That follows in the wake of criticism from the Conservative-led Local Government Association, from Boris Johnson, and from a range of stakeholders in the housing sector, as well as family organisations, faith groups and housing specialists. Yet ministers press on regardless, simply repeating their mantra that the housing benefit bill has spiralled out of control.
In point of fact it hasn’t – housing benefit as a proportion of total benefits spend has remained at a remarkably constant 14 per cent over many years. And the recent increase in housing benefit is the consequence of the recession, rising unemployment, and more of those who might have previously bought their own homes moving into the rental market as the difficult economic circumstances mean fewer are able to buy. Ministers’ contention that the problem is one of landlords ripping off the system, and of tenants in overpriced luxury accommodation, oversimplifies and distorts the situation, and is being used to justify policies that will do great damage to families and communities.
There’s been criticism of Labour’s language of communities facing ‘social cleansing’ – yet changes to the benefits rules will price low-income families out of high-cost areas. Capping housing benefit and linking it to the less generous consumer price index will make it impossible for many families to continue to afford their rent. The problem’s particularly acute in London. But even in my own borough of Trafford, it’s estimated that housing shortages will force up rents way beyond the reach of benefits claimants – with an estimated 10 households chasing each two-bedroom property for rent.
Families will be forced to move, with damaging effects on community cohesion, family stability, access to employment and children’s wellbeing. Costs to local authorities for temporary accommodation will increase. Rent arrears will build up and household debt will rise. Larger families will be hit particularly hard by the cap at the equivalent of the rent for a four-bedroom property. Young people and those with non-dependant adults living in their homes lose out.
Ministers say that they want to address the work disincentives in the current structure of housing benefits – and they’re right that it doesn’t work well. But they are being sweepingly disingenuous in their attack on a benefit that’s paid to those in work, and to pensioners, as well as those out of work. The government argues landlords will reduce rents they regard as inflated. But in fact the reverse may be true: private landlords may vote with their feet and cease renting to benefits recipients at all.
Overall these proposals are unworkable, unfair and dangerous, will squeeze the provision of affordable housing for families, make employment harder to sustain, not more accessible, put more strain on public services, and damage local communities. Labour’s challenging the regulations in parliament. But we need an outcry in our communities too.
Wow, I get 1st shot! This is a typical ConDem policy, aimed at pleasing not only, it has to be said, Daily Mail readers, but a large number of working class people who we might see as our core support. Hard working people don’t like the idea of their taxes being used to support large families of idlers living in accommodation in desirable areas such as Central London. We have to face this – it’s actually a popular policy with our own voters! Of course the rhetoric around the policy deliberately obscures the fact that HB is claimed by people in work (particularly in areas such as London) – and hence the fear of “cleansing” of low-paid workers from housing close to their place of work – and with travel costs so high, possibly forcing them out of work as well as out of their homes. Who’s going to commute from Dagenham to work in McDonald’s in Oxford St? The more insidious part of the policy relates to breaking the link between HB and actual rental costs, and shaving 10% off HB for the long term unemployed. Whilst I’m afraid that much of the party’s anti-cuts campaigning seems to imply that we wouldn’t be cutting anything or that our cuts would somehow be soft and cuddly compared to the Tories’ ones, a claim that doesn’t really stand up when you look at the cuts implied in the last Darling budget, here is a case where there is clear water between ourselves and the Condems. However – how do we handle it when our own supporters probably approve, in general, of cutting HB?
Kate Green should be ashamed of peddling this nonsense. The social cleansing has already taken place in the big cities and the social cohesion which she claism to defend has been hugely damaged.. This is because ,via high rents from housing benefit for the economically inactive , housing is no longer affordable for those on median incomes in the bid cities. THe feckless and the economically inactive ,often with little local connection , are displacing the working poor. Green seems to support this process while bending over backwards to help those who have no intention of working I am wholly in favour of very draconian cuts in HB because I want to force out the economically inactive and replace them with the economically active. Then we can have a bit m or e social cohesion