David Cameron's new Benefits

What a pain in the rear - I just typed a rather long post, and its disappeared!

I'm compose it in Word and then try again - back in a minute!

 

Right, here it is - and although its long, I make no apology, as this is a matter that really winds me up.


David Cameron is looking at this the wrong way up as far as I am concerned. Sure, I agree that reducing the welfare bill would only be beneficial, but that reduction cannot come at a human cost.

As far as I am concerned, this whole mess started with Maggie Thatcher selling off the council housing stock. These were snapped up (quite rightly) by many people wanting to own their own property, and in most cases were subsequently sold on for huge profits. No replacements were built for those houses that were sold, with the private housing sector instead having to pick up the slack.

This was great for those who had money to invest in property (ie, the richer people), but they were about the only winners.

Back when councils had their own housing stocks, after the initial building costs, the only real costs they had was maintenance, and as such they had a way of controlling their costs.

The move to using the private sector meant that cost spiralled for councils – if they have someone in need that they have to house, they now have either housing associations to pay (if they are lucky), and more often than not they are paying out for private rent from a private landlord; the other side to this rather nasty sword is that private rents went sky high for everyone (not just council tenants), simply because landlords could get away with asking for whatever they felt like.

Roll forward to the current day, and the exorbitant rents remain, as does the critical shortage of decent affordable homes.

For example, I am 36 years old with one child, and it looks increasingly likely that I will NEVER own my own home, and NEVER be able to get any sort of home that feels truly permanent, despite working full time for the last 21 years of my life (excluding 4 months early on following a redundancy);

I earn a decent wage (just over £30k), which to some will sound like a lot – and to be fair, if I lived outside of the South East, it would be worth a hell of a lot more. However, just my rent and council tax alone are over £1200 a month, so you will understand how this isn’t such a lot after all.

To buy a two-bedroom house similar to the one I live in now (fairly small), I would need a £50k deposit. The whole time I am paying rent at the level I am, I have no chance – especially when all the other expenses of family life are considered.

Sure, I could save £100 a month if I ditched my broadband and TV package, and maybe even up that to £150 a month if we didn’t have mobile phones – so at that rate, it would take me 27 years to save a deposit! Besides, I work 7 days a week most weeks, so why the hell shouldn’t I have some of the creature comforts?

The best of it is, I couldn’t actually give a monkeys about owning a property – however, I would love to have a home that felt truly permanent; we were forced to move last year (which cost us the best part of £5k all in) simply because our landlords were forced to sell the property we were living in by their bank.

Sadly, housing associations and local councils do not want to know when it comes to people like me – both Mrs C and I work, we pay our way, and we are born and bred in this country – therefore, we are not eligible to rent a home at an affordable rate from the council/housing association.
Now, if the government were to take a more radical approach, things could be so much better – think about it

- Make a substantial investment in building good quality, good sized family homes in all areas of the country.

- Then make sure that AT LEAST 60% of them are rented out to working people at a reasonable level, with the assurance that they can have that home for life.

- Allow people to buy the homes they are renting, but sell them at a price where there is no loss or profit for the council/housing association

- Any that are sold are to be replaced with a new building or a purchased property.


This would achieve three things:

- Unemployment reduced, particularly in the building trades, but almost certainly across the board (telecoms industry, power generation, new supermarkets, new bus routes etc)

- The ability to control the costs associated with providing social housing, and having a rental income from at least 60% of the stock to assist.

- Economy further boosted by the disposable income now able to be spent by those working and paying rent at a reasonable level.

Sadly, as long as I have a hole in my rear, this will never happen – partly because of the capital investment that would be required, but mostly due to the fact that no politician or political party will ever have big enough gonads to make such a bold decision.