MPs pledge support as Iain Duncan Smith plans further benefit reforms
Labour candidates back our campaign
Four of the five candidates for the leadership of the Labour Party have backed Inside Housing’s What’s the Benefit? campaign.
Ed Balls, Ed Miliband, Andy Burnham and Diane Abbott announced their support as they tussle for the party leadership.
As part of his campaign this week, David Miliband announced a ‘mansion tax’ on homes worth more than £2 million to fund housing benefit costs. He argued the measure would raise £1.7 billion which could reverse housing benefit cuts proposed by the coalition government.
Writing exclusively for Inside Housing, he said: ‘The Tory approach is the definition of irresponsible short-termism, which we must oppose and expose. In its place, Labour needs to make the public case for public housing and demonstrate the vital role for government in shaping a housing market that serves the public interest.’
Mr Balls said: ‘Together we need to make the case for a humane and effective housing policy, and a fair system of housing benefit support to go with it.’
The candidates’ pledges came as an entire council signed up to support the campaign, which had attracted 820 signatures to its online petition at the time of going to press. At a full meeting of Islington Council on 27 July, members agreed unanimously to support and publicise the campaign. The motion, which was proposed by James Murray, executive member for housing, gained both Labour and Liberal Democrat support. Mr Murray said: ‘We are very concerned that a large number of residents, particularly large families, will be threatened with homelessness. Yes, housing benefit could be reformed - but this is certainly not the way to do it.’
Last week Iain Duncan Smith, the work and pensions secretary, unveiled plans for a radical shake-up of the welfare system as a whole. This would see all benefits, including housing benefit, brought together in a ‘universal credit system’.
Politicians in Northern Ireland expressed concerns about the impact of such reforms on the province. Alex Attwood, social development minister, said Mr Duncan Smith’s plans came ‘with a major health warning’.
Mr Attwood said he had told welfare reform minister Lord Freud last week that high levels of deprivation and the province’s economic situation meant it needed ‘both ‘time out’ from yet more welfare reform and maximum flexibility around welfare benefits’.
See the What’s the Benefit? page for more on the campaign, or sign our petition.
Opinion
Diane Abbott
The coalition government’s attack on housing is, sadly, no surprise to Labour
Two months ago as I sat in the chamber and listened to the Lib-Con Budget, I was aghast at the blatant attack on the poorest in our society which was unfolding before my eyes.
The Tories looked very pleased with themselves, while the Lib Dems looked like their dog had died.
One of the chancellor’s most brutal cuts was to impose a cap on housing benefit. At the time, I said this was an attack on the poor and, in particular, poor Londoners. Now figures hidden on the Department for Work and Pensions website confirm this, showing that more than nine out of 10 rental properties in London will be completely out of the reach of people on housing benefit.
And yet the coalition attack on housing continued this week. Prime minister David Cameron announced that council houses will no longer be ‘for life’ and instead would be allocated on fixed-term deals.
His words pander to the stereotype that people who live in council homes are scroungers who never want to better themselves.But the really sad thing is that his actions take away one of the most basic securities in life - a home.
What we need are more secure homes not fewer. We need new building projects to get people off the housing list, not limits on how long aid can be given.
Before the election, Labour warned that the Tories planned to get rid of secure tenancies and we were accused of scaremongering. Our biggest fears have now come to fruition.
View results 10 per page | 20 per page
Have your say
You must sign in to make a comment
Readers' comments (12)
Junior | 06/08/2010 9:05 am
Go and get the money from the banks whom put us in this mess make them pay this years Housing Benefit bill out of them profits.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Alpha One | 06/08/2010 9:53 am
This is an issue that will divide a generation.
On the one hand we have the socialists, who are under the misapprehension that cutting benefits is a bad thing and a short-term idea.
On the other we have the tories, who see cutting benefits as something that has to be done, not for deficit reduction purposes, but because it is the right thing to do.
Whichever side you sit on you view the debate in a different way.
Yes there are going to be people disproportionately affected, such as the elderly and those genuinely unable to work, and this needs to be address in any cuts.
However, a substantial proportion of benefit claimants will only be affected if they let themselves be. Too many people claim benefits when they don't need to (even if they make up only a small proportion of claimants).
IH ran a story in the 16/07 edition about a man crammed into a small flat and desiring a bigger house for his family. What shocked me was the reasons why he was on benefits. He suffers from chronic back pain, an affliction that is hard to prove yet one that affects large numbers of people.
The sad fact is, too many people use this ailment as an excuse not to work. I can't say whether or not he was genuine, I don't know him, but many, many people work long days with the same condition and just get by. Maybe they're the mugs, but they're the ones that feel taking a few painkillers and getting on with their life is right.
The second surprise was the statement about the borough in which he lived, and not wanting to leave it. I think this is the crux of the problem as far as benefits claimants go, this sense of entitlement, and it is this that needs to be ended.
If I live in one borough, and want a bigger house, then I'm likely to have to move to another borough to get it, which may mean my children moving schools (although it shouldn't), and may mean me having to travel further to get to work. But that is the choice I, and many others, make in the private sector, the choice of stopping in an inadequate home or moving to another borough to buy a bigger home at a price I can afford.
Why should this be any different for benefits claimants? Why should they get preferntial treatment, to require to stop in a borough, regardless of what the increase in price of their accommodation is.
In the private sector we have caps, it's called our income. If we are truly to return benefits claimants to society, then they too must learn to live within a budget, just as we do.
At the moment the state hands out free money and demands very little back in return for it, the tories are proposing a change to this, a change that requires you provide something in return if you want benefits.
I applaud the changes, but think Cameron et al. need to consider the effect on the truly vunerable members of society before they finalise plans. Benefits are meant to be a safety net in times of hardship, for some those times will never end, and it is they who must be protected, along with the elderly.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Chris | 06/08/2010 10:14 am
A1 - I've read your contribution with interest and must remark on there being a lot of sense in it.
You still confuse benefit claimant and tenant as if they are interchangeable words. They are not.
I hear what you say when asking why should a tenant have more advantage, but turn that around. Why should you have less. Arguing to take rights away from someone is a route to impoverishing us all. Arguing for greater rights for all is surely better.
If you wish to move to another part of the country, have a longer commute, disrupt your childrens' lives, loose your local support mechanisms, as you say that is your choice. It should not be a matter of compulsion based on your economic status.
The symptoms of our societies break down can, in many instances, be traced back to the distruction of the extended family. Sustainable and settled communities have been a stated objective of government policy of many shades, but sadly the policy outcomes have failed to deliver the objective. This is not suprising to me as failing to act holisitcally is the reason. However, I digress. Breaking up communities will add to our broken society not heal it. Compulsion in place of choice will do great harm to the fabric of society, and weaken our economic ability.
When you remove choice, except for the very vulnerable, it is like removing health care except from the dying. Democracy, choice, freedom - none of these things are luxury items for the benefit of the few, nor should they ever be.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
McMadman | 06/08/2010 10:47 am
The problem with A1's position is that it fails to recognise that, for example, one of the impacts of the HB changes would be to make large sectors of London simply unaffordable for private sector tenants of more modest incomes.
Previously, large amounts of social rented housing at affordable rents were provided. Yes, there was a significant capital cost, but that prevented the ever increasing revenue funding requirement of HB and letting the rents take the strain. A classic spend to save investment argument. Of course, right to buy and Ms Porter put a stop to a lot of that supply.
A lot of the work required in the background to keep cities successful is heavily reliant on mimimum wage staff. If they all have to commute long distances that eats into their money and makes them wonder if it is worth the hassle of travelling. Eg, who's going to clean your office toilet if it costs them 20% of their wage or more to travel in to work because they cannot afford to live closer in ?
This is essentially population eugenics. We will end up with concentrated enclaves of poverty. Successful sustainable communities require a mix of skills, abilities and incomes to survive. Financial exclusion on geographic grounds is a nonsense and will end up helping nobody.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
| 06/08/2010 11:43 pm
A1 is of course spot on.
CW: "You still confuse benefit claimant and tenant as if they are interchangeable words. They are not."
Well let's see. No, not all benefit claimants are social tenants. But two thirds of social tenants are benefit claimants. So actually, in 67% of cases (a clear majority I do believe), benefit claimants and social tenants are indeed one and the same.
And in terms of the headline "Four of the five candidates for the leadership of the Labour Party have backed Inside Housing’s What’s the Benefit? campaign"
It's another Mandy Rice Davies moment; they would say that wouldn't they? It is, after all, their voters who will be affected by all this. However last time I checked, NuLab were still the runners up in the last election and there no prize for second place. In addition the next election wont be for more than 4 years (assuming the 5 year fixed term parliament proposal passes). In essence, who cares what they think as they now - thankfully - out of power at long last...
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Chris | 07/08/2010 9:27 am
Amazingly, low paid working tenants claim benefit to make up for the fact that their employer pays so little. How many of your 67% are 100% benefit paid?
Why remove from those in need on the basis of well if I don't get it nobody should? I can not see the sense.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Melvin Bone | 07/08/2010 2:13 pm
Amazing how the Labour bunch supporting this did bugger all about it when they had any real power...
Do you A: cut the benefit at source(lower LHA rates) or B: cut it at the end (lower rents).
Option A for me. Because you are spending LESS. Which is the whole point of a CUT.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Chris | 08/08/2010 9:34 pm
Melvin - I hope it does not cause you distress, but I agree with your first statement, completely.
It is so irritating having partisan comments that say something is wrong, without a valid alternative, even more so when they are from people who up to a couple of months ago could have not only made the suggestion but taken the action.
I'd prefer option B to A. Cutting rents through rent regulation ensures that everyone benefits from the control, including those on marginal incomes, yet achieves the reduction in benefit cost without jeapodising tenancies. That way it is achieving the cost reduction fairly - which after all is the publicly stated intention of the current government.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Melvin Bone | 09/08/2010 5:07 pm
Thanks for your concern Mr W.
Derek Skinner and Margaret Thatcher probably agree on something...
Overall it will also be much easier to police option A. It will also be much much cheaper and a simple amendment to the LHA legislation.
Option B will be more costly, take more time to impliment and require completely new complex legislation...Hmm just the sort of thing government mandarins normally adopt...they might go for it...
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Chris | 09/08/2010 9:54 pm
Option B presents more likley sustainable savings too.
Don't forget, the Tory purge of social tenants is unlikely to hit for twelve months, so there's time to implement a longer term solution before the benefit cost issue really goes through the roof.
I believe both DS and MT thought Geoffrey Howe was of dubious background. I believe that they also both agreed that Kinnock was more effective as a puppet.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment