UK - Tories hate the young

[The Don]

The latest in a series of policies and/or policy suggestions from the Conservative part of our coalition government.

- Deny housing benefit to under 25s
- Remove child benefit for more than 3 children

It's the first one that gets my goat. In particular they try to discriminate between the deserving youngsters (those coming out of care or escaping disordered homes) and those that are just poor. I suppose that they think that the under-25s can run back to Mummy and Daddy's house in the country or stay in Daddy's little pied-a-terre in London.

They propose to save £2bn but the true number will be far, far lower. Each of the 200,000 claimants will have to be assessed (and regularly re-assessed) which won't be cheap and a certain proportion will have their benefits upheld.

Meanwhile at the other end of the age scale (where the Conservatives still have some support) millionaire pensioners still get the winter fuel allowance and a free TV licence (never mind being in receipt of the state pension)

This kind of legislation, combined with huge rises in university fees and the disproportionate rise in youth unemployment makes it seem like the Conservatives simply don't like the young, or at least the young of the hoi polloi.

[andyandy]

This is what happens when you have millionaires in charge of government - it's probably inconceivable to imagine that perhaps other people's parents don't have room for a returning 25 year old - after all mummy and daddy have a 4 bedroom flat in leafy Kensington - and equally beyond consideration that perhaps other parents might live somewhere with few job opportunities - because well, all your school mates mums and dads live in London.

It's the same strand of thought that's currently dominating Gove's attempts to recreate his public school boy days from 40 years ago....this was his world so this is the only context he can think in...

[megaresp]

Originally Posted by andyandy

This is what happens when you have millionaires in charge of government...

We almost always have millionaires in charge of government.

In my view it's more accurate to say this is what happens when young people don't vote.

Unlike, for example, pensioners.

[bluesjnr]

Originally Posted by megaresp

We almost always have millionaires in charge of government.

In my view it's more accurate to say this is what happens when young people don't vote.

Unlike, for example, pensioners.

Where can I find the breakdown of ages of the 65.1% of the population who did turnout?

There are around 10 million people in the UK are over 65 years old, if they all turned out (I'll bet they didn't) it would still only represent 15% of the total of voters.

These facts seem to suggest you need to have another look at things

[andyandy]

Originally Posted by megaresp

We almost always have millionaires in charge of government.
.

Not really - there's a massive difference when you look at (say) the New Labour cabinet in the late 1990s versus the current Tory cabinet. We have an exceptionally rich and privileged group of men currently in charge on government. It's true to say that most politicians become rich - ie once you have been a cabinet politician you can cash in no end, but there is still a difference between being super rich prior to becoming a politician and becoming super rich afterwards.....

[Dcdrac]

Or a Governement needing a useful diversion from its failures.....

[Professor Yaffle]

Originally Posted by bluesjnr

Where can I find the breakdown of ages of the 65.1% of the population who did turnout?

This report has some information on age breakdown in voting:

http://www.civilsociety.co.uk/docs/Q...ging_Age_1.pdf

[bluesjnr]

Originally Posted by Professor Yaffle

This report has some information on age breakdown in voting:

http://www.civilsociety.co.uk/docs/Q...ging_Age_1.pdf

Thanks for that Prof, it's interesting reading and looking at it one would need data on the number of people within a given age set (E.G. 18 -24, 25 -34 ETC.) to make sense of the percentages quoted and then apply each to the 65.1% of actual voters to further investigate the accuracy of megaparsecs claim. Since s/he made it, I'll leave it up them to do so if they wish.

It should be noted that it is a MORI poll, based on estimates and was produced prior to the 2010 election.

[mediocrity511]

This story upsets me, as I'm under 25 and have claimed housing benefit, the reasons why are a right mixture, being too sick to work, being unemployed, having a part time job and having a poorly paying full time one. HB has allowed me to live in a stable home with my partner and that has allowed us to get back on our own feet again when ready. Without that, we probably couldn't have lived together and so would be stuck in completely different parts of the country to one another. In addition to that, I would've stuck in an area of high unemployment with poor public transport, my employment prospects would be a bit grim. That's before you get on to my screwed up family dynamic!

I'm now not reliant on any benefits and am paying into the system, that may not be the case if I had been forced to move home.

[richardm]

mediocrity511, you're lucky at least to have the option to move home; not everyone has this by the age of 25. Luckily the workhouses will shortly be setting up shop, so nobody needs to be homeless!

Cameron has lots of good ideas for dealing with feckless workshy malingerers, incidentally:

• Regional variation in Benefits
• Reduce the amount of benefit paid to people over time
• Expecting people on benefits to be able to read, write and count
• Out-of-work benefits linked to wages rather than inflation, if wages are lower
• A cap on the amount people can earn and still live in a council house
• Reduce the current £20,000 housing benefit limit
• Stopping the out of work being better off by having children
• Consider paying some benefits "in kind" rather than in cash
• Expecting parents on income support to prepare for work while children have free nursery care
• Getting the physically able to do full-time community work after a period out of work
• Sickness benefit claimants should take steps to improve their health

[mediocrity511]

Oh I know I am lucky compared to a lot but that's kind of the point, if the policy could have screwed up the life of a middle class graduate like myself, then what would it do to those who are really disadvantaged?!

[Darat]

The stigmatisation really turns my stomach. And the distortion of the facts makes me despair, no wonder so many people are so negative about the welfare state these days.

[Darat]

There's also the fact that many "hard working families" claim housing benefit even though they are working because they earn so bloody little so surely if you wanted to help those folk you arrange it so that they earn more not remove housing benefit from others... but nah that would mean companies couldn't offload some of their employment costs to the tax payer and we can't be having that. (And why is that always taken to be families with children that count?)

[richardm]

Originally Posted by mediocrity511

Oh I know I am lucky compared to a lot but that's kind of the point, if the policy could have screwed up the life of a middle class graduate like myself, then what would it do to those who are really disadvantaged?!

Yeah, I got your drift and you are spot on - I suspect that AndyAndy is right and that the Tories assume that everyone's in that position. Either that or they simply don't care.

Re: the "Hard Working Families" and housing benefit - indeed. But if you only listen to Tory stigmatisation then you might be unaware that only 1 in 8 housing benefit claimants is unemployed.

[Rolfe]

I hate them so much, I know what I want to do about it.

Vote YES in 2014!

Rolfe.

[Carnivore]

I'm currently receiving housing benefit. I've been unemployed most of this year. Fortunately I'm starting a new job next month (and I'm older than 25) but this policy scares the willies out of me.

My experience has been not too bad. When I lost my last job my benefit claim was processed quickly and I was able to remain in my cheap flat. I eat a lot of rice and beans but I'm in no danger of starving and I'm able to pay my utilities and rent. I can even afford an occasional bus ride to job interviews. There are plenty of people worse off than me.

The thing is, the only thing that makes my situation survivable is housing benefit. My JobSeekers allowance just about covers food, power, water and phone connection. Housing benefit covers 80% of my rent. If my housing benefit went, I would lose the ability to afford any kind of rented accomodation. I could not afford a flatshare or a bedsit. I would be out on the street.

I've been going on all the training courses I can and most of the people on them are young. A lot of them are scared. If this policy is enacted young people actively (desperately) looking for jobs that just aren't there are going to be essentially written off by the state. There will be a big jump in youth homelessness, with everything that implies. Not cool, ConDems.

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

I hate them so much, I know what I want to do about it.

Vote YES in 2014!

Rolfe.

You know who else told people to vote "Yes!" in referendums? Hitler! That's who! Now stand in the corner feeling ashamed of yourself.

[Multivac]

Obvious questions arising from this stupidity, as they seem to expect 18-25 years to live with mum and dad:

1) Will there be an exception for children in care, as they often do not have parents that they can live with?
2) Will there be exceptions for people who have violent parents?

Even for this bunch of parasites, this is a ridiculously stupid idea.

ETA: I think they hate everyone who wasn't born with a silver spoon up their arse.

[The Don]

Originally Posted by richardm

Re: the "Hard Working Families" and housing benefit - indeed. But if you only listen to Tory stigmatisation then you might be unaware that only 1 in 8 housing benefit claimants is unemployed.

I was listening to a Conservative MP (a member of some committee relating to benefits) twist and turn like a twisty-turny thing when responding to young people phoning in explaining their own particular situation. Every person who called seemed to be some kind of special case.

"Hard working families" I presume also fit into the category of the under 25's who are deserving of housing benefit. If this is the case then only a tiny fraction of the £2bn could be saved even before the costs of administrating and adjudicating are taken into account.

Originally Posted by Carnivore

I've been going on all the training courses I can and most of the people on them are young. A lot of them are scared. If this policy is enacted young people actively (desperately) looking for jobs that just aren't there are going to be essentially written off by the state. There will be a big jump in youth homelessness, with everything that implies. Not cool, ConDems.

I'm glad that Housing Benefit did exactly what it should have.

As far as the Conservatives are concerned, I get the feeling that they think that there'll be no homelessness and the only difficulty the under 25s will have is deciding whether to stay in the family pile, the holiday cottage in Devon or Daddy's pied-a-terre in London (unless of course they want to improve their language skills by staying in the chalet in Val d'Isere for a few months).


Once again the fiction of the scrounger living large off the public purse does the rounds. I was thinking about what life would be like if I was such a scrounger. Without work, or the search for work, I imagine the days would be very long indeed. Without money, I couldn't engage in paid entertainment and I couldn't bear to watch TV all day. Life would be excruciating and I couldn't even afford to drink my problems away. Meals would be bad and repetitive, I don't see the attraction at all.

[The Don]

Originally Posted by Multivac

Obvious questions arising from this stupidity, as they seem to expect 18-25 years to live with mum and dad:

1) Will there be an exception for children in care, as they often do not have parents that they can live with?
2) Will there be exceptions for people who have violent parents?

Even for this bunch of parasites, this is a ridiculously stupid idea.

ETA: I think they hate everyone who wasn't born with a silver spoon up their arse.

Yes, these exceptions were explicitly mentioned as was the exception where the parents do not have space to take them in. This does not reduce the stupidity of the whole idea.

At the age of 24 in 1991, I was married and living in Bristol with a wife who could not yet work in the UK. If I had lost my job then I would have had to move back in with my parents in the North East of England where work would have been nigh-on impossible to find instead of staying in Bristol. Instead of paying Housing Benefit for maybe a few weeks followed by years of my contributions, they'd have been paying the dole perhaps for years.

[Lamuella]

a fun thing to do would be to compare the figures for benefit fraud / gaming the benefits system with the figures for tax fraud / gaming the tax system. Just guessing but one of these would be significantly higher than the other.

[Skepticemea]

Originally Posted by Lamuella

a fun thing to do would be to compare the figures for benefit fraud / gaming the benefits system with the figures for tax fraud / gaming the tax system. Just guessing but one of these would be significantly higher than the other.

http://statistics.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd...ge=fraud_error

The amount overpaid due to fraud and error is 2%. Less that is underpaid (2.1%) due to fraud and error (I'm guessing mainly error for this one) and underclaiming.

[Lamuella]

Originally Posted by Skepticemea

http://statistics.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd...ge=fraud_error

The amount overpaid due to fraud and error is 2%. Less that is underpaid (2.1%) due to fraud and error (I'm guessing mainly error for this one) and underclaiming.

so basically when all fraud and malpractice is taken into account, the net effect of benefit fraud is essentially zero?

[Skepticemea]

Originally Posted by Lamuella

so basically when all fraud and malpractice is taken into account, the net effect of benefit fraud is essentially zero?

Essentially. Obviously, 2% (which includes errors not of the claimants making) is too much when the budget is c£110bn, but the dog whistling going on is insulting to anyone who can count.*

The vast majority of housing benefit claimants are in work (c90%) so what is the issue? If lack of supply is driving up the cost of private housing then surely the obvious solution is to create more housing?

*I'm not including the Chancellor in that demographic.

[Lamuella]

Originally Posted by Skepticemea

The vast majority of housing benefit claimants are in work (c90%) so what is the issue? If lack of supply is driving up the cost of private housing then surely the obvious solution is to create more housing?

Building more social housing would be a great idea on a number of levels. You would have a considerable stimulative effect on the construction industry, you would reduce the amount of housing benefit being paid out, and you would lower rents. Yes, there would be a capital cost, but it's money that would go directly back into the economy.

[Ethan Thane Athen]

Originally Posted by Lamuella

Building more social housing would be a great idea on a number of levels. You would have a considerable stimulative effect on the construction industry, you would reduce the amount of housing benefit being paid out, and you would lower rents. Yes, there would be a capital cost, but it's money that would go directly back into the economy.

Yes but that's something a Labour Govt would do and therefore unthinkable for a Tory one...

[The Don]

Originally Posted by Lamuella

Building more social housing would be a great idea on a number of levels. You would have a considerable stimulative effect on the construction industry, you would reduce the amount of housing benefit being paid out, and you would lower rents. Yes, there would be a capital cost, but it's money that would go directly back into the economy.

In principle, I am absolutely in favour of that idea, in practice I am against it....

Social housing does have a significant skewing effect on private rentals. It could be argued that one of the reasons why the quality of private rented accommodation was (is ?) so poor and it is so expensive that that availability social housing meant that there was no market for affordable, high quality, private rents.

Since the wholesale sell off of the social housing inventory we have the worst of both worlds, no social housing and a comparatively immature private rental market.

Another problem with social housing (in my experience) is that it is poorly utilised. The 3 bedroom council house that my Mum lived in from 1952 - 1957 made perfect sense when it was her, her brother and their parents. 30 years later my Gran was still living in that house alone because it was "her house". Meanwhile families with kids are living in cramped flats or B&Bs (what made it far worse from a housing availability perspective is that she then bought the house removing it forever from the social housing stock). Likewise some friends in the Labour party are still living in their 5 bedroom '30s semi, 50 years after their kids left home.

Rather than denying under-25s housing benefit then perhaps we could build social housing and then make it available to the under 25s (and maybe employ some of them in building it) on the proviso that they should either vacate the property or pay a commercial rent for it when circumstances allow.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by The Don

...snip...

Rather than denying under-25s housing benefit then perhaps we could build social housing and then make it available to the under 25s (and maybe employ some of them in building it) on the proviso that they should either vacate the property or pay a commercial rent for it when circumstances allow.

And I'd also say look at having a review of needs every say 5 years for a long-term tenant, if they no longer meet the criteria for the housing they are in that would mean they could be expected (and yes if necessary forced) to move to a property that they are eligible for.

Of course for this to work what we need is a mix of good quality social housing in areas so that we are not uprooting people from their communities and families, indeed if no suitable housing existed in the local areas that would nullify them having to give up the tenancy.

Too complex? Yes for the Daily Mail but not for a species that can come up with 24 different tomato ketchups!

Again it comes back to there simply being no simple "solution".

[Skepticemea]

Originally Posted by The Don

In principle, I am absolutely in favour of that idea, in practice I am against it....

Social housing does have a significant skewing effect on private rentals. It could be argued that one of the reasons why the quality of private rented accommodation was (is ?) so poor and it is so expensive that that availability social housing meant that there was no market for affordable, high quality, private rents.

Since the wholesale sell off of the social housing inventory we have the worst of both worlds, no social housing and a comparatively immature private rental market.

Another problem with social housing (in my experience) is that it is poorly utilised. The 3 bedroom council house that my Mum lived in from 1952 - 1957 made perfect sense when it was her, her brother and their parents. 30 years later my Gran was still living in that house alone because it was "her house". Meanwhile families with kids are living in cramped flats or B&Bs (what made it far worse from a housing availability perspective is that she then bought the house removing it forever from the social housing stock). Likewise some friends in the Labour party are still living in their 5 bedroom '30s semi, 50 years after their kids left home.

Rather than denying under-25s housing benefit then perhaps we could build social housing and then make it available to the under 25s (and maybe employ some of them in building it) on the proviso that they should either vacate the property or pay a commercial rent for it when circumstances allow.

I don't understand what you mean in the first part. More social housing means private rental properties are worse? How does that scan when quality private rentals are still few and far between and yet the prices are sky high? I'm paying £1500pm in London for a 1 bed place (sold my house as I'm emigrating soon). It is certainly not "high quality" and there is very little in the way of social housing available to me as my circumstances mean I wouldn't even get my name on a list!

Lack of supply means higher prices - simple. No private company is going to build houses for rental, therefore it's up to the government to address the lack of supply, not remove the ability to pay for the poor quality/high priced housing that is available.

As for forcing people to move when the constituents of the house change, you're effectively saying that social housing cannot be a home. Coupled with Cameron's suggestion that those under 25 move back home when they cannot afford housing, it'd be a bit tricky if that person's parents lived in social housing and had to downsize when their child moved out. *ETA: Darat's suggestion that circumstances be looked and moves only required when there's appropriate housing available in the area is one approach that could make that idea work.

Address high rents and lack of supply and take the additional economic benefits that come with that approach.

[The Don]

Originally Posted by Skepticemea

The vast majority of housing benefit claimants are in work (c90%) so what is the issue? If lack of supply is driving up the cost of private housing then surely the obvious solution is to create more housing

The problem is that the demand for housing is highest where the available land is scarcest (and the NIMBYs loudest). There is an immense demand for affordable housing inside the M25 so that maybe some of those people on relatively poor pay could actually spend time at home with their families rather than spending it commuting.

To address this, we'll somehow need to convince people that they don't want to live in little box houses with tiny gardens and instead design some high-capacity social housing that someone might want to live in AND pay to look after it.

[The Don]

Originally Posted by Skepticemea

I don't understand what you mean in the first part. More social housing means private rental properties are worse? How does that scan when quality private rentals are still few and far between and yet the prices are sky high? I'm paying £1500pm in London for a 1 bed place (sold my house as I'm emigrating soon). It is certainly not "high quality" and there is very little in the way of social housing available to me as my circumstances mean I wouldn't even get my name on a list!

Sorry, I phrased it poorly....

The post-war availability of relatively large quantities of high quality, low price rental properties through social housing meant that there was little incentive for private landlords to provide high quality accommodation at a reasonable price.

When the large-scale sell-off of council properties occurred in the 80's and 90's this only made the situation worse. Demand for high quality, reasonably priced properties was higher than ever but supply was considerably reduced.

So the inadvertent effect of social housing has been to drive up the costs of private rented accommodation.

When it was available, it drove up rents (only the rich or desperate rented privately) and then when it was unavailable it reinforced these high rents by increasing demand for private rented accommodation

Originally Posted by Skepticemea

Lack of supply means higher prices - simple. No private company is going to build houses for rental, therefore it's up to the government to address the lack of supply, not remove the ability to pay for the poor quality/high priced housing that is available.

Presumably, the reason why private companies are not building houses for rental is that they cannot achieve an acceptable commercial return. Building social housing will only make things worse for those people who cannot get it because it'll make it even less likely that a commercial organisation will be able to achieve an acceptable commercial return.

Originally Posted by Skepticemea

As for forcing people to move when the constituents of the house change, you're effectively saying that social housing cannot be a home. Coupled with Cameron's suggestion that those under 25 move back home when they cannot afford housing, it'd be a bit tricky if that person's parents lived in social housing and had to downsize when their child moved out. *ETA: Darat's suggestion that circumstances be looked and moves only required when there's appropriate housing available in the area is one approach that could make that idea work.

The alternative is a horribly skewed social housing market where large houses are occupied by single pensioners (not least because they've been occupying them for the last 30, 40, 50 years back when they did have families living at home) while families who require houses either squeeze into tiny flats or have to wait in B&B accommodation until a house becomes available. That doesn't seem fair to me.

Originally Posted by Skepticemea

Address high rents and lack of supply and take the additional economic benefits that come with that approach.

One of the reasons for a lack of supply is there there isn't enough space to put the kinds of houses people seem to want (detached with a garden, no matter how small) in the places people want to live (inside the M25).

[mediocrity511]

I'm now wondering about radical new designs for social housing. If what was designed were interlinked suites, it would be possible to upsize or downsize according to need. It'd let people keep their home, without occupying more space than they need. It would need a visionary architect to design something that would work though...

[Skepticemea]

Originally Posted by The Don

Sorry, I phrased it poorly....

The post-war availability of relatively large quantities of high quality, low price rental properties through social housing meant that there was little incentive for private landlords to provide high quality accommodation at a reasonable price.

When the large-scale sell-off of council properties occurred in the 80's and 90's this only made the situation worse. Demand for high quality, reasonably priced properties was higher than ever but supply was considerably reduced.

So the inadvertent effect of social housing has been to drive up the costs of private rented accommodation.

Thanks for clarifying.

The sell-off of council properties is/was infuriating. It's even more annoying when Cameron mentions doing it again.

Your point regarding housing in the SE is well made.

[The Don]

Originally Posted by Skepticemea

The sell-off of council properties is/was infuriating. It's even more annoying when Cameron mentions doing it again.

I agree 100%. If we're going to have social housing then we should continue to provide it rather then selling it off at a huge discount as a bribe.

If the government want an increase in the level of home ownership then they should focus on economic recovery so that people can afford to go out and buy houses if they want them (which will have the added bonus of releasing the social housing they currently occupy back into the social housing pool) rather than urinating the social housing stock against the wall in an orgy of vote-buying.

[Beerina]

Originally Posted by Darat

The stigmatisation really turns my stomach. And the distortion of the facts makes me despair, no wonder so many people are so negative about the welfare state these days.

The stigmatization had the benefit of keeping people off the rolls. Many old-school wouldn't do it out of pure shame, it being something of absolute, absolute last resort.

I'm not convinced politicians stroking people, telling them how awesome it is to go on the rolls, is better.

[Lamuella]

Originally Posted by Beerina

The stigmatization had the benefit of keeping people off the rolls.

...yeah, not sure how people not getting a service they're entitled to is a "benefit" in any way.

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by bluesjnr

Where can I find the breakdown of ages of the 65.1% of the population who did turnout?

There are around 10 million people in the UK are over 65 years old, if they all turned out (I'll bet they didn't) it would still only represent 15% of the total of voters.

These facts seem to suggest you need to have another look at things

Doesn't this depend on a judgement about how likely pensioners would be to shift their vote/not vote based on particular policies. 15% of voters can be a lot if you know what will/won't make them turn out for you.

[richardm]

Originally Posted by Beerina

The stigmatization had the benefit of keeping people off the rolls. Many old-school wouldn't do it out of pure shame, it being something of absolute, absolute last resort

This is true today, with a number of pensioners dying every year because they're too proud to apply for the winter fuel allowance. I'm not sure that many people would consider it to be a particular benefit.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Beerina

The stigmatization had the benefit of keeping people off the rolls. Many old-school wouldn't do it out of pure shame, it being something of absolute, absolute last resort.

I'm not convinced politicians stroking people, telling them how awesome it is to go on the rolls, is better.

Eh? I can't think of one politician in my lifetime that claimed able bodied people would be better to not work, perhaps it is different in your country.

[DrDave]

Originally Posted by richardm

This is true today, with a number of pensioners dying every year because they're too proud to apply for the winter fuel allowance. I'm not sure that many people would consider it to be a particular benefit.

Will free up some housing and drop rental prices?