Housing

After a summer of sporadic announcements, IDS’ welfare reforms will be published in a white paper next week. As in 1997, when Tony Blair urged Frank Field to think the unthinkable, there is consensus on the need for radical welfare change. IDS has earned respect as a moral and pragmatic reformer, and he attracts goodwill from across the House. The Liberal Democrats, Nick Clegg and Steve Webb particularly, were ‘vital’ in securing a spending concession from George Osborne, whilst Douglas Alexander has described IDS’ plans and ‘noble’ and pledges to support principle that welfare should be a safety net, not a vocation. He warms to the theme in today’s Guardian.

Most sensible taxpayers think Britain’s current housing benefit costs to be a terrific scam. In the last five years the bill has risen by 25 percent. We now pay £21billion each year, a good chunk of which flows private landlords turning a healthy profit from the state’s responsibility to the poor. We all know by now that a slew of reforms designed to cut the bill by at least £2bn will stop the indefensible abuses of taxpayers’ money like this and this. That’s why Danny Alexander, among others, claims that the coalition must be ‘brave’ on housing benefit. But cast aside the most extreme exploiters of the system and ask what happens to the rest. The effects of the reform will to be much more widespread.

Depending on who you read, the planned £400 a week cap on housing benefit is either comparable to Nazi concentration camps, death squads in Brazil, or ethnic cleansing in the Balkans Critics have ranged from the Mayor of London to the ultra Left. So it is worth taking a moment to get some perspective. Firstly, the general caps on housing benefit don't even impact on social tenants because they pay lower, subsidised rents, (though the £26,000 cap on the total amount of benefits per household might hit them). But for housing benefit claimants in the private sector outside London, less than 1% are affected by the cap. And even in London 9 out of 10 of private renters claiming housing benefit will be totally unaffected.

There’s no way round this: housing in this country is in a pretty awful state. Waiting lists for the shrinking number of “affordable” or social homes are rising, while fewer people can afford to buy their own home. That would be the case even if the banks were able to lend – which they can’t because of the credit crunch.   Fewer than 100,000 new homes are currently being built per year, when 200,000 - 300,000 are needed.  The number of new mortgages being arranged is at its lowest level since 1975, while housing waiting lists have risen from 1 million in 2000 to 1.75 million today. The number of social homes has fallen by 250,000 in the last eight years.

The Sunday Times YouGov poll (£) contains some statistics that will warm Cameron’s cockles. ‘The poll also backs the idea, floated by the prime minister last week, that new tenants in council and social housing should have a limited term of five or 10 years before they have to make way for others if their circumstances have changed. The proposal, criticised by Simon Hughes, the Liberal Democrat deputy leader, is supported by 62% and opposed by 32%. Even among Liberal Democrat supporters there is strong support for the idea, by 67% to 26%. Tory supporters overwhelmingly back it, by 78% to 18%. Labour voters are only narrowly in favour, by 48% to 47%.’ The figures for Liberal Democrat and Labour support are surprising.

Simon Hughes led the angry response to David Cameron's thoughts on social housing, and now he's stirring it up again. In an interview with the South London Press – picked up by Sunder Katwala over at Next Left – the Lib Dem deputy leader has attacked the Right to Buy, saying that local councils should decide whether to offer it or not. Given the Thatcherite roots of the policy, there's a firecracker quality to Hughes's comments: lobbed into the debate, and designed to provoke the Tories. I'm not sure the Tories will be too perturbed by Hughes's intervention, though. Of course many of them are proud and supportive of Thatcher's Right to Buy policy – and rightly so.

David Cameron did say that his proposal to end council houses for life would trigger "quite a big argument" – and that is exactly what he has got today. The Lib Dems' Simon Hughes has offered the most vociferous dissent so far, stressing that this "in no way represent the policy of the coalition and certainly do not represent the policy of the Liberal Democrats." And, to be fair, he has a point: the idea had not gone through coalition channels before Cameron mooted it yesterday, and neither was it contained in the Tory manifesto – so there still needs to be a lot of conversation and consideration before anything like it can be put into action. It would be a shame if this reduced to a Tory-Lib Dem split story, though.

If you tire quickly of the tediously lengthy build up to Christmas, which starts about now, then heaven help you in dealing with two years of hyperbole about the 2012 Olympics. Even the most enthusiastic synchronised swimming fan will find it hard to imagine that the actual event will live up to the billing. And as a keen follower of sport (well, proper sport like football or motor racing), I hope that the London Olympics absolutely bomb.   I want half empty stadia, feeble athletic performances (particularly from British competitors) and embarrassingly low television viewing figures.

There’s nothing quiet about Iain Duncan Smith this morning. Echoing Norman Tebbitt’s infamous ‘On yer Bike’ comments of 1981, Duncan Smith has vowed to obliterate ‘welfare ghettos’. For once I agree with Ed Balls: Duncan Smith is going further than Tebbitt, much further. The government is planning to move the long-term unemployed out of sink estates and into other areas, possibly hundreds of miles away, where unemployment is negative. Incentives for work and promises of low regional taxes in Northern England, Wales and Scotland were included in the Budget to this effect. This may be manna from Heaven for Balls - the traditional candidate in the Labour leadership contest can evoke the spectre of Thatcher and ‘give us a job’.