To be fair, he hid to avoid Piers Morgan. Any rational human being would throw himself off a cliff to avoid speaking with Piers Morgan.
But that would make anyone who wants to be PM (or even MP) not a rational human being.
Oh, wait a minute…
Unless they actually had the guts to say they were only going to do interviews with serious and credible journalists, or to be as terse and dimisssive as Attlee could be.
(BTW, I am really sorry to read of SciFiSam’s troubles - one of the many disgraces of this absolute shower of a government).
Thank you for furthering my understanding. I suppose the follow-up questions are: why is this the case, and how do we solve it? Neither is easy to answer, in my view. From a standpoint of basic economics, how can the prevailing market rent be more than people are able to pay? I presume the answer to that one is that enough people are able to do so, such that those who can’t are either excluded from living in that area/property or go deeper and deeper into debt. But the answer isn’t to reform/increase universal credit so that people can spend more on rent - that would just continue to push up prices and enrich private landlords at the expense of taxpayers. Clearly what is needed is more social housing. But is Labour the answer to that? According to this site, which appears to be legitimate and independent (but please correct me if I’m wrong - I’m going to feel an absolute fool if it turns out to be one of those fake Tory ones), more social housing has been completed per year since 2010 than under Labour from 1997-2010: Have more council houses been built in the last seven years than under Labour? - Full Fact. Now, of course one can point to the fact that the prospective Labour government will be a good deal to the left of the last one, but I’m not convinced it’s fair to lump all the blame with the Tories, here. They’re certainly a convenient scapegoat and have done some bad things (and as I’ve already said, they don’t have my vote at the moment) but I’ll also point out that they have legislated to reduce the amount of mortgage tax relief available to private landlords, which should help the problem in the long term.
My conclusion is that everyone agrees more social housing is needed, and yes perhaps Labour might do better at it than the Tories have managed recently, but it’s not a slam dunk in my opinion.
Your point about childcare costs is also interesting. I’m seeing a lot on Facebook and elsewhere about 4.6 million children living in poverty. Of course no-one wants that to be the case. But the fact is, for the vast majority of these poor children, they are in such a situation due to their parents making poor choices. Not all, of course - unexpected hardship can happen to anyone. But there are huge numbers of people up and down the country intentionally bringing babies into the world with the expectation that someone else will support them. I don’t thank that’s great news for a fairly densely-populated island on an already over-populated planet. Rearing children is a responsibility, not a basic human right.
In a nutshell, despite all the above I do have huge sympathy for those less fortunate than me, but I’m not convinced this Labour manifesto will solve anything - in fact, it could make things worse.
The rent shortfall is due to Local Housing Allowance. The problem with LHA is that the prevailing market rent is more than people can pay, it’s that Local Housing Allowance is not the prevailing market rent, or anywhere close to it: it’s based on the 30th percentile of local rented accommodation. That means that most rents in the area will be higher than the local housing allowance, often by significant amounts. The 30th percentile is really low, and doesn’t take into account any factors like size of home, furnished or unfurnished, or state of repair, though it does exclude service charges for things like communal lighting - they’re payable by the tenant. (Charged for utilities are also excluded but I have no argument with that in principle).
I understand about not wanting to increase rents for private landlords, and that’s why LHA was introduced. But one simple reform would be to make it, say, the 80th percentile, not the 30th. Tenants who are on benefits have a much harder time getting private rentals (most agencies refuse to consider them and mortgage restrictions often disallow landlords letting to tenants on benefits), even if they’re working, so they have less choice of homes to rent, not more.
It’s a very, very unrealistic way of “helping” people pay private rents if they’re ill or simply low-paid. I think you’d agree that the 30th percentile is nowhere near market rent.
There are other problems - if you’re under 35 and childless you can only get the shared room rate, even if, say, you had a one bedroom flat - or even a studio flat - and lost your job, and still have nine months to run on your contract and pay a penalty for leaving. The shared room rate is so low that it drives people into homelessness.
A lot of the social housing that’s been completed is not what you’d think of as a council house or flat. More council housing has not been built - your link is talking about social housing. Councils rarely build new homes, which isn’t a big deal in a way - like your link says, it’s usually housing associations building the new homes.
But the term “social housing” has been broadened so far that it’s not really meaningful. Social housing now includes shared ownership flats, where the tenant takes out a mortgage on a proportion of the home (usually 25%) and pays rent on the rest. So this is only for people who can get mortgages. It often works out more expensive than a full mortgage, but if you don’t have a large deposit, then this might be your only way out of private rent.
Social housing also includes homes that are defined as “affordable rent.” Almost all newly built homes are let on an affordable rent basis. That’s supposedly 80% of market rent. The problem with that is that, in my area at least, the “affordable rent” has been calculated in such a strange way that it’s often higher than many other local rents. They look at number of bedrooms only, ignoring factors like square footage, a concierge or secure entrance, a balcony or garden or communal space, a kitchen and flooring (social housing properties have power points for ovens and washing machines but do not provide them, and do not provide flooring making sure you don’t walk on rafters), and various other factors that some private lets have and social housing doesn’t usually have. Starter tenancies are also six months to begin with, the same as private lets. People take them because after that six months there is more security of tenure, though it’s usually three or five years, not the old council home lifetime tenancy, and you don’t usually have to pay a large deposit - though you do have to pay the first two weeks up front, which in my area of London for a two-bedroom flat on “affordable rent” is over £700 (and I’m in the east end). That’s still better than a private let which usually asks for at least a month, plus two months as a deposit, plus fees.
So social housing has increased, but mainly by not really being social housing at all, just slightly less awful private housing plus some shared ownership.
I don’t blame you for knowing any of this, but when people say the situation is bad, it’s because it really is.
Thank you for the detailed additional information, it is useful and appreciated. It clearly demonstrates where there are problems. But I think we are going to seriously disagree on what can be done to solve them. It seems to me the nub of it is this:
I may be seriously misunderstanding this, but as I read it, you are basically saying that those on low incomes should be given a housing allowance that covers the rent of 80% of the market. To put it another way, if you were to rate the available rented accommodation on a ‘5 star’ system, currently LHA only covers accommodation up to the ‘1.5 stars’ level (i.e. 30%), you are proposing it covers up to the ‘4 star’ (80%) level. If this interpretation is correct, I have two major problems with it. One, why should those on low incomes (which may be through any or no fault of their own) be entitled to ‘4 star’ accommodation? Two (much more importantly in my view) this would still push rents up, wouldn’t it? If a large section of the market is suddenly able to afford higher rents, and there is demand for this, then rents are likely to go up across the board, potentially putting us back to square one (and as I said earlier, simply diverting money from taxpayers’ pockets to private landlords’).
I do have to wonder whether people’s expectations of location and quality are simply too high. When I first rented a flat 10 years ago, my girlfriend and I were able to afford a compact 1.5 bedroom place with a tiny kitchen opening on to the living area, about 20 minutes’ walk from the city centre (this was in Bristol, which I believe has some of the highest average rents outside London). Since we both worked full-time we were able to afford this fairly comfortably, as I recall. But we have/had a relatively modest lifestyle - only one car, one phone contract, no fancy clothes, for example. Had our joint income been lower, no doubt we would have needed to look at smaller places, in less desirable areas and/or further out of town, possibly relying on public transport to get to work. I’m sure both the market and the system have changed quite dramatically in the last decade so the specifics of this example may not be relevant any more, but the general point is - do people have realistic expectations?
When do the polls close, BTW?
22:00 gmt
The drastic reduction in available benefits due to the introduction of LHA didn’t result in a decrease in private rents, so no, it doesn’t work like that. And we’re talking about costs, not quality. Some more expensive homes are better, and some are also simply more expensive, and taking percentiles is what skews the figures the most; it’s not the same as the lowest 30% - luxury apartments don’t make much of a difference to the cost for LHA - they’re outliers. For your star comparison, it means all tenants can only get the rent for 1* accommodation, even though there isn’t enough 1* accommodation to support the demand. They end up living in 2* accommodation and paying the shortfall, and it can be a very, very large shortfall. My friend with the £180 shortfall has an income of £73.10pw after LHA, so she’s left with £25pw, and pays a share of utilities out of that.
Expectations of location aren’t relevant because LHA rates depend on your location. So very cheap areas pay less LHA. So you can choose to live in a cheaper area and still have a massive shortfall. You can move out to a distant suburb or something to try to find 1* accommodation there, but the mechanisms mean that all that 1* accommodation is oversubscribed there too. You’re the lowest 30% wherever you go.
The pool of private rental homes available to people on benefits is already the least desirable homes. It doesn’t even matter what people’s expectations are, they’re still only going to get the crappest places anyway.
Very few low-income people in cities even own a car - and one phone contract for two people is not really practical if you both need them for work or benefits (and you need daily internet access if you’re a jobseeker).
I think you must have made your mind up in a very strong way if you argued that housing benefit shouldn’t necessarily cover more than market rent, then, when told it covers the lowest 30% of market rent, continue to argue the same point.
I believe I have a reasonably open mind about it, I just need to work harder to understand the issues. So thanks once again for persevering. I think it’s this “shortfall” concept I’m not really getting. Let me see if I can do better.
For the sake this hypothetical, I’m going to imagine that I qualify for the full amount of the LHA. Once I know how much this is, I look around local letting agencies/newsagents’ windows or whatever, and quickly determine that there is no suitable accommodation available for this amount. So my choices are either to be homeless, or find accommodation at a higher cost, hoping to make up the shortfall with other income. But given the fact I qualify for full LHA, my other income is likely to be extremely limited, leaving me with very little to live on. Is this a correct assessment of the situation that many find themselves in?
Now let’s assume the LHA is drastically increased. Suddenly I find I have some options for places to live which my LHA will cover. But everyone else in a similar situation will find the same thing. How will prices not go up in this scenario, to reflect the increased demand for that type of accommodation? I don’t doubt what you say about rents not dropping when LHA came in, but I suspect this was more to do with renters on benefits being replaced by renters who were slightly better off and could afford to pay.
The bottom line is that I maintain the solution here is to provide more genuinely affordable accommodation, not fiddling with the benefit system.
Well, knowing many people who are actually in this situation, they take the accommodation that leaves them with practically nothing to live on because it’s better than being homeless. They simply live on less money because being homeless in, say, London, especially with a child, is unpleasant. £20pw and a roof over your head is better than £70pw and no roof. And you have a job or family here and moving elsewhere would mean the same problems with no job or family.
Increasing the amount of LHA would not have a big effect because the number of landlords that accept LHA is so small. I can’t find any way to get a cite for that, I’m afraid, apart from spending ages searching letting agencies and websites that let out rooms in shared houses, and showing that most of them say “no DSS” or “no benefits,” or the agency they’re let by also saying the same. But anyway, because LHA is a percentile of local rents, and landlords that accept LHA are a very small subset of local private landlords, overall rent won’t increase, because 90% or more of the landlords don’t accept LHA to begin with.
The percentage of rent paid as LHA would increase (and I think most landlords would be well in favour of this, btw - evictions cost money), but for the actual rent to increase, all the rents would have to increase. All the rents in the vast majority of the private sector that doesn’t allow LHA would have to increase.
Totally agreed about providing more genuinely affordable accommodation, but that takes at least a couple of years to get started, and people need to live in the meantime, and there will always be private renters. LHA has only existed for 8 years, so it’s not like it’s something the entire economy has been built around.
Tory landslide. Goodbye, Corbyn. 86 seat Tory win prediction from the exit poll.
Exit poll results:
A big win for the Conservatives.
I am surprised the Liberal Democrats did so poorly–only winning 13 seats.
I know very little about this but is Corbyn considered too far to the left?
the man rides a maoist bicycle fergawdsakes
Boris Johnon takes a lot of flak on this board but here in the UK we know just what an astute politician he is. Love him or hate him you should never underestimate him.
seems odd to not vote directly for the leader of the government but we here in the US are pretty rare in doing that. And yes I know technically we vote for electors for the electoral college.
This exit poll is showing Labour’s worst result for 95 years.
And Liberal Democrat leader Jo Swinson might lose her seat. And I daresay a few other big names.
This could be an absolutely brutal night.
Huh.
The Prime Minister is supposed to be “first amongst equals”. But since Thatcher the Prime Ministers have dominated their cabinets.
EDIT: words.
If the poll turns out to be anywhere near then it is pretty much in line with what previous labour voters have said to me. Corbyn was toxic.