even in London and would only impact a few boroughs there and in other cities. no one against it is explaining why should we subsidise the unemployed to live in expensive accomodation, while middle income people cannot afford to live there - ironically then having to commute from cheaper areas? doesnt make alot of sence does it?

Spot on,and Boris is doing a bit of electioneering with his statements,thats all.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

One change I totally agreed with was increasing the limit at which you get your own place, if you are single, from 25 to 35. That seems much more in line with what happens in the unsubsudised world.

While there are going to be problems around the edges why should people be garaunteed a place to live where they want, with no regard to the cost.

Me and my wife are looking to buy a house to raise a family in and while we would love to stay in Hove, there is no way we could afford to buy a house there, so will have to move away. Why should that be different for people who rely on the state to house them?

Well, you have the choice to either move away or look into council housing if you wish to stay here and raise a family. If you have ties to this area you will get priority over a family which does not. So, for all your comments about people being treated differently, you can join them if you choose to....although you might have to wait a while.

 

[Leekbrookgull]

Let me guess,is Boris vote catching ? No doubt 'Red Ken' will have plenty to say.

 

[sten_super]

Well, you have the choice to either move away or look into council housing if you wish to stay here and raise a family. If you have ties to this area you will get priority over a family which does not. So, for all your comments about people being treated differently, you can join them if you choose to....although you might have to wait a while.

So does it come down to the role that social housing has? From what you've written above, I'd infer that you see it as a right for an individual to have a house supplied to them in their chosen area by the state. I am of completely the opposite viewpoint, that social housing should be a last resort for those that have no way of providing themselves with housing. If it is this last resort, then they should have to, if necessary, move to an area outside of where they currently live, as they have no other choice.

 

[Hatterlovesbrighton]

Well, you have the choice to either move away or look into council housing if you wish to stay here and raise a family. If you have ties to this area you will get priority over a family which does not. So, for all your comments about people being treated differently, you can join them if you choose to....although you might have to wait a while.

I very much doubt that I would qualify for any housing benefit.

 

[redneb]

The root problem with all of this is that this country has a culture of laziness. There are just too many people who take but dont want to give and I fear for the sake of my chidren what this means for those who are willing to give.

The level of personal debt here is ludicrous compared to other European counterparts. People want their Playstation, widescreen TV, laptop, iPad etc and they buy it, whether they can afford it or not. People dont work because they dont have to. People dont pay for their own housing coz they dont want to (and dont have to). We have created a culture where people take what they want for nothing and I'm sick of it.

Whether we need these cuts to reduce the deficit or dont, what Cameron is trying to do is make people accountable for their own actions (or lack of them) and reward those who have the right attitude, maybe the attitude that will make this country one to be proud of.

 

[Barrel of Fun]

Social housing is important.

I can see the viewpoint of someone who thinks that a person/family do not have a right to stay in an area if they can ill afford to do so. However, it is important that a city/town/village retains an identity and local people should not be forced out.

One does not want to end up with social cleansing and 'ghettos' of low earners. Social inclusion has benefits.

However, some figures do take the piss a bit and the bill is huge. There are plenty of cases of people getting far too much assistance when it is not necessarily required and houses unsuitable for the occupants (ie spare bedrooms etc). I used to work in social housing from the building of to the provision of.

As an aside, we would do well to unlock all the empty properties all over the nation.

 

[Uncle C]

I have a reality check to see of something would be tolerated if introduced from scratch today, rather than having evolved through time.

So the proposal would be to take unemployed families, move them into some of the most expensive housing in the UK and give them £20,000 each per month to be paid for by tax payers.

Ehhh I dont think so.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

So does it come down to the role that social housing has? From what you've written above, I'd infer that you see it as a right for an individual to have a house supplied to them in their chosen area by the state. I am of completely the opposite viewpoint, that social housing should be a last resort for those that have no way of providing themselves with housing. If it is this last resort, then they should have to, if necessary, move to an area outside of where they currently live, as they have no other choice.

Firstly I was simply conveying what I believe to be the situation with the local council. My post in no way conveys my views.

But, as you ask I would prefer to live in a country where there is a distinct choice between wanting to buy a house or, rent a house which is maintained by someone else. I would prefer if this was a genuine lifestyle choice like it is in other countries. But, sadly social/council housing is not viewed this way in the UK and the private rental market is too unstable for a family to use long term. Some of the London housing trusts have it about right though. Shame they are not nationwide and in every town and city.

 

[Dandyman]

Spot on,and Boris is doing a bit of electioneering with his statements,thats all.

In the past you've made a point of speaking up for established working class communities. These changes will mean people uprooted from communities, families and schools. Why the change in attitude and why the assumption that the poorest in society should pay for the folly of the Bankers ?

 

[ROSM]

But the point is (as we've mentioned on here many times before) the political decisions taken now will be driven by decisions made 20 or 30 years ago.

The sell off of council housing and the block on investing the income into new housing has caused this decision. I read that people say 'if this were proposed from scratch nobody would stand for it' but it isn't. We're playing politics with real people's lives here. Let's not forget that if there were enough reasonable social housing available and the more desirable council houses hadn't been sold then we wouldn't be having to make this decision now.

Once again the rich will get richer (and landlords included) and the poor can put up with it. It would seem that the Neil Kinnock (not my favourite politician I must say) vision of a conservative Britain is coming to pass

 

[CheeseRolls]

I wonder if people are missing the point in this debate in general. The real beneficiaries here are private landlords, who are the ones actually pocketing the state's money. Sweeping changes like this will create upheaval and misery, the question for me is does the short term upheaval justify the long term gain ?

The market will decide, which of these expensive properties justify such high rentals, where private tenants will happily pay the market rent to take over the tenancy and which will see a decline in rental income, because the state is no longer propping up the property market.

 

[Castello]

Dictionary.com Unabridged

so its hardly going to create this problem, rather the opposite.

and why exactly is this even a problem. as i understand it, its a peculiarity of the UK that the inner residential areas of our cities are the place of the poor. i dont believe that it will really change much anyway, not in the wholesale way its being presented.

for perspective £400pw is £1600pm. thats a lot even in London and would only impact a few boroughs there and in other cities. no one against it is explaining why should we subsidise the unemployed to live in expensive accomodation, while middle income people cannot afford to live there - ironically then having to commute from cheaper areas? doesnt make alot of sence does it?

There are several issues about Housing in london that unless you have lived here for some time are not immediately obvious. First amongst these is the traditional anglo american concept of an inner city is increasingly no longer true.

Due to gentrification areas like new cross, peckham, tower hamelts which have traditionally been low cost working class areas are changing. Housing costs have soared. Unfortunately people who have been living in those areas and have roots amongst family and friends in those areas have had their rents increased on a regular basis. For those on the lowest incomes housing benefits have covered this.

The second thing about london that isnt immediately obvious is how its vastness affects every day life. London isnt really one city its more like 8 or 9 towns. people, particularly people born or bred here, tend to stay in their local areas. Transport links are set up to reflect this. Getting from one place to another 5 miles away can be quite difficult. Even the names of NSCers from london reflect this. They identify with their local area than London as a whole.

Coming from Brighton where youd move around the whole town quite happily, it surprised me how parochial Londoners were.

Thirdly unlike most towns outside london, London has very few exclusively poor or rich areas, Most areas, to a greater or lesser extent are mixed with both middle and working classes living next to each other.

Additionally whilst £400 a week isnt a low rent it isnt a massively high rent, particularly so if you have 2 or 3 or more children. The link shows the average rents for different areas.

London Property Watch

Now if you place all of this in the context of Housing Benefit cuts what will happen is this.

single people and childless couples will feel little effect.

Families with one child will be affected in a limited number of cases in high rent areas.

Families with 2,3 or more children could be facing increasing hardship depending on where you live. Clearly if you live in Knightsbridge or Hampstead you are less likely to claim HB and wont be affected, but if you do the rents are likely to be above £400. from the list you can see several areas like south lambeth(streatham), clapham, battersea that are mixed areas that will be hammered even with 2 beds.

Now it could be argued that people should just get up and move to another area. Firstly this is very easy to suggest and very difficult to achieve. If you have 3 children family support is very important. Moving from one area to an area that is affordable could mean a 20 or more mile move. Then people have to travel on public transport back to see family and friends making the saving negligible.

What would also happen is poor people will end up accumulating in the cheapest areas, which is why the ghettoisation comment was made.

The final thing to remember is tenants rarely determine their rents, That is done by landlords. I agree that £400 a week for somewhere to live is outrageous. I think the landlords who charge it should be taxed at 100% over a reasonable level and the money used to fund HB. I suspect that idea would meet with outrage amongst many contributors here.

I could point out that most of the people suggesting these cuts have 2nd homes never mind first homes being paid for by taxpayers. They should concentrate more time on getting their claims for these 2nd homes and the duck ponds, climbing wisteria etc accurate and within the rules, before attacking the poor.

That is the real point about these cuts it will hit the poor, single parents and children the hardest. so much for "we're all in it together".

 

[User removed 4]

In the past you've made a point of speaking up for established working class communities. These changes will mean people uprooted from communities, families and schools. Why the change in attitude and why the assumption that the poorest in society should pay for the folly of the Bankers ?

I will always speak up for working class communities,these changes will simply mean that housing benefit will no longer be paying for people to live in houses they could never afford if they were working, it is pure and simple scaremongering to suggest it will lead to the wholesale destructon of communities.