GE Voting the facts and Corbyn is the bookies favourite as the next PM!

It was the young that all voted for Corbyn wasn’t it?  Or was it all the old codgers who allowed Theresa May to remain in office with the help of some religious terrorists?

How dare I disparage older people?  Yet it is somehow okay to blame ‘young people’ and infer they are all naive and have the idealism of youth?   And rest assured the usual suspects of the Tory Party, the right-wing media and all the political commentators who got the result so so wrong ARE blaming ‘young people’ for THEIR failure and incompetence!!

Now that I have that off my chest – and by the way I’m in my early 50’s – let’s have a look at who voted by age and a few other descriptors according to the Lord Ashcroft data which holds many surprises.

Voting by Age



The figures are all percentages of each age group and only record a CON or a LAB vote and hence do not add up to 100.  We see that between them the two main parties got between 79% and 85% of all votes by age group thus 15% – 21% voted for other parties such as Lib Dem, SNP etc.

Just as many older people voted Conservative as younger people voted Labour an both points have to be made.  The young voted Labour and the Old voted Tory yet the really interesting age group is the 35 – 44 year old’s who are likely to have mortgages and in their peak earning year and they voted 50% Labour and 30% Conservative.  Five in every eight of this age cohort voted Labour and that is significant and much more so when additionally the 45 – 54 age group were neck and neck at 40% to 39%.

These middle-aged (to turn a phrase) represent Middle England in political jargon and together they overwhelmingly voted Labour not Tory and did so for the ‘unelectable’ Corbyn.  To therefore reduce the general election vote to the naivety of the young, the irresponsibility of youth as inferred is patently FALSE.

In addition there is a much more significant voting pattern by gender than by age group

Vote by Gender

Why did far more men find May’s policies / leadership / personal integrity / whatever far more attractive than Corbyn’s? AND Why did far more women find Corbyn’s policies / leadership / personal integrity / whatever more attractive than May’s?

Corbyn’s policies / leadership / personal integrity / whatever is far less appealing to males in these voting outcomes than he is to females and this is significant as 45:55 is very much different then 51:49 – and a real concern for Corbyn and for the Labour Party.  Why is Theresa May far more appealing to males?

Given by all quarters (and rightly) that May run perhaps the worst election campaign in living memory, and perhaps by any potential Prime Minister and definitely by any incumbent Prime Minister this is a major worry for the Labour Party I suggest.

If we (admittedly simplistically) say that Corbyn easily came across as more personable and genuine than May, which he did by a country mile in my view, then the votes by gender are even more worrying for Labour.

Corbyn and the Labour Party still have some way to go although without any doubt the fact Corbyn and Corbyn-led Labour was portrayed ahead of and at the start of the general election as the bogey man and a radical 1970’s socialist dinosaur who wore socks with his sandals (blah, blah, blah) is an obvious factor and shows just how staggeringly well Corbyn Labour achieved.

The betting on the next general election sees all bookmakers have 2017 as the clear favourite and also sees Jeremy Corbyn at 11/10 to be the next Prime Minister after Theresa May with Boris Johnson at 5/2 so if you ever want an idea of just how tenuous Theresa May’s grip on the Prime Ministership is and just how strong the chances of Jeremy Corbyn being the next PM and also how fantastically well he did in the recent general election then there is your proof!

The above also means that dismissing Corbyn as only attracting 40% of the vote through the naivety of youth is simply and patently false.  We are likely to be continually fed this mistruth between now and the next general election as it is in the Tories interest and the right-wing biased media interest for obvious reasons and the old guard political commentariat interest to excuse their abject out-of-touch self-perceived omniscience that saw so many ‘smacked-arse’ faces when the exit polls were announced on June 8th at 10pm!

There are dozens of other nuanced aspects of the general election voting patterns by region and by socio-economic grouping and other factors that will be pored over by nerds and geeks by and large. Yet in summary by all means still be surprised by the result as almost everyone is, but do not be misled by its only the naivety of youth or similar claptrap (or should I say tripe!) that we are all being fed!


Bookies odds through




Women are second class say Theresa May, Michael Fallon and the Tories

What have Pink Floyd, Madness and Bessie Smith / Moody Blues all got in common?

Lyrics such as Hanging on in quiet desperation is the English way, you’re an embarrassment and Go Now all describe Theresa May in song.

Hanging on in quiet desperation WAS the English way yet no more and all those who say Theresa May calling an election was the worst political decision ever have not properly considered her decision to get into bed with the DUP which is a thousand times worse … for the Conservatives and I say with glee!

Social media is concentrating now on the DUP’s position on LGBT and its incredulous position on Creationism which make the US Tea Party and the religious right there look like progressive.  Yet Theresa May has jumped into bed with such a regressive bunch of religious extremists who believe a woman does NOT have the right to choose what she does with her own body.

Eight weeks ago we were told Corbyn was unelectable. Today we know for certain that the Conservative Party is unelectable.

Theresa May has forever pissed off the female vote for the Conservative Party in her desperation and that will come back to haunt the Conservative Party for decades in electoral terms.  I say, with sheer unadulterated joy, that the Tories are unelectable for decades with this decision and that is the reality of this attempt by Theresa May to hang on to the last vestiges of power in acute desperation.

As soon as the electorate know what the DUP really stands for and what it stands against so fervently and zealously in being anti-abortion and denying a woman’s right to choose then the Conservative Party is in the political wilderness for decades.

The voters individual position on abortion itself is of no consequence.  The issue is the Conservative Party are in bed with lunatics who believe a woman does not have the right to choose.  That will rub off from the DUP to the Conservative Party without doubt, and the fact the Conservative Party is led by a woman and a childless woman will I suspect be played out in the media and by woman and especially Mothers.

Yet the real issue, speaking as a man and no man can possibly fully understand abortion and its many nuances as much as they may try, is how dare you say that a human being of any gender does not have the right to choose what they can legally do with their body.

Theresa May has alienated the female voter in perpetuity.

Michael Fallon when asked about the DUP’s ‘social conservatism’ on the Marr show this morning and said the DUP will support us on the critical issues alone.

A woman’s right to choose says Michael Fallon is thus NOT a critical issue!

Let that sink in!

You don’t need a feminist diatribe to see just how offensive the position of Michael Fallon, Theresa May and the Conservative Party is, though shortly the national media will be full of them and regrettably in my view.

Every article that attempts to say just how offensive a position this is will be called a feminist diatribe and polemic in an attempt to disparage the author and to downplay this truly offensive position of saying what a human being can legally do with their own body.

The electorate does not NEED feminist diatribes and polemics on this issue for the reason that they should never be needed on this issue.  Any man who believes a woman does not have the right to choose is not a man but a cave man fighting the dinosaurs the DUP believe are a hoax and never existed!

Would you Adam and Eve it!

Don’t let Theresa May and the Conservative Party hang on in quiet desperation, shout it from the rooftops that they have to Go Now!



A weak and wobbly is a long time in Politics … Hail Corbyn

Jeremy Corbyn is electable and he has gravitas and credibility with a stunning leadership performance in the 2017 General Election … part 1.  Part 2 is an inevitability and has been from the exit poll announcement 12 hours ago and the next 12 – 24 hours is the critical time.

Not making rash statements or promises or speculating from all of the Labour Party is the key and Jeremy Corbyn should just sit back and watch the very publicly quiet Tories implode as they will.

Corbyn did not win the election yet the Tories lost heavily.

Let that sink in with the electorate as Theresa May is toast and what is the Tory and media political establishment knee jerk solution?  Boris Johnson!  Let that sink in too with the UK electorate as they will never vote him in as Prime Minister’ he’s a caricature and admittedly clever bumbling oaf yet he is never acceptable UK Prime Minister material.

You can even let May form a coalition with the DUP as that will unravel quicker than ‘strong and stable’ as the majority English UK electorate becomes aware of just how 18th Century the DUP views are!  Let the DUP fervent hostility to for example legalising abortion and so many other policies reflect on the Tory minority government and you will have the rest of the UK behind you when a new general election is called as it inevitably will be.

Be careful Mr Corbyn of the slightest comment from anywhere within your party, and it is very much your party as the right-wing media will jump all over it much more than the have in the last eight weeks.

You are the only credible leader of any political party to emerge from yesterday’s election and the media will be apoplectic about that.

You now have credibility and now need to prove your statesmanship.

Even those who voted Conservative will know you are credible, even they will have woken up this morning to some very strong coffee, however begrudgingly they may feel about that YOU are credible and credible as a Prime Minister as you have led your party from near oblivion and against hostility writ large within that party to a credible party of government.

Your manifesto in its detail and not just its costing was clever and there is no need whatsoever to embellish it with even more policies.  Your personal honesty and integrity has shone through and been liked immensely. That is something you cannot buy or teach or fake as so many politicians try; it is inherent and part of your DNA.  You are genuine and the real deal and so much more in-tune with the British public than anyone gave you credit for; don’t lose all that with rash and hasty utterings and make sure all of your party is similarly reflective.

Let the Tories implode as they undoubtedly will.

Let the public see the ambitious manoeuvrings of not just the immediately stated et tu Brute’s as Hammond, Johnson and Rudd have no credibility and are too much associated with May and failure in the ruthless eyes of the Tory establishment. Be wary of the many equally ambitious Tory MPs circling like vultures over Theresa May’s corpse whether it be Priti Patel and the younger MPs or IDS positioning himself as the steady caretaker leader of the post May Conservative Party and both of them were clearly positioning themselves in interviews late last night and early this morning.

Let the Tories implode!

In terms of the Labour Party you have many ambitious people too and mainly from the right of the party yet they are marginalised with that Blairite association despite the right-wing media referring to them as ‘heavyweights’ as those pundits could not believe that your (softish) left policies is what has turned around Labour fortunes so convincingly.

Getting rid of Abbott despite the outrageous and scurrilously racist and sexist diatribes against her in this election would be a smart move as she has no electoral credibility outside of her seat. The public need to see a ruthless streak in all Prime Ministers.

Barry Gardiner has shone in this election campaign and Barry Who on 18 April 2017 has become a real heavyweight today which neatly shows how yesterdays alleged heavyweights of Cooper, Umunna et al are what they are in former heavyweights not current ones.

Your loyal colleagues such as McDonnell and especially Thornberry have shone and have credibility and gravitas and represent a formidable front bench  … yet these were portrayed as no-hopers just 18 months ago and have become genuine political heavyweights.

Sit back Mr Corbyn and look at these huge positives and let the Tories implode as you have made the Labour Party a credible party of and for government which is a staggering achievement.

Enjoy what you rightly deserve




LHA Maxima Cap – The really nasty Conservative policy the electorate knows nothing about

What does a Tory government mean with their LHA Maxima Cap policy? Their what?  You know the 6 year old policy that takes effect in 2019 …

  • No more domestic abuse refuges – Stay and be battered and abused women after all you did promise to obey!
  • No more homeless hostels – We’ve already put rough sleeping up 234% since 2010 and closed 4,000 hostel beds thus nobody cares so we will get away with not having a roof over many more heads
  • No more sheltered housing – You’ll have to put Mum into a care home and lose your inheritance with the Dementia Tax to boot!
  • No more supported housing whatever the vulnerability – Mental Health is not a real disability is it say the Conservatives and note well the Dementia Tax applies to long term disabilities and social care and support needs of all kinds not just Dementia and to adults of all ages.  A new inheritance tax at 100% rates that has insurance companies orgasmic as how much they will make off the ill health of the vulnerable!
  • The bedroom tax for pensioners -Even pensioners who are not under occupying will be hit with this in low rent areas as the Tories levy the hated bedroom tax on around 500,000 pensioners by this back door method in 2019

That is what the Conservative LHA Maxima Cap policy means and it is a policy that Labour have quite rightly committed to abandon in their manifesto.

Yet it is a policy that has never come up in this general election campaign, a six year old Conservative policy the electorate knows nothing about and a policy that will affect somebody we know over the next  five years and what you are voting for when you vote Conservative.

All of the above statements are true in this complex policy – and by complex I mean it is deliberately intended to be complex that it can’t be easily explained in the hope the electorate will not see what it means.

It is also a policy of Machiavellian deceit that sees the Conservatives able to blame local councils when (and not if) your local hostel, refuge, supported or sheltered housing service closes.  We gave your council the money they will say and hope you don’t see the complexity beneath this superficial deceit and lie.

In Conservative ideology, the LHA Maxima Cap policy (you know the one you haven’t heard or read about) dovetails beautifully with the Dementia Tax policy as the reduction in supported and sheltered housing provision the LHA Maxima Cap policy obviates means your loved one, your parents have severely reduced options to avoid the Dementia Tax.

Imagine the look on your Mother or Father’s face when they realise all of their hard work is all for nought when they can’t pass on their home to you and your children to give you a better start in life than they had?  At least they will stop fighting and die quicker though in much more pain and anguish than you could ever imagine when they believe they have failed you and your children by this asset grabbing Conservative policy.

It makes no odd that they have paid 30, 40 or 50 years of National Insurance to pay for their care in old age and they have been fed this lie all their working lives, they will know their home, their asset to give you a better start than they had will be forcibly sold by the Conservative friends, the insurance companies to pay for their care and sees the ideology of getting old a massive financial opportunity for the private sector and not a burden on the state.

If your Mother, Father, Sister, Brother gets a long term illness in the next 5 years the Conservatives will make them pay and will repossess the home they have bought and cherished with a lifetime of hard work and paying for.

If anyone you know in the next five years gets a disability, an incapacity, becomes homeless, needs to flee domestic violence and abuse or just simply gets old they are in dire straits indeed with the LHA Maxima Cap policy of the Conservatives.

This is the policy you have never been told about except in obscure blogs such as this: Indeed it was the reason I first started blogging when the Conservatives first raised the policy in July 2011 and despite being almost 6 years old it has received no coverage in the mainstream national media.

You would have thought issues such as you will have to put Mum into a care home as there is no sheltered housing or any female you know will not be able to find a domestic violence and abuse refuge or there will be far more people homeless including children would have been issue worthy of discussion in the national media.

Yet obviously not! The Conservatives know and use well that electoral truism of never underestimate the naivety of the voter and never more so than with their six year old LHA Maxima Cap policy!

How Tory and inept is the social housing sector? … Very!!

How can the National Housing Federation, the Chartered Institute of Housing and all other social housing umbrella groups who all claim to speak with all politicians have missed that the Labour Party manifesto will get rid of the Tories LHA Maxima cap policy that will close all supported housing including refuge, hostel and sheltered housing?

How can all the usual housing journalists also miss exactly the same thing?

How can all social landlords also miss the same thing and all of the policy officers, policy analysts and business planners and strategist also miss this?

It either describes incompetence or a knowledge of but deliberate choice not to mention, which is the same as political bias or a combination of these.  Yet there is no doubt that the housing ‘sector’ have not commented on this at all.

A question that flows from this is also how incompetent is John Healey who as Labour’s Housing Minister has not told all housing actors that Labour will save supported housing whereas the Tories will close it due to the offensive LHA Maxima Cap policy?

For a sector that is more and more focusing on holistic joined-up policy with health and social care partners in order to uprate the importance of housing – which it should have done but hasn’t done for decades – such as sheltered housing with regard to hospital admissions and bed blocking in the NHS the non consideration and non-awareness that Labour will get rid of the LHA Maxima policy is ineptitude writ large.

It is true only a minority of social landlords have significant supported housing / supported living exposure yet a great many have exposure to sheltered housing in all its forms and some are exposed to the LHA Maxima Cap policy with their general needs stock too in low rent areas, which also sees the back door bedroom tax for pensioners even those who are fully occupying hit by the policy as I have detailed previously.

This significant policy affects the politically deserving and undeserving which has always been reflected in social landlord priorities too with the sector going out of its way to bend over backwards for deserving sheltered tenants and domestic abuse provision and a come-day go-day apathy for undeserving client groups such as young single homeless and other NIMBY cases … yet this getting rid of the Tory LHA Maxima cap policy affects the aforementioned deserving sheltered housing provision in much greater numbers and has simply been MISSED by the incompetence of the sector!

Thinking that Labour has no chance of office maybe explanation but it can never be excuse for such incompetence and oversight and the fact that Labour could form a majority coalition with around 270 seats (with SNP support) or even 255 or so with Lib Dem and SNP minority partners is not far-fetched at all given the latest opinion polls.

The Labour manifesto said at p64 that

And the mini-housing manifesto doubly confirms:

Why has the sector leaders, who I regularly refer to mockingly as the ‘great and the good’ NOT been aware of this Labour Party policy. It is quite clear that Labour has canvassed and spoken with all actors about the LHA Maxima cap policy in saying “…charities, housing associations and councils all say will lead to the closure(s)….” yet there has been not one word coming from NHF, CIH or anyone else including the housing media and its ‘great and good’ commentariat either!

All the usual suspects have been deafening in their silence!

I do’t need to draft yet another post that the social housing sector is not social at all, that is had no social purpose and it cares little about its customer in the tenant.  The facts speak for themselves on that.  Neither do I need to restate that is a corporate stance of the sector and doesn’t reflect the vast majority of views of housing professionals working within the sector.  Nor do I have to correctly state this reveals that the influence of tenants groups in the sector is woeful.

Yesterday I posted why it is a no brainer for all social tenants to vote Labour as it is in their best interests by a country mile AND it is also hugely in the best interests of all 8 million private tenants too, which it is.  The Labour Party policy on housing is vastly in the best interests of around 14 million renters who are voters … now think just how much rented housing would jump up the political agenda if only tenants knew that and if only social landlord s promoted that!!!

It is also greatly in the best interests of anyone renting and saving for a mortgage deposit too!  Yet despite all of that this election like all preceding general elections we have seen rented housing be yet again a non issue, one that scarcely got any mention at all in TV debates or in the national media … yet tenants are a huge latent electorate force that social landlords once again ignore in their myopic stupidity and deluded views of self-importance.

Tenants are voters and far more powerful than even a united housing sector would be yet the great and good of the sector ignore once again …

Plus ca change!


Affected by the Housing Crisis? Here’s why you must vote Labour

Social housing tenants need to vote Labour on Thursday, that’s ALL circa six million or so social tenants, and because it is in their best interests to do so.  No need for any political bias as its a no brainer in every possible way as I detail here

It is also in the best interests of every privately renting tenant and in the best interests of anyone saving for a mortgage deposit and in the best interest of every social landlord to vote Labour.  Again the facts clearly show this.

Labour housing policy in its manifesto makes all the above statements a no brainer for any tenant. Among many other housing and housing-related policies in the manifesto Labour promise:

  • The bedroom tax is gone and will be ended by July.
  • The LHA maxima cap is history and thus hostels, refuges and sheltered will not close as they will under Conservative plans
  • More new housing is promised than the Conservatives in overall numbers
  • Much more social housing makes it cheaper to rent and easier and quicker to save for a mortgage deposit and more can move away from much higher private rents and no letting agent fees too.
  • Labour promise social housing at social rent levels while the Tories reneged and did a U-turn on this which sees £4000 more in rent for ‘affordable (sic) rent’ on average in London and £4000 less per year of saving for a mortgage deposit.

As always I evidence my analysis with facts and the facts are there in the manifesto and the Conservatives and Theresa May herself duped the electorate, the Financial Times, the President of the Chartered Institute of Housing and Inside Housing and others and then did a U-turn by first promising ‘social rent’ which has a London average of £112 per week and then said they meant ‘affordable rent’ which averages £187 per week and £4000 more in rent and /or Housing Benefit ‘welfare’ per year.

The Details

Bedroom Tax – is a longstanding commitment to abandon (p58) and can be done by issuing a Statutory Instrument (SI) to repeal it that gives 28 days notice. This is what the Tories did to repeal the pre 1996 loophole and cock-up in early 2014 and needs no further comment.

LHA Maxima Cap – is abandoned on page 64 and very surprisingly has been missed by the entire housing sector.  All of the policy analysts, policy officers, and commentators have simply NOT read Labour’s manifesto which makes it clear when it says:

“We will also take action to tackle the root causes of homelessness, including safeguarding homeless hostels and other supported housing from crude Conservative cuts to housing benefit.”

More housing units – I detailed this here and we see the Conservatives promising over 25,000 fewer new housing numbers than Labour promises.

Type of housing – Labour policy has been very clear that of the 200,000 new homes per year that there will be half -100,000 – being social housing.  They also state significantly that they will allow local councils to borrow against their assets to build in the manifesto and that policy is exactly the same as the Daily Telegraph wanted!

Strange bedfellows indeed yet more importantly it means:

  • more chance of existing and new private renters getting social housing,and
  • saving more and more quickly for a deposit, and
  • no payments of letting fees and …

… All the many more benefits social housing provides which the social housing sector have never sold to the public in their collective idiocy for at least thirty five years!  Paying less in rent also of course means a much greater incentive to take up employment as you have to earn less to afford, just another obvious factor social housing has never sold to the public and especially the electorate.

Tory U-turn on ‘social rent’ to ‘affordable rent’

The Conservatives and Theresa May personally said in an announcement in early May they will have many more houses at “social rent” as she did here 

“That’s why we will fix the broken housing market and support local authorities and housing associations to build a new generation of council homes right across the country. Giving tenants a new right to buy these homes when they go on the market will help thousands of people get on the first rung of the housing ladder, and fixed terms will make sure money is re-invested so we have a constant supply of new homes for social rent.”

Even the Financial Times were duped into believing the policy would be for social rent and indeed so was the President of the Chartered Institute of Housing Gavin Smart in this article from 15 May

The Conservatives also promise new “fixed-term social houses”, which would be sold on after 10 to 15 years of being leased out at social rents, with tenants having the first option to buy. Mr Smart said that proceeds of these sales should be fully committed back into new housing, unlike those of the existing Right to Buy programme.

Yet a few days ago on 2 June and two weeks after the Conservatives has promised “social rent” Gavin Barwell the last Housing Minister said this:

A “new generation of homes for social rent” promised by the Conservatives will be at affordable rent levels which can be up to 80% of the market rate, the housing minister has admitted. …. Asked if the new homes would be let at “low level council rents”, he replied: “No, I think the idea is that they are what you’d call affordable rents in housing terminology, but they are social housing.

The difference is staggering in rent terms between “social rent” and “affordable rent” as the official DCLG figures show:

The average social rent in London is £112 per week yet the average affordable rent is £187 per week and £75 per week higher.  This is almsost £4000 per year more in rent and either £4000 more paid by the tenant or £4000 per year more paid in Housing Benefit.

The average social rent in the regions is £83 compare with £114 per week in affordable (sic) rent and 38% more which again is more for the tenant or the Housing Benefit bill to pay.

The difference when extrapolated to the promised numbers of new housing is around £400 million more paid in rent per year and around £340 million of that paid by Housing Benefit.

Over a parliament that is a £2 billion hike in rents and a further £1.7 billion on the ‘welfare’ bill through increased Housing Benefit which means the Conservatives need to either tax £1.7 billion more or have an additional £1.7 billion of cuts to pay for the increased Housing Benefit bill.  These are significant amounts!

Social landlords would also benefit significantly from the removal of the bedroom tax and the abandonment of the LHA Maxima policy as they would from the reinstatement of the £30 per week cut to ESA WRAG recipients and from their tenants no longer having to go through the fundamentally flawed assessment process for disability benefits which not only is a premeditated sham, it costs around £160 million more per year to administer than from the ‘savings’ it creates.

Social landlords and social tenants would also benefit from the £10 per hour minimum wage pledge which reduces Working Tax Credit yet increases Housing Benefit and overall leaves the tenant better off and the Treasury better off and the taxpayer better off too – I did a detailed example of it here to prove the point with those pesky facts called numbers!


The benefits for all tenants in both sectors involved and affected by the Housing Crisis (in reality many housing crises that impact differently inter and intra-regionally and in many case vary even within any local authority.

There are 4.3 million or so social rented households which means at a cautiously low figure some 6 million eligible voters in social housing alone. Those 6 million will include adult children who can’t get on in life due to high private rents and the removal of Housing Benefit for the under 22s is just another Tory policy that Labour will remove.

Existing social tenants, their children and grandchildren too, will be better off with Labour.  The existing private tenant will have more choice and at a greatly reduced cost and therefore all will be able to save for a deposit more and mire quickly.

Those who rent will be so much better off with Labour’s housing policy and if we do vote for what is in our own best interests, which is entirely reasonable and logical, then at least 6 million renters should vote Labour as they would be a fool not to.  Housing costs are typically the highest expenditure item we have and if they are going to fall (through increased supply and moving from PRS to SRS) and enable those who rent to save a deposit a quicker route up the housing ladder then it is madness for the renter not to vote Labour.

If renters voted for Labour and/or against the Conservatives in their area then 6 million or votes for Labour either directly or indirectly would happen … and every renter existing and prospective and every aspiring home owner saving for a deposit would benefit and we would much much quicker take home ownership rates back up to their peak of 71% (under Labour in 2004) and up from their now 64% under the Conservatives … a policy of greater home ownership (rightly or wrongly) is what both Labour and the Conservatives seek and the best way for that to happen is to vote Labour this Thursday.


The Labour manifesto has its faults and scandalous omissions for example it says absolutely nothing on the overall benefit cap policy and if they do get into power (which they can with 276 seats and if the SNP retain their 50 in Scotland so not far-fetched at all) then rest assured I will be as critical of them as I have been with the hopefully last Tory lot!


Vote Labour for Housing – You know it makes sense!

The Labour Party manifesto will abandon the bedroom tax and will restore housing benefit for those under 22 (page 54) and will abandon the LHA Maxima Cap policy (page 64) which seriously threatens the closure of existing supported housing and all new homeless hostels, refuges, disabled housing projects and sheltered housing.

If you are a social landlord or social tenant then there is no doubt that voting Labour is in your best financial interests in terms of Housing Benefit.

Additionally the increase in the national minimum wage will see a significant Housing Benefit cut to the 1.1 million HB recipients who are in-work and thus reducing the massive £5.8 billion per year subsidy that HB is for low paying UK employers and noting it was £2.8 billion in May 2010 and had 0.65 million recipients.

This means those who are able to work will benefit as I pointed out here as you will have more net income and the government will also be paying out less in welfare and get more in the tax and NI take.

The abolition of the work capability assessment and the restoring of the £30 per week ESA cut will also help those tenants who are unable to work too and by extension help social and private landlords as tenants will have more money to pay the rent.

There are around 4.3 million social tenant households containing circa 6 million eligible voters and all of them are better off financially if they vote Labour.

Labour also promise to ensure that all rented properties are fit for human habitation as the manifesto states on page 62:

Renters are spending 9􀀜.6 billion a year on homes that the government classes
as ‘non-decent’. Around a quarter of this is paid by housing benefit. A Labour government would introduce new legal minimum standards to ensure properties are fit for human habitation’ and empower tenants to take action if their rented homes are sub-standard.

That is beneficial to private rented sector tenants as well as social tenants, working or not, and it is a f*cking outrage that the last Conservative government voted down by talking out a Bill to ensure all homes are fit for human habitation.

It is natural for those who vote to say what is in it for me, all voters, and there is no doubt that all renters would be better off voting for Labour … and that is 36% of the entire population!

It begs the question why the Labour Party itself makes so little to date of the clear advantages for all renters that the Labour manifesto gives for existing renters.