Torys to cut housing benefit of young

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by nomadking

It is strange that where a young girl has a baby whilst living at home, it requires a council house/flat, whereas if the mother of the girl had the baby it wouldn't. Same amount of room required, but only in one case is a new house/flat needed.

Not necessarily correct.

[Ignitionnet]

Too many sub-threads in this thread but it's a fascinating one for sure!

---------- Post added at 16:29 ---------- Previous post was at 16:26 ----------

Originally Posted by Chris

Your criticism of Thatcher's attempt to create a socially responsible, property-owing democracy was somewhat misplaced, yes, IMO.

I will take 'property-owing' as subconscious rather than simply a mistake.

Had that been the intention alone not preventing councils from replacing stock with the proceeds rather than causing a big crunch in housing supply that we're feeling the effects of even now, with the resultant prodigious debt hang-over, property-owing indeed, might have been a plan. Alongside some quite ill-advised privatisations, with some very sensible ones, there was tons of ideology at work, which is biting more and more.

As it is taxpayers have to subsidise the 'property-owing' democracy to avoid banks going under and the housing benefit bill is through the roof due to a lack of affordable housing as Thatcher cut stock and destroyed ability to supply.

If you do give the benefit of the doubt and say it was an unintentional consequence it was a pretty large one, with the added bonus we're now below the EU-27 average for home ownership rates, that includes those states that didn't gut social housing provision to foster home ownership.

Anyway I think I'm out of this, interesting as the thread and its sub-threads are!

---------- Post added at 16:37 ---------- Previous post was at 16:29 ----------

Originally Posted by nomadking

How could "right to buy" affected housing availability? Just as much housing was available as if "right to buy" had never happened. It was just a transfer of ownership.

One more.

it destroyed affordable housing availability and going forward wiped out councils' ability to build as they couldn't use proceeds of the sales to build more. How're the queues for social housing looking in your local area?

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

Had that been the intention alone not preventing councils from replacing stock with the proceeds rather than causing a big crunch in housing supply that we're feeling the effects of even now, with the resultant prodigious debt hang-over, property-owing indeed, might have been a plan. Alongside some quite ill-advised privatisations, with some very sensible ones, there was tons of ideology at work, which is biting more and more.

The two are flip-sides of the same coin. If you intend to create a society based on individual property ownership and the sense of personal responsibility that goes with it, you also want to block those with a contrary ideology from snookering your plan by building large numbers of "social" housing at impossibly low rents, subsidised by ratepayers in larger private houses. This is not ideologically-driven spite. It is logically consistent with the policy aims - as was the stipulation that councils had to provide mortgages for those that wished to buy.

As it is taxpayers have to subsidise the 'property-owing' democracy to avoid banks going under and the housing benefit bill is through the roof due to a lack of affordable housing as Thatcher cut stock and destroyed ability to supply.

"Ability to supply" is not determined by whether or not district councils are allowed to build houses. Ultimately, this is due to a failure to deal with the highly restrictive Town and Country Planning Act 1948, which has turned out to be a Nimby's charter when it comes to the large scale planning and building of new housing estates, coupled with a similarly long-term failure to recognise the dangers of centralising so much in the south east of England.

If you do give the benefit of the doubt and say it was an unintentional consequence it was a pretty large one, with the added bonus we're now below the EU-27 average for home ownership rates, that includes those states that didn't gut social housing provision to foster home ownership.

As above. Deal with the planning constraints and the rest will follow. The market is failing at present, because it is distorted so that supply cannot match demand.

it destroyed affordable housing availability and going forward wiped out councils' ability to build as they couldn't use proceeds of the sales to build more. How're the queues for social housing looking in your local area?

Again, the graph doesn't support the spin you're putting on it. Council house building was in steep decline from about 1975. In fact, at the point when Right to Buy was having its biggest effects, in the early 1980s, the decline in council house building suddenly became far less pronounced. Unfortunately the rate of private house building, having enjoyed a brief renaissance in the first half of the 80s, soon went into reverse.

Anecdotally, I remember that period of time, as there was a lot of building on what was about to become green belt near where we were living. It was generally said that the splurge was taking place as developers tried to get in before the new green belt designations took effect.

Again, assuming that to be true, the issue is one of planning restrictions, not councils being banned from using one specific income stream to build new houses.

[Taf]

I thought P.M. Thatcher prevented councils from spending income from right-to-buy?

Originally Posted by Taf

I thought P.M. Thatcher prevented councils from spending income from right-to-buy?

Yes - as I said above, if you believe in the creation of a property-owning democracy with a high degree of personal responsibiility, then you're going to try to prevent those who oppose you from undermining that aim by building large numbers of council houses and then letting them at super-low, ratepayer-subsidised rents.

Thatcher moved in an age when the battle between state socialism and private capitalism was live and hot, and the issue of whether or not the state should provide almost everything, and regulate that which it did not provide, was by no means settled. Her determination to not only give people the chance to own their own homes, but also to prevent left-wing metropolitan councils from undermining her aim, should be seen in that overall context.

And, as I also said above, it is far too easy to simply blame Thatcher for our current housing shortage. The blame for that lies in the failure to reform planning legislation, and the willingness of those already on the property ladder to impede the chances of those who aspire to get on it.

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

So what is the supposed point of the policy not applying to people with children?

It removes the right for that demographic to qualify for state housing unless they can support themselves.On a side noteI find it ironic that it will be easier to stop that group getting state housing than it will to stop migrants getting the same when neither have payed into the system.

If access to housing benefit in the 16-21 year old age group becomes essentially dependant on whether or not they have children what exactly is it about this supposed manifesto policy that fills you with such confidence that there will be a reduction in child birth in that age category and, consequently, a reduction in demand for / entitlement to Housing Benefit for that particular social demographic?

I didn't say it would lead to a reduction in child birth in that category,i said that young girls already use childbirth to get state housing in reply to your assertion that it will lead to a boom in childbirth as people seek to get state housing.

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by martyh

It removes the right for that demographic to qualify for state housing unless they can support themselves.

Or unless they have children. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même.

Originally Posted by martyh

On a side noteI find it ironic that it will be easier to stop that group getting state housing than it will to stop migrants getting the same when neither have payed into the system.

Yes, as you say, a side note.

Originally Posted by martyh

I didn't say it would lead to a reduction in child birth in that category....

So, again, plus ça change.....

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

Or unless they have children. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même.




So, again, plus ça change.....

Not the same at all .Many of the welfare changes introduced have been as much about changing peoples perception of what the welfare system is for as much as saving money ,this just another example

[Taf]

Originally Posted by Chris

letting them at ....... ratepayer-subsidised rents.

I think that is false. Rent payers have probably paid the value of council houses and their maintenance several times over (at least) to the profit of the council, and therefore to "rate payers".

I think that Right to Buy was also not policed properly, if at all. I know of several council houses that were bought and quickly resold for a fat profit. And that was against the rules. A house sold before a certain period meant a refund to the council on a sliding scale.

Large new developments are planned here, including "affordable housing" and "new" council houses. It's a con of course, as the "new" houses are planned to be one-for-one replacements for council houses in poor repair that will be demolished. And they're not the older Victorian and pre-war homes either, but ones that were built in the 60's and 70's!

As for young jobseekers not being allowed Housing Benefit, I agree to some extent, unless the home situation is too dire to contemplate. Assisted Living for some disabled persons is/was axed as it is cheaper to keep them at their parents' home. And parents receiving Carers Allowance receive a pittance compared with "professional" carers (or that least the bosses of the companies).

Plus caring for older people will be drastically reduced if the offspring, still at home, are pushed into being their Carers.

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by martyh

Not the same at all .Many of the welfare changes introduced have been as much about changing peoples perception of what the welfare system is for as much as saving money ,this just another example

It is exactly the same.

We're not talking about "Many of the welfare changes" we are talking about this supposed proposal to withdraw Housing Benefit support for 18-21 year olds who are single, unemployed (and without children).

You yourself, on the matter of people currently having children in order to afford themselves housing Benefit funded accomodation, have acknowledged "that is already happening and has been happening for some years because we have been to free with housing benefit .".

Allegedly intending to introduce a policy whereby people within a certain age grouping will be denied Housing benefit if they do not have children (that being mooted as an "exemption") changes nothing.

People in that age grouping threatened with a withdrawl or refusal (I've read somewhere that this proposal is not retrospective in nature) of Housing Benefit will simply seek to meet the qualifying "exemption" criteria.

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

It is exactly the same.

We're not talking about "Many of the welfare changes" we are talking about this supposed proposal to withdraw Housing Benefit support for 18-21 year olds who are single, unemployed (and without children).

You yourself, on the matter of people currently having children in order to afford themselves housing Benefit funded accomodation, have acknowledged "that is already happening and has been happening for some years because we have been to free with housing benefit .".

Allegedly intending to introduce a policy whereby people within a certain age grouping will be denied Housing benefit if they do not have children (that being mooted as an "exemption") changes nothing.

People in that age grouping threatened with a withdrawl or refusal (I've read somewhere that this proposal is not retrospective in nature) of Housing Benefit will simply seek to meet the qualifying "exemption" criteria.

The point your missing is that young girls are already doing that because despite the right to housing that current 18-21 yr olds have it is very rare that they make it to the top of the housing list and get accomodation because of the priorities already set by the LA's ,a sudden increase in childbirth is unlikely because those that would do it are already doing it.As i said this policy is not just about saving money it is as much about perception

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by martyh

The point your missing is that young girls are already doing that because despite the right to housing that current 18-21 yr olds have it is very rare that they make it to the top of the housing list and get accomodation because of the priorities already set by the LA's ,a sudden increase in childbirth is unlikely because those that would do it are already doing it.As i said this policy is not just about saving money it is as much about perception

The point you are missing is that they will continue to do what they do in the belief (as evidenced below) that it assists with housing allocation prioritization. Others will follow suit. It's as well it's not just about "saving money" because it doesn't look like it will save any money.

In 2012 Cameron was predicting savings of 2bn which was scoffed at. He changed tact and age grouping in 2013 announcing that all people under 25 not in work or education would have it removed (incidentally, one figure from the conderence that is worthy of note is the fact that single parents make up 40% of Housing Benefit claims of under 25's - are you seeing a pattern yet). Then in September 2014 he announces the age grouping to be 18-21 but that he is "not talking about people with children".

It's a nice soundbite, yes. But that is all it is. It appeals to a certain demographic of the electorate who are excited by silly suggestions when in reality all that is happening in relation to this particular proposal is the equivalent of rearranging deckchairs on the Titanic.

It's not rocket surgery. Tens of thousands of teenagers for years have managed to figure out how to get free housing benefit. You can rest assured that telling them that having a child more or less guarantees the status quo will not have the board of Durex jumping up and down with excitement.

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

The point you are missing is that they will continue to do what they do in the belief (as evidenced below) that it assists with housing allocation prioritization. Others will follow suit. It's as well it's not just about "saving money" because it doesn't look like it will save any money.
.

Which is basically what i said in reply to your "it will result in a baby boom" assertion.

All that is changing is that unemployed childless 18-21yr olds will no longer qualify for HB that money will now be used to fund apprentiships ,how succesful it will be i have no idea but it is a move in the right direction imo

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by martyh

Which is basically what i said in reply to your "it will result in a baby boom" assertion.

All that is changing is that unemployed childless 18-21yr olds will no longer qualify for HB that money will now be used to fund apprentiships ,how succesful it will be i have no idea but it is a move in the right direction imo

Only those too stupid to see their way round the proposal will no longer qualify for HB and, evidently, I don't share your optimism in that regard.

That said, it's still not a policy as yet. It's still at the aspiration / soundbite stage & very fluid.

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

Only those too stupid to see their way round the proposal will no longer qualify for HB and, evidently, I don't share your optimism in that regard.

That said, it's still not a policy as yet. It's still at the aspiration / soundbite stage & very fluid.

There is that and although i agree with the policy i'm sure there are better ways to fund apprentiships