Single Aspect Blog

I thought this was a great article, and the comments that follow it.  I don’t always agree with Lynsey Hanley but on this occasion she is spot on.

“That’s the paradox of conservatism: it celebrates the idea of individual freedom while making it incredibly difficult for some individuals – generally, those who lack power and money – to exercise that freedom.”

https://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/nov/26/tory-paradox-free-less-choice

ArseneKnows

26 November 2010 10:34AM

The usual right wing bull from some of the usual suspects.

The 1834 Poor Law Reform Act is what they seem to be arguing for. In this act, signed nto law incidentally by Cameron’s ancestor William IV, the driving force behind the reforms was the concept of ‘less eligibility’. This basically meant that noone in receipt of relief from poverty should be as well off as even the lowest paid labourer.

This led to the poorhous condition being designed to be as harsh as possible. Young, unmarried girls were given 2 weeks relief at the end of which they either gave up the child or were out on the street destitute. Married couples were separated from each other, parents separated from children. Meaningless work was provided and was a requirement for receiving relief.

Harsh as these conditions were the poor still required assistance because being poor, despite the narrative of the Same Olds and the Fig Leaves, is not a ‘lifestyle choice’ but is a result of a lack of choice.

For over 30 years after the war the idea that council housing was ‘only for the poor’ would have been laughable , housing was provided because people need somewhere to live. This hasn’t changed, people still need homes;the market is a failure and for ideological reasons the government, starting with Thatcher, and her pin up girl, the execrable Shirley Porter,changed the terms of reference.

Housing associations are providing social housing, they are expected to be self-financing. The moving of rents up to near market levels is a polticial requirement not a financial. Combining this with the requirement that once your earnings reach a predetermined level (who determines it or how it will be checked hasn’t been disclosed) you will be required to move out means that we could well have the situation where those who can afford to pay the new higher rents are earning an amount that means they no longer have the right to live in the social housing whilst those on low pay or unemployed will find the rents exceed the housing benefit cap and is therefore inaccessible to them.

The current government is not only vindictive but incompetent. they are spending so much time concocting a narrative built on lies and half-truths that it is becoming ever more difficult to keep the stories coherent.

ArseneKnows

26 November 2010 11:02AM

David Cameron keeps spouting on and on about how people on housing benefit are getting 20,30,40,50 thousand a year whenever he is asked about the reforms proposed.

I put in an FOI for the details of how many people get these amounts and the response was:

9210 households get between 20-30k in HB of which 970 are outside London
1630 households get betwen 30-40k in Hb of which 180 are outside London
260 households get between 40-50k of which none are outside London
140 households get 50k or over none are outside London

(DWP August 2010 figures)

So a policy that affects millions is being justified by taking the figures that affect 11,000 people almost all of whom live in one of the most expensive cities in the world.

petrifiedprozac

26 November 2010 11:20AM

HJHJ

The policy is to limit the level of housing benefit one family can receive. You say that only about 11,000 families currently receive amounts larger than the new limit – yet you then go on to describe it as “a policy that affects millions”.

Housing benefits are moronic but what is more moronic was the Tories selling off social housing in the first place and the fact they refuse to accept their responsibility in the first place and seem to blame tenants is f*****g evil.

ArseneKnows

26 November 2010 11:44AM

@taxesandcuts

Well if people are getting less than 17k they aren’t affected at all

Do you actually know what you are talking about or are the hand and the brain independent of one another.

Everyone who is currently renting a propert above the 30th per centile will be affected.

Everyone who become long term unemployed will be affected.

Your 17k figure is meaningless and has nothing to do with the policy.

@HJHJ

it reduced the number of families wanting to live in social housing by exactly the same number of houses that were sold off.

No it reduced the amount of social housing available by the number that was sold off which is why the waiting lists for such housing have gone through the roof as new Labour continued the right to buy policy whilst not building any new houses and it is the reason behind the increase in HB payments as the chep housing in which many benefits claimants used to live has been replaced with more expensive private rented accommodation.

FreemanMoxy

26 November 2010 12:04PM

Prior to the Right to Buy social housing was for abroad range of incomes groups, not just the poorest

Absolutely. This ensured that areas with large amounts of social housing were mixed areas with all sorts of classes/professions/types living side by side – or what we eeeevil leftists liked to call “a community.”

Now we see the malign effect of flogging off council houses and refusing to build any more – the vicious and hypocritical pretence that only the very poorest “should” have social housing, and the subsequent transformation of council housing areas into run-down ghettos – alongside the popular demonisation of anyone who still has the right to a council house as “chavs”, “druggies” and – the most sinister of the lot – “single mothers

whizgiggle

26 November 2010 12:14PM

Can people stop describing council houses as ‘subsidised’ The rents are cheaper because they aren’t intended to be a quick money spinner for the council and will cover the costs of building over the long term many times. The only reason most council tennants get it rent free is because they are now almost exclusively for the poorest and hence housing benefit recipients. The two would not have to be linked if there was more council housing.

whizgiggle

26 November 2010 12:18PM

Now we see the malign effect of flogging off council houses and refusing to build any more – the vicious and hypocritical pretence that only the very poorest “should” have social housing, and the subsequent transformation of council housing areas into run-down ghettos – alongside the popular demonisation of anyone who still has the right to a council house as “chavs”, “druggies” and – the most sinister of the lot – “single mothers.”

Exactly. This is also why when people talk about having grown up on a council estate in the 60s/70s and how there was less crime and fewer problems, and trumpet that if they can ‘escape’ council estate life so can anyone else, they are being dishonest. They are implying it was the same social mix as now, when it wasn’t.

whizgiggle

26 November 2010 1:31PM

HJHJ

But they ARE subsidised. In most areas, the rents from council houses barely cover the cost incurred by local authorities in running them (repairs, admin, etc.), let alone provide a rate of return on the asset value.

If the council owns an asset and rents it out at a rate lower than the market rate, then the difference between the two is a loss to the taxpayer. This is a truth – whether or not you think council housing to be a good thing.

Personally I think it crazy to rent out housing at a below market rate. If a subsidy is to be provided, it should be upfront in the form of housing benefit. Then it can be adjusted according to need, whereas the current effective rent subsidy applied to council houses goes with the house, regardless of the financial circumstances of the occupant (even if that has improved dramatically).

I may be wrong (and I’ll happily be corrected), but surely the rent income is so low compared to cost because the tennant mix is ‘difficult’. If there were more tennants with stable incomes and less chaotic home lives there would be a lower admin and maintenance cost per average houshold.

You are correct that it is in effect a loss (I would say opportunity cost, but it doesn’t matter), but I don’t think the council should be looking to make a profit as it doesn’t need to in the same way a landlord might. Surely if the council did charge market rates then the profits would in effect be a tax on their tennants?

petrifiedprozac

26 November 2010 2:02PM

HJHJ

And it was ‘moronic’ in what way? It removed not a single house from the housing stock, nor denied any family of housing. In fact, it reduced the number of families wanting to live in social housing by exactly the same number of houses that were sold off.

Are you for real? Housing benefit is moronic because it goes to increasing the profits of private landlords, wasting the money that could have gone to building affordable houses. Duh! The state is basically paying the excess of exhorbitant private rents. Though private business people and companies making profits and ripping off the taxpayer has been Tory policy for some time which is why we many privatised industries still get subsidies from the state. Rail, buses, utilities.

petrifiedprozac

26 November 2010 6:48PM

NuLabourexposed

Many traditional voters switched to Tory, in their droves in 1979. Most working class people look after their economic interests (why shouldn’t they) – they are not ideoligists. And when Maggie promised them cheap council houses and shares they switched to Tory without a thought.

That is conjecture

Tory vote Feb 1974 11,872,180 – Oct 1974 10,462,565 – 197913,697,923

Labour vote Feb 1974 11,645,616 – Oct 1974 11,457,079 – 1979 11,532,218

Lib vote Feb 1974 6,059,519 – Oct 1974 – 5,346,704 1979 4,313,804

That suggests the biggest movement was from the Liberals to the Tories so don’t believe all the myths that are spouted by the Tory media.

As for the selling of council houses. From this distance we can all see how stupid that policy was. Election bribes are always bad policy.

petrifiedprozac

26 November 2010 6:55PM

abbeyroad

Since the 1980s we’ve followed a market system and unemployment has never been lower than about 1.5M to 2M. Also, the neo-liberal economic theory that we’ve adhered to for the last 30 years requires a certain level of unemployment to keep inflation in check, and maintain labour discipline – it’s called ‘NAIRU’. So really Tory types are wanting to have their cake and eat it.

Tories don’t think, they react on instinct.

Social housing shortage. Blame the poor.

Too much unemployment. Blame the poor.

Both these things are largely to do with policies introduced by the last Tory government and carried on by Labour.

Brioken Britain. Blame the poor. It was the f*****g Tories that created the ghettoes and sink estates.

Sudders

26 November 2010 7:57PM

MAM

Sorry but that is a choice that should never have existed. Council housing was for poor people. Not for middle class people who wanted to spend their money on something else.

Simply not true. The postwar rise in council housing saw people from all walks of life living in community owned housing. In some places, like the northern cities, a majority of people lived in council housing. Nor is council housing subsitidezed. Council tentents pay the vast majority of what is necessary for the up keep of the properties. If rents are dramatically less than the market its because the state makes no profit and has no mortgage to pay.

<BUSINESS>

petrifiedprozac

26 November 2010 8:38PM

TwoSwords

So the art you produce is simply reflecting the imperatives of those who control the media?

I make two types of art. One type to sell and one for my own satisfaction. The truth is I can literally sell rubbish because of fashion and my dealer having a silver tongue and good contacts but struggle to sell work that I produce for my own satisfaction and consider far superior. So in a way, yes, I play the game like most people. I think it is a stupid game but one has to keep the bailiffs from the door.

</BUSINESS>