"Labour's welfare problem which was a long time in the making is deep-set in terms of voter perceptions. The party increased welfare spending dramatically during the boom. When the bust came, the attitudes of those in work or serious about finding it hardened.
The party that grew welfare in the good years faces a struggle to present itself as being serious about reform. It will need more than broad principles and high-flown rhetoric. Labour needs several specific and clearly understandable big policies that involve genuine hard choices.
And it will need to talk about them and promote them, a lot. One wonky speech is not nearly enough."
There is the rub - there were no hard choices at all - CB for high earners is a dolly of a cut - for not much.
BBC Breaking News: Eurozone economy will contract by 0.6% in 2013 but grow by 1.1% in 2014, European Central Bank forecasts
I blame Osborne....
Just to put that in context, that is a reduction in 2013 growth forecasts, but an increase in 2014. I would be naturally suspicious of any 'jam tomorrow' story.
That said, the data from the Eurozone continues to be extremely mixed, with France worsening, Germany and the Netherlands looking weak, but the periphery - particularly Spain - doing rather better than expected. The Spanish Service Sector survey released yesterday, was 47.4 (which still indicates a contracting economy), but which was sharply up on the 44.4 in April. The overall Markit Eurozone manufacturing survey also showed its best result for over a year, with a 48.3 (again, shrinking, but not so much as before).
News out of the US is just as mixed: the Beige Book released by the US Fed warned that the effects of the sequester on the US economy were likely to be worse than expected. In addition, housing numbers were very much worse than expected, with demand for mortgages down 11.5% last week - a fourth weekly drop. News out last night on salaries from the US also suggested that, while joblessness is falling, so are incomes - (first quarter numbers indicated the biggest ever drop in incomes). Personally, I suspect this is simply the effect of most new jobs being low paid ones.
The markets have pushed sterling sharply higher against the dollar, and the Euro modestly up. Stock markets are down 0.5% in Europe, 1.2% in the UK, and are flat in the US.
Moniker - I'm baffled by the YouGov link, as that seems to be a poll of over-18s only. Do you have any more information about the Mail poll from 2012? Which pollster carried it out? The details in that article seem somewhat sparse.
I voted for 50% -60%. The reason being that Salmon knows that if he loses the referendum, he will lose political power in scotland very soon after. I dont like Salmon, but I appreciate his political nous and therefore predict that he will just scrape over 50%-51% line to win independence.
"It has always puzzled me why such a smooth operator as David Cameron should have nailed his colours to the UAF (Unite Against Fascism) mast. Anyone with any sense of historical perspective or political savvy would have recognised the UAF’s true nature as a hard left designed “front” by looking down its list of officers."
John Rentoul isn't very impressed with Ed Miliband's policy commitment on housing:
Rentoul does make a fair point which I have yet to see anyone address:
"But there is a reason why this popular policy has not been pursued by the desperate-to-please governments of Blair, Brown and Cameron. All the houses that can be built in places where people want houses have been built. The rest is:
1 green belt,
2 nice green bits full of nimbys, local councils and planning laws, or
3 run-down parts of north Birmingham and places further north where people don’t want to live."
Actually north Birmingham has some nice spots....
A council of despair that implies all of the govts planning stuff was a nonsense and NIMBY's can hold the country to ransom over rail and airports?
It's also one reason why we need new towns
But first off start cutting funds from councils that refuse to build and cut housing benefit bills, they'll find land magically if the choice is having their knackers cut off
You do realize, don't you, that many - actually I think a clear majority (though I don't have the figures) - Councils no longer own housing stock which under Large Scale Voluntary Transfer, promoted by both Tory and Labour governments, are now owned by RSLs?
Indeed I know that and the large scale stock transfers,increased use of the private sector and ramping up of rents is why the HB bill has gone from £1 Billion a year to £23 Billion The ideology of the last 35 years has to be broken.
Now it doesn't interest me whether local councils remain in control of the stock they build, but they must build. And building to a model that relies on the taxpayer picking up the tab in high rents/housing benefit has had its day.
The taxpayer is subsidising this ideology to the tune of 5p on the basic rate of income tax.
I could regret this attempt to engage you in a serious non-partisan discussion, but I'll take the chance.
For Councils to embark on massive housebuilding programmes (even disregarding the democratic planning constraints of local public opinion....would you override objections/abrogate the right of appeal etc?) would require a HUGE injection of capital monies that local authorities, particularly district and borough councils, simply don't have. Technically you could help fund capital programmes from revenue but for that to happen realistically, all rate capping would have to be abolished and Council Tax possibly increasing by well above inflation. Can you see that occuring? The picture is immeasurably more complicated for those Councils who do own stock and which will therefore have a HRA.
So, the only credible route would be billions of central govt funding and continuously for several years. Meanwhile, the housing benefit bill, itself to be subsumed into Universal Credit, would not decline - the trade-off would be in the medium term at best. In our previous discussion several months ago, complemented by the paper by our own housing expert, a boost in supply would not necessarily have much of a downward impact on rents (and thus indirectly on HB).
Moniker - I'm baffled by the YouGov link, as that seems to be a poll of over-18s only. Do you have any more information about the Mail poll from 2012? Which pollster carried it out? The details in that article seem somewhat sparse.
" Polling expert Professor John Curtice said: ‘This shows the assumptions made by some that younger voters tend towards independence is some way out. "
I suppose you don't trust Professor Curtice of Strathclyde University just as you don't trust Edinburgh University. You make for a very poor Scottish nationalist.
"I suppose you don't trust Professor Curtice of Strathclyde University just as you don't trust Edinburgh University. You make for a very poor Scottish nationalist."
I can assure you I have a higher regard for John Curtice than most Scottish nationalists (it isn't hard).
Your response doesn't seem to bear any resemblance to the questions I asked. What was the relevance of a YouGov poll of over-18s only?
Can you tell me which pollster carried out the Mail poll?
John Rentoul isn't very impressed with Ed Miliband's policy commitment on housing:
Rentoul does make a fair point which I have yet to see anyone address:
"But there is a reason why this popular policy has not been pursued by the desperate-to-please governments of Blair, Brown and Cameron. All the houses that can be built in places where people want houses have been built. The rest is:
1 green belt,
2 nice green bits full of nimbys, local councils and planning laws, or
3 run-down parts of north Birmingham and places further north where people don’t want to live."
Actually north Birmingham has some nice spots....
One thing that I thought was interesting at the time, but has not panned out in the way I thought possible, was that Cameron's pledge on immigration was to reduce net migration to the tens of thousands.
Everyone fixates on the immigration side of this equation, taking in students, EU citizens and foreign brides with a greater than average skill at cooking curries. I had thought that by specifying net migration Cameron was leaving the door open to subtly encourage emigration in order to balance the equation. It doesn't seem to have happened, though.
50.01% - 60.00% was my selection, based on the real fear of several Northern British I know who will vote for the Union but hold the firm view that Independence will get a small majority.
I know it won't count as real research as it is anecdote, but an anecdote expressed multiple times by various worried souls on different occasions. The employers I spoke to were fearful of Independence but are expecting it.
"It has always puzzled me why such a smooth operator as David Cameron should have nailed his colours to the UAF (Unite Against Fascism) mast. Anyone with any sense of historical perspective or political savvy would have recognised the UAF’s true nature as a hard left designed “front” by looking down its list of officers."
Ah yes, Iain Martin. So difficult to discern his political allegiances isn't it (as a PB Floating Voter once said)
The party increased welfare spending dramatically during the boom
Welfare spending %GDP
1997 6.7% 2007 5.9%
Tories are constantly in denial about welfare spending, Thatcher put it up, Major put it up, Cameron has put it up. But they are too addicted to recognise their problem
this just shows after heartless Ed's attack on benefits that Labour are the nasty party and the Tories the caring one nation party.
Actually, following on from MikeK's post, question for James Kelly:
How do you think the referendum result will affect the SNP as a party?
Perversely, I think a No to indy might be the better result. My hunch is that a lot of Scots broadly like the SNP, but are slightly nervous about their whole Independence thing. With that off the agenda, they can continue to sell themselves as the best party to stand up for Scotland in the Union.
Whereas Yes to indy would rob the SNP of their USP, and whilst people might trust them in the transition, it would also free a proper Scottish Labour movement from the shackles of London Labour in the longer term.
Am I talking crap? Or do you not really care, as Independence is a momentous end in itself, job done?
John Rentoul isn't very impressed with Ed Miliband's policy commitment on housing:
Rentoul does make a fair point which I have yet to see anyone address:
"But there is a reason why this popular policy has not been pursued by the desperate-to-please governments of Blair, Brown and Cameron. All the houses that can be built in places where people want houses have been built. The rest is:
1 green belt,
2 nice green bits full of nimbys, local councils and planning laws, or
3 run-down parts of north Birmingham and places further north where people don’t want to live."
Actually north Birmingham has some nice spots....
A council of despair that implies all of the govts planning stuff was a nonsense and NIMBY's can hold the country to ransom over rail and airports?
It's also one reason why we need new towns
But first off start cutting funds from councils that refuse to build and cut housing benefit bills, they'll find land magically if the choice is having their knackers cut off
You do realize, don't you, that many - actually I think a clear majority (though I don't have the figures) - Councils no longer own housing stock which under Large Scale Voluntary Transfer, promoted by both Tory and Labour governments, are now owned by RSLs?
Indeed I know that and the large scale stock transfers,increased use of the private sector and ramping up of rents is why the HB bill has gone from £1 Billion a year to £23 Billion The ideology of the last 35 years has to be broken.
Now it doesn't interest me whether local councils remain in control of the stock they build, but they must build. And building to a model that relies on the taxpayer picking up the tab in high rents/housing benefit has had its day.
The taxpayer is subsidising this ideology to the tune of 5p on the basic rate of income tax.
I could regret this attempt to engage you in a serious non-partisan discussion, but I'll take the chance.
For Councils to embark on massive housebuilding programmes (even disregarding the democratic planning constraints of local public opinion....would you override objections/abrogate the right of appeal etc?) would require a HUGE injection of capital monies that local authorities, particularly district and borough councils, simply don't have. Technically you could help fund capital programmes from revenue but for that to happen realistically, all rate capping would have to be abolished and Council Tax possibly increasing by well above inflation. Can you see that occuring? The picture is immeasurably more complicated for those Councils who do own stock and which will therefore have a HRA.
So, the only credible route would be billions of central govt funding and continuously for several years. Meanwhile, the housing benefit bill, itself to be subsumed into Universal Credit, would not decline - the trade-off would be in the medium term at best. In our previous discussion several months ago, complemented by the paper by our own housing expert, a boost in supply would not necessarily have much of a downward impact on rents (and thus indirectly on HB).
Indeed so after 5 years of PM rEd we would have no dent in the Housing Benefit bill, no extra houses ready and kazillion billions more in borrowing - would go down well in a GE. And millions more Polish builders who came over to build the houses looking for a place to stay...
"Am I talking crap? Or do you not really care, as Independence is a momentous end in itself, job done?"
The latter, on the whole, although I'd probably still want the SNP to win if Scottish Labour was the only real alternative, and if it retained its authoritarian character. I'm sure Scottish politics will be in for a significant realignment after independence, though. My own ideal would be a left-liberal party taking in the bulk of the SNP, the social liberal wing of the Lib Dems, and non-authoritarian Labour people.
"It has always puzzled me why such a smooth operator as David Cameron should have nailed his colours to the UAF (Unite Against Fascism) mast. Anyone with any sense of historical perspective or political savvy would have recognised the UAF’s true nature as a hard left designed “front” by looking down its list of officers."
Well at least they're not white football hooligans drinking beer.
I see he describes Kaffurs like me as "worse than cattle" Mehdi Hasan style. Well each to their own, but what's wrong with cows anyway? To Hindu's they are sacred and I think theyre very nice animals
John Rentoul isn't very impressed with Ed Miliband's policy commitment on housing:
Rentoul does make a fair point which I have yet to see anyone address:
"But there is a reason why this popular policy has not been pursued by the desperate-to-please governments of Blair, Brown and Cameron. All the houses that can be built in places where people want houses have been built. The rest is:
1 green belt,
2 nice green bits full of nimbys, local councils and planning laws, or
3 run-down parts of north Birmingham and places further north where people don’t want to live."
Actually north Birmingham has some nice spots....
A council of despair that implies all of the govts planning stuff was a nonsense and NIMBY's can hold the country to ransom over rail and airports?
It's also one reason why we need new towns
But first off start cutting funds from councils that refuse to build and cut housing benefit bills, they'll find land magically if the choice is having their knackers cut off
You do realize, don't you, that many - actually I think a clear majority (though I don't have the figures) - Councils no longer own housing stock which under Large Scale Voluntary Transfer, promoted by both Tory and Labour governments, are now owned by RSLs?
Indeed I know that and the large scale stock transfers,increased use of the private sector and ramping up of rents is why the HB bill has gone from £1 Billion a year to £23 Billion The ideology of the last 35 years has to be broken.
Now it doesn't interest me whether local councils remain in control of the stock they build, but they must build. And building to a model that relies on the taxpayer picking up the tab in high rents/housing benefit has had its day.
The taxpayer is subsidising this ideology to the tune of 5p on the basic rate of income tax.
I could regret this attempt to engage you in a serious non-partisan discussion, but I'll take the chance.
For Councils to embark on massive housebuilding programmes (even disregarding the democratic planning constraints of local public opinion....would you override objections/abrogate the right of appeal etc?) would require a HUGE injection of capital monies that local authorities, particularly district and borough councils, simply don't have. Technically you could help fund capital programmes from revenue but for that to happen realistically, all rate capping would have to be abolished and Council Tax possibly increasing by well above inflation. Can you see that occuring? The picture is immeasurably more complicated for those Councils who do own stock and which will therefore have a HRA.
So, the only credible route would be billions of central govt funding and continuously for several years. Meanwhile, the housing benefit bill, itself to be subsumed into Universal Credit, would not decline - the trade-off would be in the medium term at best. In our previous discussion several months ago, complemented by the paper by our own housing expert, a boost in supply would not necessarily have much of a downward impact on rents (and thus indirectly on HB).
Yes, there's a scheme called "Help To Buy" which is leveraging £130Billion into the housing market but is doing nothing about supply but is funding remortgaging,foreign buyers,second homes etc
I don't think you actually understand the Help to Buy scheme. It is aimed at increasing house supply and in the form currently running has nothing to do with re-mortgaging.
"Help to Buy - equity loans makes new build homes available to all home buyers (not just first time buyers) who wish buy a new home, but may be constrained in doing so – for example as a result of deposit requirements – but who could otherwise be expected to sustain a mortgage."
Ah yes, Iain Martin. So difficult to discern his political allegiances isn't it (as a PB Floating Voter once said)
The party increased welfare spending dramatically during the boom
Welfare spending %GDP
1997 6.7% 2007 5.9%
Tories are constantly in denial about welfare spending, Thatcher put it up, Major put it up, Cameron has put it up. But they are too addicted to recognise their problem
this just shows after heartless Ed's attack on benefits that Labour are the nasty party and the Tories the caring one nation party.
The Tories are addicted to transfer payments from the taxpayer to landlords, from working families to rich pensioners living in the Ritz. .
that's why political parties should pay their taxes, it's an expensive business.
The big expansion of Help To Buy comes next year, I don't think many people had too much of a problem with the smaller scheme this year that applied to new build.
Next year is when the remortgaging, second homes etc kicks in
Right, so the Help to Buy scheme is related to increasing supply and since the details for the second part haven't been finalised yet your talk about second home owners, foreign buyers etc is nonsense. Glad you've corrected yourself.
John Rentoul isn't very impressed with Ed Miliband's policy commitment on housing:
Rentoul does make a fair point which I have yet to see anyone address:
"But there is a reason why this popular policy has not been pursued by the desperate-to-please governments of Blair, Brown and Cameron. All the houses that can be built in places where people want houses have been built. The rest is:
1 green belt,
2 nice green bits full of nimbys, local councils and planning laws, or
3 run-down parts of north Birmingham and places further north where people don’t want to live."
Actually north Birmingham has some nice spots....
A council of despair that implies all of the govts planning stuff was a nonsense and NIMBY's can hold the country to ransom over rail and airports?
It's also one reason why we need new towns
But first off start cutting funds from councils that refuse to build and cut housing benefit bills, they'll find land magically if the choice is having their knackers cut off
You do realize, don't you, that many - actually I think a clear majority (though I don't have the figures) - Councils no longer own housing stock which under Large Scale Voluntary Transfer, promoted by both Tory and Labour governments, are now owned by RSLs?
Indeed I know that and the large scale stock transfers,increased use of the private sector and ramping up of rents is why the HB bill has gone from £1 Billion a year to £23 Billion The ideology of the last 35 years has to be broken.
Now it doesn't interest me whether local councils remain in control of the stock they build, but they must build. And building to a model that relies on the taxpayer picking up the tab in high rents/housing benefit has had its day.
The taxpayer is subsidising this ideology to the tune of 5p on the basic rate of income tax.
I could regret this attempt to engage you in a serious non-partisan discussion, but I'll take the chance.
For Councils to embark on massive housebuilding programmes (even disregarding the democratic planning constraints of local public opinion....would you override objections/abrogate the right of appeal etc?) would require a HUGE injection of capital monies that local authorities, particularly district and borough councils, simply don't have. Technically you could help fund capital programmes from revenue but for that to happen realistically, all rate capping would have to be abolished and Council Tax possibly increasing by well above inflation. Can you see that occuring? The picture is immeasurably more complicated for those Councils who do own stock and which will therefore have a HRA.
So, the only credible route would be billions of central govt funding and continuously for several years. Meanwhile, the housing benefit bill, itself to be subsumed into Universal Credit, would not decline - the trade-off would be in the medium term at best. In our previous discussion several months ago, complemented by the paper by our own housing expert, a boost in supply would not necessarily have much of a downward impact on rents (and thus indirectly on HB).
Yes, there's a scheme called "Help To Buy" which is leveraging £130Billion into the housing market but is doing nothing about supply but is funding remortgaging,foreign buyers,second homes etc
I don't think you actually understand the Help to Buy scheme. It is aimed at increasing house supply and in the form currently running has nothing to do with re-mortgaging.
"Help to Buy - equity loans makes new build homes available to all home buyers (not just first time buyers) who wish buy a new home, but may be constrained in doing so – for example as a result of deposit requirements – but who could otherwise be expected to sustain a mortgage."
"because he is a warm, personable leader, he has thus far managed to give his backbenchers the feeling that he invests in them, and thus they should keep investing in him by supporting these big reality check weeks. One frontbencher remarked to me that ‘David [Miliband] couldn’t have kept the party with him for this long: this week is a testimony to how good Ed is at these things’."
@tim - Thanks for the measured response. I'm not sure of the economies of building housing specifically dedicated to much lower rents would work. How will Councils, RSLs, whoever, obtain sufficient rental income to justify the investment. I imagine that was part of the rationale of both the previous Labour and current govt in moving to increase rents.
Jonathan D has given an answer to your rather more subjective/distorted accounts of the two new schemes. And I think you need to provide considerably more detail about the 'leveragiung' dimension being diverted to Councils. I imagine it's a far more complex process in practice, if feasible at all.
The point about pension funds is a new one for me. I'd better hand over to Neil and the other experts on that.
Perhaps I'm just being dim (quite likely) but from your description, the Help to Buy scheme seems aimed at increasing demand, not supply.
You're not being dim, and I expect tim fully understands that this is actually rather a good scheme which is aimed only at increasing the supply of new-build houses.
Haven't been around to post much lately. But found a moment to drop in today... And it's Scottish Independence. So when is AV next up for discussion?
And on affordable housing, there is a way for councils to lever in capital for building affordable housing which will be under their control, instead of an RSL, and that's by taking commuted sums instead of asking developers to build on their sites. In moderation, though, I don't want ghettos.
"because he is a warm, personable leader, he has thus far managed to give his backbenchers the feeling that he invests in them, and thus they should keep investing in him by supporting these big reality check weeks. One frontbencher remarked to me that ‘David [Miliband] couldn’t have kept the party with him for this long: this week is a testimony to how good Ed is at these things’."
Pure nonsense. The PLP is notoriously supine. Neither Foot nor Brown nor Kinnock nor EdM has managed to stir its revolutionary spirit.
O/T, for the PB brains trust, esp those who know anything about adult social care.
My mum (I sometimes refer to her in this forum when @tim asserts that brit expats in Spain would be expelled if the UK left the the EU) during her now 23 year retirement in Spain sort of, accidently, acquired an adoptive child. The joke went that mum came out of the Chinese takeaway with a baby. Which she actually did, when the child was 2 weeks old, and entered into an informal and possibly illegal, for all I know, fostering arrangement. The natural parents are long off the scene and the Spanish legal position has long been regularised. The child is, effectively, although so far as I can figure it out, there is no exact English law equivalent, a ward of the Spanish social services and Mum and her husband have a status somewhere between foster and adoptive parents. But the Spanish social services dept have the last say.
Thing is, the child, now 17, has profound learning difficulties and Mum is now in her 70s and very concerned to make plans for the child's future and so is contemplating returning to the UK, if that is better for the child (who now - you wouldn't believe how many years it took, what with her being Chinese - has a Spanish passport and thus whatever EU residency rights in the UK this confers).
We have had various discussions with social services departments about the availability of adult social care provision in the UK but it seems to just not compute. I guess, at the end of the day, this sort of provision is needs-based and it does seem that there is a postcode lottery about the quality of provision.
This is a life-changing issue for me. The child will require institutional care in her adult life. I will do my best for her but simply lack the capacity to solve the problem. I wonder, for example, if @Charles might have any insight into how the system works.
And before anyone says "benefit tourism", Mum is a UK taxpayer.
John Rentoul isn't very impressed with Ed Miliband's policy commitment on housing:
Rentoul does make a fair point which I have yet to see anyone address:
"But there is a reason why this popular policy has not been pursued by the desperate-to-please governments of Blair, Brown and Cameron. All the houses that can be built in places where people want houses have been built. The rest is:
1 green belt,
2 nice green bits full of nimbys, local councils and planning laws, or
3 run-down parts of north Birmingham and places further north where people don’t want to live."
Actually north Birmingham has some nice spots....
A council of despair that implies all of the govts planning stuff was a nonsense and NIMBY's can hold the country to ransom over rail and airports?
It's also one reason why we need new towns
But first off start cutting funds from councils that refuse to build and cut housing benefit bills, they'll find land magically if the choice is having their knackers cut off
You do realize, don't you, that many - actually I think a clear majority (though I don't have the figures) - Councils no longer own housing stock which under Large Scale Voluntary Transfer, promoted by both Tory and Labour governments, are now owned by RSLs?
Indeed I know that and the large scale stock transfers,increased use of the private sector and ramping up of rents is why the HB bill has gone from £1 Billion a year to £23 Billion The ideology of the last 35 years has to be broken.
Now it doesn't interest me whether local councils remain in control of the stock they build, but they must build. And building to a model that relies on the taxpayer picking up the tab in high rents/housing benefit has had its day.
The taxpayer is subsidising this ideology to the tune of 5p on the basic rate of income tax.
I could regret this attempt to engage you in a serious non-partisan discussion, but I'll take the chance.
For Councils to embark on massive housebuilding programmes (even disregarding the democratic planning constraints of local public opinion....would you override objections/abrogate the right of appeal etc?) would require a HUGE injection of capital monies that local authorities, particularly district and borough councils, simply don't have. Technically you could help fund capital programmes from revenue but for that to happen realistically, all rate capping would have to be abolished and Council Tax possibly increasing by well above inflation. Can you see that occuring? The picture is immeasurably more complicated for those Councils who do own stock and which will therefore have a HRA.
So, the only credible route would be billions of central govt funding and continuously for several years. Meanwhile, the housing benefit bill, itself to be subsumed into Universal Credit, would not decline - the trade-off would be in the medium term at best. In our previous discussion several months ago, complemented by the paper by our own housing expert, a boost in supply would not necessarily have much of a downward impact on rents (and thus indirectly on HB).
Yes, there's a scheme called "Help To Buy" which is leveraging £130Billion into the housing market but is doing nothing about supply but is funding remortgaging,foreign buyers,second homes etc
I don't think you actually understand the Help to Buy scheme. It is aimed at increasing house supply and in the form currently running has nothing to do with re-mortgaging.
"Help to Buy - equity loans makes new build homes available to all home buyers (not just first time buyers) who wish buy a new home, but may be constrained in doing so – for example as a result of deposit requirements – but who could otherwise be expected to sustain a mortgage."
Perhaps I'm just being dim (quite likely) but from your description, the Help to Buy scheme seems aimed at increasing demand, not supply.
The increased demand will increase the supply, however.
What's an interesting question is whether this program raises the price of new build homes, but the price for such homes will immediately drop once they've had an owner and no longer qualify as new build. That might need a hefty boost in the market to make up for it, lest these people end up in negative equity.
Socrates - I owe you a big thanks for tipping me off to the T-shirt seller story. It went viral on the Telegraph: 1000+ Facebook links, 200 retweets - one of the most clicked blogposts in the Telegraph's recent history.
John Rentoul isn't very impressed with Ed Miliband's policy commitment on housing:
Rentoul does make a fair point which I have yet to see anyone address:
"But there is a reason why this popular policy has not been pursued by the desperate-to-please governments of Blair, Brown and Cameron. All the houses that can be built in places where people want houses have been built. The rest is:
1 green belt,
2 nice green bits full of nimbys, local councils and planning laws, or
3 run-down parts of north Birmingham and places further north where people don’t want to live."
Actually north Birmingham has some nice spots....
A council of despair that implies all of the govts planning stuff was a nonsense and NIMBY's can hold the country to ransom over rail and airports?
It's also one reason why we need new towns
But first off start cutting funds from councils that refuse to build and cut housing benefit bills, they'll find land magically if the choice is having their knackers cut off
You do realize, don't you, that many - actually I think a clear majority (though I don't have the figures) - Councils no longer own housing stock which under Large Scale Voluntary Transfer, promoted by both Tory and Labour governments, are now owned by RSLs?
Indeed I know that and the large scale stock transfers,increased use of the private sector and ramping up of rents is why the HB bill has gone from £1 Billion a year to £23 Billion The ideology of the last 35 years has to be broken.
Now it doesn't interest me whether local councils remain in control of the stock they build, but they must build. And building to a model that relies on the taxpayer picking up the tab in high rents/housing benefit has had its day.
The taxpayer is subsidising this ideology to the tune of 5p on the basic rate of income tax.
I could regret this attempt to engage you in a serious non-partisan discussion, but I'll take the chance.
For Councils to embark on massive housebuilding programmes (even disregarding the democratic planning constraints of local public opinion....would you override objections/abrogate the right of appeal etc?) would require a HUGE injection of capital monies that local authorities, particularly district and borough councils, simply don't have. Technically you could help fund capital programmes from revenue but for that to happen realistically, all rate capping would have to be abolished and Council Tax possibly increasing by well above inflation. Can you see that occuring? The picture is immeasurably more complicated for those Councils who do own stock and which will therefore have a HRA.
So, the only credible route would be billions of central govt funding and continuously for several years. Meanwhile, the housing benefit bill, itself to be subsumed into Universal Credit, would not decline - the trade-off would be in the medium term at best. In our previous discussion several months ago, complemented by the paper by our own housing expert, a boost in supply would not necessarily have much of a downward impact on rents (and thus indirectly on HB).
To answer your last point first, a boost in supply won't cut HB if Osborne's rent controls (80% of market rent) are enforced. Thats why HB has gone up so much because it's been shifted into higher rent sectors (it keeps going up even when the numbers claiming it fall as local authority tenures have shrunk and housing association/private sector HB claimants have risen)
So, the only credible route would be billions of central govt funding and continuously for several years
Yes, there's a scheme called "Help To Buy" which is leveraging £130Billion into the housing market but is doing nothing about supply but is funding remortgaging,foreign buyers,second homes etc while there's another scheme called "Funding for Lending" which is subsidising Buy To Let landlords to the tune of billions.
Change their names to "Help to Build"
Both of these schemes will push up rents and housing benefit claims -move them to the supply side of the industry and allow local councils to use them. In addition allow pension funds to lend to councils for long term rented properties.
tim
The current economic recovery is 'house build driven'.
The government is on schedule to meet its target of 170,000 new builds by 2015 under the Affordable Homes Programme.
The private sector is currently building at a rate of 100,000 new homes per annum with a current growth velocity of 20%.
The Funding for Lending Schemes and the specific programmes targetted at new builds, new buyers and high loan to value mortgages for properties under £600,000 is ensuring that there is sufficient demand to meet planned construction output.
Whilst Ed Miliband and Ed Balls are talking about house building, Cameron and Osborne are doing it.
Here is the evidence. Registrations of New Homes in the quarter Feb-Apr 2013 compared to the same period last year. Figures from NHBC.
Region Feb-Apr Feb-Apr % Increase 2013 2012 (Decrease) England - Regions North East 1,329 849 57% North West 2,118 1,617 31% Merseyside 487 420 16% Yorkshire & the Humber 1,702 1,270 34% West Midlands 2,671 1,943 37% East Midlands 2,713 1,921 41% Eastern 3,411 2,510 36% South West 3,381 2,709 25% Greater London 7,325 4,578 60% South East 3,647 4,169 (13%) Totals for England 28,784 21,986 31%
Scotland - Councils 2,700 2,877 (6%)
Wales - Unitary Authorities 1,008 1,034 (3%)
Northern Ireland - Counties 571 470 21%
Isle of Man 48 38 26% -------------------------------------------------------- Totals for UK 33,111 26,405 25% -------------------------------------------------------- Private Sector 24,542 20,390 20% Public Sector 8,569 6,015 42%
@pbr2013 It seems like a postcode lottery because at the moment it is. For under 18s it is much easier to get provision. Over 18 and it gets more complicated. It differs from council to council. You would be assessed in roughly the same way everywhere, and the same cap on assets applies nationally - if you have very little you pay nothing, then there is a sliding scale until at around £23K in assets you have to pay for everything. However, each council gets to set its own threshold for need. Some councils say they will provide help for those in critical need only. Some (most probably) have a lower threshold at "substantial" need, and I would guess there are few councils left now set at "moderate". Those levels are called "eligibility criteria", so you need to check what the council does local to where your mum wants to live. Everything is due to change eventually under new legislation to make a more level playing field.
Perhaps I'm just being dim (quite likely) but from your description, the Help to Buy scheme seems aimed at increasing demand, not supply.
You're not being dim, and I expect tim fully understands that this is actually rather a good scheme which is aimed only at increasing the supply of new-build houses.
A borrower remortgaging with a new lending institution would, however, still be able to benefit from the scheme.
That's a different scheme, although it's understandable that there is confusion.
The one in the link rcs1000 referred to is the 'Help to Buy - equity loans' scheme, which is for new-build only.
The PDF you linked to is the 'Help to Buy: mortgage guarantee' scheme, which is different, and which works in a completely different way. It's a guarantee of part of the loan, so it's a contingent liability for the taxpayer only. The aim is of course to get the market moving again by encouraging lenders to lend.
John Rentoul isn't very impressed with Ed Miliband's policy commitment on housing:
Rentoul does make a fair point which I have yet to see anyone address:
"But there is a reason why this popular policy has not been pursued by the desperate-to-please governments of Blair, Brown and Cameron. All the houses that can be built in places where people want houses have been built. The rest is:
1 green belt,
2 nice green bits full of nimbys, local councils and planning laws, or
3 run-down parts of north Birmingham and places further north where people don’t want to live."
Actually north Birmingham has some nice spots....
A council of despair that implies all of the govts planning stuff was a nonsense and NIMBY's can hold the country to ransom over rail and airports?
It's also one reason why we need new towns
But first off start cutting funds from councils that refuse to build and cut housing benefit bills, they'll find land magically if the choice is having their knackers cut off
You do realize, don't you, that many - actually I think a clear majority (though I don't have the figures) - Councils no longer own housing stock which under Large Scale Voluntary Transfer, promoted by both Tory and Labour governments, are now owned by RSLs?
Indeed I know that and the large scale stock transfers,increased use of the private sector and ramping up of rents is why the HB bill has gone from £1 Billion a year to £23 Billion The ideology of the last 35 years has to be broken.
Now it doesn't interest me whether local councils remain in control of the stock they build, but they must build. And building to a model that relies on the taxpayer picking up the tab in high rents/housing benefit has had its day.
The taxpayer is subsidising this ideology to the tune of 5p on the basic rate of income tax.
I could regret this attempt to engage you in a serious non-partisan discussion, but I'll take the chance.
For Councils to embark on massive housebuilding programmes (even disregarding the democratic planning constraints of local public opinion....would you override objections/abrogate the right of appeal etc?) would require a HUGE injection of capital monies that local authorities, particularly district and borough councils, simply don't have. Technically you could help fund capital programmes from revenue but for that to happen realistically, all rate capping would have to be abolished and Council Tax possibly increasing by well above inflation. Can you see that occuring? The picture is immeasurably more complicated for those Councils who do own stock and which will therefore have a HRA.
So, the only credible route would be billions of central govt funding and continuously for several years. Meanwhile, the housing benefit bill, itself to be subsumed into Universal Credit, would not decline - the trade-off would be in the medium term at best. In our previous discussion several months ago, complemented by the paper by our own housing expert, a boost in supply would not necessarily have much of a downward impact on rents (and thus indirectly on HB).
To answer your last point first, a boost in supply won't cut HB if Osborne's rent controls (80% of market rent) are enforced. Thats why HB has gone up so much because it's been shifted into higher rent sectors (it keeps going up even when the numbers claiming it fall as local authority tenures have shrunk and housing association/private sector HB claimants have risen)
So, the only credible route would be billions of central govt funding and continuously for several years
Yes, there's a scheme called "Help To Buy" which is leveraging £130Billion into the housing market but is doing nothing about supply but is funding remortgaging,foreign buyers,second homes etc while there's another scheme called "Funding for Lending" which is subsidising Buy To Let landlords to the tune of billions.
Change their names to "Help to Build"
Both of these schemes will push up rents and housing benefit claims -move them to the supply side of the industry and allow local councils to use them. In addition allow pension funds to lend to councils for long term rented properties.
"because he is a warm, personable leader, he has thus far managed to give his backbenchers the feeling that he invests in them, and thus they should keep investing in him by supporting these big reality check weeks. One frontbencher remarked to me that ‘David [Miliband] couldn’t have kept the party with him for this long: this week is a testimony to how good Ed is at these things’."
Cameron is building up two rebellions it seems. One on Syria, one on recall powers.
I have sympathy with him on the first, the second just tells you he's an amateur.
If Syria makes Cameron look like an amateur, then what does it make 'red line' Obama look like?
Worse, what does it make Miliband's fairly interesting flip-flop over Libya look like?
Libya is a good indication that Miliband would be a disaster as PM. He made utterly the wrong decision.
Thanks v much but the message we are getting is that, due to being foreign, the child is not eligible for anything, at least for six months. Could you link me into all that threshold stuff. I am trying to find my way in an alien world here. Thanks again.
John Rentoul isn't very impressed with Ed Miliband's policy commitment on housing:
Rentoul does make a fair point which I have yet to see anyone address:
"But there is a reason why this popular policy has not been pursued by the desperate-to-please governments of Blair, Brown and Cameron. All the houses that can be built in places where people want houses have been built. The rest is:
1 green belt,
2 nice green bits full of nimbys, local councils and planning laws, or
3 run-down parts of north Birmingham and places further north where people don’t want to live."
Actually north Birmingham has some nice spots....
A council of despair that implies all of the govts planning stuff was a nonsense and NIMBY's can hold the country to ransom over rail and airports?
It's also one reason why we need new towns
But first off start cutting funds from councils that refuse to build and cut housing benefit bills, they'll find land magically if the choice is having their knackers cut off
You do realize, don't you, that many - actually I think a clear majority (though I don't have the figures) - Councils no longer own housing stock which under Large Scale Voluntary Transfer, promoted by both Tory and Labour governments, are now owned by RSLs?
Indeed I know that and the large scale stock transfers,increased use of the private sector and ramping up of rents is why the HB bill has gone from £1 Billion a year to £23 Billion The ideology of the last 35 years has to be broken.
Now it doesn't interest me whether local councils remain in control of the stock they build, but they must build. And building to a model that relies on the taxpayer picking up the tab in high rents/housing benefit has had its day.
The taxpayer is subsidising this ideology to the tune of 5p on the basic rate of income tax.
I could regret this attempt to engage you in a serious non-partisan discussion, but I'll take the chance.
For Councils to embark on massive housebuilding programmes (even disregarding the democratic planning constraints of local public opinion....would you override objections/abrogate the right of appeal etc?) would require a HUGE injection of capital monies that local authorities, particularly district and borough councils, simply don't have. Technically you could help fund capital programmes from revenue but for that to happen realistically, all rate capping would have to be abolished and Council Tax possibly increasing by well above inflation. Can you see that occuring? The picture is immeasurably more complicated for those Councils who do own stock and which will therefore have a HRA.
So, the only credible route would be billions of central govt funding and continuously for several years. Meanwhile, the housing benefit bill, itself to be subsumed into Universal Credit, would not decline - the trade-off would be in the medium term at best. In our previous discussion several months ago, complemented by the paper by our own housing expert, a boost in supply would not necessarily have much of a downward impact on rents (and thus indirectly on HB).
To answer your last point first, a boost in supply won't cut HB if Osborne's rent controls (80% of market rent) are enforced. Thats why HB has gone up so much because it's been shifted into higher rent sectors (it keeps going up even when the numbers claiming it fall as local authority tenures have shrunk and housing association/private sector HB claimants have risen)
So, the only credible route would be billions of central govt funding and continuously for several years
Yes, there's a scheme called "Help To Buy" which is leveraging £130Billion into the housing market but is doing nothing about supply but is funding remortgaging,foreign buyers,second homes etc while there's another scheme called "Funding for Lending" which is subsidising Buy To Let landlords to the tune of billions.
Change their names to "Help to Build"
Both of these schemes will push up rents and housing benefit claims -move them to the supply side of the industry and allow local councils to use them. In addition allow pension funds to lend to councils for long term rented properties.
Perhaps I'm just being dim (quite likely) but from your description, the Help to Buy scheme seems aimed at increasing demand, not supply.
You're not being dim, and I expect tim fully understands that this is actually rather a good scheme which is aimed only at increasing the supply of new-build houses.
A borrower remortgaging with a new lending institution would, however, still be able to benefit from the scheme.
That's a different scheme, although it's understandable that there is confusion.
The one in the link rcs1000 referred to is the 'Help to Buy - equity loans' scheme, which is for new-build only.
The PDF you linked to is the 'Help to Buy: mortgage guarantee' scheme, which is different, and which works in a completely different way. It's a guarantee of part of the loan, so it's a contingent liability for the taxpayer only. The aim is of course to get the market moving again by encouraging lenders to lend.
"because he is a warm, personable leader, he has thus far managed to give his backbenchers the feeling that he invests in them, and thus they should keep investing in him by supporting these big reality check weeks. One frontbencher remarked to me that ‘David [Miliband] couldn’t have kept the party with him for this long: this week is a testimony to how good Ed is at these things’."
Cameron is building up two rebellions it seems. One on Syria, one on recall powers.
I have sympathy with him on the first, the second just tells you he's an amateur.
If Syria makes Cameron look like an amateur, then what does it make 'red line' Obama look like?
Worse, what does it make Miliband's fairly interesting flip-flop over Libya look like?
Libya is a good indication that Miliband would be a disaster as PM. He made utterly the wrong decision.
"Cameron is building up two rebellions it seems. One on Syria, one on recall powers.
I have sympathy with him on the first,the second just tells you he's an amateur."
Can't you read?
Evidently not; I misread. Sorry.
But the point about Miliband and Libya still stands.
Since 2000 when New Labour opened the borders family homes in inner city areas have been getting snapped up and turned into multi-occupancy. It's an immigration problem not a housing problem.
"because he is a warm, personable leader, he has thus far managed to give his backbenchers the feeling that he invests in them, and thus they should keep investing in him by supporting these big reality check weeks. One frontbencher remarked to me that ‘David [Miliband] couldn’t have kept the party with him for this long: this week is a testimony to how good Ed is at these things’."
Cameron is building up two rebellions it seems. One on Syria, one on recall powers.
I have sympathy with him on the first, the second just tells you he's an amateur.
If Syria makes Cameron look like an amateur, then what does it make 'red line' Obama look like?
Worse, what does it make Miliband's fairly interesting flip-flop over Libya look like?
Libya is a good indication that Miliband would be a disaster as PM. He made utterly the wrong decision.
"Cameron is building up two rebellions it seems. One on Syria, one on recall powers.
I have sympathy with him on the first,the second just tells you he's an amateur."
Does anyone know what "full funding" under IORP I would actually look like? This got a bit lost during the IORP II farrago. I guess a buy-out funding level would be the starting point?
Under current regs the funding level that would apply to "cross border" schemes would be the statutory scheme specific funding level that currently exists (or, for Scottish based schemes whatever funding regime any new Scottish regulator / pension regime implemented). The problem being the lack of a recovery period for schemes with big deficits on that basis (most of them).
The proposals for IORP to be revised along the lines of Solvency II have been dropped (for now at least) by Barnier. Buy-out funding levels would indeed have been a good starting point to assess the damage that would have done but the EU Commission seems to have been thwarted in its aim of killing the UK's private sector defined benefit schemes.
Since 2000 when New Labour opened the borders family homes in inner city areas have been getting snapped up and turned into multi-occupancy. It's an immigration problem not a housing problem.
What caused the massive housing benefit rises between 1980 and 200 then?
Let me guess, immigrants again.
No idea. However i do know that since around 2000 when New Labour opened the borders family homes in inner city areas have been getting turned into multi-occupancy on a massive scale.
"because he is a warm, personable leader, he has thus far managed to give his backbenchers the feeling that he invests in them, and thus they should keep investing in him by supporting these big reality check weeks. One frontbencher remarked to me that ‘David [Miliband] couldn’t have kept the party with him for this long: this week is a testimony to how good Ed is at these things’."
Cameron is building up two rebellions it seems. One on Syria, one on recall powers.
I have sympathy with him on the first, the second just tells you he's an amateur.
If Syria makes Cameron look like an amateur, then what does it make 'red line' Obama look like?
Worse, what does it make Miliband's fairly interesting flip-flop over Libya look like?
Libya is a good indication that Miliband would be a disaster as PM. He made utterly the wrong decision.
"Cameron is building up two rebellions it seems. One on Syria, one on recall powers.
I have sympathy with him on the first,the second just tells you he's an amateur."
So you support arming the Syrian Sunnis?
I think you need the wisdom of Solomon to know what best can be done in Syria now. The time to intervene against Assad was a year ago; it has been left too long, and now there are some equally nasty elements amongst the rebels.
God knows what is right in this situation; perhaps, just perhaps, we should keep out. That will probably mean an Assad win, large scale revenge deaths and more influence for Russia in the Middle East. But a rebel win equally worries me.
It's a mess, and for once it's not of our making. It will be interesting to see what historians say about the situation in 50 years time. If it's sorted out by then...
That's about 40% of what is need, wheres the rest coming from?
No wonder Osborne keeps having to increase his Housing Benefit projections is it -and even those meagre local authority builds will have to charge 80% of market rent - so with rents increasing at 4-8% per annum it's another whack for the taxpayer.
The report called for five major changes that it said would lead to a "radical improvement in UK housing", beginning with an increase in the number of new homes built every year from the current 100,000 to more than 300,000.
An independently-managed £10 billion Local Housing Development Fund would kick-start the scheme and would be financed and owned by the largest Local Authority pension fund.
When current new build demand needs stimulus from the government to meet current supply then the build rate is probably more than optimal.
A growth rate of 20% per annum sustained over four years doubles output. As the current annual build rate is near 150,000 then a 300,000 per annum build rate would be possible by mid 2017.
I very much doubt whether any alternative scheme to build social housing financed by additional central government borrowing would be able to deliver anything like this volume within four years.
Organic growth, in tandem with the economy, using private sector finance and resources (especially land banks) is the sensible way forward.
The £10 billion Local Housing Development Fund is pure Soviet Central Planning. Even if it did manage to build a property or two, the lightbulbs wouldn't work and the bath plugs would be missing. So only Latvians of Russian ethnic origin would want to move in.
Looking back i think council housing was a lot better system on the whole as apart from everything else it prevented private landlords making a fortune from gaming the system.
The current setup is another example of privatizing the profits and socializing the losses.
"because he is a warm, personable leader, he has thus far managed to give his backbenchers the feeling that he invests in them, and thus they should keep investing in him by supporting these big reality check weeks. One frontbencher remarked to me that ‘David [Miliband] couldn’t have kept the party with him for this long: this week is a testimony to how good Ed is at these things’."
Cameron is building up two rebellions it seems. One on Syria, one on recall powers.
I have sympathy with him on the first, the second just tells you he's an amateur.
If Syria makes Cameron look like an amateur, then what does it make 'red line' Obama look like?
Worse, what does it make Miliband's fairly interesting flip-flop over Libya look like?
Libya is a good indication that Miliband would be a disaster as PM. He made utterly the wrong decision.
"Cameron is building up two rebellions it seems. One on Syria, one on recall powers.
I have sympathy with him on the first,the second just tells you he's an amateur."
So you support arming the Syrian Sunnis?
I think you need the wisdom of Solomon to know what best can be done in Syria now. The time to intervene against Assad was a year ago..
And Cameron at PMQs was far from that - brushing aside two astute questions:
"Sir Peter Tapsell, father of the Commons, said that Syria was now enduring what is “fundamentally a religious war between the Shia and the Sunni, which has raged within Islam for 1,300 years”. Mr Cameron would not accept this point. “When I see the official Syrian opposition,” he replied, “I do not see purely a religious grouping; I see a group of people who have declared that they are in favour of democracy, human rights and a future for minorities, including Christians, in Syria. That is the fact of the matter.” Then Jack Straw, a former foreign secretary, asked whether the Prime Minister agreed that Iran would have to be part of any peace deal. Mr Cameron failed to deal with this essential question."
Since 2000 when New Labour opened the borders family homes in inner city areas have been getting snapped up and turned into multi-occupancy. It's an immigration problem not a housing problem.
What caused the massive housing benefit rises between 1980 and 200 then?
Let me guess, immigrants again.
Thinking about it i wonder if it was a different version of the same thing i.e. an increasing number of smaller households because of things like divorce and people living longer leading to family homes being turned into flats. So basically the same thing - more separate units of housing - but for a different reason.
A thought then would be - Total housing benefit for a house based on what you'd pay on a mortgage for the whole house rather than based on the number of flats? (Which apart from the cost is leading to smaller and smaller "flats.") Dunno what the effect of doing that would be?
GBP at $1.56 and at EURO1.78. Persimmon (House Builders) share price has nigh doubled n the last 12 months.
Can't help noticing tim's frantic postings to divert all attention from EdM's and EdB's u-turns after u-turns. Don't upset him by mentioning EdM's love of tax avoidance schemes and Labour's advice on such to Labour donors - after EdM's castigation of Google, Amazaon et al for using such schemes - all perfectly legal of course but moral or amoral? Of course EDM wouldn't use such a scheme for himself - or did/would he?
Off topic,but my 2 penn'orth on housing benefit.We had to move my Father in law from a house that we owned to a more central location,as he was no longer able to drive. HB was not available on his old location as it was owned by us/relatives,but we applied for HB on the new flat and it was extremely simple,and agreed rapidly with no questions asked,at nearly £800/month. Meanwhile we rented out the old location,and the new tenant was not really bothered about the rent as she was eligible for HB,and did not quibble about the charge. I am not personally complaining,for obvious reasons,but the system does need reforming. Similarly pension credit,work hard and put a bit aside,and you will not get it,why bother saving for your later years? Once you are accepted on pension credit,all the other benefits HB,and council tax releif all follow. Benefits should really be only for the genuine needy,not for those who can't be arsed to plan for their own future. Father in law never claimed pension credit,until I got involved,said it was not right.
GBP at $1.56 and at EURO1.78. Persimmon (House Builders) share price has nigh doubled n the last 12 months.
Can't help noticing tim's frantic postings to divert all attention from EdM's and EdB's u-turns after u-turns. Don't upset him by mentioning EdM's love of tax avoidance schemes and Labour's advice on such to Labour donors - after EdM's castigation of Google, Amazaon et al for using such schemes - all perfectly legal of course but moral or amoral? Of course EDM wouldn't use such a scheme for himself - or did/would he?
Don't be daft, there will be a lot more U turns to come. Are you planning on embracing the Tories U turns on pensioner benefits? Are you posting about anything other than the U turn on childcare today?
Or as ever, does the most amusing of PB's anecdote peddlers have very little to say of any consequence?
And the fall in the dollar is worldwide, it's not a product of the pound
And of course house building companies shares are rising, George Osborne is throwing tens of billions in state subsidised subprime lending at them. It's a gold rush.
Oh you are a silly little boy - you need to get out more and see the real world and speak to people - like voters. BTW are you a failed farmer or a failed wine merchant or just living under a stone like a warty toad.
I am pleased to hear that there will be more u-turns from your Labour masters. You need to read more - Specsavers?- I did not say that the fall in the dollar was due to the GPB, but you twisted my words that way. Are you campaigning against tax avoidance or don't you pay any?
BBC Breaking News: Eurozone economy will contract by 0.6% in 2013 but grow by 1.1% in 2014, European Central Bank forecasts
I blame Osborne....
Just to put that in context, that is a reduction in 2013 growth forecasts, but an increase in 2014. I would be naturally suspicious of any 'jam tomorrow' story.
... the periphery - particularly Spain - doing rather better than expected. The Spanish Service Sector survey released yesterday, was 47.4 (which still indicates a contracting economy), but which was sharply up on the 44.4 in April.
...
Robert
There is a lot of wishful thnking and reporting about the 'bottoming out' in Spain.
Evidence cited has been the near 100,000 increase in employment but this is seasonal as the holiday resorts gear up for the summer season.
The balance of payments recovery is even more misleading: a 15% drop in imports due to reduced consumption with a 2% increase in exports does not a recovery make.
Since 2000 when New Labour opened the borders family homes in inner city areas have been getting snapped up and turned into multi-occupancy. It's an immigration problem not a housing problem.
What caused the massive housing benefit rises between 1980 and 200 then?
Let me guess, immigrants again.
Thinking about it i wonder if it was a different version of the same thing i.e. an increasing number of smaller households because of things like divorce and people living longer leading to family homes being turned into flats. So basically the same thing - more separate units of housing - but for a different reason.
A thought then would be - Total housing benefit for a house based on what you'd pay on a mortgage for the whole house rather than based on the number of flats? (Which apart from the cost is leading to smaller and smaller "flats.") Dunno what the effect of doing that would be?
The truth,as ever, is pretty much the opposite of your theories
The share of working age households relative to pensioners in the housing benefit caseload has been gradually rising, as the former find it progressively harder to buy their own home. These households are generally larger, which is reflected in a shift in the age-profile of expenditure. In 1978, 45 per cent of housing benefit was spent on the over- 60s; this fell to just 31 per cent in 2007.85 In addition, there is a considerable regional skew in expenditure towards London, where house prices leave more people renting and high rental costs push up the benefits bill. In 2011, London accounted for 17 per cent of housing benefit recipients but 26 per cent of all expenditure (Wilcox and Pawson 2012: table 118, DWP 2012).
"In 1978, 45 per cent of housing benefit was spent on the over-60s; this fell to just 31 per cent in 2007."
Which fits what i said. More about pensioners before - immigration now.
" In addition, there is a considerable regional skew in expenditure towards London, where house prices leave more people renting and high rental costs push up the benefits bill. In 2011, London accounted for 17 per cent of housing benefit recipients but 26 per cent of all expenditure"
Especially London - hence why driving elderly people out of their old family home in Leeds a few years earlier doesn't help the problem in London - and if it was in London it would make HB worse because once the old girl was forced out it would be turned into multi-occupancy and cost more.
edit: Either way unless i'm missing something it's basically the same problem. A house that would cost x a month on the mortgage can bring in 2x in housing benefit.
I like your Morrisons pie anecdotes, please talk to some voters and report back soon.
I thought you were the one who went on about Dave's trip to Morrisons? Or is this a different Morrisons' anecdote?
Did you miss Financier's analysis of Morrisons business model? It was incisive as his reasoning for the lack of hen nights in Sitges. Nothing to do with their lack of an online presence, they are being hit by the number of pies they sell in the south of England. He saw the pies himself
Since 2000 when New Labour opened the borders family homes in inner city areas have been getting snapped up and turned into multi-occupancy. It's an immigration problem not a housing problem.
What caused the massive housing benefit rises between 1980 and 200 then?
Let me guess, immigrants again.
Thinking about it i wonder if it was a different version of the same thing i.e. an increasing number of smaller households because of things like divorce and people living longer leading to family homes being turned into flats. So basically the same thing - more separate units of housing - but for a different reason.
A thought then would be - Total housing benefit for a house based on what you'd pay on a mortgage for the whole house rather than based on the number of flats? (Which apart from the cost is leading to smaller and smaller "flats.") Dunno what the effect of doing that would be?
The truth,as ever, is pretty much the opposite of your theories
The share of working age households relative to pensioners in the housing benefit caseload has been gradually rising, as the former find it progressively harder to buy their own home. These households are generally larger, which is reflected in a shift in the age-profile of expenditure. In 1978, 45 per cent of housing benefit was spent on the over- 60s; this fell to just 31 per cent in 2007.85 In addition, there is a considerable regional skew in expenditure towards London, where house prices leave more people renting and high rental costs push up the benefits bill. In 2011, London accounted for 17 per cent of housing benefit recipients but 26 per cent of all expenditure (Wilcox and Pawson 2012: table 118, DWP 2012).
"In 1978, 45 per cent of housing benefit was spent on the over-60s; this fell to just 31 per cent in 2007."
Which fits what i said. More about pensioners before - immigration now.
" In addition, there is a considerable regional skew in expenditure towards London, where house prices leave more people renting and high rental costs push up the benefits bill. In 2011, London accounted for 17 per cent of housing benefit recipients but 26 per cent of all expenditure"
Especially London - hence why driving elderly people out of their old family home in Leeds a few years earlier doesn't help the problem in London - and if it was in London it would make HB worse because once the old girl was forced out it would be turned into multi-occupancy and cost more.
Again you are wrong Of the £20 Billion housing benefit bill £2.6 billion goes to households with one adult born abroad
How much goes to households with two or more adults born abroad ?
Since 2000 when New Labour opened the borders family homes in inner city areas have been getting snapped up and turned into multi-occupancy. It's an immigration problem not a housing problem.
What caused the massive housing benefit rises between 1980 and 200 then?
Let me guess, immigrants again.
Thinking about it i wonder if it was a different version of the same thing i.e. an increasing number of smaller households because of things like divorce and people living longer leading to family homes being turned into flats. So basically the same thing - more separate units of housing - but for a different reason.
A thought then would be - Total housing benefit for a house based on what you'd pay on a mortgage for the whole house rather than based on the number of flats? (Which apart from the cost is leading to smaller and smaller "flats.") Dunno what the effect of doing that would be?
The truth,as ever, is pretty much the opposite of your theories
The share of working age households relative to pensioners in the housing benefit caseload has been gradually rising, as the former find it progressively harder to buy their own home. These households are generally larger, which is reflected in a shift in the age-profile of expenditure. In 1978, 45 per cent of housing benefit was spent on the over- 60s; this fell to just 31 per cent in 2007.85 In addition, there is a considerable regional skew in expenditure towards London, where house prices leave more people renting and high rental costs push up the benefits bill. In 2011, London accounted for 17 per cent of housing benefit recipients but 26 per cent of all expenditure (Wilcox and Pawson 2012: table 118, DWP 2012).
"In 1978, 45 per cent of housing benefit was spent on the over-60s; this fell to just 31 per cent in 2007."
Which fits what i said. More about pensioners before - immigration now.
" In addition, there is a considerable regional skew in expenditure towards London, where house prices leave more people renting and high rental costs push up the benefits bill. In 2011, London accounted for 17 per cent of housing benefit recipients but 26 per cent of all expenditure"
Especially London - hence why driving elderly people out of their old family home in Leeds a few years earlier doesn't help the problem in London - and if it was in London it would make HB worse because once the old girl was forced out it would be turned into multi-occupancy and cost more.
Again you are wrong Of the £20 Billion housing benefit bill £2.6 billion goes to households with one adult born abroad
Well there's no "again" as the first point was over why HB went up before 2000 and I think we have a clear winner in there being more separate housing units - for whatever reason.
As to whether the inner city areas have seen a massive increase in multi-occupancy i know that's true and anyone can go look for themselves. Not even inner cities as the last three houses sold in my street a family moved out and they're multi-occupancy now.
As to whether the end-result is only 13% of the total HB bill - maybe. The aging / divorce factor will be across the country while the immigration factor will be concentrated in certain areas so possible i guess. Not that all 13% would be in London but in terms of scale 13% would be half of London's 26% share in total expenditure.
ITN had a report about Osborne's Housing Scheme and the upshot seemed to be that the scheme is getting the housing market moving AND it could create a property bubble - Both of which offer short to medium terms good news for the Coalition.
I guess now we now why Tim's so desperate about it, LOL!
I looked at the results and realised some put their wish it was a % but not an honest one,seems as usual some cant be honest with themselves,never mind with the rest of us.I do think it will be a close call,some of the usual postal votes being suspect because a political party has some form on abusing the postal vote and some are advocating people to move to Scotland ,at least on paper,so that they can vote in a certain way,will integrity and honesty vanish? I hope not then again I hope for a 65% vote for yes but really expect it to be less than whats needed,but only by a percentage point or two.Then we will see how Scotland gets dismayed at losing Holyrood,and powers stripped so that never again can we seek to follow our own destiny.Then we will get some wondering why the believed the Labour party,still not realising that the Labour party is just a part of the Westminster party,more will be disillusioned
Comments
The party that grew welfare in the good years faces a struggle to present itself as being serious about reform. It will need more than broad principles and high-flown rhetoric. Labour needs several specific and clearly understandable big policies that involve genuine hard choices.
And it will need to talk about them and promote them, a lot. One wonky speech is not nearly enough."
There is the rub - there were no hard choices at all - CB for high earners is a dolly of a cut - for not much.
That said, the data from the Eurozone continues to be extremely mixed, with France worsening, Germany and the Netherlands looking weak, but the periphery - particularly Spain - doing rather better than expected. The Spanish Service Sector survey released yesterday, was 47.4 (which still indicates a contracting economy), but which was sharply up on the 44.4 in April. The overall Markit Eurozone manufacturing survey also showed its best result for over a year, with a 48.3 (again, shrinking, but not so much as before).
News out of the US is just as mixed: the Beige Book released by the US Fed warned that the effects of the sequester on the US economy were likely to be worse than expected. In addition, housing numbers were very much worse than expected, with demand for mortgages down 11.5% last week - a fourth weekly drop. News out last night on salaries from the US also suggested that, while joblessness is falling, so are incomes - (first quarter numbers indicated the biggest ever drop in incomes). Personally, I suspect this is simply the effect of most new jobs being low paid ones.
The markets have pushed sterling sharply higher against the dollar, and the Euro modestly up. Stock markets are down 0.5% in Europe, 1.2% in the UK, and are flat in the US.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2207207/Scottish-teenagers-say-NO-independence-blow-Salmond.html
http://www.economist.com/blogs/blighty/2012/10/scotlands-referendum-independence
http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/ntiyzpelka/YG-Archives-Politics-ScottishVI-280512.pdf
Looking hurt, Mr Miliband protested that Labour would pay tax on the shares’ dividends.
But, said another reporter, that wasn’t the point: the point was that Mr Mills hadn’t paid as much tax as he might have.
Still looking hurt, Mr Miliband again protested that Labour would pay tax on the shares’ dividends.
Perhaps he simply misheard the question.
Twice.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10103858/Sketch-When-welfare-isnt-welfare.html
Ah yes, Iain Martin. So difficult to discern his political allegiances isn't it (as a PB Floating Voter once said)
The party increased welfare spending dramatically during the boom
Welfare spending %GDP
1997 6.7%
2007 5.9%
http://www.theagedp.com/?p=7525
For Councils to embark on massive housebuilding programmes (even disregarding the democratic planning constraints of local public opinion....would you override objections/abrogate the right of appeal etc?) would require a HUGE injection of capital monies that local authorities, particularly district and borough councils, simply don't have. Technically you could help fund capital programmes from revenue but for that to happen realistically, all rate capping would have to be abolished and Council Tax possibly increasing by well above inflation. Can you see that occuring? The picture is immeasurably more complicated for those Councils who do own stock and which will therefore have a HRA.
So, the only credible route would be billions of central govt funding and continuously for several years. Meanwhile, the housing benefit bill, itself to be subsumed into Universal Credit, would not decline - the trade-off would be in the medium term at best. In our previous discussion several months ago, complemented by the paper by our own housing expert, a boost in supply would not necessarily have much of a downward impact on rents (and thus indirectly on HB).
I suppose you don't trust Professor Curtice of Strathclyde University just as you don't trust Edinburgh University. You make for a very poor Scottish nationalist.
I think he's well plaiced to keep his position whatever the result.
BREAKING: Commons will vote on whether to arm Syrian rebels
More than 80 Conservative backbenchers demanded opportunity to block supply of weapons
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/breaking-commons-will-vote-on-whether-to-arm-syrian-rebels-8647995.html
And how much of the 2007 GDP was an unsustainable bubble?
I can assure you I have a higher regard for John Curtice than most Scottish nationalists (it isn't hard).
Your response doesn't seem to bear any resemblance to the questions I asked. What was the relevance of a YouGov poll of over-18s only?
Can you tell me which pollster carried out the Mail poll?
Everyone fixates on the immigration side of this equation, taking in students, EU citizens and foreign brides with a greater than average skill at cooking curries. I had thought that by specifying net migration Cameron was leaving the door open to subtly encourage emigration in order to balance the equation. It doesn't seem to have happened, though.
I know it won't count as real research as it is anecdote, but an anecdote expressed multiple times by various worried souls on different occasions. The employers I spoke to were fearful of Independence but are expecting it.
Yes I went 50/60%. If I was a Scot I'd think, what's in the union for me? In many cases, I reckon the answer would be 'not a lot'.
How do you think the referendum result will affect the SNP as a party?
Perversely, I think a No to indy might be the better result. My hunch is that a lot of Scots broadly like the SNP, but are slightly nervous about their whole Independence thing. With that off the agenda, they can continue to sell themselves as the best party to stand up for Scotland in the Union.
Whereas Yes to indy would rob the SNP of their USP, and whilst people might trust them in the transition, it would also free a proper Scottish Labour movement from the shackles of London Labour in the longer term.
Am I talking crap? Or do you not really care, as Independence is a momentous end in itself, job done?
He was wrong / lying / spinning, and that one bare faced deceit undermines his entire article, I'm afraid.
Indeed so after 5 years of PM rEd we would have no dent in the Housing Benefit bill, no extra houses ready and kazillion billions more in borrowing - would go down well in a GE. And millions more Polish builders who came over to build the houses looking for a place to stay...
Its like oh yes - 2000-2007 : Brownism part 2..
The latter, on the whole, although I'd probably still want the SNP to win if Scottish Labour was the only real alternative, and if it retained its authoritarian character. I'm sure Scottish politics will be in for a significant realignment after independence, though. My own ideal would be a left-liberal party taking in the bulk of the SNP, the social liberal wing of the Lib Dems, and non-authoritarian Labour people.
http://www.thecommentator.com/article/3703/if_only_33_000_people_knew_the_truth
Well at least they're not white football hooligans drinking beer.
I see he describes Kaffurs like me as "worse than cattle" Mehdi Hasan style. Well each to their own, but what's wrong with cows anyway? To Hindu's they are sacred and I think theyre very nice animals
I don't think you actually understand the Help to Buy scheme. It is aimed at increasing house supply and in the form currently running has nothing to do with re-mortgaging.
"Help to Buy - equity loans makes new build homes available to all home buyers (not just first time buyers) who wish buy a new home, but may be constrained in doing so – for example as a result of deposit requirements – but who could otherwise be expected to sustain a mortgage."
http://www.helptobuy.org.uk/help_to_buy.aspx
Right, so the Help to Buy scheme is related to increasing supply and since the details for the second part haven't been finalised yet your talk about second home owners, foreign buyers etc is nonsense. Glad you've corrected yourself.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/06/how-ed-miliband-avoided-open-warfare-on-welfare/
"because he is a warm, personable leader, he has thus far managed to give his backbenchers the feeling that he invests in them, and thus they should keep investing in him by supporting these big reality check weeks. One frontbencher remarked to me that ‘David [Miliband] couldn’t have kept the party with him for this long: this week is a testimony to how good Ed is at these things’."
Jonathan D has given an answer to your rather more subjective/distorted accounts of the two new schemes. And I think you need to provide considerably more detail about the 'leveragiung' dimension being diverted to Councils. I imagine it's a far more complex process in practice, if feasible at all.
The point about pension funds is a new one for me. I'd better hand over to Neil and the other experts on that.
And on affordable housing, there is a way for councils to lever in capital for building affordable housing which will be under their control, instead of an RSL, and that's by taking commuted sums instead of asking developers to build on their sites. In moderation, though, I don't want ghettos.
My mum (I sometimes refer to her in this forum when @tim asserts that brit expats in Spain would be expelled if the UK left the the EU) during her now 23 year retirement in Spain sort of, accidently, acquired an adoptive child. The joke went that mum came out of the Chinese takeaway with a baby. Which she actually did, when the child was 2 weeks old, and entered into an informal and possibly illegal, for all I know, fostering arrangement. The natural parents are long off the scene and the Spanish legal position has long been regularised. The child is, effectively, although so far as I can figure it out, there is no exact English law equivalent, a ward of the Spanish social services and Mum and her husband have a status somewhere between foster and adoptive parents. But the Spanish social services dept have the last say.
Thing is, the child, now 17, has profound learning difficulties and Mum is now in her 70s and very concerned to make plans for the child's future and so is contemplating returning to the UK, if that is better for the child (who now - you wouldn't believe how many years it took, what with her being Chinese - has a Spanish passport and thus whatever EU residency rights in the UK this confers).
We have had various discussions with social services departments about the availability of adult social care provision in the UK but it seems to just not compute. I guess, at the end of the day, this sort of provision is needs-based and it does seem that there is a postcode lottery about the quality of provision.
This is a life-changing issue for me. The child will require institutional care in her adult life. I will do my best for her but simply lack the capacity to solve the problem. I wonder, for example, if @Charles might have any insight into how the system works.
And before anyone says "benefit tourism", Mum is a UK taxpayer.
Thanks in advance.
What's an interesting question is whether this program raises the price of new build homes, but the price for such homes will immediately drop once they've had an owner and no longer qualify as new build. That might need a hefty boost in the market to make up for it, lest these people end up in negative equity.
Still think it was particularly ironic for the Telegraph not to allow comments on a piece about free speech, however.
The current economic recovery is 'house build driven'.
The government is on schedule to meet its target of 170,000 new builds by 2015 under the Affordable Homes Programme.
The private sector is currently building at a rate of 100,000 new homes per annum with a current growth velocity of 20%.
The Funding for Lending Schemes and the specific programmes targetted at new builds, new buyers and high loan to value mortgages for properties under £600,000 is ensuring that there is sufficient demand to meet planned construction output.
Whilst Ed Miliband and Ed Balls are talking about house building, Cameron and Osborne are doing it.
Here is the evidence. Registrations of New Homes in the quarter Feb-Apr 2013 compared to the same period last year. Figures from NHBC.
1974: 8.9
1979: 10.2 - Labour +1.3
1997: 6.7 - Conservatives - 3.5
2010: 7.6 - Labour +0.9
2013: 7.2 - Coalition -0.4
And btw, spending on welfare also dropped under Thatcher (-0.9)
http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/year_spending_1990UKpn_12pc1n_40#ukgs302
It seems like a postcode lottery because at the moment it is. For under 18s it is much easier to get provision. Over 18 and it gets more complicated. It differs from council to council. You would be assessed in roughly the same way everywhere, and the same cap on assets applies nationally - if you have very little you pay nothing, then there is a sliding scale until at around £23K in assets you have to pay for everything. However, each council gets to set its own threshold for need. Some councils say they will provide help for those in critical need only. Some (most probably) have a lower threshold at "substantial" need, and I would guess there are few councils left now set at "moderate". Those levels are called "eligibility criteria", so you need to check what the council does local to where your mum wants to live.
Everything is due to change eventually under new legislation to make a more level playing field.
That's a very potted version.
The one in the link rcs1000 referred to is the 'Help to Buy - equity loans' scheme, which is for new-build only.
The PDF you linked to is the 'Help to Buy: mortgage guarantee' scheme, which is different, and which works in a completely different way. It's a guarantee of part of the loan, so it's a contingent liability for the taxpayer only. The aim is of course to get the market moving again by encouraging lenders to lend.
Worse, what does it make Miliband's fairly interesting flip-flop over Libya look like?
Libya is a good indication that Miliband would be a disaster as PM. He made utterly the wrong decision.
Here's another controversial topic: maybe it's time for positive discrimination to tackle the gender imbalance in medical schools...
Thanks v much but the message we are getting is that, due to being foreign, the child is not eligible for anything, at least for six months. Could you link me into all that threshold stuff. I am trying to find my way in an alien world here. Thanks again.
Why do you think they couldn't get anyone from Labour to join in?
As it was, they left it to multi-millionaire Nicola Horlick to argue for a house price fall as the solution to our woes....
But the point about Miliband and Libya still stands.
The proposals for IORP to be revised along the lines of Solvency II have been dropped (for now at least) by Barnier. Buy-out funding levels would indeed have been a good starting point to assess the damage that would have done but the EU Commission seems to have been thwarted in its aim of killing the UK's private sector defined benefit schemes.
But why no one from Labour to argue that a fall in house prices was the solution to our woes.....oh, hang on.....
God knows what is right in this situation; perhaps, just perhaps, we should keep out. That will probably mean an Assad win, large scale revenge deaths and more influence for Russia in the Middle East. But a rebel win equally worries me.
It's a mess, and for once it's not of our making. It will be interesting to see what historians say about the situation in 50 years time. If it's sorted out by then...
When current new build demand needs stimulus from the government to meet current supply then the build rate is probably more than optimal.
A growth rate of 20% per annum sustained over four years doubles output. As the current annual build rate is near 150,000 then a 300,000 per annum build rate would be possible by mid 2017.
I very much doubt whether any alternative scheme to build social housing financed by additional central government borrowing would be able to deliver anything like this volume within four years.
Organic growth, in tandem with the economy, using private sector finance and resources (especially land banks) is the sensible way forward.
The £10 billion Local Housing Development Fund is pure Soviet Central Planning. Even if it did manage to build a property or two, the lightbulbs wouldn't work and the bath plugs would be missing. So only Latvians of Russian ethnic origin would want to move in.
The current setup is another example of privatizing the profits and socializing the losses.
"Sir Peter Tapsell, father of the Commons, said that Syria was now enduring what is “fundamentally a religious war between the Shia and the Sunni, which has raged within Islam for 1,300 years”.
Mr Cameron would not accept this point. “When I see the official Syrian opposition,” he replied, “I do not see purely a religious grouping; I see a group of people who have declared that they are in favour of democracy, human rights and a future for minorities, including Christians, in Syria. That is the fact of the matter.”
Then Jack Straw, a former foreign secretary, asked whether the Prime Minister agreed that Iran would have to be part of any peace deal. Mr Cameron failed to deal with this essential question."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10100943/Can-David-Cameron-explain-why-he-has-put-us-on-al-Qaedas-side.html
"You know those little multi-coloured things on the top of a doughnut. The UK's like that." #tweetlikeBetterTogether
"You can, like, buy a return ticket to London. In advance. That's barry. That's Britain" #tweetlikeBetterTogether
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwlogyj7nFE
Hope it gets better....
:looks-down-at-post-4109:
Oh gosh, more Wee-Timmy....
:rolls-under-incoming-125:
A thought then would be - Total housing benefit for a house based on what you'd pay on a mortgage for the whole house rather than based on the number of flats? (Which apart from the cost is leading to smaller and smaller "flats.") Dunno what the effect of doing that would be?
"What about the Caravan Club of Great Britain? Well? What will happen to that?" #tweetlikeBetterTogether
http://www.twitlonger.com/show/l06hje
"I love Roast Beef and Yorkshire Pudding. But I live in Glasgow. I don't want to lose all that". #tweetlikeBetterTogether
Can't help noticing tim's frantic postings to divert all attention from EdM's and EdB's u-turns after u-turns. Don't upset him by mentioning EdM's love of tax avoidance schemes and Labour's advice on such to Labour donors - after EdM's castigation of Google, Amazaon et al for using such schemes - all perfectly legal of course but moral or amoral? Of course EDM wouldn't use such a scheme for himself - or did/would he?
We're not obliged to pick a preferred side, especially when neither side has much to commend it.
"Something MUST be done!
This is something.
We must do it"
Qatar in particular is playing a very dangerous game....leave well alone.
HB was not available on his old location as it was owned by us/relatives,but we applied for HB on the new flat and it was extremely simple,and agreed rapidly with no questions asked,at nearly £800/month.
Meanwhile we rented out the old location,and the new tenant was not really bothered about the rent as she was eligible for HB,and did not quibble about the charge.
I am not personally complaining,for obvious reasons,but the system does need reforming.
Similarly pension credit,work hard and put a bit aside,and you will not get it,why bother saving for your later years? Once you are accepted on pension credit,all the other benefits HB,and council tax releif all follow. Benefits should really be only for the genuine needy,not for those who can't be arsed to plan for their own future.
Father in law never claimed pension credit,until I got involved,said it was not right.
I am pleased to hear that there will be more u-turns from your Labour masters. You need to read more - Specsavers?- I did not say that the fall in the dollar was due to the GPB, but you twisted my words that way. Are you campaigning against tax avoidance or don't you pay any?
There is a lot of wishful thnking and reporting about the 'bottoming out' in Spain.
Evidence cited has been the near 100,000 increase in employment but this is seasonal as the holiday resorts gear up for the summer season.
The balance of payments recovery is even more misleading: a 15% drop in imports due to reduced consumption with a 2% increase in exports does not a recovery make.
Which fits what i said. More about pensioners before - immigration now.
" In addition, there is a considerable regional skew in expenditure towards London, where
house prices leave more people renting and high rental costs push up the benefits bill. In 2011, London accounted for 17 per cent of housing benefit recipients but 26 per cent of all expenditure"
Especially London - hence why driving elderly people out of their old family home in Leeds a few years earlier doesn't help the problem in London - and if it was in London it would make HB worse because once the old girl was forced out it would be turned into multi-occupancy and cost more.
edit: Either way unless i'm missing something it's basically the same problem. A house that would cost x a month on the mortgage can bring in 2x in housing benefit.
As to whether the inner city areas have seen a massive increase in multi-occupancy i know that's true and anyone can go look for themselves. Not even inner cities as the last three houses sold in my street a family moved out and they're multi-occupancy now.
As to whether the end-result is only 13% of the total HB bill - maybe. The aging / divorce factor will be across the country while the immigration factor will be concentrated in certain areas so possible i guess. Not that all 13% would be in London but in terms of scale 13% would be half of London's 26% share in total expenditure.
I guess now we now why Tim's so desperate about it, LOL!