Housing: creative solutions

Khan is right - Tory voter ID plans gag the poorest. But it’s not just in London. Here's what we can do about it ' On New Years’ Eve, Sadiq Kahn warned that a new wave of hard right populism could see Susan Hall in London’s City Hall. And the new requirement for voter identification at the ballot box might accelerate this trend. He’s right, but it’s not just London that is affected.  The voter identification requirements deliberately make it more difficult for those who traditionally support Labour, to vote.  After the 2019 General Election, IPSOS estimated how voters voted. Their results came as no surprise, Labour had a 43 point lead among voters aged 18-24, but the biggest change was among 35-54 year olds, who saw a three point rise in the Conservatives’ vote share and 11 point fall for Labour. There was a gender gap, with the Conservatives ahead of Labour by 15 points among men, and by nine points among women. Among BME voters, Labour led the Conservatives by 64% to 20%,

  8 facts you need to know about welfare reform This blog is simple. It gives facts that contradict commonly held and repeated views. It debunks the myths that we hear regularly. Print it out and keep it near you. MYTH 1. Keeping the rise in benefits to only 1% is fair because it hits shirkers, not workers. Fact: 60% of the reduction falls on in-work households. Why? Because the 1% rise - which equates to a real-terms cut - affects universal benefits like child benefit and tax credits like child tax credit. MYTH 2. Spending on benefits for those out of work is out of control. Fact: the majority of all welfare spending is on pensioners - 53%. Also, benefits for those out of work is less than a quarter of the total welfare budget. Second, on average, between 2000 and 2010, welfare spending grew annually, in real terms, by only 1.75% - compared to 5.5% in the 1950s and 1960s, and 3% in the 1980s. Third, benefit spending in 2011-12 accounted for 10.4% of GDP, lower than the mid-80s (11%

As we approach the anniversary of the introduction of the bedroom tax, its’ impact is becoming clearer. DWP figures to November 2013 show that the HB reduction has been applied to 498,174 households and each has lost on average, £14.40 per week. With increases likely as families move into the higher priced private sector, the reduction in HB is likely to be £150m short of the recently claimed £490m. Let’s remind ourselves of the core argument. Speaking in the Lords on its introduction, Lord Freud said, “We do not think that taxpayers should be expected to meet the cost of somewhere approaching 1 million spare bedrooms, a cost of around £0.5 billion every year...”   So, what else could be done to make up this shortfall? How else could households be incentivised not to hold spare rooms? In the interests of fairness, what else could be done? After all, as an exercise in using fiscal policy to influence behaviour change, the spare room subsidy has been pretty successful. It has opened our