Peak Corbyn!

[Giz]

Corbyn appears to be parodying himself:

"Labour will buy every homeless person in the UK a house if the party is elected, Jeremy Corbyn has announced.*

He also highlighted plans to allow councils to take over properties that have been left "deliberately" empty in order to house people who are on waiting lists around the country.*"


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...ounces-labour-will-buy-every-homeless-person/

How corbyn can you go?

 

[smartcooky]

In typical "Telegraph" fashion, the sensationalist headline does not actually reflect what is really said in the article.

Can you spot the difference?

Jeremy Corbyn announces Labour will buy every homeless person in the country a house

The party leader said he would purchase 8,000 homes "immediately" and give them to people sleeping rough around the UK.

 

[Darat]

Corbyn appears to be parodying himself:

"Labour will buy every homeless person in the UK a house if the party is elected, Jeremy Corbyn has announced.*

He also highlighted plans to allow councils to take over properties that have been left "deliberately" empty in order to house people who are on waiting lists around the country.*"


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...ounces-labour-will-buy-every-homeless-person/

How corbyn can you go?

You are against the government saving money?

 

[lionking]

You are against the government saving money?

Please show how supplying "free" housing to homeless people will save government money.

 

[zooterkin]

Please show how supplying "free" housing to homeless people will save government money.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/housing-first-homeless-charlotte_n_5022628

It's cheaper to give homeless men and women a permanent place to live than to leave them on the streets.

That’s according to a study of an apartment complex for formerly homeless people in Charlotte, N.C., that found drastic savings on health care costs and incarceration.

First hit I found, though it's something I've read elsewhere, too. I think I saw it in something Stevyn Colgan wrote, which means that there's probably a good basis for it.

 

[lionking]

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/housing-first-homeless-charlotte_n_5022628



First hit I found, though it's something I've read elsewhere, too. I think I saw it in something Stevyn Colgan wrote, which means that there's probably a good basis for it.

Thank you. I will look at this.

 

[Darat]

Please show how supplying "free" housing to homeless people will save government money.

The NAC figure for 2017 was over a billion pounds in government spending on homelessness.

8000 homes all at the average UK house price of just over £222k is about if me maths is right £1.8 billion. So over two years it will have saved around £200 million. But to be realistic there will of course still be admin costs and so on so lets say that £200 million is used for that so we only start making savings in the third year. That's a billion a year being saved at year 3.


Of course the issues aren't as simple as this but lets be fair all we are doing is laughing at the spin in the opening post by being just as simplistic.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

The NAC figure for 2017 was over a billion pounds in government spending on homelessness.

8000 homes all at the average UK house price of just over £222k is about if me maths is right £1.8 billion. So over two years it will have saved around £200 million. But to be realistic there will of course still be admin costs and so on so lets say that £200 million is used for that so we only start making savings in the third year. That's a billion a year being saved at year 3.


Of course the issues aren't as simple as this but lets be fair all we are doing is laughing at the spin in the opening post by being just as simplistic.

Not to mention that at least some of the formerly homeless people will presumably end up getting jobs and paying rent and taxes.

 

[GlennB]

The NAC figure for 2017 was over a billion pounds in government spending on homelessness.

8000 homes all at the average UK house price of just over £222k is about if me maths is right £1.8 billion. So over two years it will have saved around £200 million. But to be realistic there will of course still be admin costs and so on so lets say that £200 million is used for that so we only start making savings in the third year. That's a billion a year being saved at year 3.


Of course the issues aren't as simple as this but lets be fair all we are doing is laughing at the spin in the opening post by being just as simplistic.

Ah, but those are just the savings. The homes would also be owned by the govt. or local authority or whoever funded the scheme, so the capital isn't 'lost'. Just make it, please please please, a public sector initiative.

 

[Aber]

The NAC figure for 2017 was over a billion pounds in government spending on homelessness.

8000 homes all at the average UK house price of just over £222k is about if me maths is right £1.8 billion.

Why stop there?

What impact do you think that a "sleeping rough => free house" policy would have on people's behaviour?

Do you expect the number sleeping rough to go up or down?

 

[Garrison]

Why stop there?

What impact do you think that a "sleeping rough => free house" policy would have on people's behaviour?

Do you expect the number sleeping rough to go up or down?

Really? You think people are going to give up, homes, jobs and families and in pursuit of social housing? All of course assuming that the authorities are stupid enough to accommodate people who make themselves purposefully homeless? Do you have any evidence the numbers have gone up where such schemes have been tried? Or any better plan for helping the homeless?

 

[Aber]

Really? You think people are going to give up, homes, jobs and families and in pursuit of social housing? All of course assuming that the authorities are stupid enough to accommodate people who make themselves purposefully homeless? Do you have any evidence the numbers have gone up where such schemes have been tried? Or any better plan for helping the homeless?

Homelessness extends far further than "sleeping rough". If you're sofa surfing, or in a hostel or even temporary bed and breakfast, then a policy that says sleeping rough gets you to the front of the queue, and "the government will buy a house for you" will have unforeseen consequences.

Current policies do work, many of the homeless have far more complex problems than simple lack of a home, and demand for good cheap housing is near infinite. I might not have anything better to suggest than the current approach, but I know a stupid soundbite from a politician when I hear it.

 

[dudalb]

Ah, but those are just the savings. The homes would also be owned by the govt. or local authority or whoever funded the scheme, so the capital isn't 'lost'. Just make it, please please please, a public sector initiative.

If the Homeless are helped, why does it matter if the sector involved is public or private?
Unless you think the Private Sector is fundemendality immoral...

 

[Garrison]

Homelessness extends far further than "sleeping rough". If you're sofa surfing, or in a hostel or even temporary bed and breakfast, then a policy that says sleeping rough gets you to the front of the queue, and "the government will buy a house for you" will have unforeseen consequences.

Again, similar policies have been enacted elsewhere, please present your evidence that this has caused an increase in people sleeping rough?

 

[Planigale]

Really? You think people are going to give up, homes, jobs and families and in pursuit of social housing? All of course assuming that the authorities are stupid enough to accommodate people who make themselves purposefully homeless? Do you have any evidence the numbers have gone up where such schemes have been tried? Or any better plan for helping the homeless?

Not all homeless people are unemployed. Many of these may be sofa-surfing or living out of their car, or hostels. The consequence may be a shift to 'sleeping rough', if this prioritises getting social housing.

 

[Garrison]

Not all homeless people are unemployed. Many of these may be sofa-surfing or living out of their car, or hostels. The consequence may be a shift to 'sleeping rough', if this prioritises getting social housing.

Corbyn is advocating providing housing for those in the most desperate need in addition to other policies to improve social housing. And I'd like to ask the question that I still haven't seen an answer to, is there any evidence from other places where similar policies have been tried that it produces an increase in rough sleepers?

 

[Darat]

If the Homeless are helped, why does it matter if the sector involved is public or private?
Unless you think the Private Sector is fundemendality immoral...

If they are being helped with tax payer money I want it to be done as efficiently as possible, in this case profit is just an additional cost for the tax payer so I'd like to see it taken out of the overall costs so either it leaves more money for other government spending or we get a tax decrease.

 

[Hubert Cumberdale]

If the Homeless are helped, why does it matter if the sector involved is public or private?
Unless you think the Private Sector is fundemendality immoral...

That's not an unreasonable thing to think. There is no shortage of examples of private business inflicting pain, suffering, and death on people in the pursuit of profits.

 

[Darat]

If the Homeless are helped, why does it matter if the sector involved is public or private?
Unless you think the Private Sector is fundemendality immoral...

That's not an unreasonable thing to think. There is no shortage of examples of private business inflicting pain, suffering, and death on people in the pursuit of profits.

Think the word should be "amoral" not immoral.

 

[baron]

As with most of Corbyn's announcements it's designed to appeal to teenage / 20-something idealists with little experience of the world who fizz with delight at the idea of voting compassionate, pro-active, stick-it-to-the-rich Labour at the next election.

Housing is a small aspect of any solution, and the easiest to solve. The major problem under the umbrella of 'housing' is not even the physical number of houses, rather the bias against rough sleepers when applying for social housing. More pertinently, unless the issues that caused these people to become homeless in the first place are addressed, along with the addiction dependencies on drugs and alcohol which a great many homeless people have, then sticking them in some flat somewhere won't achieve a thing.

The studies amuse me as they assume that as soon as a homeless person enters a house their health issues, their criminal offending, their mental state, their addictions, all fix themselves and the burden on the taxpayer is thus alleviated.

Corbyn really is a nasty little man. He knows all this full well, he's not stupid. He knows too that it would be impossible to change the law to allow enforced seizure of empty private properties. What he's doing is using the issue of homelessness to garner votes from his idealist base, all the while knowing that it will not help the homeless one iota. Of course, he could build on what the government is doing now to combat homelessness, and announce a stronger, feasible, wide-ranging social policy plus additional funding, but all that's a bit complicated for his voter base so a quick soundbite is preferable. "Take from the rich and give to the poor!" "Oooooh Jeremy Corrrrbyn!" Sad.