The cuts to housing benefit are the latest in a string of announcements by the coalition government that will hit the poorest hardest. And Labour needs to respond, not simply by standing by its values, but through targeted campaigning that will communicate to the electorate the damage the coalition government is doing up and down the country.
Then, and only then, can we as a party start to fight back coherently against the coalition government and rebuild in seats that have previously been Labour territory.
So in terms of housing benefit cuts, nowhere will claimants be harder hit than in central London, with the percentage of privately rented properties available to housing benefit claimants set to fall from more than 50 per cent to just seven per cent.
And the reality is that when the new caps are implemented, 93 per cent of rents in central London will be unaffordable for private tenants reliant on housing benefit. That equates to 18,000 households being affected, with the average shortfall between housing benefit and rent expected to be £81 a week.
What is more, a recent report by the Citizens Advice Bureau concluded that the proposed cuts would result in higher levels of poverty, debt, rent arrears and homelessness.
The coalition government says the cuts are necessary, but the stark reality is that for a saving of just £2 billion, the lives of 775,000 households across the UK will be affected. To put it into context, that’s the same amount the government spends on consultants each year. So it’s clear where the government’s priorities lie.
Unsurprisingly, outer London council leaders are concerned, with many boroughs facing an influx of would-be residents. In many cases, demand has already put councils at breaking point, and could lead to many being housed in bed-and-breakfast accommodation.
Indeed, for all their protestations, housing minister Grant Shapps has now been forced to acknowledge that ‘some people’ may have to move as a result of the plans. By ‘some’ he will undoubtedly be referring to the 80,000 that London Councils has calculated will be affected by the plans.
To many, the nature of the housing benefit cuts will echo Dame Shirley-Porter’s ‘Building Stable Communities’ policy (better known as the ‘homes for votes’ scandal), which moved hundreds of social housing tenants out of marginal wards in a bid to secure a larger majority for the Conservatives at the 1990 local council election, having had their majority slashed from 26 to just four seats in 1986.
Sound familiar? Well, regardless of whether or not he has a mayoralty to protect, even Boris Johnson has attacked this government’s housing benefit plans as ‘Kosovo-style social cleansing’.
Therefore now is the time for Labour members, activists and councillors across London to be organising on the ground to communicate this to the electorate. Since May, Labour has had control of London Councils, and it now needs to be utilising its position to resist the cuts and ensure that Labour-controlled local authorities across London do not carry the can for decisions made by the ConDem government.
I wonder if that’s the same 80000 out of whom only 40 children on free school meals get to Oxbridge as Gove has been pointing out.Still perhaps they could “breed” less as suggested by Howard Flight (Tory Peer,naturally) They’ll be suggesting a cull next I suppose.
Caroline Flint, see thats the problem when you now knock the Tories you have been and done it or said it your self. Is this a new labour regime well no it’s not it’s the same labour with a leader who when you look at his voting pattern is about as New labour and anyone was. Sorry but right now I’d love to see a Labour party back, but sadly what I see is newer labour.
I don’t disagree with your criticism on the government’s housing benefits policy, but is this really the issue for crystallising what Labour stands for ? I’m not so sure. Most voters don’t claim housing benefit. And certainly not most swing voters. I listened to Radio 5 this morning as caller after caller phoned in to support those Howard Flight comments about benefit claimants. Nicky Campbell was reduced to complaining that NOBODY at all would criticise Flight. There is an increasing ‘vox pop ‘ out there which thinks that benefit claimants have it too easy and are sponging off the state at the expense of hard working familiies. How we deal with that is a really difficult issue, but simply defining ourselves as the party of the poor is not the answer. There are too many voters out there who think the poor are the problem. Most voters aren’t Guardian readers.
but scrounging off the state to what extent ? compared to bankers, exploitative business – from developers to rubbish food creating health problems leading to dollars for pharmaceuticals , etc etc ,round and round and round. Real statistics ,real planning, not anecdotal posturing is what we look to the Party for isn’t it? I’m just Joe Bloggs guessing it’s not all the fault of the poor, the place the country finds itself in . As I’ve said elsewhere “people” would bring back hanging,we democratically elect a government to lead with a responsible attitude though,don’t we ? Ultimately though ,point taken,but, better the party of the poor than the rich .
Is it 40% of Housing Benefit claimants that are in work in certain areas? If so,will they be forced into cheaper/smaller accommodation, locally, or cheaper accommodation elsewhere? Will this, inevitably, lead to employment problems, perhaps even forcing people out of jobs that they can no longer afford to get to? Doesn’t appear to be a policy that has been thoroughly thought through, does it?
OK so now they say those free school dinners kids will get a free year at Uni. out of 80000 apart from the 40 who go to Oxbridge ( most of whom become comedians ?) how may is that?
many