Housing benefit: the facts


11:30 am - October 29th 2010

by Don Paskini    


      Share on Tumblr

Government ministers will only talk about the benefits cap, hence David Cameron making the claim that “If you are prepared to pay £20,000 in housing benefit, there is no reason why anyone should be left without a home.”

But this is just one small element of a set of cuts which will take money away from pensioners, carers and people in low paid jobs, as well as people who are out of work.

1. The vast majority of housing benefit claimants are either pensioners, disabled people, those caring for a relative or hardworking people on low incomes, and only 1 in 8 people who receive housing benefit is unemployed.

2. The cap on housing benefits – which the discussion in the media has focused on – saves £65 million. This is less than 3% of the total which is being cut from housing benefits.

3. The government plans to save £100 million by cutting housing benefits payments by 10% for people who are unemployed for more than one year.

4. The amount paid in housing benefits will be reduced in every area of the country, not just in London. You can see the reductions in your local area here.

5. The government has acknowledged that there will be negative consequences as a result of these changes – for example on homelessness, overcrowding, and child poverty – no proposals have been put forward for mitigating these effects.

6. A survey of landlords who currently rent properties to housing benefit tenants in London showed that very few would be prepared to lower their rents when changes to Local Housing Allowance (LHA) come into effect next year. Using the results from the survey, London Councils can estimate that more than 82,000 households – well over a quarter of a million people – could be priced out of their homes and the communities where they live and work.

7. The government is cutting housing-related support for people at risk of homelessness, even though a national evaluation has estimated that the £1.6bn spent annually on housing-related support through the Supporting People programme generates savings of £3.41bn to the public purse – by intervening earlier to prevent more severe problems arising, helping people live more independently and avoiding more costly acute services.

8. Single homeless people use around four times more acute hospital services than the general population, costing at least £85 million in total per year, according to Department of Health. That figure is likely to rise sharply if support is withdrawn to prevent homelessness. Research also shows that having stable accommodation reduces the risk of re-offending by a fifth.

9. Over time, the government is planning to reduce the value of Local Housing Allowance by raising it more slowly than inflation. This will reduce the amount of affordable housing every year.

10. In June, the government scrapped regulations which would have given tenants greater protection against being exploited by bad landlords.

11. A government impact assessment on the changes has concluded 936,960 of the 939,220 local housing allowance claimants will lose out. The average loss will be £12 per week.

*

Everyone who has looked in detail at the cumulative effects of these cuts – from the Citizens Advice Bureaux to charities which work with homeless people, to Lib Dem housing experts to the Mayor of London – have concluded that they will be a disaster which will increase homelessness.

    Share on Tumblr   submit to reddit  


About the author
Don Paskini is deputy-editor of LC. He also blogs at donpaskini. He is on twitter as @donpaskini
· Other posts by


Story Filed Under: Blog ,Conservative Party ,Economy ,Equality ,Fight the cuts

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Reader comments


Which is why I suspect it’s wrong to focus on the cap. We are on both the complicated and the unpopular side of the argument when we do that.

The cut after a year is definitely wrong, and the move from paying at the 50th percentile to the 30th percentile might be right or wrong in different areas depending on the housing mix and the number of local claimants – it’s crazy to decree it as a national one-size-fits-all model. Ditto the increase in the age under which people are expected to rent a room in a shared house to whatever it is going to be, 35?

Point 6. Landlords may have no choice but to lower their rents. Same number of people, same number of houses, less money spent on rents. Net result: lower rents and best houses in best locations going to those who earn the money to pay for them. I live in the North West and their are plenty of places where I couldn’t afford a house.

So are you saying that there should be no cap or that it should be higher

If the selfish tories don’t like paying housing benefit they should not have flogged off all the council houses at a third of their market value.

They would not now be beholden to private landlords.

I’m with Jon on this one. Landlords don’t like empty houses, and fortunately, they don’t like each other all that much. They’ll be falling over themselves to cut rents once they realise they will lose out otherwise. Of course, we also need to allow more houses and flats to be built too.

Oldpolitics

Agree that the cap issue is just one headline – and while it has its problems – it is not the big argument that needs having.

I’d pick out 3 as a much easier target. There is little by way of logical sense behind cutting a benefit after one year unemployed.

It fits with the “stop being lazy and get a job” philosophy behind many of the changes – but in reality housing costs don’t suddenly drop when one is unemployed for a year – people are far less likely, not more, to have drawn down their savings after a year of unemployment so are less able to make up a shortfall – And those unemployed long term tend to be those with the biggest skills, confidence and health gaps holding them back from finding work.

It is – in short – an attack on those least able to respond – because the libdems and tories think they are just lazy.

Nick and Jon

Again – So many people come on here and claim the market as an answer to a problem only to display just how little they know about economics.

Basically (GCSE level here) you are suggesting we’ll see a non price change to demand. (A shift of, not along, the demand curve) that results demand intersecting supply at a lower equilibrium price. (and fewer people rent from private landlords)

But the substitue goods for private renting are highly restricted – so that shift may simply not materialise. It may be that demand for private renting is largely unresponsive to housing benefit.

Three substtutes

owner occupier (buying a house) is unnafordable for the people being discussed.
social housing (RSL’s and council homes) are simply not available in most places without years of waiting on a list.
temporary housing (emergency provision for those suddenly homeless)

The last option is the only one with capacity to serve as a substitute good for private renting. But it is only available to those who find themselves homeless. It also costs the state a lot more than the savings in housing benefit.

What is more likely is this.

Demand for private rented housing is likely to remain the same – or at least will fall only very marginally as some people become homeless and so no longer make up demand for private renting,

And in order to meet the somewhat higher price – people will drop their demand for other goods (clothes for example)

The classically taugh example of this sort of inelastic demand is often alcohol for alcoholics. Put up the price, and rather than drink less, they pay the higher price and buy less of other things. Housing is a more wholesome example and state intervention makes it a bad example for teaching economics.

But that is an equivelent scenario.

Labour gerrymandering encouraged immigrants to move into the inner cities to stop the Tories winning seats. We have Somali’s living in £1 million pound homes in London getting their rents paid by welfare. These unskilled migrants could never get a job that would pay them enough to live in such luxury homes in area like Chelsae and Westminster. I am unemployed and only get £60 towards my mortgage each month which leaves me with a shortfall of £140. Why should people who rent get everything paid – which pays the landlords full mortgage? when taxpayers like me don’t! Housing benefit needs capping and also social housing should be limited to 3 bedrooms and child benefits to just 2 children. What sort of homes did these Somali’s live in back in Africa?

@7
So are you saying that there should be no cap or that it should be higher

10. margin4error

SL

I wasn’t talking about the cap I was talking about the general reduction in housing benefit which is far more important. (Indeed I said that in 6)

‘ang about: “2. The cap on housing benefits – which the discussion in the media has focused on – saves £65 million.

How much is this new policy/the cap going to cost to administer? Anyone know?

Great article, must admit I hadn’t thought too much about point 4 (reductions across the board) – even where I live, where rents are really cheap, families with say a 3-bed house will be losing a lot (£40 a month if I’m reading that graph right)

12. Donut Hinge Party

The market fails when it’s a collection of unregulated cartels who control restricted commodities. Unfortunately, whereas large businesses are subject to the Competition Commission, Of(XX) and Monopolies and Mergers, there’s nothing stopping landlords colluding to keep their rents artificially high.

The government should go back to setting the market rate, not being dictated to by it.

The cap of £400/week will only apply in the very centre of London (most of Westminster, Kensington and Chelsea, South Camden), as this is the only are where 30th percentile cap would be higher than this (the VOA stats linked to shows the 30th percentile 4-bed in central London costs £850/week).

This will prevent any people on HB in the private sector from living in central London – no houses are actually available at half the 30th percentile rent.

Elsewhere in London the cap is lower than £400/week (though is at least set at the 30th percentile level). In Outer South East London, for example, the cap for a 4+ bed home is £270/week, or £246/week for the unemployed.

I don’t understand why a) the media has focussed on the less important £400/week cap (no-one will actually receive this as it only applies in C London where no houses at this low rent exist); b) no-one has challenged the Tory lie that £400/week is available throughout London; or c) why no-one has picked up this hits people across the country cutting every claimants HB by an average of £600/year.

I don’t understand why a) the media has focussed on the less important £400/week cap (no-one will actually receive this as it only applies in C London where no houses at this low rent exist); b) no-one has challenged the Tory lie that £400/week is available throughout London;

Obvious: it would mess up their talking points.

@ M4E

Thanks for the further economics lecture but I’m afraid you don’t know your inelastic demand curve from your elbow.

Because housing benefit has already rigged the market. It is paid according to a formula which has set the payable benefit for the locality of each claimant. All rents in that locality therefore rise to match the rent housing benefit pays (less the £15 per week the claimants can keep for renting at less than the maximum rent).

There is no incentive for the slum landlord to rent to someone not on housing benefit at a rent below the housing benefit payment so the market has been effectively subverted. If housing benefit is capped or the sums paid are reduced, the market will not be recreated but the default minimum rent will undoubtedly fall.

Because they cannot compete on rent, buy to let landlords compete by putting incentives (leather sofas, flat screen TV’s etc) into their flats to attract housing benefit sponsored tenants.

“(less the £15 per week the claimants can keep for renting at less than the maximum rent). ”

They’ve abolished that.

All about the Tories how many council houses did New or Newer labour build or will build answer on the back of an envelope please zero none sod all.

The thing is labour keeping it’s mouth shut over cuts saying very Little which either means they have not decided or in fact would have done the same as the Tories.

Always go through my mind Ed the Miliband saying cut well it depends on what they are, we will back the Tories on welfare, but child credits hitting the middle class we are against that.

(less the £15 per week the claimants can keep for renting at less than the maximum rent).

They’ve abolished that.

Good. That’s progressive.

Not really, it basically means recipients have no incentive to find homes where the rent is below the LHA.

20. margin4error

Pagar

In your scenario those on housing benefits would just end up living in lower standards of homes. (Indeed the same homes but less well equiped and less well maintained)

Which is a possibility.

That would depend on the extent to which the housing benefits system warps the market. There isn’t much good analysis of this so it is hard to guess the extent to which the changes would lessen that influence – especially as the regional aspect you point to is designed deliberately to reflect local market prices somewhat.

However – what we are saying then is something rather different.

The argument stops being “prices will fall so its not a problem”
It becomes “housing conditions will fall”

I would imagine they either don’t have the economic understanding to have reached that conclusion – or possibly they realised that’s a pretty awful consequence that is best ignored while trying to win people round to reform.

Either way – the pseudo-economic “prices will just fall” argument needed slapping down.

21. margin4error

Robert

Do you realise that whinging about Labour isn’t the same as expressing an opinion about a policy?

I wonder how this will affect the low paid worker who currently receives HB but will now have to pay for travel if they are employed near to the area they currently live. Most low paid workers in my area appear to have jobs that require little or no commuting to the workplace,
I suspect that the extra spent on travel expenses is going to put many off working, especially single parents who choose to work but aren’t compelled to do so by benefits law.

What happened to free markets the Torys so love? This is the Government trying to control the housing market to bring the cost down to fit its own cap or is just that the free markets only apply to the super rich and is a flag of convenience?

Robert you really must not confuse New Labour (which was right wing) and old Labour which was not.

New Labour bought into the Thatcherite “no more new council houses” clap trap.

MarginForError: Thanks for the introduction to econ but you might want to take a look at the empirical evidence too, as Chris Dillow did a little while back: http://stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com/stumbling_and_mumbling/2010/06/the-incidence-of-housing-benefit.html

It could be different this time, but in the past, it looks like more than half of housing benefit goes straight into the pockets of landlords. That could certainly take the sting out of the benefit cut.

21

You will have to remind me what labour policies are, even when shouting off at the mouth for the child benefit of the middle Class I’m not sure they even have a policy on this.

Thats the problem at the moment we have labour picking what they think the middle class want to hear, but silence on the rest, what would Labours policy be on cuts, slow I know, but thats about it

Off topic but interesting since we are always being told about the power of unions…This is a story about McDonalds in the USA.

Ohio McDonald’s Tells Employees To Vote Republican If They Want To Continue Receiving Raises And Benefits
McDonald’s sells itself as the ultimate happy place. But this election season, a local McDonald’s franchise in Canton, Ohio is telling employees how to keep the company happy: vote Republican.

Along with their recent paychecks, employees received a pamphlet from their employer on company letter head that stated “as the election season is here, we wanted you to know which candidates will help our business grow in the future.” While pointing out that the vote is the employee’s “personal decision,” the pamphlet explicitly states, “if the right people are elected we will be able to continue with raises and benefits at or above our present levels. If others are elected we will not”:

Not that I would ever eat in that shit hole but hey this is getting out of hand.

Ohio McDonald’s Tells Employees To Vote Republican If They Want To Continue Receiving Raises And Benefits

Anonymous blog commentator reposts headline from website of a left-wing group that itself provided no references for a story citing anonymous employees working for a business located somewhere unknown in a state larger than England.

It doesn’t get much better than this, folks!

@25 Nick: “…you might want to take a look at the empirical evidence too, as Chris Dillow did a little while back: http://stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com/stumbling_and_mumbling/2010/06/the-incidence-of-housing-benefit.html

It could be different this time, but in the past, it looks like more than half of housing benefit goes straight into the pockets of landlords. That could certainly take the sting out of the benefit cut.”

Chris Dillow’s argument assumes that landlords treat potential tenants equally, but it has been suggested many times that tenants dependent on HB are denied the opportunity to rent some homes. However, I agree that landlords will reduce rents and hope that some will not be so stuck-up about potential tenants.

I don’t understand the statement “…it looks like more than half of housing benefit goes straight into the pockets of landlords”. 50% of rental income is pure profit, or 50% of HB is given to tenants of private landlords?

“I don’t understand the statement “…it looks like more than half of housing benefit goes straight into the pockets of landlords”. 50% of rental income is pure profit, or 50% of HB is given to tenants of private landlords?”

It means that landlords can afford to raise their rent by 50% or more of an increase in housing benefit. In other words, the price rises in response to HB. The individual on HB still benefits (a bit), but the price of housing in general has increased.

It is not necessarily “pure profit” – it depends at what price they bought the property at. Although our economy is certainly geared towards benefiting house buyers and property owners at the expense of others.

Interesting article and comments. I had wondered why local rents have gone up £50-100 per month for a three bed terraced house over the last two years, while the selling prices have fallen. Now I know. The housing benefit system.
About time it was changed. It is unfair on people who have to rent but don’t qualify for benefit.

32. gwenhwyfaer

I had wondered why local rents have gone up £50-100 per month for a three bed terraced house over the last two years, while the selling prices have fallen. Now I know. The housing benefit system.

Sorry, Hugh, but you don’t know squat. Otherwise you’d understand what’s driven the local rent rises has been a vast increase in demand, because prices are still out of reach, mortgage approvals are at an 18-month low (having never really recovered from the inital collapse), and the housing market is almost completely stagnant. You’d also understand that LHA only rises after rents have already risen (and since generally we accept that cause must precede effect, that invalidates your claim), and indeed in many areas it was static for a couple of years – in Sheffield, LHA was actually lower in May 2010 than in May 2008.

Kindly do your homework before talking out of your arse. The rest of us can’t stand the smell.

33. gwenhwyfaer

Actually, that’s a general point. I would be singularly delighted if anyone who does not have direct experience of the LHA system, or at the very least a clear academic-class understanding of how it works, could kindly shut the fuck up, rather than telling those of us who take the trouble to inform ourselves about such things in intimate detail how terrible and unfair it is to people who don’t bother to claim it.

Or any other subject, come to think of it. If you haven’t at least tried to verify what you think you know or believe you’ve heard, don’t let the door hit your arse on the way out.

This “democratic notion” that everyone’s voice is worth the same, no matter how uninformed, lacking in knowledge or just plain immune to reason they are, is going to be looked back on by the remnants of our civilisation as sheer insanity.

34. Alison Charlton

It would be useful to include the change of HB to single room allowance only for under 35s, instead of current 25 years old. How many single people will that affect? How many have other housing problems – eg mental health, disability, drug/alcohol abuse issues issues? It will be a big drop in HB for that group and most, I suspect, will have to move. Could see a large increase in single homelessness, especially amongst those with other issues.

>Actually, that’s a general point. I would be singularly delighted if anyone who does not have direct experience of the LHA system, or at the very least a clear academic-class understanding of how it works, could kindly shut the fuck up, rather than telling those of us who take the trouble to inform ourselves about such things in intimate detail how terrible and unfair it is to people who don’t bother to claim it.

Ouch !

>you’d understand what’s driven the local rent rises has been a vast increase in demand,

No. It’s also driven by imposed cost, which can only come out of rental income, and a lack of supply of rented property, which is partly a response to a nightmarish process.

For example, in Scotland the compulsory landlord registration scheme has imposed a burden of £17m over 4 years for little or no benefit, which is now under review. Where did that £17m come from?

Ref: http://www.scottishlandlords.com/ContentDetails.aspx?Id=114&ContentTypeId=1&CategoryId=1

Lack of supply is partly landlords unwilling to deal with LHA tenants or local authorities. Try asking some LHA landlords about how much money they have lost in arrears because of insistence on payments going through tenants for the last couple of years (with a few exceptions)? Those costs have to be borne by increases in rents when rent is being paid.

Freeing up the market could make quite a difference.

My take on the reforms is that rents will fall in London, and that I don’t entirely believe the survey quoted at point 6. During the recession the peak to trough fall in asking prices of monthly rents to 4 bed houses in Central London was 25%. If upward pressure on rents is reduced by reform and increased supply, that should happen again. Unblock the market.

Graph here:

http://www.mattwardman.com/blog/2010/10/29/housing-benefit-the-problems-may-be-smaller-than-claimed/

Point 2: That £65m is a June figure, and has I think been revised to be more like £300m, though that doesn’t invalidate the basic point you make, Don.

Bad points? The 30% percentile proposal is a bad idea, though I have no problem with the caps or change in single-accommodation age limit – provided there are appropriate safeguards for special cases.

The largely undebated biggie in the proposals is the need to end lifetime tenure in social housing, which would have a benefit on the supply side.

As ever, the elephant in the room is that the opposition had their own proposals for caps etc before the Election.

36. Ms Lydia N Livingston

I will do whatever it takes too keep my home within the law this is way too tough I have 17 different medical conditions and I really fear for the health and well being of disabled people as it could drive some too sucide and utter despair It breaks my heart the Lib Dems can do this and support it as I’m one of them but on this issue I would condemn them for betraying our core values and it’s an abuse of a disabled person I feel Nick Clegg hopes by doing this to win more power at future elections sadly if that is his view he’s misguided.

You say:
“5. The government has acknowledged that there will be negative consequences as a result of these changes – for example on homelessness, overcrowding, and child poverty – no proposals have been put forward for mitigating these effects.”

The government has not acknowledged these things: the above is merely a direct quote of what the CAB has said about the HB cuts..

You say:

“6. Using the results from the survey [of London landlords], London Councils can estimate that more than 82,000 households – well over a quarter of a million people – could be priced out of their homes and the communities where they live and work.”

This was not a statistically reliable survey — the response rate was a pathetic 4 per cent!

Reforms to Housing Benefit along the lines Osborne has outlined were Labour Party policy as recently as May’s election. From their manifesto:

Housing Benefit will be reformed so we do not subsidise people to live in private sector accommodation on rents working families couldn’t afford

40. Chris Whitrow

As with all welfare benefits, the issues around housing benefit are complex and I certainly don’t have all the answers myself. However, it’s clear that this government hasn’t thought things through. They are taking a slash and burn approach, exemplified by the totally unjustifiable decision to reduce HB by 10% for every year of joblessness. They obviously assume that the long-term unemployed are just being lazy, rather than afflicted with ill-health or diminishing employment opportunities.

My mother’s former experience is illustrative: I’ve never known anyone work as hard as she did. As a single mother in the 1980s, she worked 60 hour weeks in two jobs, doing menial cleaning or laundry work to supplement her main income as an accounts clerk. Throughout that time, she faithfully voted for Maggie. Of course, that didn’t help when she was later made redundant in her 50s, after which no one would offer her any kind of job at all, no matter how menial; she was simply deemed too old, and maybe not white enough. Luckily, she’d paid the mortgage on her home by then, but what if she hadn’t been so fortunate? Tacit ageism, racism and sexism are still rife in the employment market. In addition, the longer you spend out of work, the less attractive you become in the eyes of employers.

It’s true that housing benefit distorts the lower end of the private rental market, very much to the benefit of private landlords, some of whom rent out barely habitable slums to vulnerable tenants, exploiting both their tenants and the tax-payer. The system does need reform, but it doesn’t need thoughtless slashing. The housing benefit bill has ballooned due to a chronic lack of affordable housing, including social housing. I’ve got no problem with people buying their council houses if they wish to, at something like the market rate, as long as the money were re-invested in building decent social housing for future generations.

Perhaps HB should be replaced by some kind of universal housing allowance as part of a new unified tax and benefits system, resulting in a minimum income (which would have to vary across the country according to living costs). If set at a reasonable level, housing could be paid for out of this but the principle of consumer choice would also be maintained, which would minimise market distortions and prevent exploitation by private landlords. Those in work would still have more purchasing power and choice than those out of work, but at least the latter would not be threatened with homelessness. A pipe dream? Probably.

The HB fiasco has allowed none skilled immigrants to emigrate to central Londonistan. Most hard working Brits can’t afford to live in London yet Somali’s are renting £1 million pound homes all paid by the British Taxpayer – what type of homes did they have in Somalia. Social Housing should be limited to 3 bedrooms maximum and child benefits to just 2 children. If people want more children then they should get a job to support them and not expect the taxpayers to do this. I only get £15 each week to pay my mortgage interest as I am currently unemployed – leaving a shortfall of £140 which will have to be added to my mortgage because I have no money left. Yet single mothers have been moved into my block of flats by our local council – they get their full rents of over £400 a month paid – which pays off the landlords mortgage.


Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. Liberal Conspiracy

    Housing benefit: the facts http://bit.ly/diyBPP

  2. Kate B

    RT @libcon: Housing benefit: the facts http://bit.ly/diyBPP Mr Paskini is doing some very good work.

  3. Elly M

    RT @libcon: Housing benefit: the facts http://bit.ly/diyBPP

  4. Mr Omneo

    RT @hangbitch: RT @libcon: Housing benefit: the facts http://bit.ly/diyBPP Mr Paskini is doing some very good work.

  5. Joe Cassels

    RT @hangbitch: RT @libcon: Housing benefit: the facts http://bit.ly/diyBPP Mr Paskini is doing some very good work.

  6. George Owers

    RT @libcon: Housing benefit: the facts http://bit.ly/diyBPP

  7. sianberry

    RT @libcon: Housing benefit: the facts http://bit.ly/diyBPP

  8. No UK Shock Doctrine

    RT @libcon: Housing benefit: the facts http://bit.ly/diyBPP And take action here: http://bit.ly/noshock #noshockdoctrine

  9. James Kneale

    RT @hangbitch: RT @libcon: Housing benefit: the facts http://bit.ly/diyBPP Mr Paskini is doing some very good work.

  10. sunny hundal

    RT @hangbitch: RT @libcon: Housing benefit: the facts http://bit.ly/diyBPP Mr Paskini is doing some very good work.

  11. paul williams

    RT @libcon: Housing benefit: the facts http://bit.ly/diyBPP

  12. Melissa Nicole Harry

    RT @libcon: Housing benefit: the facts http://bit.ly/diyBPP

  13. kate

    RT @hangbitch: RT @libcon: Housing benefit: the facts http://bit.ly/diyBPP Mr Paskini is doing some very good work.

  14. Paul Hufton

    RT @libcon: Housing benefit: the facts http://bit.ly/diyBPP

  15. emma dow

    RT @hangbitch: RT @libcon: Housing benefit: the facts http://bit.ly/diyBPP Mr Paskini is doing some very good work.

  16. Bileys Mullet

    RT @hangbitch: RT @libcon: Housing benefit: the facts http://bit.ly/diyBPP Mr Paskini is doing some very good work.

  17. Jonathan Jobe

    RT @libcon: Housing benefit: the facts http://bit.ly/diyBPP

  18. Nick H.

    RT @hangbitch: RT @libcon: Housing benefit: the facts http://bit.ly/diyBPP Mr Paskini is doing some very good work.

  19. Hazico_Jo

    RT @libcon: Housing benefit: the facts http://bit.ly/diyBPP

  20. richdavidson

    RT @hangbitch: RT @libcon: Housing benefit: the facts http://bit.ly/diyBPP Mr Paskini is doing some very good work.

  21. Don Paskini

    RT @libcon: Housing benefit: the facts http://bit.ly/diyBPP

  22. Nathon Raine

    RT @libcon: Housing benefit: the facts http://bit.ly/diyBPP

  23. Mehdi Hasan

    RT @hangbitch: RT @libcon: Housing benefit: the facts http://bit.ly/diyBPP Mr Paskini is doing some very good work.

  24. Mike J Higgins

    RT @hangbitch: RT @libcon: Housing benefit: the facts http://bit.ly/diyBPP Mr Paskini is doing some very good work.

  25. R Gordon

    "only 1 in 8 people who receive housing benefit is unemployed" Facts on HB http://bit.ly/9vgCv2 <great blog via @ns_mehdihasan

  26. Andrew Ducker

    Housing benefit: the facts http://bit.ly/czZCFX

  27. Ma

    RT @hangbitch: RT @libcon: Housing benefit: the facts http://bit.ly/diyBPP Mr Paskini is doing some very good work.

  28. R Gordon

    @Sarah_Hayward Did u c this blog fr don paskini? http://bit.ly/9vgCv2 Only 1 in 8 HB claimants don't work. Media continue 2 spread myths:(

  29. graham rogers

    RT @anpa2001: "only 1 in 8 people who receive housing benefit is unemployed" Facts on HB http://bit.ly/9vgCv2 <great blog via @ns_mehdihasan

  30. chickpea jones

    RT @hangbitch: RT @libcon: Housing benefit: the facts http://bit.ly/diyBPP Mr Paskini is doing some very good work.

  31. Morgan Dalton

    RT @hangbitch: RT @libcon: Housing benefit: the facts http://bit.ly/diyBPP Mr Paskini is doing some very good work.

  32. Helen

    RT @libcon: Housing benefit: the facts http://bit.ly/diyBPP

  33. Peter Todd

    Why housing benefit cuts will increase homelessness http://t.co/IVbICa1

  34. dave m

    RT @anpa2001: "only 1 in 8 people who receive housing benefit is unemployed" Facts on HB http://bit.ly/9vgCv2 <great blog via @ns_me …

  35. Richard Bradley

    RT @sunny_hundal RT @hangbitch: RT @libcon: Housing benefit: the facts http://bit.ly/diyBPP Mr Paskini is doing some very good work.

  36. Petra Davis

    housing benefit cuts and their impact: http://bit.ly/diyBPP – spot on as ever.

  37. thomas murphy

    RT @polifables: RT @anpa2001: "only 1 in 8 people who receive housing benefit is unemployed" Facts on HB http://bit.ly/9vgCv2 <great blog v

  38. Andreas Paterson

    RT @libcon: Housing benefit: the facts http://bit.ly/diyBPP

  39. Press Not Sorry

    RT @hangbitch: RT @libcon: Housing benefit: the facts http://bit.ly/diyBPP Mr Paskini is doing some very good work.

  40. Rodney Marques

    RT @hangbitch: RT @libcon: Housing benefit: the facts http://bit.ly/diyBPP Mr Paskini is doing some very good work.

  41. richardbrennan

    RT @libcon: Housing benefit: the facts http://bit.ly/diyBPP

  42. Georgie

    The real cost of Housing Benefit cuts: will disproportionately effect elderly, disabled, those in low-income jobs: http://goo.gl/dprm

  43. Little Metamorphic O

    RT @hangbitch: RT @libcon: Housing benefit: the facts http://bit.ly/diyBPP Mr Paskini is doing some very good work.

  44. sunny hundal

    @sawucomin that is a small part of what is actually the problem with housing benefit changes. See this: http://bit.ly/diyBPP

  45. links for 2010-10-29 « Embololalia

    […] Housing benefit: the facts 1. The vast majority of housing benefit claimants are either pensioners, disabled people, those caring for a relative or hardworking people on low incomes, and only 1 in 8 people who receive housing benefit is unemployed. (tags: welfare uk) […]

  46. GuyAitchison

    RT @hangbitch: RT @libcon: Housing benefit: the facts http://bit.ly/diyBPP Mr Paskini is doing some very good work.

  47. Rick Muir

    RT @libcon: Housing benefit: the facts http://bit.ly/diyBPP Mr Paskini is doing some very good work. << please read this.

  48. Miriam Said

    RT @hangbitch: RT @libcon: Housing benefit: the facts http://bit.ly/diyBPP Mr Paskini is doing some very good work.

  49. Press Not Sorry

    @jude008 Some of those stories are quite old too, and not representative of the majority of claimants at all. http://bit.ly/97xmma

  50. Sunder Katwala

    RT @libcon: Housing benefit: the facts http://bit.ly/diyBPP

  51. Alison Charlton

    RT @libcon: Housing benefit: the facts http://bit.ly/diyBPP

  52. gwenhwyfaer

    RT @libcon: Housing benefit: the facts http://bit.ly/diyBPP

  53. Alison Charlton

    A primer for @BBCNews and MPs. HB not about 'the cap' it's far worse than that. RT @libcon Housing benefit: the facts http://bit.ly/diyBPP

  54. Assonga

    RT @libcon: Housing benefit: the facts http://bit.ly/diyBPP

  55. Julian Swainson

    RT @libcon: Housing benefit: the facts http://bit.ly/diyBPP

  56. Pete Kitney

    RT @libcon: Housing benefit: the facts http://bit.ly/diyBPP

  57. Jacob Richardson

    RT @libcon: Housing benefit: the facts http://bit.ly/diyBPP

  58. Stuart Whittingham

    RT @nextleft: RT @libcon: Housing benefit: the facts http://bit.ly/diyBPP

  59. Lescromps

    Housing benefit: the facts http://retwt.me/1Pr1Q This is an eye opener

  60. yorkierosie

    Housing benefit: the facts | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/VMDgRLj via @libcon

  61. Humphrey Cushion

    RT @Lescromps: Housing benefit: the facts http://retwt.me/1Pr1Q This is an eye opener ! #disability

  62. dontplaymepayme

    RT @humphreycushion: RT @Lescromps: Housing benefit: the facts http://retwt.me/1Pr1Q This is an eye opener ! #disability

  63. apptme2theboard

    RT @humphreycushion: RT @Lescromps: Housing benefit: the facts http://retwt.me/1Pr1Q This is an eye opener ! #disability

  64. .

    RT @humphreycushion: RT @Lescromps: Housing benefit: the facts http://retwt.me/1Pr1Q This is an eye opener ! #disability

  65. richdavidson

    RT @humphreycushion: RT @Lescromps: Housing benefit: the facts http://retwt.me/1Pr1Q This is an eye opener ! #disability

  66. harry hunkes

    All ConDem apologists should read this http://bit.ly/dt7oDC Still proud of what your Coalition is doing for our country?

  67. Dr Shibley Rahman

    RT @yorkierosie: Housing benefit: the facts | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/VMDgRLj via @libcon

  68. Saggydaddy

    RT @libcon: Housing benefit: the facts http://bit.ly/diyBPP

  69. Humphrey Cushion

    @MrNorthice the links are on the original post, here: http://retwt.me/1Pr1Q #HB

  70. David Wearing

    Housing benefit: the facts http://bit.ly/dt7oDC a good summary

  71. Pucci Dellanno

    RT @noUKcuts: RT @libcon: Housing benefit: the facts http://bit.ly/diyBPP And take action here: http://bit.ly/noshock #noshockdoctrine

  72. Steve Cole

    RT @davidwearing: Housing benefit: the facts http://bit.ly/dt7oDC a good summary

  73. Where's The Benefit?

    From @libcon: Housing benefit: the facts http://bit.ly/dgOcOW & “Housing cuts will increase benefit bills” http://bit.ly/996aDg

  74. Lisa E

    RT @wheresbenefit: From @libcon: Housing benefit: the facts http://bit.ly/dgOcOW & “Housing cuts will increase benefit bills” http://bit

  75. The Hackney Pearl

    RT @rickmuir1: RT @libcon: Housing benefit: the facts http://bit.ly/diyBPP Mr Paskini is doing some very good work. << please read …

  76. Press Not Sorry

    Dear #DailyFail, Only 1 in 8 on housing benefit is unemployed http://bit.ly/97xmma Stop picking on the poor.

  77. Rosanna

    RT @davidwearing: Housing benefit: the facts http://bit.ly/dt7oDC a good summary

  78. Tracy Kellett

    RT @davidwearing: Housing benefit: the facts http://bit.ly/dt7oDC a good summary

  79. Cindy Penney

    RT @davidwearing: Housing benefit: the facts http://bit.ly/dt7oDC a good summary

  80. Stephen

    RT @press_not_sorry: Dear #DailyFail, Only 1 in 8 on housing benefit is unemployed http://bit.ly/97xmma Stop picking on the poor.

  81. The real impact of the coalition benefit cuts « The BigotBasher

    […] opposition to these cuts has been weak at best or badly informed. Too much publicity has gone to the whining wealthy as a result of the decision […]

  82. Steve Cole

    RT @press_not_sorry: Dear #DailyFail, Only 1 in 8 on housing benefit is unemployed http://bit.ly/97xmma Stop picking on the poor.

  83. Simon Pearce

    Housing benefit: the facts http://is.gd/guUqV

  84. sunny hundal

    No wonder Labour are losing debate on housing, when MPs incl @TomHarrisMP think it's just about the rent-cap. It's not: http://bit.ly/diyBPP

  85. Press Not Sorry

    RT @sunny_hundal: No wonder Labour are losing debate on housing, when MPs incl @TomHarrisMP think it's just about the rent-cap. It's not: http://bit.ly/diyBPP

  86. Derek Bryant

    RT @sunny_hundal: No wonder Labour are losing debate on housing, when MPs incl @TomHarrisMP think it's just about the rent-cap. It's not: http://bit.ly/diyBPP

  87. Rachel Hardy

    Housing benefit: the facts | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/lJmSJFm via @libcon

  88. Natacha Kennedy

    RT @sunny_hundal: No wonder Labour are losing debate on housing, when MPs incl @TomHarrisMP think it's just about the rent-cap. It's not: http://bit.ly/diyBPP

  89. ray turner

    RT @sunny_hundal: No wonder Labour are losing debate on housing, when MPs incl @TomHarrisMP think it's just about the rent-cap. It's not: http://bit.ly/diyBPP

  90. Mike Rowley

    RT @rickmuir1: RT @libcon: Housing benefit: the facts http://bit.ly/diyBPP Mr Paskini is doing some very good work. << please read …

  91. Lisa Ansell

    http://liberalconspiracy.org/2010/10/29/housing-benefit-the-facts/

  92. Cory Hazlehurst

    @lizzy_ammon Aye, that's why I prefer facts to scaremongering. http://liberalconspiracy.org/2010/10/29/housing-benefit-the-facts/

  93. Jane Graham

    Housing benefit: the facts | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/MJaG8xw via @libcon

  94. Philip

    @alexiscaught http://t.co/7zNzpyPZ http://t.co/kTAzDkIn http://t.co/67ImOMFc The reporting of it in msm is generally appalling.





Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.