An Unnecessary Role

embracing false choices

Archive for the ‘Welfare’ Category

Want to make Universal Credit work in London? Just make stuff cheaper

leave a comment »

I posted a little while ago about the risk to London posed by the lack of regional variation in the way Government funding is being allocated and benefit rates are calculated. I was suggesting that in order to avert real-terms funding discrepancies and, even more importantly, the likelihood of thousands of benefit claimants (many of whom are in work) being forced to move the Government should ensure that their decisions reflect the cost of living and working in particular areas of the country.

It turns out that I couldn’t have be more wrong. This London Councils report  indicated that the Universal Credit reforms did not reflect the cost of living in London and would ultimately prove a disincentive to work. Responding to it, the company Policy In Practice (an unbiased lot given it was “was established to help the government deliver its welfare reforms”) makes clear that actually all those of us worrying about the impact of this policy are looking at this from completely the wrong direction:

A better policy response would be to reduce the costs of childcare, transport and housing to improve conditions for all Londoners and make the capital more competitive.

I cannot deny, this would make a lot of difference. If stuff cost less, then benefits would go further. If the cost of living wasn’t so high, then the Government’s plans wouldn’t be faulty on a grand scale. At this point if I was being politically mischievous I could point out that when you have a Mayor that does this:

Public transport users in London are being reminded that fares across the capital’s range of services are set to increase by 6.8 per cent next week in line with changes first announced in October.

The new fares come into effect from Sunday 2 January 2011 and will see the cost of a single Oyster bus fare rise to by 10p to £1.30. On the Tube the Zone 1 pay as you go fare will also increase by 10p to £1.90 while “overall” Travelcard season ticket prices will go up by RPI plus two per cent.

The increases are the third implemented by Mayor of London Boris Johnson since he took office in 2008.

Leads a London housing sector like this:

The problem is illustrated by two examples provided by London and Quadrant to the London Assembly planning and housing committee back in March. If a tenant were charged 65% of the market rent on a one bed home in Haringey their rent would be around £137 per week, a full £52 higher than a social rented home.

There is obviously a demand for housing let at these intermediate rents. But London and Quadrant told us that 77% of their residents earn less than £15,000 a year. The mayor’s own research shows that some 14% of Londoners in work earn less than than this threshold, and that this group is in the most acute housing need. This new “affordable” housing isn’t affordable for them.

Families on low incomes are even worse off. The mayor wanted 42% of social rented homes to have three or more bedrooms, but only 29% of the affordable rent homes will be that size. The likely result will be more overcrowding. As for rent, a family seeking a four bed property in Haringey would need to pay £293 per week if it were let at 65% of market rent, 132% higher than a social rent of £126 per week.

Or this:

Boris Johnson today urged the coalition to leave London’s rising house prices alone or risk worsening the housing crisis.

And did this:

The Conservative threat to affordable childcare and frontline services was highlighted in London today following the news that Tory mayor Boris Johnson has disbanded London’s dedicated childcare unit.

Then you probably aren’t going to stand much of a chance of making all that stuff cheaper. As I’m not being mischievous I’ll simply say this is a hopelessly naive way of looking at the problem. These changes are coming, they will cause chaos for London’s housing sector, local authorities and the people they serve. And airy theories without the policy to back it up won’t solve anything.

Written by samelliot

August 4, 2011 at 10:53 am

Posted in Finance, London, Welfare

Impractical cuts dressed up as localism

leave a comment »

Forgive the source of this link, but as the Mail appears to be the only media source covering this it will have to do. The latest  initiative from the government is to transfer responsibility for the payment of council tax benefit from the Department for Work and Pensions to local authorities. With new responsibilities comes new money to fund it. However, the total given to councils to pay out on council tax benefit will be a full 10% less than is currently spent.

This essentially means that councils are being instructed to find a way of giving less people council tax benefit, which is challenging enough, but CLG won’t leave it at that. Pensioners will be protected from any change in eligibility, as will people already in work. The burden of that 10% reduction will inevitably fall on the most vulnerable. Pickles attempts to sell this as giving councils the opportunity to benefit form getting people back in work, but the impractical nature of this transfer of responsibility and the potential damage it could do means many councils will not see this as a good deal. In this case localism is a confidence trick, with duties being off-loading to councils without giving them the resources or the power to fulfil them.

Written by samelliot

August 2, 2011 at 11:04 am

Posted in Finance, Localism, Welfare

Universal credit won’t work for London

with one comment

The Independent this morning reports on research commissioned by London Councils into the impact of the universal credit. The report is damning in illustrating that current plans for London will leave people worse off in London than in the rest of the country and will provide little incentive to work as entering work will leave people worse off than staying on the benefit.

Families in London – where child care and housing costs are significantly higher – will be particularly badly affected, according to the analysis commissioned by London Councils, an umbrella organisation representing all local authorities in the capital.

It found that a single parent with two children living in the capital would be £5,168 a year worse off under the Universal Credit if in a full time job on a minimum wage, using childcare, than under the 2011 system. Nationally a lone parent in the same situation would be £4,300 a year worse off.

A couple who both work full time and have two children will be £2,333 a year worse off in London and £1,528 nationally.

The report can be found here and I urge to read at least the Executive Summary. It is difficult to argue with the aim of simplifying the benefits system, but with these reforms the coalition appears to be making the same mistakes I highlighted over housing benefit and pupil premium. Assuming that Government knows that costs of labour, property and other resources vary across the country, what on earth can be the reason for persisting with this flawed appraoch?

Written by samelliot

June 13, 2011 at 11:03 am

Posted in London, Welfare