The letter shows, perhaps once and for all, that coalition policies are actively harmful to the poorest and most vulnerable in society. This we already knew, but arguably the most shocking thing about this whole affair is that it is so unnecessary.
As the letter and the evidence shows, the likelihood is that this policy will actually result in higher costs overall to the taxpayer! To quote the article:
"An estimated £270m saving from the benefits cap will be wiped out by the need to divert resources to help the newly homeless and is likely to "generate a net cost"."
Surely then, the government must look again at this policy. The Compassionate Reform group - and the DRP as a whole - believes that these policies are morally wrong. But even those who believe that cuts are necessary must accept that the idea of cuts is to save money! Accounting tricks that take expenses 'off the books' for central government - and place the burden on local authorities already facing cuts of their own - are a poor substitute indeed for proper policy making.
One of the essential ideas underpinning the notion of compassionate reform has to be that human cost must be considered at least as much as financial cost in policy making.
In this instance, when human cost and financial cost are measured together this coalition policy clearly fails at every level. The CR group and the DRP intend to speak out against this flawed policy (and others like it) using a combination of evidence based policy and active campaigning.
This is a prime example of departments not leasing with each other - it is all well and good to look at your own books and make savings but you have saved nothing if you are just pushing the problem onto someone else.
ReplyDeleteThe government needs to start looking at cross department issue to see how cuts in one department will affect another and only make the cut if it genuinly saves money not just pushes the problem onto another department.
If/when we in the DRP get into a position of power I suggest one of the first things we do is a full audit (along the lines of the recent one in Equador) of all government departments and how they impact on each other.
Hi Jean,
ReplyDeleteI'm inclined to agree with regard to the audit. I think it has all become so complex now within the bureaucracy of government that I think a 'sorting out' process, such as an audit, is necessary to sort things out.
However, in this particular case I suspect that the government knows exactly what it is doing pushing this onto local councils.
I agree with all. And it's interesting you mention costs too. I just said to Peter that one of the main reasons why parties don't often talk of 'CR' issues is because they're not populist enough. People don't understand why these people are homeless, and they don't understand how helping them would be helping us. Homelessness costs us an arm and a leg, because of the effect it has on health and thus the NHS, and because people who're homeless often become problems for the police. Time and time again reports made on homelessness saying that it can save us money. What the Coalition is doing now is obviously hurting vulnerable people. But it's also hurting the nation by increasing long-run costs, and increasing the short-run costs that will need to be paid to end homelessness once and for all whenever someone gets the guts to act on it.
ReplyDeleteA few links:
.http://www.crisis.org.uk/data/files/document_library/annual_reports/61420_crisis_impact_low_res.pdf
.http://www.broadwaylondon.org/ResearchInformation/PolicyConsultations/EndingHomelessness/main_content/Broadway_EndingHomelessness_Response.pdf
.http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/news/whats-the-benefit?/benefit-cut-for-underoccupiers-will-not-save-money/6514383.article
.http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2011/06/plan_after_well-meaning_plan_i.html (US but quite realistic approach)
Absolutely Robert,
ReplyDeleteI worked with the homeless for 3 years and so I know from experience that the cost to society of abandoning people to that fate is massive!
So when we have a policy that is neither morally acceptable nor practically useful there really is no excuse for the government!
Now let's see if we can get those links to work...
http://www.crisis.org.uk/data/files/document_library/annual_reports/61420_crisis_impact_low_res.pdf
http://www.broadwaylondon.org/ResearchInformation/PolicyConsultations/EndingHomelessness/main_content/Broadway_EndingHomelessness_Response.pdf
http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/news/whats-the-benefit?/benefit-cut-for-underoccupiers-will-not-save-money/6514383.article
http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2011/06/plan_after_well-meaning_plan_i.html
I guess not! For those who don't know how:
ReplyDeleteHighlight the text of the link you want to open.
Right click the highlighted text.
Select 'open link in new Tab' from the menu.
See here for explanation of some of changes.
ReplyDeletehttp://snozzle.wordpress.com/2011/04/05/update-on-housing-benefit/
The cap will affect London and surrounding areas will probably get more people moving out to them, but the rest of country not likely affected greatly.
The 30th percentile change affects everybody and will be making quite an impact. It is being introduced bit by bit - new claims now, existing claims get 9 months transitional protection as after they come up for their annual renewal.
From Jan 12 there is a big change affecting those 25 to 34 when they will only get a maximum shared room rate on housing benefit. Those currently in one bed flats, will almost certainly have to move.
The changes are unlikely to even make the savings they want in housing benefit as at the same time, new build housing and some relets will be 'affordable' (80% of market) rent rather than social rent. This will be covered by housing benefit (at least for now) and so will push the bill up.
Hi there,
ReplyDeleteThank you for posting this. That's quite a detailed blog you've got there. May I ask, are you a professional working in this field?