Spelling it out.

From Liberal Conspiracy:

The Department of Work and Pensions have just published their impact assessment of the housing benefit cuts. It is an assessment by civil servants of the possible consequences of introducing these policies. Here’s their summary:

“The impact assessment recognises that there are a number or risks as follows:

• increases in the number of households with rent arrears, eviction and households presenting themselves as homeless;
• disruption to children’s education and reduced attainment;
• disruption to support services for people with disabilities and other households with care and support needs;
• an increase in the number of households living in overcrowded conditions; and
• a decrease in the number of and quality of private rented sector properties available to Housing Benefit tenants.”

So, even the DWP realises that the 'reforms' will have a much bigger, and harder, impact than the government keeps trying to tell us.
It's not as if we don't know this already but how can they ignore this report from their own department?

They want a 'Big Society' but will wreck communities.
They want a 'Big Society' but will disrupt children's education.
They want a 'Big Society' but will increase homelessness.
They want a 'Big Society' but will isolate the disabled further and risk their health.


Is this really a society we want? It's getting even more apparent that 'Big Society' should have the addendum 'unless you're poor or sick'.

IDS 'clarifies' his mistake

From the BBC:

While rents overall were falling in recent years, some landlords were charging top rates to tenants on housing benefit and pushing those rates up, they say.

If this is true then surely it's the landlords they should be demonising, not the claimants?
If this is true, wouldn't it be better, for the public, the renters and the taxpayers, to limit rents, rather than housing benefit?

People complain that claimants are living in hugely expensive properties that no non-claimant could afford to live in - that to me suggests that there is a problem with the rent, not the housing benefit. Kick the housing benefit claimant out and the rent is still too high for those 'hard working' families to afford.

Source

From Labour MP's...

The Labour has just published a new post on their website with quotes from two of it's MP's

Douglas Alexander MP, Labour's Shadow Work and Pensions Secretary, said ahead of the debate on Housing Benefit in Parliament tomorrow:

"We are in favour of housing benefit reform but against rushing through changes in a way which risks increased costs and higher homelessness

.

Caroline Flint MP, Labour's Shadow Communities and Local Government Secretary, said:

"Labour is in favour of reforming Housing Benefit. But it must be the right sort of reform. We’ll work with the government, but not on the basis of rushed changes and easy headlines.

When will they realise that the problem isn't housing benefit but the extortionate rents charged by landlords?

Cap the rents and the HB bill goes down. Simple as that.
Source

Housing Benefit - a few facts

Touchstone blog has recently published a few posts in response to the ConDem claims that Housing Benefit allows unemployed families to live in better areas than those in work.

Research conducted by the DWP:

the research concluded that HB arrangements do not unduly favour LHA recipients compared to most low-income working families, with the exception of a small group of households with children aged under 16 who are worse off than other household groups in terms of the property size that they occupy and the rates they would be entitled to if they were eligible for HB. Essentially a small number of large families in expensive rental areas are accommodated in better accommodation when out of work than they could afford in-work on a low income, but this specific issue is not representative of the HB system overall. Unfortunately enormous and badly thought through reform of the HB system is being justified on the premise that it is.

Despite this George Osborne has claimed that

Today there are some families receiving £104,000 a year in housing benefit. The cost of that single award is equivalent to the total income tax and national insurance paid by 16 working people on median incomes. It is clear that the system of housing benefit is in dire need for reform

The Daily Telegraph decided to investigate this and despite being decidedly pro cuts, they came up with this. The number of families claiming this enormous figure is exactly three. Yes, you read it right, three.

As Touchstone points out
£

2 billion a year seems like quite a lot to save by cutting the HB of three households. In fact, even if each of these households had their entire HB benefit entitlement stopped (a move that would be counterproductive, as it would leave them homeless creating many additional funding costs) only 0.015 per cent of the savings the Government is seeking would be achieved.

How could this be? The reality that the Government refuse to acknowledge is that the vast majority of losers from these changes are not large families in central London mansions, but low income households up and down the country.

The facts and figures are there. But somehow I doubt IDS and Osborne will use them. They don't fit in with their ideology. Just more proof that they are determined to abolish the welfare state at all costs.

More on housing benefit

From this BBC article

On Sunday, Nick Clegg, the Lib Dem leader and deputy prime minister, defended planned cuts to housing benefit, saying it was not fair that people who went out to work got less help with accommodation than those who did not.

Mr Clegg told the BBC's Andrew Marr Show the government's plans would create more social housing and were "fair" on housing benefit claimants.

I'm so sick of hearing the word 'fair' coming from him. Or from any of them. They appear to have forgotten the meaning of the word.

Do they realise that people who work get housing benefit too? If your income isn't enough to cover your rent you get HB.

We all know property is expensive, and even more so in London. But the way they are making out you'd think that the city was full of unemployed people living in penthouses lording it over those in work. And we know that just isn't true. Putting a cap on HB will force everyone, whether they are unemployed or not, out of the city.
How many of those will lose their jobs because of this?

Why can't the Government see that it's not housing benefit that is the problem, it's the sky high rents? And when will they realise that housing benefit isn't an out of work benefit?

Hypocrisy?

Politics.co.uk has posted a new article on the impact the housing benefit cuts will have in London.

We've all seen the reports that Boris Johnson likened them to 'Kosovo style cleansing' which had the ConDems fuming.
They refuse to see what damage the cuts will have, instead coming out with their now standard platitudes about how the cuts are fair and it's not right that people on benefits should be able to live in areas 'hard working' people can't.

The best, or most ridiculous anyway, line to come out of all this is Iain Duncan-Smith's line that 'Labour figures were guilty of "scaremongering"'.

Is he kidding me? For months now we have had to put up with his, and the rest of the party's, calling us 'scroungers'. Listening to George Osborne telling us that these cuts are necessary because Britain is 'on the brink of bankruptcy'.
What is this if not scaremongering?
All of them, aided by the Daily Mail, have made thousands of people think that the cuts, which amount to nothing less than an attempt to abolish the welfare state, are necessary. Not only necessary, but deserved, because everyone on welfare is a scrounger. We are undeserving, work shy and it is our fault that the country is in this state.

If that's not scaremongering I don't know what is.

Remember that line about glass houses and throwing stones? Perhaps someone should remind Mr Duncan-Smith.