From the TUC

CSR 2010: Housing Benefit cuts for single people

20 Oct 2010, by in Society & Welfare

The June Budget already contained savage cuts to Housing Benefit.  And today there was one more – the shared room rate (the rate of benefit paid to single homeless people who are aged under 25)  was extended to homeless adults aged 25-34.  This means that the amount of Housing Benefit that single adults in a ten year age bracket can receive has fallen dramatically. To give an illustration the shared room rate in Glasgow City is currently £69.23 a week, compared to the one-bed rate of £98.08. The situation is even starker in London. In Waltham Forest (an outer ‘affordable’ borough) the shared room rate is currently £79.88, while the one-bed rate is £149.59. In parts of London this change will consign adults aged 25-34 to (at best) hostel accommodation – there is simply no other accommodation that they will be able to afford. It also raises questions about where those in this age bracket who cannot be accommodated in shared rooms (for example ex-offenders leaving prison or people with severe mental or physical health problems) will go.

5 Responses to CSR 2010: Housing Benefit cuts for single people

  1. Tweets that mention CSR 2010: Housing Benefit cuts for single people | ToUChstone blog: A public policy blog from the TUC — Topsy.com
    Oct 20th 2010, 7:33 pm

    […] This post was mentioned on Twitter by ToUChstone blog, Rebecca. Rebecca said: RT @touchstoneblog: CSR 2010: Housing Benefit cuts for single people http://bit.ly/aX48ET […]

  2. The Squeeze
    Oct 21st 2010, 11:24 am

    “In parts of London this change will consign adults aged 25-34 to (at best) hostel accommodation

    Yes, on a low income you have to either live in shared rooms or move out the the cheaper parts of the outskirts and get a small room to yourself. Why should low paid workers be crowded out by welfare junkies?

    Anyway, repeat after me:

    Throwing loads of government money at BTL landlords makes housing more unaffordable.

    ”Shared ownership’ schemes increase the amount of money people can BID on houses and makes housing more unaffordable.

    High housing costs are BAD for working class people.

    Government subsidies to the private sector make private sector housing MORE expensive for working class people.

    Get it yet???

  3. Nick Clegg confirms that Housing Benefit is to be used to pay for new homes | ToUChstone blog: A public policy blog from the TUC
    Oct 21st 2010, 10:06 pm

    […] £400 million cut in CSR (as a result of the benefit cap and the increase in the age limit for the shared room rate). But tonight Nick Clegg has confirmed what many have already pointed out – that the […]

  4. Mr Ed
    Oct 27th 2010, 7:08 am

    I was born in the East End, and after moving about for a bit I’ve settled back in East London with my wife and children. I live in an area which has a beautiful mix of different races and incomes. My wife is from a middle class background and due to misconceptions about the less well off she initially wanted nothing more than to leave the East End asap. Many years on and she finds she is unable to feel truly happy anywhere other than the East End as the warmth and love of the people here has overwhelmed her.

    What I’m getting at is, if the poor are driven out of their rightful homes and areas, in order to form an opinion, people from more comfortable backgrounds will have to rely on abstract interpretations of the poor, written largely by the wealthy.

    The new reliance on wealthy donors has no place either as a friend who attends charity fund raiser events in wealthy parts of America told me the other day that the donors tend never step foot in poor neighbourhoods due to highly exaggerated fear and and wilful misunderstanding.

    These people tend to give what little money (relative to their wealth) that they do based on a very unpleasant sense of pity which fails to genuinely recognise the poor as equals or the real root causes of their poverty. If the suggestion arises that maybe they should pay more in taxes to help the poor they recoil at the thought, opting to give piecemeal amounts whenever they see fit to.

    I am by no means saying that charity is a bad thing, merely that it is there to supplement not replace government and society’s overriding responsibility to help their fellow human.

  5. john trewinnard
    Oct 28th 2010, 4:37 am

    mr clegg,you are going to see a crimewave like this coutrys never seen before,the poll tax riots will look like a sunday walk out,and drug,drink,and solvent abuse,and wholesale suicide is going to go through the roof.so what you save,you will lose out-big time-on the saveings you make,from the backclash,and hoplessnes elsewhere