Liebrary: Is affordable housing in London intended for people on modest incomes? Actually the eligibility limit for this subsidy is a household income of £80,000!

UPDATE JAN 2017: One of the government's flagship home ownership programmes, the Help-to-Buy Mortgage Guarantee scheme, ended on 31st December 2016. It has helped more than 100,000 individuals or couples onto the property ladder. The Council of Mortgage Lenders said it had worked "exceptionally well", making mortgages more available when it started in October 2013.

However Shelter argued that the scheme helped to push up house prices, and only helped those who needed little or no help. They said: “Drawing on official statistics and analysis, this research finds that Help to Buy has added around £8,250 to the average house price. In other words, it has helped a small number of people to buy, at the expense of worsening the overall affordability crisis for everyone else.”

Meanwhile, the Tory’s more recent 'affordable' starter homes programme kicks off in 2017. But Shelter points out that these “affordable homes” will cost up to £450,000! No doubt the perverse results will be the same. READ ON...

"What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet" (Romeo & Juliet, Act2 Scene2).

Juliet's assertion applies both ways. A rip-off by any other name still stinks. You might think the 'affordable housing' policy is aimed at those who find it hard to afford their housing. There you would be right. You might think that the policy is aimed at people on low and modest incomes (e.g. nurses on £25k, firemen on £23k). There you would be wrong. After all, however much money you have there is always something that costs just a bit more than you can afford (think yacht, football club, income tax).

The sell-off of social housing in London starting in 1979 with the Tories' "Right to buy" scheme, rolled on virtually uninterrupted through the Labour government of 1997-2010, and continued into the Con-Dem coalition from 2010.

The original 'right' to buy at a considerable discount to market value (the discount was increased to up to £100,000 discount in London and £75,000 in the rest of the country in March 2013) was given specifically to public sector tenants. However this has been an open invitation to speculators entering into 'deferred purchase' agreements, where the council tenant has been the middleman - exercising his right to buy, and then selling on to private landlords both individuals and companies. A report by the Daily Mirror newspaper exposed the extent to which council housing has been taken over by private landlords:

"A Daily Mirror investigation found a third of ex-council homes sold in the 1980s under Margaret Thatcher were now owned by private landlords. In one London borough almost half of ex-council properties are now sub-let to tenants."

This opportunity to turn a profit is particularly succulent in London, where rents are literally streets ahead of anywhere else in the UK.

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171766_285163.pdf

Read More

Rip-off News round-up. Our pick of the last week's media (Thu 27th June)

Payday loans market faces competition inquiry

Office of Fair Trading suspects payday lenders of preventing, restricting or distorting competition. Payday lenders charge annual interest rates of more than 4,000% in a £2bn market, making up to 50% of their money from customers who extended or rolled over loans or incurred late payment charges. Lenders are using practices which make it difficult for consumers to identify and compare costs, and create barriers to switching when loans are rolled over. The regulator said variable levels of compliance with credit laws and guidance meant firms that invest time and effort to comply were at a competitive disadvantage. GUARDIAN

(Said one payday lender  that fully complies with the laws, “If it wasn’t for Osborne throwing tens of thousands into poverty every week, we’d be out of business by now.”)

Starbucks pays UK corporation tax for first time since 2009

A company spokeswoman said it had listened to its customers, paid £5m now, and would pay another £5m later this year. The move follows pressure from politicians and campaigners, and an agreement by world leaders last week to clamp down on corporate tax avoidance. Starbucks has only reported taxable profit once in 15 years in the UK, despite sales of £400m last year. To deflect public criticism, big tax dodging corporates highlight the jobs they creats, and the tax and national insurance they pay on behalf of their staff. But that is not the tax paid by the corporate. BBC NEWS

(“...It is, kind of. ‘Cos they’re paying the tax we dodge. And so are you!” said one joyous finance director...)

Drug companies accused of colluding with chemists to overcharge the NHS for drugs

Following a whistleblower tip-off, undercover reporters approached specialist pharmaceutical companies that discussed ways chemists could bill the NHS for more than they actually spent. One company described a "rebate" scheme, whereby the chemist would inflate their invoice to charge the NHS more than they actually paid for the drug. Hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money are feared to have been wasted in recent years due to the practice. TELEGRAPH

British Gas pays £10m to settle row after allegation it broke rules by failing to round down gas figures on bills

British Gas had been displaying the 'calorific value' figure to four decimal places on bills when Ofgem rules require it be rounded down to one decimal place. British Gas had been interpreting the rules this way for five years. British Gas argued that bills were no higher than they otherwise would have been because the sum lost from rounding down the figures would have anyway been recouped through higher retail prices. DAILY MAIL

Read More

Graphs at a glance - banker remuneration per head is now even higher than before the banker induced Credit Crisis

We are told again and again by our most respected people and organisations that their criminality, scandals, cock-ups and other miscellaneous failures were due to a previous group of people under a previous system and a previous bad old culture. We have been told this by:

• Grasping bankers ripping off everybody
• Venal newspapers bugging the innocent (as well as the guilty)
• Brutish policemen being racist
• Incompetent regulators failing to regulate hospitals and banks
• Ministers pressing regulators to not regulate (pardon the split infinitive, but it is clearer. Actually "to not regulate" should be classed as a verb in its own right, as it is the usual business of British 'regulators')
• Spies spying beyond the call of duty
• British industry bribing foreigners
• etc. etc.

We are told that all this naughtiness happened under previous systems and people, and that it has already changed, and the bad old culture has been cleaned up. We are told there is no need to keep a close eye on them, no need to investigate them further. Just leave them alone and trust them, we are told.

One of these 'bad things' that we are supposed not to worry about anymore has been excessive pay in the banking sector. The Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards released its report in June 2013, including a couple of graphs on banker pay. One of these exposes that far from 'excessive pay' being brought under control, it is now even higher than it was in the fat days before the 2008 crash.

Average pay per head in 2012 was actually much higher, (about 30% higher in Barclays, HSBC and Lloyds) than it was at the height of excessive pay in 2007 just before the crash:

Read More

Doctors pile on the pressure against NHS reforms

Cameron and Osborne can see the bright side...

Read More

How the rich and their servants in government blamed every body else for the excesses of the rich

It is not just a recent event, but events over the centuries. Politicians are bought by people with money.

This brilliant animated fairy tale is narrated by Ed Asner, with animation by Mike Konopacki. Written and directed by Fred Glass for the California Federation of Teachers. An 8 minute video about how we arrived at this moment of poorly funded public services and widening economic inequality. 

Things go downhill in a happy and prosperous land after the rich decide they don't want to pay taxes anymore. They tell the people that there is no alternative, but the people aren't so sure. This land bears a startling resemblance to our land.

For more info, www.cft.org. © 2012 California Federation of Teachers: 

Read More

Graphs at a glance: Are swingeing cuts to legal aid needed because the cost is ballooning out of control? Actually the Legal Aid bill has been falling for years.

The wealthy live more opulently than the poor. But generally speaking the expensively dressed wealthy don't themselves benefit from the tatty outfits of their less well heeled fellow citizens. Indeed, when they are able the wealthy take the trouble to dress their servants very well. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Amesservants.jpg

Old bangers breaking down on the road don't really make the man in his £50k motor car feel better. Broken down crocks just cause traffic jams to infuriate rich and poor alike. 

Few people take active pleasure in the poverty of others. They enjoy the inequality in the form of their own comfort, and just ignore the discomfort of the rest.

This is true with clothes and jewelry and houses and cars. It is true with private education and health. The wealthy buy their privileges. The principal benefit to the wealthy few of the poor services meted out to the majority is low taxes.

But this is not true of justice. Justice denied to one is justice escaped by another. The withdrawal of legal aid will mean those who can't afford to pay for their justice will not be able to afford to pursue those who can. According to a BBC report:

"The government is removing funding from entire areas of civil law. They include:

• Private family law, such as divorce and custody battles
• Personal injury and some clinical negligence cases
• Some employment and education law
• Immigration where the person is not detained
• Some debt, housing and benefit issues"

The BBC's list does not include the cuts for criminal cases, which are in addition to the above.

To justify pulling legal aid, we are told a host of fibs about how it is 'ballooning' out of control. So we looked around, and found some data in a report by the parliamentary select committee responsible for Justice:

1) Has the Legal Aid cost been ballooning? No: it has been falling since 2004:

2) Is this because the number of cases has been falling? No, they have been rising. In spite of rising number of cases since 2004, the costs have NOT been rising:

Read More

Junior Barristers ‘on £14 a day’ after proposed legal aid cuts

Fee and KJ are losing faith in British justice. Are you?...

Read More

Rip-off News round-up. Our pick of the last week's media (Thu 20th June)

Banking commission: Bankers should be jailed for 'reckless misconduct'

The Parliamentary Commission recommends jailing reckless bankers and enforcing a wait of up to 10 years for bonuses. The chancellor must restore confidence in the financial system by making top bankers more accountable following the 2008 bank bailouts, as well as a list of other offences including the Libor rigging scandal, and the shoddy treatment of customers mis-sold payment protection insurance. The commission also described UK Financial Investments, the body set up to look up after the taxpayers' stakes in the bailed-out banks, as a "fig leaf" to hide political interference by the chancellor. GUARDIAN
(Creating new laws is tough. How about we just photocopy Singapore’s...)

£1.5bn+ censure by Singapore of 20 banks for attempting to rig benchmark interest rates

UBS, Royal Bank of Scotland and ING have been told to set aside funds of over S$1bn (£500m; $800m) each. Another 16 banks have also been ordered to set aside lesser amounts, including Barclays, Deutsche Bank, JP Morgan and HSBC. Some of the cases have been referred to the police. BBC NEWS

(So much for the idea that foreign financial centres would stop at nothing to woo our “talented” bankers over there...)

Junior Barristers ‘on £14 a day’ after proposed legal aid cuts

£14 a day is well below the minimum wage. Law Society president Lucy Scott-Moncrieff branded the government’s current plans ‘bonkers’. The House of Commons justice committee, taking evidence from bodies representing the legal community, were told that the reforms should be put on hold to enable a full review of the criminal justice system. The reforms include the introduction of “lowest bidder wins” price-competitive tendering, the removal of client choice and fee cuts of 17.5%-30%. LAW GAZETTE

(“OK, but will we be able to represent ourselves?” said a roving gang of junior barristers caught shoplifting ‘cos they couldn’t afford to eat on £14 a day...)

Street lights may be turned off to help fund elderly care

Leaders from 370 councils have warned they might have to switch off street lights or close parks and libraries and use the money saved to provide elderly care, which is their legal obligation. To avoid this, they want specially protected NHS health budgets to be shared with them. TELEGRAPH

Read More

Will the G8 crackdown on global tax evasion ever happen?

Cameron and Obama hope nobody notices if it all just fades away...

Read More

Graphs at a glance: Are MPs underpaid? Actually their basic pay puts them above 95% of Britons

It is suggested that paying MPs more would get a better calibre of people into the Houses of Parliament. 

The reality is an MP’s basic pay puts him or her above the wages of more than 95% of Britons. 

The graph below uses HMRC figures for 2010-11 and an MP's basic salary that year of £65,738.

This does not include the other income MPs can derive directly from Parliament:

• Ministerial salaries (from an extra £26k for a whip, to £79k for a cabinet minister)
• Salaries for chairing select committees (Nearly £15k extra)
• Salaries paid to their spouses and children employed as their constituency staff. (See Part2 of their declarations, e.g. for May 2013 click here)

And it does not include money they earn within Parliamentary rules doing other jobs while still employed as an MP, including Gordon Brown MP and Stephen Philips QC MP whose other earnings dwarf their parliamentary salaries.

The Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA) did a survey of MPs, and found they too felt they deserved a pay rise. Though the amount of the increase over their then £66k basic salary varied by party:

Read More