Over at the Coffee House blog, Mark Bathgate has the figures which show just how awful Brown's economic management has been, right from the start - well, almost. This line stands out for me.
"While the UK now moves close to topping the European league table of expensive Government, we don’t seem to have the great French trains, the Spanish renewable energy generation or the world beating Finnish schools to show for it."
So much for prudence for a purpose!
Once again, a Labour Government has wrecked the UK economy and taken our public finances to the brink of bankruptcy. Once again, a Conservative Government is going to have to come in and do the hard, painful work to re-balance the books and salvage our country. It will hurt. It will be painful and there will be many people who will claim it is just the same old, evil, nasty Tories, slashing and burning public services with a gleam in their eyes.
When you hear that a few years from now, dig out these figures and remind yourself just who it was who made the mess in the first place.
Thursday, 19 November 2009
Wednesday, 18 November 2009
Frank Field Endorses Cameron!
I missed this post from Frank Field last week.
I admire Frank Field as a conviction poitician who stands up for what he believes are the correct solutions to societies' failings. His appreciation of the merits of David Cameron's analysis and policy prescription mark him out as one of the more reasoned and reasonable politicians of the left. His concluding sentence stands out for me.
"Labour's normal stock response of trying to ridicule him simply will not do. Cameron's aim is clear. It is to turn traditional party politics upside down. The time for jeering at Cameron is over. Labour's survival will now entail outmatching his programme."
I have always said that politicians of all sides - perhaps not the extreme nationalists and socialists, but almost all - want the same outcomes. Healthier, wealthier, happier, better educated people and safer and more secure communities.
We just disagree about how to achieve those things!
I admire Frank Field as a conviction poitician who stands up for what he believes are the correct solutions to societies' failings. His appreciation of the merits of David Cameron's analysis and policy prescription mark him out as one of the more reasoned and reasonable politicians of the left. His concluding sentence stands out for me.
"Labour's normal stock response of trying to ridicule him simply will not do. Cameron's aim is clear. It is to turn traditional party politics upside down. The time for jeering at Cameron is over. Labour's survival will now entail outmatching his programme."
I have always said that politicians of all sides - perhaps not the extreme nationalists and socialists, but almost all - want the same outcomes. Healthier, wealthier, happier, better educated people and safer and more secure communities.
We just disagree about how to achieve those things!
More Guff From Gore
Al Gore has achieved demi-God status amongst the more fanatical proponents of man-made global warming. However, he can get a bit mixed up, (or sloppy, depending on your viewpoint), when it comes to the detail.
I am indebtted to Anthony Watts blog, for this. (You have to watch the advert first - but this is quite a funny one!)
Underlying this of course, is the fact that Al Gore has substantial financial stakes in companies promoting geo-thermal energy. You have to ask whether a Conservative or Republican politician with significant investments in nuclear power generation could get away with such blatant lobbying for Government to invest billions of taxpayer's dollars in new nuclear plants, from which they stood to make significant financial gain?
I am indebtted to Anthony Watts blog, for this. (You have to watch the advert first - but this is quite a funny one!)
Underlying this of course, is the fact that Al Gore has substantial financial stakes in companies promoting geo-thermal energy. You have to ask whether a Conservative or Republican politician with significant investments in nuclear power generation could get away with such blatant lobbying for Government to invest billions of taxpayer's dollars in new nuclear plants, from which they stood to make significant financial gain?
Digging Holes - Just More Slowly!
Debt.
It is the biggest threat facing the UK economy. Government debt stands at over £800 billion and it will go over £1,000 billion - £1 trillion - this year or next. When you consider UK GDP is £1.4-£1.5 trillion a year, that is a staggeringly high figure.
When you consider also that Labour are adding to this debt at a rate of £175 billion this year and well over £100 billion a year for the next four years on average, a pledge to "halve the deficit" sounds attractive, doesn't it?
Well no, not really. You see halving the deficit from this year's level of £175 billion will simply mean we're adding to our national debt at the fastest rate since World War Two.
So in simple language, Labour's policy is:
We're in a hole.
We're going to keep digging.
Just not quite as fast.
Hardly inspiring is it?
It is the biggest threat facing the UK economy. Government debt stands at over £800 billion and it will go over £1,000 billion - £1 trillion - this year or next. When you consider UK GDP is £1.4-£1.5 trillion a year, that is a staggeringly high figure.
When you consider also that Labour are adding to this debt at a rate of £175 billion this year and well over £100 billion a year for the next four years on average, a pledge to "halve the deficit" sounds attractive, doesn't it?
Well no, not really. You see halving the deficit from this year's level of £175 billion will simply mean we're adding to our national debt at the fastest rate since World War Two.
So in simple language, Labour's policy is:
We're in a hole.
We're going to keep digging.
Just not quite as fast.
Hardly inspiring is it?
Thursday, 12 November 2009
Lottery winners still getting welfare benefits.
I have written another housing article for Conservative Home, following up on a story in the press about a couple who won almost £4 million on the Lottery, yet who have stayed in their council home and who are still benefitting from the below-market rent, despite their newly acquired wealth.
You can read the article here.
It is an extreme example, but it does highlight one of the ridiculous outcomes of the way we do housing welfare in the UK.
Of course, it could be so much better.
You can read the article here.
It is an extreme example, but it does highlight one of the ridiculous outcomes of the way we do housing welfare in the UK.
Of course, it could be so much better.
Thursday, 5 November 2009
Gosport - updated
Ah well, not to be. At a meeting of the Gosport Association last night, I was one of two unsuccessful candidates. I wish the successful four all the very best and would like to thank the Association for their excellent organisation and downright good-eggedness!
If you ever need to stay in Gosport. I can absolutely recommend Milvil Corner. It is a B&B, but it is as good as any hotel I have ever stayed in. Their web site is www.milvilcorner.co.uk
################################################################
I am one of six candidates being interviewed by Gosport Conservatives on Friday evening. They will put four of us through to an all-postal open primary where everybody in Gosport who is registered to vote will be able to choose who the Conservative candidate will be for the next General Election.
Here is my short pitch.
About John
I am a property professional with 25 years’ experience outside politics, delivering major regeneration projects, getting infrastructure built, creating new jobs and building new homes.
I’ve worked for British Rail and in London’s Docklands. In 1998, I set up my own company, working with Councils across England to build homes, offices, shops, bars and restaurants. We even built a theatre!
I volunteer as a mentor at a charity, working with excluded teenagers to help them through their GCSEs and in to college or training.
I love to ski – in fact, I liked it so much I trained and qualified as an instructor. I enjoyed teaching both my children to ski, though I’m not sure they did!
I sold my business last year so I can work full-time for Gosport. As the Conservative candidate and – if you elect me – your MP, I won’t have any job other than being - A CHAMPION FOR GOSPORT.
My priorities for Gosport:
• Getting the Stubbington by-pass built and the Rapid Bus Transit scheme extended in to Gosport town centre and out to the Queen Alexandria Hospital;
• Securing better health facilities for Gosport, especially for emergency and elderly care, preferably at Royal Haslar Hospital;
• More jobs in Gosport, in business and industry and in tourism, building on our heritage and fantastic coastline;
• New homes for local people not buy-to-let flats for investors;
• Preserving Gosport’s heritage at Haslar, Daedalus and across all the historic dock yards.
Want to know more about John?
You can call me on 07 548 949 849
If you ever need to stay in Gosport. I can absolutely recommend Milvil Corner. It is a B&B, but it is as good as any hotel I have ever stayed in. Their web site is www.milvilcorner.co.uk
################################################################
I am one of six candidates being interviewed by Gosport Conservatives on Friday evening. They will put four of us through to an all-postal open primary where everybody in Gosport who is registered to vote will be able to choose who the Conservative candidate will be for the next General Election.
Here is my short pitch.
About John
I am a property professional with 25 years’ experience outside politics, delivering major regeneration projects, getting infrastructure built, creating new jobs and building new homes.
I’ve worked for British Rail and in London’s Docklands. In 1998, I set up my own company, working with Councils across England to build homes, offices, shops, bars and restaurants. We even built a theatre!
I volunteer as a mentor at a charity, working with excluded teenagers to help them through their GCSEs and in to college or training.
I love to ski – in fact, I liked it so much I trained and qualified as an instructor. I enjoyed teaching both my children to ski, though I’m not sure they did!
I sold my business last year so I can work full-time for Gosport. As the Conservative candidate and – if you elect me – your MP, I won’t have any job other than being - A CHAMPION FOR GOSPORT.
My priorities for Gosport:
• Getting the Stubbington by-pass built and the Rapid Bus Transit scheme extended in to Gosport town centre and out to the Queen Alexandria Hospital;
• Securing better health facilities for Gosport, especially for emergency and elderly care, preferably at Royal Haslar Hospital;
• More jobs in Gosport, in business and industry and in tourism, building on our heritage and fantastic coastline;
• New homes for local people not buy-to-let flats for investors;
• Preserving Gosport’s heritage at Haslar, Daedalus and across all the historic dock yards.
Want to know more about John?
You can call me on 07 548 949 849
Thursday, 29 October 2009
President Tone!
A good article in the Telegraph today from Timothy Kirkhope, MEP on why - if there is even to be a President of the European Council - it should not be Tony Blair.
The full article is here, but this passage stands out for me as it reminds us that Blair has already done the job before and achieved nothing good for Britain, or Europe!
And yet by the end of his term of office the European Social Model, which has exacerbated unemployment across the Continent, was left unreformed. The intended grandiose summit at Hampton Court on global competitiveness was downgraded to just a few hours, with ministers debating academic papers. When it looked as if the discussions on the budget might end in failure, Mr Blair simply bought an agreement at the cost of Britain's budget rebate, giving away seven billion pounds of British taxpayers' money to the EU with nothing in return.
The full article is here, but this passage stands out for me as it reminds us that Blair has already done the job before and achieved nothing good for Britain, or Europe!
And yet by the end of his term of office the European Social Model, which has exacerbated unemployment across the Continent, was left unreformed. The intended grandiose summit at Hampton Court on global competitiveness was downgraded to just a few hours, with ministers debating academic papers. When it looked as if the discussions on the budget might end in failure, Mr Blair simply bought an agreement at the cost of Britain's budget rebate, giving away seven billion pounds of British taxpayers' money to the EU with nothing in return.
Monday, 26 October 2009
Tim Montgomerie at Conservative Home has written an excellent article today on the scale of the ambition of the Cameron project.
My response to it is in the comments, but I am repeating it here.
Fine piece, Tim. I broadly agree that the ambition of the Cameron project is to do what you say. The real test of course comes in Government when what matters is delivery.
Blair failed because he was too timid. He could easily have faced down the old left in his party between '97 and '01 and even '05. He could have delivered real change, but he was over-cautious, scared of losing the trust and support he had gained from the electorate should they see his party divide into squabbling factions. In truth they did anyway, but he still held the support of the people.
In fact what Blair has done it to crack open doors the Conservatives could never have opened in Government. Independent Treatment Centres in the NHS, Foundation Schools, Welfare to Work programmes and many more. Imagine what Labour's reaction to these would have been had a Conservative Government proposed them!
Our job will be to kick those doors wide open and dismantle the socialist settlement of the past 65 years - to which all Governments, Tory or Labour, have held - remaking "the Welfare State" on a liberal, conservative model.
Just as Atlee's Government defined the landscape for the future, sadly one which has delivered a dependency culture and appalling outcomes for the poorest in society, so we can redefine the future now. But to do it we must be bold, radical and determined in the face of vested interests and the patrician view, held by left and right, that people cannot be trusted to sort out their own lives. Most can and will and they will take others along with them. The State can then deal properly with those who cannot, rather than them being lost in the massed ranks of everybody as they are today.
Blair's timidity, ultimately, is responsible for the distrust people have of us today. They fear placing the same enormous trust in Cameron as they placed in Blair. Perversely, that is why we have to be so much bolder. If we repeat Blair's mistake, if we enact half-hearted, piecemeal reform, they will have their fears confirmed. We will be "all the bloody same" and we will have failed.
Be bold, be brave and go for the prize and we will succeed - and then we will deserve their trust and support and we will restore the Great to Great Britain.
My response to it is in the comments, but I am repeating it here.
Fine piece, Tim. I broadly agree that the ambition of the Cameron project is to do what you say. The real test of course comes in Government when what matters is delivery.
Blair failed because he was too timid. He could easily have faced down the old left in his party between '97 and '01 and even '05. He could have delivered real change, but he was over-cautious, scared of losing the trust and support he had gained from the electorate should they see his party divide into squabbling factions. In truth they did anyway, but he still held the support of the people.
In fact what Blair has done it to crack open doors the Conservatives could never have opened in Government. Independent Treatment Centres in the NHS, Foundation Schools, Welfare to Work programmes and many more. Imagine what Labour's reaction to these would have been had a Conservative Government proposed them!
Our job will be to kick those doors wide open and dismantle the socialist settlement of the past 65 years - to which all Governments, Tory or Labour, have held - remaking "the Welfare State" on a liberal, conservative model.
Just as Atlee's Government defined the landscape for the future, sadly one which has delivered a dependency culture and appalling outcomes for the poorest in society, so we can redefine the future now. But to do it we must be bold, radical and determined in the face of vested interests and the patrician view, held by left and right, that people cannot be trusted to sort out their own lives. Most can and will and they will take others along with them. The State can then deal properly with those who cannot, rather than them being lost in the massed ranks of everybody as they are today.
Blair's timidity, ultimately, is responsible for the distrust people have of us today. They fear placing the same enormous trust in Cameron as they placed in Blair. Perversely, that is why we have to be so much bolder. If we repeat Blair's mistake, if we enact half-hearted, piecemeal reform, they will have their fears confirmed. We will be "all the bloody same" and we will have failed.
Be bold, be brave and go for the prize and we will succeed - and then we will deserve their trust and support and we will restore the Great to Great Britain.
Tuesday, 20 October 2009
Brown's Blunders
It is hard to read this article in The Times without thinking whether there are any of Brown's major policy initiaitves which have not gone horribly wrong.
To think he was once hailed as an economic genius?
To think he was once hailed as an economic genius?
Monday, 19 October 2009
Thanksgiving for Guido
I discovered today that the fifth of November was for almost 300 years and by dint of legislation, a day of "Thanksgiving" to celebrate the defeat of the Catholic plot to destroy Parliament.
Given current events we might be more willing to celebrate had Fawkes succeeded!
Given current events we might be more willing to celebrate had Fawkes succeeded!
Saturday, 10 October 2009
Housing at Party Conference
The third article in my series for Conservative Home is now online.
In it, I report back on events at the Conservative Party Conference related to housing and regeneration.
You can read the piece here.
In it, I report back on events at the Conservative Party Conference related to housing and regeneration.
You can read the piece here.
Saturday, 3 October 2009
Families need houses with gardens, not flats.
The second in the series of articles I am writing for Conservative Home is now on line.
In it, I am arguing that families need houses with gardens and that the making them live in flats has contributed to the breakdown of social networks in our neighbourhoods.
I also give examples of how to do this, how to mix home types and tenure, not build high-rise and still meet housing targets
You can read the article here.
In it, I am arguing that families need houses with gardens and that the making them live in flats has contributed to the breakdown of social networks in our neighbourhoods.
I also give examples of how to do this, how to mix home types and tenure, not build high-rise and still meet housing targets
You can read the article here.
Saturday, 26 September 2009
Writing on Housing for Conservative Home
I have been asked to wrire a series of articles on redeveloping social housing estates for Conservative Home. The first piece is here.
Wednesday, 23 September 2009
Another tax from Labour
I see Stephen Timms, who as Minister for Regeneration once spoke the truth about Labour's management of the economy, saying,“A lot of money has been spent, but in many cases, there isn’t a lot to show for it”, has confirmed that Labour want to tax our telephone lines to pay for universal broadband access.
Why should a poor pensioner who doesn't have broadband, but who is utterly dependent on their phone, pay for the teenage kids of a wealthy family with a second home in rural Cornwall to have access to Facebook? Thankfully the very sensible John Wittingdale has confirm that the Conservatives will oppose it.
The answer to this must be to use the BBC Licence Fee to pay for this in the same way it was used to pay for the building of the TV and Radio transmission network? Perhaps, we could go further still? Make the BBC a free universal broadband provider and let us all access its archive for free - we did pay for it - or on a pay per view basis with the licence fee being scrapped?
Why should a poor pensioner who doesn't have broadband, but who is utterly dependent on their phone, pay for the teenage kids of a wealthy family with a second home in rural Cornwall to have access to Facebook? Thankfully the very sensible John Wittingdale has confirm that the Conservatives will oppose it.
The answer to this must be to use the BBC Licence Fee to pay for this in the same way it was used to pay for the building of the TV and Radio transmission network? Perhaps, we could go further still? Make the BBC a free universal broadband provider and let us all access its archive for free - we did pay for it - or on a pay per view basis with the licence fee being scrapped?
Tuesday, 15 September 2009
If you're Irish and have a vote - use it and lose it - Lisbon, that is
It's that time of year again when the democratic choices of those pesky "citizens"* of the EU get to make themselves heard.
Ireland is having its second referendum on the Lisbon Treaty in a couple of weeks and the EU is throwing millions of our money at them to try to persuade them to change their minds and vote in favour.
The treaty has not changed one dot or comma. It remains as offensive and wrong-headed as it was last time and no vague "assurances" from the EU about having a commissioner or voting on abortion will change it. And that is all they are, assurances. There is nothing legally binding about them.
So if you're Irish and have a vote, use it please and help us all lose Lisbon, for good!
* In case you're wondering, right now we're all still "citizens" of our own nation states, (or subjects of the Crown, if you're British), and it is that which makes us members of the European Community. (The European Union is just a name change at this stage). But if Lisbon is passed, we all become "citizens" of a legally constituted entity called the European Union whose laws have legal superiority over our own.
It is the last step on the road to the sort of European super-state which nobody signed up for, even Heath, or voted for in 1975. Worst of all, it is not a democratically accountable, federal super-state like the USA. It is a bureaucracy run by un-elected officials who you and me cannot get rid of.
And that is the shame of this. I believe in working together with our neighbours and friends across the Channel, but if Lisbon passes, then I suspect many, many more people will conclude that it is the straw that breaks the camel's back and seek to leave the EU.
Friday, 11 September 2009
Consensus on the need for radical change in social housing
The panel session I did for the Chartered Institute of Housing was good fun, but it was interesting also for the consensus that was there for real change.
The professionals in the room know that there will be a real squeeze on the capital grant programme going forward and that they have to find other ways to fund new building. There is also real agreement that the current model which builds social "estates" and then allocates those homes to the most needy actually creates residualisation and embeds poverty and deprivation in those estates.
I was flattered that nobody spoke out against the ideas in Principles for Social Housing Reform other than to suggest improvements to some of the areas of detail we left a bit fuzzy.
But the best thing really was that my fellow panel member was James Gregory from the Fabian Society, the oldest and most respected of left-wing think tanks, who wrote In The Mix for them around the same time as I wrote my piece for Localis. James kindly gave me a copy of his work and I have now read it. What is staggering is the level of agreement between us on some of the major problems and even some of the solutions.
OK, being a socialist publication, you expect there to be a bit more bureaucracy and a more managerialist approach, but it backs up my central belief about politics, namely that all politicians want to make people's lives better, we just disagree about how. It seems in the case of what to do about affordable housing, there is even a great deal of agreement about the "how".
The professionals in the room know that there will be a real squeeze on the capital grant programme going forward and that they have to find other ways to fund new building. There is also real agreement that the current model which builds social "estates" and then allocates those homes to the most needy actually creates residualisation and embeds poverty and deprivation in those estates.
I was flattered that nobody spoke out against the ideas in Principles for Social Housing Reform other than to suggest improvements to some of the areas of detail we left a bit fuzzy.
But the best thing really was that my fellow panel member was James Gregory from the Fabian Society, the oldest and most respected of left-wing think tanks, who wrote In The Mix for them around the same time as I wrote my piece for Localis. James kindly gave me a copy of his work and I have now read it. What is staggering is the level of agreement between us on some of the major problems and even some of the solutions.
OK, being a socialist publication, you expect there to be a bit more bureaucracy and a more managerialist approach, but it backs up my central belief about politics, namely that all politicians want to make people's lives better, we just disagree about how. It seems in the case of what to do about affordable housing, there is even a great deal of agreement about the "how".
Tuesday, 8 September 2009
The Housing Market - where now?
I am speaking on a panel at the Chartered Institute of Housing conference in London this afternoon about where we might go with the "housing market".
I'm not going to get too involved with the owner-occupier market or private renting, but I am going to talk about the social housing sector and how it needs fundamental change to ever have any hope of delivering support to families in need of homes, or more appropriate homes.
The text of what I am going to say is below:
What should the housing market look like and how should we achieve this?
I would like to suggest that we have a largely successful private housing market in both rental and owner occupied sectors, but that we have a very poorly performing market in the social housing sector.
Some might suggest that the social housing sector is not and should not be a part of the housing market at all, but the world is not perfect and there are many people who cannot afford to house themselves, just as there are many people who cannot afford to feed and clothe themselves from their independent means.
That is why we have welfare and I don’t believe any serious political party is suggesting we end welfare, though we may disagree about how we should deliver it.
Some of you will know of a paper I wrote with Stephen Greenhalgh for Localis, called, Principles for Social Housing Reform.
I was invited here today largely because of that, so I want to talk to you about how one of the changes we proposed could help the social sector to perform better and to help provide more homes and better suited homes, so I am largely going to ignore the owner occupied and private rented market in my presentation, though I have no doubt there will be questions on those.
Welfare in housing today is delivered two ways. Through Housing Benefit and through the capital funding given to house-builders to build social homes.
The figures are illuminating. About £14-16 billion will be paid out in Housing Benefit this year and about £7 billion will be spent supporting the development of social homes.
In our paper, we argued that capital funding should cease and that funding should quickly and explicitly transfer to Housing Benefit payments to meet increased rents in the Council and RSL sectors.
There are a number of reasons for this, but I want to set out the main one, namely, that it would secure the building of twice as many new homes by Councils and RSLs.
Raising rents would, we estimate, increase the rental income of Councils and Housing Associations by around £6 billion per annum. Assuming that additional income was valued on the basis of a 6% return – and as it is additional income, there are few overheads associated with this – then that would increase the capital value of the social rented sector by £100 billion.
If Councils and RSLs then borrowed 50% of that and built new homes at an average cost of £100,000 per home, they could build 500,000 new homes – equivalent to what is planned to be built using social housing grant over the next ten years.
However, those new homes would be debt-free. The debts raised to build them were secured on the increased rents applied to the existing estate so the value of those homes could then be mortgaged and if we assume 50% LTV again, then a bit like the fly jumping halfway to the edge of the table this process can be repeated over and over again. Just ten iterations means that the total number of new homes that can be built increases to 999,512 – one million homes.
There would be other benefits to this as well.
Currently, 234,000 households in social homes are over-crowded and 456,000 are under-occupied.
As rents would be set by property type and Housing Benefit set by household make up, then a swifter re-allocation of those properties might be achieved.
There is also the issue of the benefit of a reduced rent continuing even after personal circumstances change.
This is welfare, it is supposed to be based on need, yet we have both security of tenure and low rents and the extent of this in the Council sector alone is staggering.
Of just under 2 million homes, there are 974,000 homes where HB and one or more of Income Support, JSA, Pensioner Credit or Incapacity Benefit is claimed. There are 336,000 where only HB is claimed, but there are 690,000 where neither Housing Benefit or any other form of benefit is claimed.
I am willing to accept that a good number of these households earn just enough to keep them off in-work benefits and Housing Benefit, but all 690,000? I doubt it.
I don’t have figures for the RSL sector, but if it is similar, then perhaps as much as 30% of the social estate is occupied by tenants who ought not to be in receipt of housing welfare.
Allowing rents to rise and supporting those in need through Housing Benefit, deals with this directly and ensures that those who do need support get it and those who don’t pay market rents – or, if another of our ideas were taken up – have the chance to buy their home in part or outright, helping create mixed communities and break down concentrations of single tenure estates – ah, and generate more money for further investment in building new homes.
I'm not going to get too involved with the owner-occupier market or private renting, but I am going to talk about the social housing sector and how it needs fundamental change to ever have any hope of delivering support to families in need of homes, or more appropriate homes.
The text of what I am going to say is below:
What should the housing market look like and how should we achieve this?
I would like to suggest that we have a largely successful private housing market in both rental and owner occupied sectors, but that we have a very poorly performing market in the social housing sector.
Some might suggest that the social housing sector is not and should not be a part of the housing market at all, but the world is not perfect and there are many people who cannot afford to house themselves, just as there are many people who cannot afford to feed and clothe themselves from their independent means.
That is why we have welfare and I don’t believe any serious political party is suggesting we end welfare, though we may disagree about how we should deliver it.
Some of you will know of a paper I wrote with Stephen Greenhalgh for Localis, called, Principles for Social Housing Reform.
I was invited here today largely because of that, so I want to talk to you about how one of the changes we proposed could help the social sector to perform better and to help provide more homes and better suited homes, so I am largely going to ignore the owner occupied and private rented market in my presentation, though I have no doubt there will be questions on those.
Welfare in housing today is delivered two ways. Through Housing Benefit and through the capital funding given to house-builders to build social homes.
The figures are illuminating. About £14-16 billion will be paid out in Housing Benefit this year and about £7 billion will be spent supporting the development of social homes.
In our paper, we argued that capital funding should cease and that funding should quickly and explicitly transfer to Housing Benefit payments to meet increased rents in the Council and RSL sectors.
There are a number of reasons for this, but I want to set out the main one, namely, that it would secure the building of twice as many new homes by Councils and RSLs.
Raising rents would, we estimate, increase the rental income of Councils and Housing Associations by around £6 billion per annum. Assuming that additional income was valued on the basis of a 6% return – and as it is additional income, there are few overheads associated with this – then that would increase the capital value of the social rented sector by £100 billion.
If Councils and RSLs then borrowed 50% of that and built new homes at an average cost of £100,000 per home, they could build 500,000 new homes – equivalent to what is planned to be built using social housing grant over the next ten years.
However, those new homes would be debt-free. The debts raised to build them were secured on the increased rents applied to the existing estate so the value of those homes could then be mortgaged and if we assume 50% LTV again, then a bit like the fly jumping halfway to the edge of the table this process can be repeated over and over again. Just ten iterations means that the total number of new homes that can be built increases to 999,512 – one million homes.
There would be other benefits to this as well.
Currently, 234,000 households in social homes are over-crowded and 456,000 are under-occupied.
As rents would be set by property type and Housing Benefit set by household make up, then a swifter re-allocation of those properties might be achieved.
There is also the issue of the benefit of a reduced rent continuing even after personal circumstances change.
This is welfare, it is supposed to be based on need, yet we have both security of tenure and low rents and the extent of this in the Council sector alone is staggering.
Of just under 2 million homes, there are 974,000 homes where HB and one or more of Income Support, JSA, Pensioner Credit or Incapacity Benefit is claimed. There are 336,000 where only HB is claimed, but there are 690,000 where neither Housing Benefit or any other form of benefit is claimed.
I am willing to accept that a good number of these households earn just enough to keep them off in-work benefits and Housing Benefit, but all 690,000? I doubt it.
I don’t have figures for the RSL sector, but if it is similar, then perhaps as much as 30% of the social estate is occupied by tenants who ought not to be in receipt of housing welfare.
Allowing rents to rise and supporting those in need through Housing Benefit, deals with this directly and ensures that those who do need support get it and those who don’t pay market rents – or, if another of our ideas were taken up – have the chance to buy their home in part or outright, helping create mixed communities and break down concentrations of single tenure estates – ah, and generate more money for further investment in building new homes.
Wednesday, 2 September 2009
The scale of the problem.
It is comforting to hear "experts" talking of "recovery" and see reports of rising house prices. But these are straws being clutched at. The true scale of the economic mess that Gordon Brown has led us in to since 1997 is far, far too great to be solved by recession slowing to 0.7% per annum and house prices which are "only" 15% down on last year.
Let's look at Government borrowing. In the financial year ending just before Blair won in 1997, Government debt stood at £351.808 billion. In that year, the budget deficit had been £27.107 billion.
As Brown "stuck to Conservative spending plans", the annual deficit fell to just £5.769 billion to 1998 and then was in surplus by £38.269 billion over the next three years to 2001. Within this figure lies the income Brown got from selling 3g licences to mobile phone companies for more than £20 billion. In the year to 2002 the surplus was just £243 million as Brown began to open the taps of Government spending and the deficits returned with a vengance.
Over the next six years to 2008, the total increase in debt was £201.243 billion, with deficits of over £30 billion in five of those six years.
Last year, to the first quarter of 2009, the deficit was £86.743 billion and this year it is expected to exceed £175 billion. Given that the Major years saw a far higher level of debt as unemployment continued to increase, all after the technical end of recession, it is not surprising that it is expected the deficit will rise by a further £500 - 750 billion, even more if Brown and Darling's hopelessly optimistic figures don't pan out over the next five years.
That could mean a staggering £1.4 trillion, (£1,400,000,000,000), of additional debt accrued as a consequence of the policies of Gordon Brown.
Now, the Government is planning to spend £702 billion in the financial year 2010-11. It is unlikely that any savings can be made in that first year of a new Government, but on Brown's figures, it is then scheduled to rise to £717 billion, then £738 billion, then £758 billion. Freezing those figures at 2010-11 levels will save £104billion. So there is scope for changing the frame of reference in which we operate and those "savings" are then locked in for future years.
In effect, this reverses the trend under Brown, which was to massively increase spending and then treat any reduction in that rate of growth as a savage cut. There has to be this sort of "restraint of spending growth" as a first step to re-balancing the books. Send a strong message now to civil servants across Whitehall and in Town Halls - there will be no cash increase in spending throughout the first four years of the next Government - and you allow them to plan for this and seek the chnages necessary to keep delivering front line services, but at a progressively lower cost.
Let's look at Government borrowing. In the financial year ending just before Blair won in 1997, Government debt stood at £351.808 billion. In that year, the budget deficit had been £27.107 billion.
As Brown "stuck to Conservative spending plans", the annual deficit fell to just £5.769 billion to 1998 and then was in surplus by £38.269 billion over the next three years to 2001. Within this figure lies the income Brown got from selling 3g licences to mobile phone companies for more than £20 billion. In the year to 2002 the surplus was just £243 million as Brown began to open the taps of Government spending and the deficits returned with a vengance.
Over the next six years to 2008, the total increase in debt was £201.243 billion, with deficits of over £30 billion in five of those six years.
Last year, to the first quarter of 2009, the deficit was £86.743 billion and this year it is expected to exceed £175 billion. Given that the Major years saw a far higher level of debt as unemployment continued to increase, all after the technical end of recession, it is not surprising that it is expected the deficit will rise by a further £500 - 750 billion, even more if Brown and Darling's hopelessly optimistic figures don't pan out over the next five years.
That could mean a staggering £1.4 trillion, (£1,400,000,000,000), of additional debt accrued as a consequence of the policies of Gordon Brown.
Now, the Government is planning to spend £702 billion in the financial year 2010-11. It is unlikely that any savings can be made in that first year of a new Government, but on Brown's figures, it is then scheduled to rise to £717 billion, then £738 billion, then £758 billion. Freezing those figures at 2010-11 levels will save £104billion. So there is scope for changing the frame of reference in which we operate and those "savings" are then locked in for future years.
In effect, this reverses the trend under Brown, which was to massively increase spending and then treat any reduction in that rate of growth as a savage cut. There has to be this sort of "restraint of spending growth" as a first step to re-balancing the books. Send a strong message now to civil servants across Whitehall and in Town Halls - there will be no cash increase in spending throughout the first four years of the next Government - and you allow them to plan for this and seek the chnages necessary to keep delivering front line services, but at a progressively lower cost.
Tuesday, 4 August 2009
In praise of Bank profits
It is reported that Barclays and HSBC have made around £3bn in profit, each, in the last six months. Hurrah!
I calculate that to mean around £1bn in tax receipts and around £1bn of dividend payments to pension funds. So I for one am happy to say, give that banker a bonus!
I also note that Barclays and HSBC are the two major banks we taxpayers don't own and who did not avail themselves of the Governments poisoned challice, sorry, generous offer of loan guarantees for the debts they took on in the last few years.
Unfortunately, the banks we do own, Northern Rock, Lloyds Banking Group, RBS etc. all seem to be making big losses for us. So much for the ownership of the means of exchange!
I calculate that to mean around £1bn in tax receipts and around £1bn of dividend payments to pension funds. So I for one am happy to say, give that banker a bonus!
I also note that Barclays and HSBC are the two major banks we taxpayers don't own and who did not avail themselves of the Governments poisoned challice, sorry, generous offer of loan guarantees for the debts they took on in the last few years.
Unfortunately, the banks we do own, Northern Rock, Lloyds Banking Group, RBS etc. all seem to be making big losses for us. So much for the ownership of the means of exchange!
Wednesday, 22 July 2009
Brown threatens to curse Notts County
If this visit happens, the smart money will be on Notts County to go down next season.
Sven, mate, take my advice. Don't let him anywhere near unless you want to be cursed.
Sven, mate, take my advice. Don't let him anywhere near unless you want to be cursed.
Tuesday, 21 July 2009
Brown's Borrowing Bombshell!
The latest figures for the Government finances are being spun as being, "not as bad as forecast".
They are the worst ever borrowing figures for June. They are almost twice as high as last year - which itself was a record - and the total of Governemnt debt has reached almost £800 BILLION! That is more than £13,000 for every man woman and child in the country.
The interest bill is now £36 billion a year - more than we spend on defence - and the extra interest on the near £400 billion of extra borrowing run up by Gordon Brown since he last balanced a budget in 2001 is equivalent to 9p on the basic rate of income tax.
The money borrowed will have to be repaid, so all this means higher taxes now and higher taxes in the future, for everybody, for a long time.
If anybody still thinks Gordon Brown deserves a reputation for economic competence, they are either mad, or a member of the Labour party - or both!
We must reduce public spending if we are to get on top of this and nobody I meet on the doorsteps doesn't accept this. They also recognise that for the last few years we have all lived beyond our means, Government included, and that it is now time to rein in on the luxuries - which for Government means the pet projects and the new toys and the pay rises and pensions which have very much outstripped the private sector for the last ten years.
That Gordon Brown refuses to acknowledge this is another reason why he is not fit to lead our country.
They are the worst ever borrowing figures for June. They are almost twice as high as last year - which itself was a record - and the total of Governemnt debt has reached almost £800 BILLION! That is more than £13,000 for every man woman and child in the country.
The interest bill is now £36 billion a year - more than we spend on defence - and the extra interest on the near £400 billion of extra borrowing run up by Gordon Brown since he last balanced a budget in 2001 is equivalent to 9p on the basic rate of income tax.
The money borrowed will have to be repaid, so all this means higher taxes now and higher taxes in the future, for everybody, for a long time.
If anybody still thinks Gordon Brown deserves a reputation for economic competence, they are either mad, or a member of the Labour party - or both!
We must reduce public spending if we are to get on top of this and nobody I meet on the doorsteps doesn't accept this. They also recognise that for the last few years we have all lived beyond our means, Government included, and that it is now time to rein in on the luxuries - which for Government means the pet projects and the new toys and the pay rises and pensions which have very much outstripped the private sector for the last ten years.
That Gordon Brown refuses to acknowledge this is another reason why he is not fit to lead our country.
Saturday, 11 July 2009
Sunny Norwich
It was another lovely day in Norwich yesterday. Got a bit cloudy in the early afternoon and the decision to travel in shorts without a jacket was beginning to look dodgy, but then the clouds cleared and all was well.
I was even complimented on choosing the right clothes by Christopher Fraser and after last week, when I was roasted and sunburnt, I call that a result!
As for the campaign, millions of trees are giving their lives for Chloe Smith and there is a steady stream of volunteers turning up to deliver the resulting literature. The electorate appears happy to engage with Conservatives on the doorstep and very few will admit to ever having voted Labour!
Getting the vote out will be crucial. Polling day is 23 July, so the summer hols are underway. Hopefully this will not result in a depletion of Conservative votes as people are away. What with the straightened circumstances brought about by GB's profligacy, I doubt it.
I suspect it will be close, so if you can, get thee to Norwich!
I was even complimented on choosing the right clothes by Christopher Fraser and after last week, when I was roasted and sunburnt, I call that a result!
As for the campaign, millions of trees are giving their lives for Chloe Smith and there is a steady stream of volunteers turning up to deliver the resulting literature. The electorate appears happy to engage with Conservatives on the doorstep and very few will admit to ever having voted Labour!
Getting the vote out will be crucial. Polling day is 23 July, so the summer hols are underway. Hopefully this will not result in a depletion of Conservative votes as people are away. What with the straightened circumstances brought about by GB's profligacy, I doubt it.
I suspect it will be close, so if you can, get thee to Norwich!
Saturday, 4 July 2009
Ferguson must go!
I'm sorry, but what idiot lets Carlos Tevez and Christiano Ronaldo go and replaces them with Michael Owen? I hope for my team's sake he gets back to scoring a goal every other game as he did in his purple patch with Liverpool, but that was more than five years ago, so I doubt it.
I've been a Man Utd fan since I held a pair of George Best's boots in my hands at the age of five or six and I do appreciate Ferguson's success over the years, but since the '99 treble he has made a number of strategic decisions which are just plain wrong. Were it not for the fact that Arsenal, Chelsea and Liverpool have not, unitl recently, had the finaincial firepower to match United, then these failings would have been exposed sooner.
Signing Veron and the American, letting Stamm and Beckham go for personal reasons, all the Goalkeepers between Schmeichel and Van de Saar, endlessly playing Rooney out of position and his misplaced faith in Berbatov, the hopeless tactics in the European Cup final this year. Now this!
And he's a bloody socialist!
I've been a Man Utd fan since I held a pair of George Best's boots in my hands at the age of five or six and I do appreciate Ferguson's success over the years, but since the '99 treble he has made a number of strategic decisions which are just plain wrong. Were it not for the fact that Arsenal, Chelsea and Liverpool have not, unitl recently, had the finaincial firepower to match United, then these failings would have been exposed sooner.
Signing Veron and the American, letting Stamm and Beckham go for personal reasons, all the Goalkeepers between Schmeichel and Van de Saar, endlessly playing Rooney out of position and his misplaced faith in Berbatov, the hopeless tactics in the European Cup final this year. Now this!
And he's a bloody socialist!
Wednesday, 1 July 2009
Brown's maths is rubbish!
Gordon Brown announced yesterday that he had "found" an extra £1.6 billion to build 110,000 energy-efficient new homes.
Now, setting aside where this money is coming from, I have built energy-efficient new homes and they cost a bit more than ones which only make the minimum standards. The ones I built cost £120,000 each to build, excluding the land cost. £1.6 billion would therefore pay for just 13,333 homes.
Turn these numbers on their head. £1.6 billion split between 110,000 homes is a £14,545 grant towards each home - that might just pay for the extra-over costs of the "energy-efficient" bits like solar heating and higher than usual standard insulation, but it will not do much more than that. Maybe that is what Brown meant? However, it is not what he said or what he tried to imply.
So it was either spin, or the Prime Minister and former Chancellor can't do maths!
Now, setting aside where this money is coming from, I have built energy-efficient new homes and they cost a bit more than ones which only make the minimum standards. The ones I built cost £120,000 each to build, excluding the land cost. £1.6 billion would therefore pay for just 13,333 homes.
Turn these numbers on their head. £1.6 billion split between 110,000 homes is a £14,545 grant towards each home - that might just pay for the extra-over costs of the "energy-efficient" bits like solar heating and higher than usual standard insulation, but it will not do much more than that. Maybe that is what Brown meant? However, it is not what he said or what he tried to imply.
So it was either spin, or the Prime Minister and former Chancellor can't do maths!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
