Is The Rise In Homelessness A Result Of Govt Welfare Reform?

[Kromovaracun]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41241021

http://news.sky.com/story/welfare-reforms-fuel-rise-in-homelessness-says-national-audit-office-11033248

According to the National Audit Office, the 60% rise in homelessness and 134% rise in rough sleepers since 2010 is highly likely to have been caused by the government's welfare reforms, including a four-year freeze on housing benefits while rent prices increased dramatically.

Do you find this a plausible explanation? If so, do you believe these measures are justified?

[jim360]

Thing is that the UK's population growth has been fairly stable, at about 0.8% a year for the last decade, so the surge in homelessness in the last few years can't entirely be explained away as an inevitable consequence of population growth, although it will certainly be a contributing factor.

Also I was going to suggest poor rates of housebuilding, but even that's not going to do because -- although it's still lagging behind -- it does seem as if rates for that are increasing lately, so it doesn't do to blame that either.

The most significant policy change of recent years that might drive low earners out of their houses would be the reductions in Housing Benefit. I don't think it can be dismissed as having an impact. Enough to explain it all? Probably not. But it can't help.

[Garaman]

Yes, I know my logic is askew, Naomi, I thought that was the theme.

[New Judge]

The simplest answer is this:

Although 0.8% sounds fairly insignificant, in the last year the population grew by 538,000. There simply isn't accommodation for 538,000 people just lying around waiting to be used and we are not building anything like sufficient homes to cope with the increase. Something has to give and it is the most vulnerable (in terms of earning power, etc.) that are probably bearing the brunt. An increase of more than half a million people annually is simply unsustainable, and not only in terms of homes.

[Garaman]

It is not about a shortage of housing, it is about a shortage of affordable housing.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/03/number-empty-homes-hits-highest-rate-20-years-calling-question/

[Togo]

//According to the National Audit Office, the 60% rise in homelessness and 134% rise in rough sleepers since 2010 //

Aahh the famous static tics! How about actual numbers. Were these % increases a % increase by or a % increase to? For instance 350 increased by 60% is 510.

[pixie374]

There are so many things- all those mentioned plus the increase in people living alone and having more than one family or house.

[jim360]

I'm not saying that 0.8% isn't significant, NJ, I'm saying that it's been fairly flat. It's not clear that essentially constant growth can lead to a spike on its own. Perhaps things have reached a crisis point in terms of suddenly no houses being available but that doesn't wash, as I say -- the UK has faced a housing shortage for decades, so it's nothing new.

Trying to blame this solely on population growth is certainly too simplistic. I'm not saying that the Government's Welfare Policy is the main cause, either: just that you can't explain this away so easily as you are trying to.

[New Judge]

"It's not clear that essentially constant growth can lead to a spike on its own"

It's because we've finally run out of houses!

Seriously, I'm not saying it's the sole cause, but I believe it is a very big contributory factor.

[Spicerack]

100 people live in houses in Jimland and 1 person is homeless.
A N Other moves there resulting in a 100% increase in homelessness.
Not, however, a 100% increase in the population, garaman.

[Garaman]

Spicerack, I am quite good at maths thanks. See my post at 19:32, I took it that the theme of the thread was to exaggerate our case to absurdity.

[Spicerack]

Sorry. Just trying to simplify things so you'd understand. ;)

[naomi24]

Garman, //Yes, I know my logic is askew, Naomi, I thought that was the theme. //

Why would you think that? You've lost me.

[Kromovaracun]

Erm the suggestion that this rise - which has only been happening since 2010 - is significantly affected by population growth seems a bit implausible to me. For one thing, +1 to the population does not necessarily mean +1 house needed, because (for example) a 3-month-old baby does not need its own house.

Is it not more plausible that the govt's benefits cap and cuts to housing benefit have exacerbated the problem with declining wages and low job security (neither of which are entirely unrelated to govt policy) to push people out of their homes?

Furthermore if population growth is such a big factor, why do you think the NAO's report stresses other things?

[naomi24]

Krom, //a 3-month-old baby does not need its own house.//

Three month old babies don’t come to this country of their own volition, but other people do. However I see no mention of them in that report.

//Furthermore if population growth is such a big factor, why do you think the NAO's report stresses other things?//

Why indeed? The Auditor General says that "Homelessness in all its forms has significantly increased in recent years, driven by several factors”. Nevertheless, the link manages to ignore the ‘several factors’ preferring instead, with the support of the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, Labour’s Meg Hillier, to concentrate solely on government reforms. Disingenuous to say the least – but no surprise there.

[mikey4444]

Its obvious that cuts in public spending, plus changes to the welfare system, must have had an effect. Alba is right....this rise is shocking.

[naomi24]

Incidentally, Krom, this from 2004…..

//The number of homeless households forced to live in temporary accommodation has more than doubled since Labour came to power,//

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1478930/Homeless-households-double-under-Labour.html

…. so contrary to your claim that it’s “only been happening since 2010” … it hasn’t.

[naomi24]

Mikey, I imagine government reforms have had an effect, but they are not the sole reason for the increase as is being suggested. More people require more homes - homes that aren't available. It surely can't be that difficult to understand.

[New Judge]

"Furthermore if population growth is such a big factor, why do you think the NAO's report stresses other things?"

Because the last thing any government-sponsored organisation would be encouraged to do is to suggest that over-population is a problem. It's bleeding obvious that if the population increases by half a million (which it has) and sufficient extra homes are not made available (which they haven't) then homelessness will increase. Rocket science it ain't.