Starmer's vision quest

[briantrumpet]

The only way to avoid either people being homeless or housing benefit going into the private sector is council housing or housing associations. Rent controls are a laughably naive approach (yes, I'm talking to you Ms. Sturgeon), and reducing housing benefit just increases hardship. Might even cost more in other ways.

The trouble with housing benefit is it's an irreversible policy once you've started it.

 

[BoldonLad]

The only way to avoid either people being homeless or housing benefit going into the private sector is council housing or housing associations. Rent controls are a laughably naive approach (yes, I'm talking to you Ms. Sturgeon), and reducing housing benefit just increases hardship. Might even cost more in other ways.

From personal experience, homelessness is a complex problem, which is not always solved by more money, or, indeed, more houses,

I don't pretend to know the answer, but, I dont quite see how Council Housing and/or Housing Associations change the equation, Housing Benefit provides a "floor" below which no landlord will rent, it thus distorts the market. A similar situation exists with Nursing/care home costs, and, no doubt there are other examples.

 

[BoldonLad]

The trouble with housing benefit is it's an irreversible policy once you've started it.

I don't really see it as "irreversible", but, I do think reversing it would be very difficult, and, would almost certainly promote hardship in the short term.

The immediate approach would be to increase benefits by approximately the amount of Housing benefit, then, let tenants rent as they choose and/or can (if it is not available in your price range, you cannot rent it). But, this would imply a level of money management and financial responsibility which many simply do not have, (that is from my experience).

Such a move, even if it is possible, would take years to achieve, and, IMHO, would require cross-party agreement, in other words, like re-joining the EU, it is not going to happen in my lifetime, if indeed ever.

 

[First Aspect]

From personal experience, homelessness is a complex problem, which is not always solved by more money, or, indeed, more houses,

I don't pretend to know the answer, but, I dont quite see how Council Housing and/or Housing Associations change the equation, Housing Benefit provides a "floor" below which no landlord will rent, it thus distorts the market. A similar situation exists with Nursing/care home costs, and, no doubt there are other examples.

I see housing associations as essentially subcontracted council housing. Homelessness is indeed complex, but can include people who are employed but have had a change of circumstances such that they have nowhere permanent to live or can no longer afford what they need. E.g. a break up or divorce

 

[icowden]

It still exists usually where organisation has London & non London locations

And in the public sector. You get Inner London, Outer London and London Fringe weightings.

 

[matticus]

This seems to be almost entirely a London problem. Can we leave them to sort it out?

 

[First Aspect]

Sutton is as close to central London as I was to central Edinburgh when I lived "near Edinburgh" and cycle commuted. It is also not a terrible place. Only being able to afford somewhere less than 14 miles from work doesn't seem like a hardship worth a 5 day strike.

 

[spen666]

Been a good day for Kier today - not had anyone resigned or had to sack anyone or remove the whip

 

[briantrumpet]

I think that this is fair.

 

[C R]

I wonder how Parsons would have spun big brother's Starmer's tribulations.

 

[Stevo 666]

I deliberately ignored the weasel word 'apparently'.

It was there for a reason...

 

[Stevo 666]

But if we don't pay them millions of pounds then they'll all leave and bugger off to dubai or something. Or is that only the vital billionaires?

Unlikely given what they can do with their skillset. Unfortunately the reality is that some of the biggest contributors to the public purse are also the most mobile and have those options. There are plenty of people who would likely be very happy to drive a tube and get paid anywhere near what the current lot get.

 

[Bromptonaut]

It still exists usually where organisation has London & non London locations

In the Civil Service it disappeared as a clear discrete add on but persists in effect as London pay scales are higher by some margin than (say) North East Lancashire.

MoJ adopted regional pay which boosted scales in 'hot spots' like Milton Keynes or Leeds.

 

[the snail]

Unlikely given what they can do with their skillset. Unfortunately the reality is that some of the biggest contributors to the public purse are also the most mobile and have those options. There are plenty of people who would likely be very happy to drive a tube and get paid anywhere near what the current lot get.

Well they can apply for a job as a tube train driver then?

 

[Psamathe]

Oh dear

Starmer defended Mandelson after No 10 received damning Epstein emails, reports say
Keir Starmer defended Peter Mandelson in the House of Commons two days after details of the damning emails between the former ambassador to the US and Jeffrey Epstein were passed to Downing Street, according to reports.

(my bold).
BBC podcast today and Labour insiders appearing on the program (ie not anonymous sources) saying that Mandleson was really one of McSweeney's "friends"/group and that Starmer isn't a fan seeing him as a Blairite and thus mistrusted him. Makes me wonder if the information about the emails was withheld/"delayed" in the hope some way to keep Mandleson in place could be found. How much of Starmer's failings stem from those he has appointed around himself (although in many respects Starmer appointed them so Starmer is ultimately "responsible"). And who was it that said "advisers advise, Ministers decide"