Esther McVey merely talks pants and clearly she does not wear them else they would be on fire! Yes its another of the bedroom tax bullshit stories emanating from McVey and probably a good reason why she doesn’t wear knickers though she clearly has a fur cost will all the spin (aka superficial bullshit) she comes out with
Today she has been extolling the bedroom tax and saying that it is working as it is freeing up properties and she is correct in that….except they are being freed up to remain empty and she only has to look at the largest social landlord in her Wirral constituency, Magenta Living.
In November at a public meeting held in Bromborough Wirral Magenta stated that before the bedroom tax came into operation they had about 15 or 16 empty properties (voids) that were 3 bedrooms or larger in size. Yet by November 2013 just 7 months after the bedroom tax they had on average 160 empty 3 bed or larger properties.
Firstly, that is an eight to ten-fold increase.
Secondly, it is an increase in number of 145 3 bed or larger properties that on average are empty and for which no income is being received. At an average of say £90 per week that is an additional rent loss of circa £700,000 per year ADDITIONAL rent loss to Magenta Living (formerly Wirral Partnership Homes, former Wirral Council Housing department.)
Of course the real loss is much more than that with Magenta (like all social landlords north of London) incurring higher costs of rent collection, higher costs of reletting every property, higher costs of additional staff in ‘welfare teams’ and in a number of other areas not least securing properties by tinning up…although like most landlords perspex rather than metal is the preferred option to escape housing blight.
Just over the water in Liverpool for example we see Cobalt Housing stating they are spending £2k more on each empty property in order to relet each property and such has been the level of empty properties there the landlord has managed to reduce the cost of perspex shutters to the cost of tinned ones!
However, back to McVey’s constituency in leafy Wirral. I lived there for many years and Wirral has never before had any problem reletting social housing prior to the bedroom tax. Three bed and larger social housing properties available have always been as rare as hen’s teeth….until McVey’s bedroom tax policy.
The official HB figures also prove what is happening in leafy Wirral as I now demonstrate with May 2010 figure and compare with latest figures (for November 2013)
At the election
- Wirral had 29,380 HB recipients
- of which 16,660 were social tenants (57%) and
- 12,720 private tenants (43%).
The latest figures show
- Wirral has 31,494 HB recipients – an increase of 2,114
- of which 16784 social tenants – a rise of 124 or 6% of the increase, and
- 14709 private tenants – and increase of 1990 and 94% of the increase
The significance of the huge rise in private tenants is the cost to the public purse. In Wirral a 3 bed private tenant receives £121.15 per week in LHA, the private sector version of HB. This is 35% MORE in HB than a social tenant receives or about £31 per week more.
So £31 per week more multiplied by 1990 more private tenants is an ADDITIONAL £62,000 per week cost to the public purse or and ADDITIONAL £3.2 MILLION PER YEAR and that is just in Wirral alone….in McVey’s constituency in other words.
Now in the same Wirral we see 3797 bedroom tax households who have been deducted on average £749.73 each per year. That means the bedroom tax has deducted £2.84 million from social tenants in Wirral ….Yes that’s the same Wirral that pays out £3.2m MORE in HB just to new private tenants!!
Now lets look at Wirral in terms of all private tenants.
As stated above we have 14,709 private tenants in receipt of HB and so if they each receive an average of just £25 per week more this means private tenants in McVey’s own constituency receive about
NINETEEN MILLION MORE PER YEAR IN HOUSING BENEFIT THAN IS PAID TO SOCIAL TENANTS IN WIRRAL.
Yes that would be £19m per year more than if these tenants lived in social housing.
So in today’s terms since the election McVeys own constituents in private rented housing have received £76 million more in additional housing benefit, that’s £76 million more in taxpayers money; £76m more to these private rented scroungers than to social housing scroungers and that’s just in Wirral. Nationally the figure since the election is over EIGHT BILLION POUNDS MORE than social housing tenants have received.
Anyone think the bedroom tax and reducing social tenant’s HB is the real issue here that government should be looking at? No I didn’t think so.
I needn’t ask whether anyone thinks McVey is being economical with the truth – that’s taken as a negative read dear reader given the lying virus that goes around DWP’s Caxton House – So anyone think that the government should be looking at private rented levels of HB which cost the country circa £2.2bn per year more than social housing …..Yes that same social housing McVey says is subsidised….which it is by £1.2bn per year or £1 BILLION a year less than the taxpayer gives to private landlords in added LHA costs over HB costs for private tenants.
Anyone care to remember last years English Housing Survey? The EHS is the largest measure of housing in the UK and produced by government. Yes the same one that said under occupation in social housing is a disgraceful 10 per cent…..oh and also said under occupation in private rented housing is sixty per cent higher at 16%!
Yes there is more under occupation in privately rented housing than there is in social housing!!
Funny how we never hear of that isn’t it reader and not just under occupation reader as there is more overcrowding in social housing than in privately rented housing too! Here is what the EHS says:
There was no significant change in overcrowding rates since 2010-11 for owner occupiers (1%), social renters (7%) or private renters (6%). Rates of under-occupation remained substantially higher in the owner occupied sector (49%) than in both the social rented sector (10%) and private rented sector (16%).
See social housing has more overcrowding at 7% compared with 6% in private housing. Yes and this government have been saying the bedroom tax is all about getting social tenants to downsize so poor downtrodden overcrowded private tenants can move in there! What was that reader you have been fed a pack of lies by the propaganda of this government? Yes of course you have, that is what governments do but especially this one and especially in this back of a fag packet bedroom tax policy.
Yes dear reader it is clear that McVey must have a fur coat!!