Mrs May once famously said that the Tories are the nasty party. She has proved to be a serial liar in almost everything she has said since, but there she spoke truth. I was a county councillor through the thick of the Osborne austerity programme, when support for local government was being cut in an arithmetical series: 2008, cuts of £1,000,000,000; 2009, cuts of £2,000,000,000; 2010, cuts of £3,000,000,000 etc etc. During my tenure the cuts equalled £30,000,000,000.
By 2018 the total cuts (if my A level maths has not deserted me) were £55,000,000,000. Now admittedly in today’s debased currency that’s hardly enough to bribe an EU functionary, but in the real world it lead to cuts in things that really mattered, cuts to road maintenance, cuts to policing, fire services, libraries, respite support for families. Nasty indeed.
Many of their other proposed money-saving policies were simply heartless. One such was the bedroom tax”
“The under-occupancy penalty (also known as the under occupation penalty, under-occupancy charge, under-occupation charge or size criteria) is a reform contained in the British Welfare Reform Act 2012 whereby public-housing (also called council or social housing) tenants with rooms deemed to be “spare” face a reduction in Housing Benefit, resulting in them being obliged to fund this reduction from their incomes or face rent arrears and potential eviction by their landlord (be that the local authority or a housing association).” Wikipedia
Let’s look at this policy with a non-Osborne eye. Young Mum and Dad move into a reasonably-sized house for their family with three or four children. Before you know it the children grow up, move away, come back, off to jobs, return with grandchildren for visits… The house is a bit shabby now, overlain with memories of lives lived together, with a dense patina of love and affection and the passing years. It’s not a house, not a social housing unit. It’s a home. Young Mum and Dad have turned a little grey and have become Grandpops and Nan, on benefits now since many local jobs have been off-shored, managing but only just as they wait for their old age pension.
Along comes one of the desiccated calculating machines that passes for a politician in the Nasty Party and it looks at the occupancy unit with a political eye. It sees not a home, not a place redolent with love and memories: all it sees is the chance to save money. Inexplicably the individual cost items living within resist the instruction to downsize in order to free the habitation for more efficient usage. They seem curiously reluctant to submit to redeployment in the name of efficiency, refusing to move out and leave all that history, all that love behind.
This, the argument runs, is State property and these old people are merely State dependants who must do what they are told. And if they don’t then they must learn their place. So the State must tax the rooms they have spare (or cut their benefits which amounts to the same thing), must make them suffer until they comply.
Look again at that policy with a non-political eye. It stinks.
Let me digress for a moment. One of the encounters in the Suffolk County Council Chamber which will remain with me forever was when I was triggered by some heartless policy or other – probably library cuts but it may have been their refusal to release land for social housing – and really lost it. Furiously I pointed at the majority side of the chamber, where the Conservative group with their absolute control sat smug and indifferent as our minor group tried to ameliorate the policies being passed down from Osborne’s cold-hearted Treasury, pointed and ranted “It’s not that you don’t understand, you don’t care!” Cue lots of boos and hisses, cue a little, just a little, sheepish shuffling of feet.
Being a politician should be about caring. Yes, understanding too, spending taxpayers’ money wisely, but caring must be up there on the list of priorities, part of the balancing act. These are, or should be, primary political skills for anything other than the Nasty Party.
Let’s rehearse the arguments. Social housing is in short supply. There was no incentive for long-time residents to move from a large family home other than the costs of a large house vs a small one. Government can make the costs more. But making people suffer more by cutting benefits makes them dig in their heels unless the cuts are set at cruel levels. So make cruel cuts. But then voters complain…
Here’s the human solution. Pay people to move. Freeing up a three bedroom “council” house by moving an older couple into a one bedroom “council” flat saves a hell of a lot of money. So share that saving. Pay people to move. Not a bedroom tax. A bedroom bonus.
In other words, try not to be nasty. Try to be something other than a desiccated calculating machine.
Try being human.
First I would say that giving state aid to elderly to live should be a fixed safety net and put to one side of the argument. Then one can look at housing, health and other issues without over complication by mixing issues. The idea of trying to break the agreement with someone living in their home is morally a non-starter and should be stopped immediately.
People say we haven’t the houses or space. How does one think we will survive in the year 3000 when the population is for arguments sake double? Someone’s home is their home leave them alone!
If there is a housing shortage then look at the reasons why, such as house building or mass ‘unplanned for’ immigration. It is not the fault of an elderly couple or person who is continuing their life. This is a cowardly and a lazy way to deal with the responsibility of governance.
The Welfare State has, I believe, been used to further ideological beliefs and imposition. It is also easy to believe that the WS has been used for the cynical achievement of political power.
Instead of just helping people in need it now cultivates jealousy, laziness, despondency and more importantly steals people’s ownership of their life.
I would disagree with some people, to my mind and ultimately, it is NOT about the money, it is about happiness, usefulness, fulfillment, safety, individuality, cohesion and love, among other things.
Give Caesar what is Caesars.
We have lost meaning with corruption and incompetence. Talk of Left and Right is, for me, sickening.
The present political upheaval may well be a blessing in disguise.
Surely the problem is not lack of social housing but lack of control over those coming into the country and taking social housing for themselves, and very often with big families which puts them at the top of the list. They also use our health service and schools.The country they come from or the EU should be back charged for this welfare cost if the UK cannot stop them arriving.
The second point mentioned – austerity, is that expenditure on projects like HS2 (the rail line) get funding even though it is not cost effective. VAT – 80% collected goes to the EU which positively wastes money. We spend a lot of money on ‘Climate Change’ which is wasted as the EU member Germany is building 8 new coal fired Power Stations, and India and China are building them as a cheap source of energy; any progress this country makes is totally lost.
https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/ngos-criticise-eu-member-states-receiving-energy-transition-funds-without-plan-exit-coal
The money is there to spend on housing, schools and hospitals but the Government decides to spend it elsewhere or it is not in charge of this country and spends as directed by the EU. The Government has also allowed many companies to move out of the UK or bought by foreign Companies, or allowed Government contracts to be taken up by companies outside of the UK; this is a large number of jobs not retained here and tax gained within the UK.
This is good free market policy but only if everyone else plays a free market policy, otherwise we are ripped off.
Is there money available or is there not…?
To date there has always been Government money available to rescue “lame duck” banks, vide 1914, 2008…
In the first instance Government should be aiming to balance the books so expenditure is covered by income i.e. taxation receipts without recourse to (purported) borrowing and potentially imposing multigenerational debt-slavery on the population or worsening it.
However a more subtle issue at play is that the national debt is itself necessary* under the present arrangements in order to provide enough monetary circulation to enable sufficient liquidity to exist for commerce and all other workings in an orderly modern society. That sad state of affairs verges on the criminal when one brings to mind the fact that the “borrowing” is at interest which interest promotes capitalisation of indebtedness, the need for new borrowings to finance interest on the existing and hence the relentless push for economic growth – something inimical to prudent resource management and “environmentalism”. Ever heard the Green Party address any of that?!
* Michael Rowbotham: The Grip of Death, 1998
The previous paragraph is (silently) touched upon e.g. here where an attempt also is made to obfuscate the fact that the Government is using taxpayer money to pay financial institutions interest on the “money” advanced to it by them where if properly structured such need would not arise. So what, if a quarter of the national debt is owned by the Bank of England which pays its profit back to the Treasury? What about the interest on the other three-quarters, whereof who knows how much was new bank-created credit rather than recirculated existing money from the likes of private individuals, buiding societies or other non-banks? And so what, that the Government might receive some fraction of that back by way of corporation tax?
https://fullfact.org/economy/interest-payments-national-debt/
“…
Gross interest payments on central government debt came to about £45 billion and will have been a projected £48 billion for 2016/17, according to the Treasury.
The government effectively paid some of that to itself. Almost a quarter of government debt is owned by the Bank of England, which pays the profit back to the Treasury.
Ignoring interest payments to Bank of England, the government spent £33 billion in debt interest in 2015/16, with estimates of £36 billion and £42 billion for the following couple of years, according to the Office for Budget Responsibility.
…”
I just found this lengthy piece, which I have not yet had time to read. Maybe it will change my mind, but I’m sceptical that it will investigate the monetary malaise.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/ng-interactive/2015/apr/29/the-austerity-delusion
Julian Flood. This problem is not so easy. As others have stated it is all about money. If the money is not there, you can’t have it – plain and simple.
I am not saying austerity is the way. However, when Nick Clegg went into coalition with D Cameron, they were talking sense, saying the deficit had to be cut.
I am currently reading Douglas Carswell’s book ‘Rebel.’ It’s a must read for anyone interested in the future of our country. He talks about how governments issue bonds to generate cash. Then, the bond holders get money from taxes at a later date. Notice that? This is taxing a future generation! This must stop! In fact, it will stop, but, if we don’t do it, it will happen automatically, and the result will be a catastrophe.
Of course, we care. I recently posed a tyre in a pot-hole with 7 people in my car, including my 4 children! As we were waiting to get help the local council road team filled up the hole! The roads around here are atrocious and this is a prosperous area – the Cotswolds!
On top of that, all this money been sent to the EU is an outrage! Amazing it is the same people who say we need to spend more who think it’s OK to give a £39bn divorce bill!
If I had been PM, I would straight away told the EU we were not paying another penny until their accounts had been ratified!
Everything is about money. Ignore that fact at your peril.
Mrs May never called tge Tories a Nasty party. What she said was that some people call the Tories The Nasty Party. Totally different.
I agree that the tenants would be happier if they were paid to downsize rather than being penalised for refusing to downsize.
But why should we pay a person enough to live in a place bigger than we choose & then be paid even more to move into a smaller place?
If it were their money they could do as they please, but it isn’t theirs or even yours.
Indeed. If they were paying all the rent themselves, when their kids left the nest, they would either carry on paying more on rent than they need to now because they like the extra space or for the memories or whatever, or would downsize to a smaller, cheaper property. Both the above are fine. However housing benefit/UC cushions its recipients from having to make that decision. Beggars can’t be choosers.
Same thing happens with child benefit and tax credits – have as many kids as you want on the back of the taxpayers who themselves are worried about having one or two kids due to the cost.
Everybody is clamouring for more money for their particular project, yet nobody is saying anything about where this money is coming from. We are going through ‘austerity’ because we have in the past spent more money that we have received. I have yet to hear a single politician even mention the humungous national debt that we are saddled with.
I always argued that “austerity” never really happened – UK budget on social spending was growing year on year and the goal of no deficit and decrease in debt was never achieved. Money was spent differently and some services were hit – but we never had balanced budget.
There is a myth that State dependency is confined to the poor. In fact these days, with most people living in cities and lacking self-sufficiency, nearly everyone is dependent on the State. In fact those who benefit most from the State are those who benefit from State contracts, State employment, tax concession/grants etc, those who use the coin of Caesar, and employers who rely on the State to meet the financial/social needs of their employees. If that doesn’t include everyone then I must have forgotten something.
Today’s problems come from when the rich were allowed to abolish the Welfare State which was based on the poor relying on a secure middle class to control the rich. The rich then used the privatisation of public assets and services to create a political system where the rich were allowed to create an insecure, degenerate middle class to oppress the poor (a socialist State ruled by capitalists). This policy then became EU policy on steroids with the chaos created by the free movement of money, people, goods and services. And the rest is history.
I am not sure what “abolish the Welfare State” you are talking about. The welfare state is one of the tools used to increase socialism presents in the country- nothing else than a tool to control the masses. I do not agree that the middle class had ever means to control the rich. Middle class is in my opinion one of the best indicators of the state’s health. I do agree it is degenerating and the socialism/marxism is main reason behind it.
Social housing and housing benefits combined with mass immigration are reasons behind young people cannot start climbing on a property ladder. Mass immigration not only increases the demand on property markets but at the same time suppress wages and salaries creating an oversupply of the cheap workforce. Social housing and housing benefits are also used to keep the wages down – without state help, many jobs would not have an economic reason at all as they could not sustain leaving requirements of working people and their families. It also creates a group of people (increasing each year) dependant on the state. As per the proposed policy – it will be another good deed at our expense (taxpayers money). There is a discussion in the MSM about the increase (“small” of course) of income tax or NI to cover and enable free care for elderly and disabled people (NHS style). I am opposing all such attempts, IMO the trend should be reversed – the state is not meant to be a charity.
And land banking. 700,000 plans plus on ice from the major building firms . My policy would be to bring in legislation to either get on with it or face compulsory purchase at £1 per plot.
That’ll learn ’em
Or better still end mass immigration which is one of the main reasons for the demand for housing. Prices of houses would halt their upward spiral and young people could get on the housing ladder. Building contractors simply could not afford to hold vast undeveloped land banks.