David Cameron can't be blamed for his upbringing, but he can be blamed for his lack of humanity in the face of basic need
David Cameron and his wife, Samantha, in
Chipping Norton, Oxfordshire, where they have a home. 'Cameron has chosen to
ignore the fact that just under half those under-25s have children themselves,
or are ill, disabled, from abusive homes, or care leavers. Perhaps if Cameron
came from a home like this, he would think before he speaks.' Photograph:
Indigo/Getty Images
The real divide in modern Britain is not between strivers and shirkers, but
between those who were lucky enough to buy homes before 1997 and those who were
not. Unless we tackle the housing crisis, homelessness is going to become a
mainstream problem. Working families can't afford to buy, and aspiring
homeowners are trapped renting. As the number of homeless families in B&B
grows, the safety net will become more dangerous for those it is designed to
protect.
No council wants to stick families into appalling conditions, but previous administrations have left little choice. Labour talks about the cost of living, but did nothing about the cost of housing for a decade. Our broken housing market is Labour's legacy as much as the Tories' – under Labour, the number of affordable homes fell by 420,000. This year Lib Dems secured enough money – £3.5bn – to increase the number of affordable homes by 55,000 a year.
I am not saying there should not be some conditionality; it should never make
more sense to stay on benefits than to work. But if we are serious about both
cutting the housing benefit bill and reducing youth unemployment then we need to
do two things.
First, the government needs to concentrate on long-term solutions. Cameron wants to provoke debate about "radical change" in welfare but until you create radical change in housing, any savings will be swallowed by increasing rents. Put simply: we need to build a lot more homes. Investing in housing is a golden opportunity for the UK – each extra home built each year creates three to four jobs. So I'm clueless as to why the plight of the overcrowded, the stuck-at-home and the homeless has not been prioritised. It could have been win-win.
Second, we need to protect the ability of young people to move to where jobs are. Graduates looking for hi-tech jobs shouldn't be frozen out of the market just because their parents don't live in London or Cambridge. What better way to widen social, regional, rural and urban divides than to prevent young people moving?
There's no denying that the country faces difficult decisions on welfare; you could theorise for hours on what the role of the state should be. But using people for a cheap headline won't help. The Lib Dems will continue to make the case for housing that works for everyone – to protect the vulnerable, to ensure mobility and security, and to tackle housing benefit with new homes, so that supply meets real human need.
Guardian
No council wants to stick families into appalling conditions, but previous administrations have left little choice. Labour talks about the cost of living, but did nothing about the cost of housing for a decade. Our broken housing market is Labour's legacy as much as the Tories' – under Labour, the number of affordable homes fell by 420,000. This year Lib Dems secured enough money – £3.5bn – to increase the number of affordable homes by 55,000 a year.
But 55,000 is nowhere near
enough. It is up to all three parties to seek new solutions. While the Tories
want to cut
housing benefit for under-25s, the Lib Dems are determined to engage our
brains before we speak in order to tackle the root causes of the housing crisis.
David Cameron's argument for removing this support sounds reasonable: why should
some young people live at home while they save up to buy or rent, while others
get something for nothing; shouldn't we stop those (feckless) youths being able
to claim housing benefit?
However, the only people
who would suggest this cut are those who have never experienced housing need at
a young age (at least not without a bailout from well-off parents). Cameron has
chosen to ignore the fact that just under half those under-25s have children
themselves, or are ill, disabled, from abusive homes, or care leavers. To cut
off housing benefit would be to punish them for circumstances outside their
control. Perhaps if Cameron came from a home like this, he would think before he
speaks. He can't be blamed for his upbringing, but he can be blamed for his lack
of humanity in the face of basic need. The Lib
Dems have fought to protect housing benefit for young people.
First, the government needs to concentrate on long-term solutions. Cameron wants to provoke debate about "radical change" in welfare but until you create radical change in housing, any savings will be swallowed by increasing rents. Put simply: we need to build a lot more homes. Investing in housing is a golden opportunity for the UK – each extra home built each year creates three to four jobs. So I'm clueless as to why the plight of the overcrowded, the stuck-at-home and the homeless has not been prioritised. It could have been win-win.
Second, we need to protect the ability of young people to move to where jobs are. Graduates looking for hi-tech jobs shouldn't be frozen out of the market just because their parents don't live in London or Cambridge. What better way to widen social, regional, rural and urban divides than to prevent young people moving?
There's no denying that the country faces difficult decisions on welfare; you could theorise for hours on what the role of the state should be. But using people for a cheap headline won't help. The Lib Dems will continue to make the case for housing that works for everyone – to protect the vulnerable, to ensure mobility and security, and to tackle housing benefit with new homes, so that supply meets real human need.
Guardian
