Job-linked benefit cuts would hit 200,000
Nearly 200,000 unemployed people will lose around £500 a year if cuts to housing benefit go ahead, union leaders warned today.
Research by the Trades Union Congress warns that some of the most vulnerable people in the country will be hit by plans to cut housing benefit by 10 per cent for anyone claiming jobseeker’s allowance for more than a year. The government plans to introduce these cuts from 2013.
Out of 194,000 claimants who would be hit by the proposed cuts, 68,000 are lone parents who will be moved on to JSA from other benefits, and 24,000 are disabled people who will be moved on to JSA from incapacity benefit.
The TUC conducted the analysis as part of its submission to the work and pensions select committee’s inquiry into the government’s proposed reforms to housing benefit.
TUC general secretary Brendan Barber said: ‘Long-term unemployment is not a lifestyle choice, it is a debilitating and stressful experience which puts unemployed people and their families at higher risk of poverty, poor health and relationship breakdown.
‘The long-term unemployed need help and support to get them back into the labour market. They should not be blamed for their predicament by having vital benefits cut. This is another example of the government making struggling families bear the cost of the recession, while the rich have been let off.’
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 (9)
Melvin Bone | 06/09/2010 1:08 pm
This is not really news yet as its still in the consultative phase with REAL nitty gritty details not yet known...
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Chris | 06/09/2010 1:20 pm
With due respect to the Unions concerned, they would probably achieve greater attention to their cause if the published the extent of losses that will be faced by the average and low paid, and not just the unemployed. It is a sad reality that our electorate have been manipulated into a more self centred majority. Indeed many who will face losing up to 15% of their current spending power (after in-work support and taxation changes are taken into account) will clap with glee at the idea of someone else losing benefits.
The Union movement needs to return to the 18th and 19th Century purpose of worker education to redress the extent the past 30-years have turned back social progress. By ignoring the stupifying of the electorate they are simply failing to remove the primary barrier in way of success.
Meanwhile - if anyone truly believes that having to live supported by benefit is a luxury option, I'd encourage them to try it.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 06/09/2010 4:09 pm
Christopher - you appear to have a rather pessismistic view of the average voter. I voted conservative fully appreciating that my spending power is likely to decrease over the next few years, something I regard as a direct result of the Labour government spending money it didn't have.
I don't believe a life supported by benefit is a luxury option, but then I don't think it should be. It should provide only the very basics of existence, simply a safety net - any more should be earnt.
No doubt you'll respond with a clever comment about economics and the multiplier theory. I'm currently undertaking a postgraduate course which includes reference to such topics and I don't believe it's the answer to all economic problems. A sound grasp of economics ought to suggest somebody was equipped to progress beyond living in a council house - if that's where you live I'm afraid I won't be regarding your economic ideas as particularly valuable, in much the same way that I wouldn't take advice on exercise from somebody fat and unfit.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Chris | 06/09/2010 4:52 pm
I do hope that my view is pessismistic, I would be glad to be wrong and discover a forward thinking egalitarian ethic amongst my peers.
Seeing someone as living in a council house as failing to progress is not a fair assessment. I'd love to live in a council house, but alas such an option is no longer possible as so few remain. What is wrong with an aspiration to live in a secure affordable home, in the community you call home, and working in partnership with the council to ensure that the home is cared for.
I remember a senior manager who contracted with Mobil Oil who lived in a council house. He was a successful business man who chose to remain in the community he loved, and refused to purchase a home that would pass to others when he had raised his family and moved to alternative accomodation in retirement. How is his economic competence called into question because of his tenure?
As I do not live in a council house, you declare my economic ideas as valuable - that is simply weird - my views and opinions have a value based on their content not on my tenureship.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Paine | 06/09/2010 5:12 pm
Anon, I'm certain that the multiplier effect is held true among many with higher quals than postgrad diplomas! What's more, I don't know of anyone who claims that it is the "answer to all economic problems". If you don't beleive its a sound economic theory, it would help if you explained why.
Christoper, you raise an excellent point about the need to counter the dumbing down of the electorate. The problem here is a predominantly right wing press, which has shut down debate and encouraged a generation able to focus, at best, on single issue politics. I sometimes wonder if, presented with the big picture, they could make much sense of it.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 07/09/2010 10:32 am
It's not that I don't think the multiplier theory is sound, it's that I don't think printing money to build endless properties when the country has a massive deficit is a sensible course to pursue.
This website seems full of left-wing idealists keen to spend other people's money whilst having very little idea how hard the money is to generate.
Both Christopher and Paine paint a picture of a stupid electorate unable to make considered choices. Whilst I obviously don't share all voters opinions I'm prepared to accept the results as being a fair reflection on the views of the electorate.
I find the "everybody but me doesn't think about things" a rather naive and patronising attitude.
I'm curious Paine - on what do you base the idea that we have a generation "able to focus, at best, on single issue politics". Extensive research or a narrow minded, bigoted view on the "youth of today".
"The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for
authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place
of exercise. Children are now tyrants, not the servants of their
households. They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They
contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties
at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannize their teachers" - quote attributed to Socrates by Plato - things haven't changed that much.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Sidney Webb | 07/09/2010 10:42 am
One point you are missing Anonymous is that when in the 1950's, whilst having a deficit five times greater than that currently, successive Labour and Tory governments suceeded in a massive building programme that not only met the needs of the people but regenerated the shattered post war economy, at the same time as generating sufficient income to repay the huge loans the Americans required as their contribution to defeating the Nazis. The solution you are opposed to has a history that shows it works. The solution you prefer does not.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 07/09/2010 10:58 am
PSR - Are you genuinely comparing post war 1950s Britain with the currently situation? These are not ceteris paribus conditions!
Since this post-war period of which you speak Britain actually lost ground on other industrialised nations. Emerging from war time there are considerable factors to be taken into account which do not hold true today, not least reparations.
I think you need a rather more detailed analysis than "It worked once under totally different conditions so we should gamble billions on it working again".
I'm afraid I have no magical answer, but I am happy to trust a government that appreciates the dangers of spending what it doesn't have.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Sidney Webb | 07/09/2010 2:19 pm
1946+ - massive debt burden + repayments to USA
- industry destroyed by Luftwaffe
- huge dependence on imported goods
- massive housing shortage
- population distribution young and elderly dominated
- domestic agriculture at maximum output
2010s - large debt burden - prospective income from banks
- industry destroyed by domestic policy
- huge dependence on imported goods
- massive housing shortage
- population distribution young and elderly dominated
- domestic agriculture a shadow of its former self
Yep Anon - you are right, things seem better now than the issues faced after the war - so why would economic regeneration through social development not work against even more favourable economic conditions?
As for spending what one does not have - the reason we are given for the slowness in business recovery is the banks reluctance to lend to businesses - basic business runs on the investment of borrowed money with the potential income and current assets accounted for as affording the debt level
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment