' while Osborne has increased housing benefit payments by £4 Billion per annum'
You were caught out on this a couple of days ago,why bother with the porkies again.
'Table 1 below shows that the average eligible Private Sector1 rent for Housing Benefit (HB) increased by 45% between 2000/01 and 2010/11. This means that around £3 billion of HB expenditure in 2010/11 can be attributed to real private rent growth over the previous ten years.
From April 2011, Local Housing Allowance (LHA) reforms were introduced and are expected to save around £2 billion a year in HB expenditure by 2015/16. These reforms restrict eligible rent, causing growth to be below inflation (a real terms decrease) in 2011/12 and 2012/13.
Yes, more than halving the increase that Labour presided over in the equivalent period before up to 09/10. Someone has to reign in the damage done by the housing benefit junkies in the Labour party.
Interesting piece on the ticking timebomb Labour left behind. Trully a shameless lot!
But we have been hearing all day that it is Gove's fault. That wasn't misleading spin, surely?
You almost get the impression that in the eyes of Labour supporters all this country's problems began on the 6th of May 2010. How, they must ask themselves, has the Coalition managed to squander the Golden Legacy they were bequeathed?
Crazy stuff from Cameron today. No wonder the right wing is unelectable in this country.
Yep, a bad day for Cameron when Unite has to come out of its fossil and give Miliband the dreaded vote of confidence.
Look, Cameron gets a lot of flak, often deserved, and times are tough out there, but the past fortnight has been poor for Labour. Things will undoubtedly turn around, but for now, Cameron and his troops should be permitted the opportunity to laugh at Labour.
If the shoe was on the other foot and all that.
ps - do the Nats have a chance in Falkirk? And would Eric Joyce be allowed to run as an Independent?
Crazy stuff from Cameron today. No wonder the right wing is unelectable in this country.
Not crazy stuff, just standard political digs at opponents repeated a bit too much because it pleases the base (even if taking it that far annoys others). Not laudable, but not noteworthy either.
Louise Mensch @LouiseMensch Election of a dictatorship is not a true democracy. Election alone isn't enough. If rights of minorities not protected, undemocratic.
Guess that makes every govt who criminalised gay people in the UK undemocratic, in flakeworld.
I suppose it does, technically, though a matter of degree of undemocraticness, as flakey or not her point seems valid to me.
@faisalislam: with £120bn planned spend on housing benefit over next 5 years, could pay for construction of 1.2m homes* http://t.co/PEYsUatfsH
Good idea, tim.
The only thing is - how do the people currently on housing benefit, from whom this £120bn would be taken, manage in the meantime?
Use the money that Subprime George is leveraging into a housing bubble as well, and phase down housing benefit.
Tory benefit junkies will hate it as much as they'll hate a living wage which cuts benefits payment. Because remember Richard, Thatcher, Major and Cameron, all Tories are the same in creating new benefit spending peaks
tim
1. No local government has built social housing to any scale for over 20 years. Since 1993 the proportion of council dwellings completed has averaged less than 1% of total or just over 3,000 maximum in any one year.
2. Even Housing Association builds have only accounted for an average of 15.3% of total annual builds in the same period, with less than 40,000 dwellings the maximum built in any one year.
3. Private Enterprise has built an average of 84% of the total or around 156,000 per year. Pre financial crisis the private sector was building nearly 200,000 dwellings per year.
4. The whole residential property construction industry is geared towards private sector builds. Private companies hold the land and planning consents and have both the financial and construction resources to increase output to pre crisis levels.
5. There is no equivalent capability which would support a major switch to state financed construction of social housing.
On the supply side, land would need to be purchased, planning consents granted, architectural plans reworked to new requirements. Above all new financing models and distribution channels would need to be established.
On the demand side the whole culture of property ownership aspiration, and, ownership to rental ratio expectations would need to change to satisfy 1.2 million new household occupants.
6. Government borrowing (whether local or central) would need to be ramped up to finance your suggested building programme. Around £100 billion extra borrowing would be needed over say a five year term.
7. Housing benefit claims will rise and fall in line with rental incomes. Rental incomes will primarily rise and fall in inverse ratio to the capital value of residential property. If property prices keep pace with inflation (or better still inflation -1%) then the current above inflation rent rises will abate and normalise. The ratio of supply to demand ratio is a secondary influence on pricing.
8. Osborne's current stimulus of the housing market is broadly borrowing neutral. The equity participation schemes match liabilities with assets and are net neutral. The guarantees are contingent liabilities with no impact on borrowing. Administration and normal credit risk is covered by fees from the banks. There is no pot of money to transfer to other means of financing housing construction.
Given all of the above, your proposals make no economic, market or political sense at all.
Have you cut and pasted that? You will need it again tomorrow and the day after and...
Louise Mensch @LouiseMensch Election of a dictatorship is not a true democracy. Election alone isn't enough. If rights of minorities not protected, undemocratic.
Guess that makes every govt who criminalised gay people in the UK undemocratic, in flakeworld.
I suppose it does, technically, though a matter of degree of undemocraticness, as flakey or not her point seems valid to me.
@faisalislam: with £120bn planned spend on housing benefit over next 5 years, could pay for construction of 1.2m homes* http://t.co/PEYsUatfsH
Good idea, tim.
The only thing is - how do the people currently on housing benefit, from whom this £120bn would be taken, manage in the meantime?
Use the money that Subprime George is leveraging into a housing bubble as well, and phase down housing benefit.
Tory benefit junkies will hate it as much as they'll hate a living wage which cuts benefits payment. Because remember Richard, Thatcher, Major and Cameron, all Tories are the same in creating new benefit spending peaks
tim
1. No local government has built social housing to any scale for over 20 years. Since 1993 the proportion of council dwellings completed has averaged less than 1% of total or just over 3,000 maximum in any one year.
2. Even Housing Association builds have only accounted for an average of 15.3% of total annual builds in the same period, with less than 40,000 dwellings the maximum built in any one year.
3. Private Enterprise has built an average of 84% of the total or around 156,000 per year. Pre financial crisis the private sector was building nearly 200,000 dwellings per year.
4. The whole residential property construction industry is geared towards private sector builds. Private companies hold the land and planning consents and have both the financial and construction resources to increase output to pre crisis levels.
5. There is no equivalent capability which would support a major switch to state financed construction of social housing.
On the supply side, land would need to be purchased, planning consents granted, architectural plans reworked to new requirements. Above all new financing models and distribution channels would need to be established.
On the demand side the whole culture of property ownership aspiration, and, ownership to rental ratio expectations would need to change to satisfy 1.2 million new household occupants.
6. Government borrowing (whether local or central) would need to be ramped up to finance your suggested building programme. Around £100 billion extra borrowing would be needed over say a five year term.
7. Housing benefit claims will rise and fall in line with rental incomes. Rental incomes will primarily rise and fall in inverse ratio to the capital value of residential property. If property prices keep pace with inflation (or better still inflation -1%) then the current above inflation rent rises will abate and normalise. The ratio of supply to demand ratio is a secondary influence on pricing.
8. Osborne's current stimulus of the housing market is broadly borrowing neutral. The equity participation schemes match liabilities with assets and are net neutral. The guarantees are contingent liabilities with no impact on borrowing. Administration and normal credit risk is covered by fees from the banks. There is no pot of money to transfer to other means of financing housing construction.
Given all of the above, your proposals make no economic, market or political sense at all.
Have you cut and pasted that? You will need it again tomorrow and the day after and...
I thought it was hilarious, like a 1979 Trade Union picket explaining why nothing could change
@faisalislam: with £120bn planned spend on housing benefit over next 5 years, could pay for construction of 1.2m homes* http://t.co/PEYsUatfsH
Good idea, tim.
The only thing is - how do the people currently on housing benefit, from whom this £120bn would be taken, manage in the meantime?
Use the money that Subprime George is leveraging into a housing bubble as well, and phase down housing benefit.
Tory benefit junkies will hate it as much as they'll hate a living wage which cuts benefits payment. Because remember Richard, Thatcher, Major and Cameron, all Tories are the same in creating new benefit spending peaks
tim
1. No local government has built social housing to any scale for over 20 years. Since 1993 the proportion of council dwellings completed has averaged less than 1% of total or just over 3,000 maximum in any one year.
2. Even Housing Association builds have only accounted for an average of 15.3% of total annual builds in the same period, with less than 40,000 dwellings the maximum built in any one year.
3. Private Enterprise has built an average of 84% of the total or around 156,000 per year. Pre financial crisis the private sector was building nearly 200,000 dwellings per year.
4. The whole residential property construction industry is geared towards private sector builds. Private companies hold the land and planning consents and have both the financial and construction resources to increase output to pre crisis levels.
5. There is no equivalent capability which would support a major switch to state financed construction of social housing.
On the supply side, land would need to be purchased, planning consents granted, architectural plans reworked to new requirements. Above all new financing models and distribution channels would need to be established.
On the demand side the whole culture of property ownership aspiration, and, ownership to rental ratio expectations would need to change to satisfy 1.2 million new household occupants.
6. Government borrowing (whether local or central) would need to be ramped up to finance your suggested building programme. Around £100 billion extra borrowing would be needed over say a five year term.
7. Housing benefit claims will rise and fall in line with rental incomes. Rental incomes will primarily rise and fall in inverse ratio to the capital value of residential property. If property prices keep pace with inflation (or better still inflation -1%) then the current above inflation rent rises will abate and normalise. The ratio of supply to demand ratio is a secondary influence on pricing.
8. Osborne's current stimulus of the housing market is broadly borrowing neutral. The equity participation schemes match liabilities with assets and are net neutral. The guarantees are contingent liabilities with no impact on borrowing. Administration and normal credit risk is covered by fees from the banks. There is no pot of money to transfer to other means of financing housing construction.
Given all of the above, your proposals make no economic, market or political sense at all.
Have you cut and pasted that? You will need it again tomorrow and the day after and...
I thought it was hilarious, like a 1979 Trade Union picket explaining why nothing could change
Are you channelling Maggie now?
sometimes tim likes to let his inner kipper run free. The Left's angry young men became angry old ones.
"McCluskey also used the opportunity to reaffirm his support for Ed Miliband, saying that ”There can be absolutely no question about who runs the Labour party: it is Ed Miliband and he has my full support”
I can't believe McCluskey said that! If he did he's taking the p*ss out of poor Ed. Everyone in the Labour movement will recognize and understand its infamous allusion:
'[Jim] Mortimer faced a crowded press conference and told the assembled hacks, who could hardly believe their ears, that the matter had been discussed by the Campaign Committee, and that they had “unanimously” agreed that “Michael Foot IS the Leader of the Labour Party.”'
Good Evening. Now that the Egyptian army has taken over and Morsi is removed from tim's grip, will the Turkish army follow suit and try to remove Recep Tayyip Erdoğan; or has he emasculated them enough?
So another coup in Egypt, could someone please tell the Egyptians that the point of democracy is to vote for your government then let them get on with the job for the parliamentary term and if you do not like what they are doing vote them out at the next election not have a revolution barely a year after the election!
Louise Mensch @LouiseMensch Election of a dictatorship is not a true democracy. Election alone isn't enough. If rights of minorities not protected, undemocratic.
Guess that makes every govt who criminalised gay people in the UK undemocratic, in flakeworld.
There is always an irony when an unelected body protects civil rights better than democracy, whether that be a court, the military or a monarch. Nonetheless, it can and from time to time, does.
Comments
Interesting piece on the ticking timebomb Labour left behind. Trully a shameless lot!
Hat tip Private Eye!
When you going to win a majority. To many old folks on this site who think the country is still like it was when they were in their prime.
Only Labour can win a majority under FPTP
' while Osborne has increased housing benefit payments by £4 Billion per annum'
You were caught out on this a couple of days ago,why bother with the porkies again.
'Table 1 below shows that the average eligible Private Sector1 rent for Housing Benefit (HB) increased by 45% between 2000/01 and 2010/11. This means that around £3 billion of HB expenditure in 2010/11 can be attributed to real private rent growth over the previous ten years.
From April 2011, Local Housing Allowance (LHA) reforms were introduced and are expected to save around £2 billion a year in HB expenditure by 2015/16. These reforms restrict eligible rent, causing growth to be below inflation (a real terms decrease) in 2011/12 and 2012/13.
But sadly I am not sure out of Sean Fear a PB tory who understands the importance of campaigning.
I think the voters will decide who can and can't win under FPTP and not just a Labour partisan.
Then I read the comments underneath! Geez, and people on this forum get called right-wing!
Are these people real, or nasty caricatures? Bonkers.
Look, Cameron gets a lot of flak, often deserved, and times are tough out there, but the past fortnight has been poor for Labour. Things will undoubtedly turn around, but for now, Cameron and his troops should be permitted the opportunity to laugh at Labour.
If the shoe was on the other foot and all that.
ps - do the Nats have a chance in Falkirk? And would Eric Joyce be allowed to run as an Independent?
Sunil. No. Labour aren't guaranteed victory under FPTP. Rather the Tories are not to win.
@MarkKleinmanSky
Miliband holds talks with leading British bankers despite criticism of industry's political lobbying machine. http://bit.ly/12GqBnK
'[Jim] Mortimer faced a crowded press conference and told the assembled hacks, who could hardly believe their ears, that the matter had been discussed by the Campaign Committee, and that they had “unanimously” agreed that “Michael Foot IS the Leader of the Labour Party.”'
http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2013/04/23/rip-jim-mortimer-nice-man-worst-general-secretary-of-the-labour-party-ever/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/egypts-political-turmoil-puts-obama-administration-in-precarious-position/2013/07/02/00e957e0-e361-11e2-a11e-c2ea876a8f30_story.html