Politics eh, bloody hell!
Poor, or not so poor, Lord Young, what a bloody confusing week it's been for the old bugger. It starts off well with his 'Peer of The Year' award from The Spectator and ends with his removal from his unpaid, non-committal, non-influencing, role in the coalition. As an aside I hope his hearing is up to scratch and he didn't turn up for the award imagining he was going to get an opportunity to stare at Fiona Bruce or Kylie's arse!
Anyway, what he said was misguided and seems to me yet another ploy by the Daily Telegraph in its continuing attempt to catch out politicians by any means necessary. As was shown on both Sky and ITN last night his 'never had it so good' comments weren't completely right nor were they completely wrong, just not the best time to say them!
So compare and contrast Lord Young's lot with that of Iain Duncan Smith. His department, well him and one of his junior ministers have managed to lie twice in public this week, once to the House of Commons and once on Radio, and yet still have their jobs.
IDS misled Parliament by passing off figures from a property comparison website owned by the Daily Mail as official government figures. In a parliamentary debate, the Work and Pensions Secretary claimed that the Office for National Statistics (ONS) found that private sector rents had fallen by 5 per cent last year. At the same time he claimed the amount local authorities paid to private landlords had risen by 3 per cent.
But, in fact, the ONS does not collect such statistics and the figures he quoted came from the website findaproperty.com owned by Daily Mail publisher Associated Newspapers. Barely seven months into the life of this Government and the Daily Mail are setting the agenda already, it can only be a matter of time before the disabled, homeless, jobless and unmarried mothers are targetted - oh wait, that's already happening.
Anyway, just in case nobody was paying attention to the debate, the Housing Minister, Grant Shapps (who doesn't?) pitches up on the Today programme and repeats the lie. What is even more bizarre is that the figures quoted on both radio and in the House were out of date and that when questioned about the use of these figures as 'official' a spokesman for the DWP had the front to argue, "We've never sought to hide the source of this data." What? Claiming something is one thing when it's another is not hiding.
They are all the same aren't they, whatever party. As the great Stephen Patrick Morrissey wrote, "There's always someone, somewhere, with a big nose, who knows. And who trips you up and laughs when you fall."
7 comments:
Didn't see this, re Lord Young I agree and I nearly posted all the "Peer of The Year"/only advisory role etc but then saw the labour lout news.
Re IDS...well well. Just when he appeared to be the big star of the welfare show with even the left and - God forbid - Polly Tonobody in agreement. Also thought Grant as a rising satr..well he is, as you say...they're all the same.
It doesn't make me feel any less worried for the future but I missed that slant on the story and all the other news you mention.
Another story that will affect many in Social Housing or pensioners/disabled/unemployed and even hard working familes has been released and mentoned in the press which will probably just add to concerns as to whether many can keep a roof over their heads.
In theory they'll set a figure(income/savings we don't know which)or how much, if you reach it you could be evicted and these checks could be done every 2 years.
The MP's who appear say we expect rents in the private sector will fall or people will not be evicted or moved on.
That checks like this will not happen that regularly but they don't really know and the word expect means absolutely nothing at all.
If people have to go into private rent it will be more expensive and income and savings will suffer and before long it could cost the State more than it does now and many more may be trying to get it.
Thanks for posting that Gildy, very thought provoking. I do have worries that the recent spending review has been rushed through, even though I appreciate the reasons for it.
Span - I think it was a silly thing to do, particularly when the source (ONS) could easily deny it.
Another story I have read says that our Chancellor when not in power and part of the opposing party said that Ireland had much to teach us if we were willing to learn.
Now, perhaps no one can really guess what will happen in the future(you have to try)that's why they have so called experts they call on but look at Ireland now...
I hope I explained my concerns about social housing clearly enough but even if you say downsize when a house is too large, don't pass it on to other family members etc...if they live with you and the tenant passes on or some family crises happens, you would hope that they will still have a roof over their heads.
I would hope even the fairest amongst society would accept that.
In today's society the fact that many jobs are poorly paid(even with the minimum wage)it seems crazy that under the new rules they want to raise rents on properties to the average of properties in that area, that they want to cap Housing Benefit, that if you find yourself out of work after a year(even if it is not your fault)they will reduce help by 10% and as your Job Seekers Allowance is only £65 a week what remains of that will be affected.
If you find a better job(and possibly your income improves)what if they say move?
If you rent privately and it costs more or the property is smaller and less attractive you might ask why did I try to improve my life by aiming higher.
If you are going to be moved out in as little as two years or be constantly checked on you could understand people not bothering to keep the property nice and perhaps investing in carpeting the place out, keeping the garden nice or investing money in the property as many tenants do...quite often in this day and age a tenant will even take on some of the repairs themselves.
I could quite understand people saying why bother?
Could this be a subtle way of keeping some of the population working and in low paid jobs?
Grant has announced his plans in Parliament today but other stories have been given greater priority in the media...I say his plans but they are coming from the PM.
I suspect they'll go through on the nod because of the majority the coalition has.
The only lucky thing is that existing tenants will be unaffected...so they say.
I think the truth is that they would like to do away with Social Housing altogether.
Paul, perhaps you can tidy up the comments area, for some reason my last post appeared 3 times so I removed it.
Thanks for posting again Gildy. It's an interesting point you raise about social housing because I would think that the logical conslusion of a 'big society' would indeed be to remove social housing as a state responsibility and give private Housing Associations the job of providing homes.
Ireland is economically much the same as Portugal, Spain, Greece and many of the South East Asian tiger economies. As I have pointed out before if you give countries a lot of money which is all based on it turning itself into growth you are actually creating an artificial economy. Ireland put so much money and effort into building more houses, giving tax breaks and trying to encourage people and businesses to move there that nobody ever thought 'what if it goes wrong?' Their growth was artificial from day one.
There is much more I could say about social housing...
Possibly about welfare in general(maybe another time)
Seeing what is happening now in Ireland is frightening(especially when you look at it in detail)
This at a time when supposedly the recesssion is said to be over and the measures being taken is to fix what has gone wrong.
I cannot see things being right for years and if I'm worried in my twilight years what it will be like for those starting out now doesn't bare thinking about.
Post a Comment