The cost of social housing

Ever ask your Uber driver, Deliveroo biker, barista, your builder’s casual brickie or the guy mopping up sick on the Tube platform whether they have a bedroom of their own? Or how many share their lavatory and gas ring? Of course we don’t ask. We’re British. We embarrass easily. We respect their privacy. Their culture, innit?

It’s not good enough. Booming cities bring a price, and we’re not paying. Decent social housing is the highest of priorities and to afford it will hurt.

 

Libby Purves, in The Times.

How much do we spend?

The government is spending over £13,000 a year on every man, woman and child in the country: over £50,000 a year on a family of four. That ought to be enough, surely, to pay for policemen, soldiers, teachers, doctors, hospitals – and safe tower blocks. To finance this, the Government is borrowing over £100,000 a minute.

 

Bruce Anderson, writing in Reaction

The Trots will go too far and the troubled Tories are stronger than they look

More money goes to NI than to EU

Figures released by the Office for National Statistics last month showed that while Scotland consumed £2,824 more in public expenditure per capita than it raised in taxes — a source of irritation to the English — the average inhabitant of Northern Ireland consumed £5,437 more public money than they paid in taxes. There has been a payment from London to Ulster of about £10bn in each of the past three years, slightly more than the UK as a whole has been paying — net — to the EU.

 

Dominic Lawson, writing in the Sunday Times

Austerity, British style.

George Osborne’s great trick was to talk tough while putting into practice a programme which was admirably pragmatic and flexible. Whereas Ireland managed to reduce its gross public debt from 86 per cent to 75 per cent of national income between 2010 and 2016, Britain’s public debt carried on rising: from 76 per cent to 89 per cent. In short, Britain never experienced austerity.

Nick Macpherson, former Permanent Secretary to the Treasury, writing in the FT.

The Budget debate explodes a myth

Perhaps the most interesting thing about the debate on the increase in National Insurance Contributions for the self-employed is that it lays bare the lie that people are happier to pay more tax to fund the NHS.

In December, the Guardian reported Lib Dem leader Tim Farron highlighting research from October by ITV News that suggested that 70% of people would “happily pay an extra 1p in every pound if that money was guaranteed to go to the NHS”, while almost half of the 1,000 people surveyed said that they would even pay an extra 2p in the £.

Where are these people now?  A 2p in the £ increase suggested for a sub-section of people (a sub-section, don’t forget that currently pays less than those who are employed by firms to do the same jobs, and who will still pay less even after this increase) has led to all hell breaking loose. It seems the reality is that people want more money to go into the NHS, only so long as someone else is providing it.

The extent to which that is true could be heard clearly on last night’s Question Time, where repeatedly people commented on the fact that it should be ‘the rich’ who pay more. The trouble with that is that ‘the rich’ is nearly always defined by people as ‘those who are richer than me’.

You disagree? Then tell me this: what price do you consider is a fair one for people to pay for better services and better healthcare, assuming for a moment that it is true that both are created simply by finding more money to fund them?

I’m not an accountant, but bearing in mind the personal allowance of £11,000, it seems to me that the 2% rise in National Insurance contributions for someone earning £15,000 a year will mean an additional bill of around £80 a year, or £1.30 a week. The same thing for someone earning £40,000 a year means a bill of £580 a year, or £10 a week. And if you’re earning £100,000+, your bill will go up by £1,800 a year, or just shy of £35 a week.

Can we all accept that if you are earning £100K a year, you can afford to lose £35 a week? I suspect that we can (although admittedly I know people who would debate it – the same people who don’t look at their restaurant bill twice and wouldn’t notice if they’d been charged for the wrong bottle of wine).

I wouldn’t argue with the £40,000 earners who say that they are a long way from being wealthy even if they are approaching the top band of income tax, but it seems unlikely that they would think twice about spending £10 a week on something that they really wanted. It is, after all, the price of a (bought-in-a-shop) cup of coffee a day, and a lot less than they will be spending regularly on things they would regard as less important than their health. Having to fork out £10 a week more than currently will be annoying, but hardly unmanageable.

For the £15,000 earner life is tough: they are not earning a lot, by any yardstick, and the difference here of £1.30 a week may well make a difference when finances are tight.  But there are lots of people in this bracket out there, and presumably they were included in the 1,000 people survey, where nearly half of those polled said they would be happy to pay.

The NIC debate of the last two days might be couched in terms of a broken manifesto commitment, but let’s be honest: what proportion of people knew it was before that became the narrative? How many people voted the Government in on the basis of it? The notion being touted is that the Treasury didn’t even realise, so what price the idea that the person on the street did?

The debate might also be sidetracked by arguments about how self-employed people have none of the safety net of working for a firm – although interestingly, that doesn’t exactly loom large in the ONS’s study of self-employment trends.

And equally, plenty will seek to debate whether it is ‘bad politics’, but again, that is a different argument (to which an obvious counter would be that the bad politics was making the commitment in the first place).

The reality is that the argument about the Budget explodes a myth, which is this: when people say, “I’d be prepared to pay more to fund the NHS and/or social care,” they don’t actually mean it – and we know that because when they get it, they object. They argue in favour of a hypothecated tax for social care, but this is as close to a hypothecated tax for social care as we can get: £2bn being raised from a change in NIC contributions on the same day as £2bn extra was announced for social care. And people really, really don’t like it.

So the narrative that politicians are slippery and change their minds is a nonsense when you consider the fact that the public is far, far worse. Asked by pollsters in October about a policy, people were overwhelmingly in favour.

But in March, when it has become clear that that same policy will actually affect them as individuals, on top of being paid by others, they’ve changed their minds.

 

(This article was published on Spectator Coffee House today)

RGT research

I wrote a piece for eGaming Review on the RGT research, which  went into their most recent issue in the form of a shorter interview. I didn’t want to publish it here until the magazine was out, for obvious reasons, so if you wondered why I didn’t write anything on the topic at the time, …

More

Revenge porn and Brooks Newmark

Revenge porn is about to become a criminal offence, punishable by up to two years in prison. As the Guardian reports, ‘there has been mounting political pressure to outlaw the practice of humiliating former lovers by posting intimate pictures of them online.’ But the front page of the Sun on Sunday is fine, presumably? Because what is the difference between revenge …

More

O levels

The debate about O levels will doubtless be played out in great detail in the media over the coming days, and in any case I haven’t the time to write about them at length. But I have one anecdote which is pertinent to the question of whether exams have been devalued. When I was at …

More

Ooops

I had lunch last week with a Conservative MP from the 2010 intake. During the course of a lengthy chat, I asked him what chance he thought he had of getting a job in Government by the end of this parliament. Not a hope in hell, he told me. Why so? I asked. And in …

More

The Rio debate

A former colleague told me that I am getting more miserable by the hour in my old age, after I tweeted the other day in irritation at having to take off a belt that has never previously beeped at airport security on the grounds that ‘we aren’t interested in the metal: you might be hiding …

More

Eurosceptics

I was amused by who was quoted and who wasn’t in the article on the front page of today’s Times headlined, “Cameron faces new euro vote in weeks”. Priti Patel was quite happy to be named in giving her view that “the Prime Minister sent out a very clear message about the direction of travel” …

More

ERP? NFI, to use a TLA

Wouldn’t it be a good idea to have a group of gambling regulators in Europe which could work together to help the development of online gambling regulation? They could share information to allow for more efficient regulation, establishing a framework which protected people while allowing legitimate businesses to offer their services and pay the commensurate …

More

7-1

I’m totally confused by this Lyon story. So, Lyon beat Dinamo Zagreb 7-1, as a result of which they qualify for the knock-out stages of the Champions’ League, and “the most obvious fear was that the result was part of a betting scam”. Why? Why isn’t the obvious reward for fixing, qualification for the knock-out stages? …

More

Politicians

I’ve written before at greater length about politicians and platitudes, and how political bullshit is best detected when you can’t find a person on the planet who would argue the opposite of a comment made by someone with great passion. Tonight I was at a dinner where a politician made a rousing speech. The bit that …

More