Benefit cuts to hit women hardest
Ken Livingstone has published findings showing women will be disproportionately affected by the coalition government’s changes to housing benefit and pensions.
Mr Livingstone cited research commissioned by former housing minister Yvette Cooper showing 72 per cent of the revenue from the proposed changes will be paid by women. If the cuts to child tax credits and family-related benefits are discounted women are still paying two-thirds of the bill, the research says.
Mr Livingstone, who is hoping to be elected by party members as Labour’s candidate for the 2012 mayoral election, also referred to National Housing Federation research showing 431,000 women nationally will lose £624 a year.
The government plans to implement housing benefit caps for private renters of between £250 and £400 a week and to set local housing allowance rates using the 30 per cent level of rents, instead of the median. It is also planning to link benefit rates and state and public sector pensions to the consumer prices index, generally lower than the measure of inflation currently used.
Mr Livingstone said: ‘Women in London are just over 50 per cent of Londoners but the evidence now shows they will bear the majority of the cuts and higher fares of David Cameron and Boris Johnson.
‘The most cautious estimate shows women are paying for more than two thirds of the housing and pensions cuts.’
Mr Livingstone has pledged to boost skills and training for women, tackle sex trafficking and to campaign for a living wage.
A spokesperson for Boris Johnson said: ‘Ken Livingstone had eight years to deliver his vision for the capital.
‘Londoners have since chosen a different approach which Boris Johnson is busy implementing and he is not interested in turning back the clock or re-running battles with old adversaries.’
Inside Housing is running a campaign calling on the government to find a fairer way to reduce the housing benefit bill. See our campaign page for more or to sign our petition.
Have your say
You must sign in to make a comment
Readers' comments (8)
Junior | 03/09/2010 3:20 pm
yuppiemp? in London this is what it is only Yuppies in London all the poor can go back to Union Work Houses. Like Job Centre where all the one's claiming benefit getting the work expierence. Well long term unemployed got no chance - I sent six to eight cv off each day and I not got one interview.
My children off to University next year - so what the hell am I suppose to do. Show me the roof and jump off.
I cannot feed myself now and skip meal's to pay my bill's and I sit here many a day with a empty stomach.
I doing a lot for my community and totally involved in helping other's.
Get some real person in government whom understand.
I bet stress related problems up this year and more and more going to the doctor's.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Melvin Bone | 03/09/2010 3:26 pm
'Mr Livingstone has pledged to boost skills and training for women, tackle sex trafficking and to campaign for a living wage.'
Should he not have asked his MP mates to sort this out in the last 13 years?
Junior: Cheer up I've got good news. It costs the taxpayer £90,000 to send one person to University. It'll not cost you a penny. :)
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
kass | 03/09/2010 3:28 pm
Single people are the ones at the very bottom of the social housing pile, especially men. And it has been like that since the 50's and no one that I know in government local or national has ever given a damn.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 03/09/2010 4:19 pm
Junior - Have you had your CV checked before sending it off? Whilst there may well be good reason for your poor written English, and it may not affect your ability to do the job you're applying for, many employers will simply chuck it straight in the bin if it contains as many errors as your posts tend to. I'm sure somebody on here in "ask the experts" could help you.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Junior | 04/09/2010 11:17 pm
Thanks Anony - yes check and re check and re wrote - I and always looking for ways to improve. I spoke to the Manager of the Job Centre to get any of all of the work trails to me but nothing seems to be working.
Melvin - I sorry I do not understand. I worked all my life but my children wanted to come back down to London - I was looking forward to it - I didn't expected to be unemployed for such a long time. I busy helping others. I know my children have no got in free of charge I can assurance you.
Well perhap I have the Housing Association at my door asking me to downsize - Where's the roof -
I tell you something it not a nice feeling being out of work. The jobcentre seem useless these days. I sent off my CV to them and keep chasing and other's.
I keep my chin up I am not a quitter
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
| 05/09/2010 9:20 am
In answer to the Newt's perceptive observations and the headline of this article: Good. About time. Breeding for benefits has become rife. The "career" option of becoming a serial single mother living off the State and demanding larger and larger council flats so they can continue breeding and demanding larger and larger benefit cheques must be taken off the table. It is socially toxic and divisive career option which is not fair on the kids who are a by-product of the career option as all the outcomes point to the fact that the State makes a terrible surrogate father. The system has been expoited by incumbents and third world immigrants alike eg
http://www.islingtontribune.com/news/2010/sep/after-10-years-waiting-list-mum-resorts-prayer
and it's about time these perverse incentives were stopped in their tracks. Only breed if you can afford to. The taxpayer has no interest in paying for your personal choices.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 06/09/2010 9:00 am
But the taxpayer already pays for personal choices - familes get child benefit whether they need it or not. Surely we should stop paying benefits to those that don't need them, rather than demonising those that do.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
| 07/09/2010 11:20 pm
"demonising those that do"? Surely they have demonised themselves? What right do these breeders have to sponge off others on a permanent and ongoing basis? And have their progeny do precisely the same? What consultation did the taxpayer have in the procreative habits of these individuals? None whatsoever. They are just expected to pick up the ever increasing bill from the ever decreasing wages. Enough is enough. State funding for unlimited procreation must end.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment