Housing Bubbles
The Centre for Economics and Business Research (CEBR) is predicting that house prices in London are set to rise by more than 50% in the next 6 years taking the average cost of a home to an incredible level - more than £700,000.
Now that's good news for the relatively small number of people currently living in London who want to seek out and move somewhere cheaper, home or abroad, because they will cash in on a capital asset which has grown hugely in value through no effort of their own.
No doubt lots of Westminster MPs who have properties in London with public funds will be rubbing their hands with glee, but for everyone else this is a disaster waiting to happen because galloping house price inflation can only harm the wider economy, especially when mortgage payers are already benefiting from the historically low interest rates that the UK has been enjoying since 2008.
London set for 54% rise in house prices
By Alexandra Goss - The Sunday Times
Properties in London already cost more than double the UK average
HOUSE prices in London could rise by 54% by 2020, taking the average price of a home in the capital to more than £700,000.
The Centre for Economics and Business Research (CEBR) think tank expects average prices across Britain to increase by 6.4% this year to £240,758 and by 28% by 2020 to £307,374. In London it thinks average values will soar to £703,206 by 2020.
“A significant improvement in economic growth, continued government support through the Help to Buy scheme, weak housing supply and low Bank of England base rates are all expected to support price rises over the next five years or so,” said Shehan Mohamed, senior economist at the CEBR.
The average London price has risen by 18% over the past 12 months and properties already cost more than double the UK average, the widest gap since records began in the 1970s, according to Nationwide building society.
Forecasts last week by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors predicted price rises of 6% annually over the next five years, with London growing by 9.3% a year.
A first-time buyer requires an income of almost £40,000 to afford an average mortgage across Britain. If the typical London house price reached £700,000, buyers with a 10% deposit would need an income of at least £125,000 to be approved for a loan, said Ray Boulger, of the mortgage broker John Charcol.
Boulger does not expect such rapid annual growth for London, however. “I think the current divergence between London and the rest of the UK is at its peak,” he said.
Dominic Lawson was bang on the money with this piece in the Independent recently - about the insanity of rising house prices combined with the effect of artificially low mortgage interest rates.
Taken together these two policies represent a huge subsidy for people in relatively secure work and with a big mortgage - because the value of low mortgage interest rates far outweigh any drop in this group's living standards over recent years.
The big losers are people in work but who don't have a mortgage - those who rent or people who have retired - yet government policy is mainly focused on helping existing property owners which is likely, as Dominic Lawson points out, to fuel another housing bubble.
The real solution is to build more houses particularly in the south east where demand is at its greatest - and that's where I think bonkers Boris Johnson might actually be right about a new 21st century airport in the Tames Estuary - which would free up the whole of the Heathrow Airport site and the construction of 300,000 new homes complete with first class transport links.
Now that would take house prices in London down a peg or two.
Help to Buy is a dangerous political placebo...
...but rising house prices are among the economic figures making Labour feel sick
Now here’s a paradox. The Labour Party is choosing to make the cost of living the central point in its attacks on the coalition: you’ve never had it so bad. So you might think that rising house prices would fit in nicely to Ed Miliband’s critique. Think again. The fact that house prices have been rising in real terms for the past three months is causing Labour to twitch and the Tories to feel chipper.
Odder still, this particular rise in the cost of living is the consequence of deliberate policy by the Chancellor, George Osborne: under the slogan Help to Buy, his last budget offered up to £130bn of tax-payer funded support as security for mortgages that banks would otherwise have refused to underwrite. That is on top of his Funding for Lending scheme, which was intended to increase the credit supply to businesses, but which in practice has flooded into home loans.
Given that the growth in the country’s housing stock has been extremely sluggish, even as family formation has increased, the result is obvious: homes are getting more expensive again, not just in London (where there never was a collapse) but across the nation. Yet, as I say, this is widely taken as good news for the incumbent government.
One reason for this paradox is that unlike standard purchases, the home is seen as an asset whose value can increase and thus provide a gain in wealth. And when its value – on paper— does go up, that tends to makes the owner feel happier. The fact that the same owner will realise that increase in wealth only if he sells without having to buy something else of similar size; well, that side of the equation only causes pain when people actually do need to buy again. But just 3 per cent of the housing stock is actually bought and sold each year, so during that time there are 97 per cent of home-owners sitting back and enjoying an increase in their psychic wealth.
This is only a disaster for first-time buyers; it is precisely such people, most of whom can put down just a very small amount of cash, that Osborne’s latest scheme is designed to help. And for all borrowers, the combined effects of keeping Bank of England rates at abnormally low levels and the simultaneous injection of vast sums into bank balance sheets through quantitative easing, has made it possible for those in secure employment to get mortgages for as little as 1.5 per cent per annum.
So happy days are here again? Maybe not for long. These low rates for borrowers are not just abnormal but unsustainable. Normally, base rates are about 2 per cent above inflation, and the cost for individuals to borrow against property is about 2 per cent above that. In other words, the normal rate for a home loan, with inflation at around 3 per cent as it is now, should be at least 7 per cent. And it will be, when the money printing tap is turned off, and the government can no longer simply underwrite the bond market by buying its own debt.
What proportion of those now borrowing at say, 2 per cent, will be able to continue paying the mortgage installments when they are at 7 per cent – that is, three and half times more, in terms of cash required to meet the bill each month? A lot less than 100 per cent of them, that’s for sure. This was exactly the mechanism that caused the credit crunch—and the annihilation of vast swathes of the banking sector. Cheap mortgages in the United States, admittedly many of them self-certified in a way which would now not be possible, suddenly became not so cheap when rates began to move up quite sharply in 2007. It then turned out that many lenders — or the firms to whom they sold on their loans— were completely unprepared for the scale of debt delinquency. Result: bust.
The other aspect of this debacle was that successive US governments, obsessed with the idea of extending home ownership to poorer families, had instructed the state-insured mortgage firms Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to direct at least half their loans to borrowers with below-average incomes. George Osborne’s Right to Buy might not have the institutionalised lobbying power of Fannie and Freddie—which had senators and congressmen in their pockets — but as a financial mechanism it is identical.
The only good thing in this potentially disastrous policy is that it gives the Financial Policy Committee of the Bank of England the right to end the scheme after three years; and the new Bank governor, Mark Carney, said earlier this month that “if Help to Buy is contributing to an underlying vulnerability to risk in the UK economy, I would fully expect that the Financial Policy Committee would not expect to extend it.”
Yet this presupposes that the scheme had indeed been contributing to economic vulnerability, rather than sustainable growth. It is also what one would expect. Perhaps the biggest long-term problem with the British economy is the way in which too much money has — with the active connivance of successive governments— been sunk into housing, and not enough into goods which actually have productive potential. As Adam Smith, the great prophet of market economics, observed centuries ago: a home is a grand thing for the people who live in it, but contributes nothing to anyone’s revenue –including the owner’s (unless it is rented out).
Fortunately, it is now not just the unproductive sector of the economy which is emerging, blinking, into the sunlight. Manufacturing is growing, with the car industry leading the way: the industry at one point in 2012 became a net exporter, for the first time since the 1960s. That is nothing like the turnaround in the oil and gas industry in the US, where fracking has caused a doubling of that country’s energy exports in the last year alone: it remains to be seen whether the motley band of c-list celebrities, eco-fruitcakes and full-time protestors manages to block the expansion of the British gas-production business – and with it the chance for our indigenous industries to benefit as US firms have done from low-cost local gas.
Regardless, George Osborne has already been able to refute his opposite number Ed Balls’ charge, made in 2011: “We were told that public sector job cuts would be outweighed by the rise in private sector jobs…it has been a complete fantasy.” Yesterday the Office for National Statistics released figures showing that while public sector employment has fallen by 423,000 under the coalition, private sector jobs have increased by 1.3 million; and last year the rise in private sector employment was almost five times the size of the drop in public sector jobs.
These are the figures which have caused the almost hysterical outbursts within the Labour Party atEd Miliband. Their original policy of waiting for the economy to win the election for them is past its sell-by date. Worse still for the opposition, Osborne’s highly political home loans policy is working like a happy pill – even though it’s a dangerous placebo.
I've been saying for a long time that in these tough economic times people living in rented accommodation have been getting a raw deal compared to their neighbours and friends who have a mortgage.
And that's because mortgage payers have seen their housing costs fall significantly over the past five years with interest rates being at artificially low levels - whereas the cost of rented accommodation keeps going up as this article from the BBC web site shows with a big increase of 7.63% in West Dunbartonshire Council, for example.
Yet to add insult to injury the Scottish Government has announced extra spending on free school meals for a Primary 1-3 school pupils which is worth £114 million over two years or around £330 a year for each child - for families with children.
But not to the less well off families of course because their children already receive free school meals, so all these extra millions of pounds are going to support the better off - like Scotland's school teachers who enjoy much better than average pay.
Now Scotland's largest teaching union, the EIS, has been campaigning in support of these changes which is understandable as it is clearly in the interest of EIS members, but the bigger question is "Is such a policy fair and socially responsible?".
I say "No" because in my view the money would be much better spent on targeting the the less well off instead of further cushioning the lives of the better paid, especially when you stop and think that the majority of teachers will have been benefiting from the mortgage situation over the past five years.
So if you ask me, the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament has got this all wrong - the lower paid are the ones who deserve a break not people in already well paid jobs.
West Dunbartonshire Council announces housing rent rise
Rents for council house tenants in West Dunbartonshire are to rise by 7.63% from 1 April, it has been announced.
The council said the increase would add an extra £4.67 each week to the average weekly rent over the year.
Housing convener, Cllr David McBride, said the rent rise was "needed to pay for the major improvements required to our properties".
He added: "Increasing rents is never an easy decision but I believe our tenants understand why we need to do this."
P1-3 pupils in Scotland to get free school meals
Scottish ministers followed suit, partly by using extra money going to Scotland, through the Barnett Formula, as a consequence of the English plan.
Mr Salmond said the Scottish government announcements would bring improvements, but fell short of the childcare revolution which Scotland needed.
Ahead of the independence referendum on 18 September, the Scottish government said all three and four-year-olds, and vulnerable two-year-olds, would get 1,140 hours of childcare a year by the end of the first parliament, in the event of a "Yes" vote.
But opposition parties said SNP ministers had the devolved powers to realise their childcare plans now.
Mr Salmond told MSPs: "We need to create a tax welfare and childcare system that doesn't plunge children into poverty, as the UK government is doing, that puts us on a par with the best childcare systems in the world.
In the run up to Christmas Scotland's largest teaching union, the EIS, burst into fairy-lights by demanding that Scotland's 'share' of the extra public spending announced recently by the Coalition Government at Westminster - should be used to provide free school meals to all children in primaries 1, 2 and 3.
Now this is serious money we're talking about - around £60 million a year, I think, because Scotland will expect to get 10% or so of the extra public spending announced by the Chancellor, George Osborne, in his autumn statement.
Which is of course a free handout of taxpayers money to people who earn above average incomes - because school meals are already free to people on low incomes and to those claiming benefits.
So, the big beneficiaries of the new policy in England and Wales are the better off - since the less well off gain absolutely nothing from extending free school meals to children whose working parents are perfectly well able to meet the cost themselves.
In fact the policy benefits people exactly like EIS members, as I can't believe that any of Scotland's teachers currently qualify for free school meals - as things stand.
But if I had a Magic Wand, I would target this £60 million on the less well off and probably not just those with children - since that leaves out a great many people who have never had children or whose kids have grown up.
To my mind, £60 million spent on those most in need, would do far more good than spreading £60 million across the whole population - or in this case just people with children of a certain age.
Now some people say that social benefits should be 'universal' or available to everyone on the same basis - free NHS prescriptions in Scotland are a good example although they are not really free since the cost is met out of general taxation.
Yet this approach does not apply to the cost of housing and I've written before about the £20 billion windfall that mortgage payers have enjoyed in recent times which has not been shared with people who rent their homes or living on a fixed income.
So why not use the extra money in a more meaningful and imaginative way, for example, by holding down rents in the social housing sector?
Because this particular group within the Scottish population has not benefited from the artificially low interest rates that Scotland's mortgage payers have experienced in the past 5 years - which means that since 2008 mortgage payers have effectively been receiving special treatment as far as their standard of living is concerned.
A much better and fairer use of £60 million, if you ask me, as such a policy would put a significant amount of money in the pockets of those at the bottom of the income ladder - instead of subsidising members of the teaching profession and EIS (Educational Institute of Scotland).
The statistics tell their own tale - Scotland's share of the great £20 billion mortgage windfall is around £2 billion which makes £60 million look like chickenfeed.
So the argument about universality, about everyone being treated the same way, does not stand up to serious scrutiny.
I read something the other day - a claim by an organisation know as the Family and Parenting Institute (FPI) - of which I know very little.
Presumably it does what it says on the tin - seeks to speak up for families with children - because the FPI claims that average income of households with children will drop between 2011 and 2016.
By 4.2% would you believe or around £1,250 a year - depending on the exact income of the household in question.
But I say - so what - what does that have to do with the price of mince?
Because unless you factor in other things - such as how much some households have benefited from our artificially low mortgage rates - then the FPI's claim is completely meaningless.
I know some folks - some with others without children - who are saving hundreds of pounds every month necause of low interest rates - worth many thosuands of pounds a year.
So spare me all this special pleading from special interest groups - as ever they are concerned with their own narrow agenda - and have no time for the big picture.
And the big picture means big savings - not for everyone - but for those paying mortage interest when rates dropped like a stone - and the bigger the mortage the bigger some people's windfall.
Here's what I had to say on the issue in 2011 - no doubt the £20 billion figure now needs to be revised - in an upwards direction.
'All in this together' (September 15th 2011)
When people start urging us to take the view that 'we are all in this together' - it's time to stop and think.
Who's 'we'? - will do for a start.
The fact is that not everyone in the UK has been doing badly in these hard economic times - in fact people who are in a secure job and who have been paying a mortgage off - are doing very nicely thank you very much!
Compared to lots of other people anyway.
And just to demonstrate this point here's something I wrote back in March 2011 - arguing for a 'windfall tax' on the £20 billion that mortgage payers have saved in recent years - as a resul tof artificially low interest rates.
Now the people who are not part of this £20 billion windfall are - typically - the less well off and those on fixed incomes who rely on their savings - which produce little or no interest these days - to help pay the bills.
So why don't we hear any of this at the TUC conference - where delegates are good at telling everyone else what to do - but seldom come up with practical ideas for resolving problems.
A special windfall tax would recoup just some of the £20 billion that mortage payers have gained - simply through sheer luck - and it would seem to embrace the 'were all in this together approach'.
Which the present government and the trade unions both espouse when it suits their own argument, of course.
I imagine most union leaders are paying mortgages - because most live in private housing - and most will have benefited hugely out of the artifically low interest rates - we have witnessed in recent times.
Ironically the one union leader who would escape a special 'windfall tax' on mortgages - would be Bob Crow - who has been living in subsidised social housing in London for years.
But a windfall tax on mortgages would be redistribute income between the 'haves' and 'have nots'.
A windfall tax would be progressive because it would tax 'unearned income' - and would be likely to affect the majority of delegates this year's TUC.
In other words - a real life demonstration of solidarity - that we really are 'all in this together'.
Windfall Tax On Mortgages (March 4th 2011)
I read a remarkable statistic the other day - which made me stop and think.
The Financial Services Authority (FSA) has apparently calculated that the UK's artifically low interest rates in recent years - have meant an unexpected windfall of £20 billion to the nation's mortgage payers.
Yet another example of the old saying - 'It's an ill wind that blows nobody any good'.
In this case £20 billion to the good - and the bigger the mortgage - the bigger the killing people have made - without any effort or risk.
While those who can't afford or no longer need a mortgage (e.g. low paid workers and pensioners) - have lost out big time, comparatively speaking.
So I have a suggestion for the government and our policy makers.
Bring in a special windfall tax on mortgages which claws back some of this £20 billion - and use the money to reintroduce the 10p tax rate to help the low paid.
Low paid workers will spend the money - because they don't have a lot to start with - and that will help to boost the economy.
Readers will remember that the 10p tax rate was abolished by the 'man with a moral compass' - Gordon Brown - in one of his worst decisions as Prime Minister.
But here's a chance to right a great wrong - help the lower paid - boost our flagging economy - and with money that has simply fallen into people's laps by sheer luck - nothing else.
HOUSE prices in London could rise by 54% by 2020, taking the average price of a home in the capital to more than £700,000.
The Centre for Economics and Business Research (CEBR) think tank expects average prices across Britain to increase by 6.4% this year to £240,758 and by 28% by 2020 to £307,374. In London it thinks average values will soar to £703,206 by 2020.
“A significant improvement in economic growth, continued government support through the Help to Buy scheme, weak housing supply and low Bank of England base rates are all expected to support price rises over the next five years or so,” said Shehan Mohamed, senior economist at the CEBR.
The average London price has risen by 18% over the past 12 months and properties already cost more than double the UK average, the widest gap since records began in the 1970s, according to Nationwide building society.
Forecasts last week by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors predicted price rises of 6% annually over the next five years, with London growing by 9.3% a year.
A first-time buyer requires an income of almost £40,000 to afford an average mortgage across Britain. If the typical London house price reached £700,000, buyers with a 10% deposit would need an income of at least £125,000 to be approved for a loan, said Ray Boulger, of the mortgage broker John Charcol.
Boulger does not expect such rapid annual growth for London, however. “I think the current divergence between London and the rest of the UK is at its peak,” he said.
Housing Bubbles (24 August 2014)
Dominic Lawson was bang on the money with this piece in the Independent recently - about the insanity of rising house prices combined with the effect of artificially low mortgage interest rates.
Taken together these two policies represent a huge subsidy for people in relatively secure work and with a big mortgage - because the value of low mortgage interest rates far outweigh any drop in this group's living standards over recent years.
The big losers are people in work but who don't have a mortgage - those who rent or people who have retired - yet government policy is mainly focused on helping existing property owners which is likely, as Dominic Lawson points out, to fuel another housing bubble.
The real solution is to build more houses particularly in the south east where demand is at its greatest - and that's where I think bonkers Boris Johnson might actually be right about a new 21st century airport in the Tames Estuary - which would free up the whole of the Heathrow Airport site and the construction of 300,000 new homes complete with first class transport links.
Now that would take house prices in London down a peg or two.
Help to Buy is a dangerous political placebo...
...but rising house prices are among the economic figures making Labour feel sick
Now here’s a paradox. The Labour Party is choosing to make the cost of living the central point in its attacks on the coalition: you’ve never had it so bad. So you might think that rising house prices would fit in nicely to Ed Miliband’s critique. Think again. The fact that house prices have been rising in real terms for the past three months is causing Labour to twitch and the Tories to feel chipper.
Odder still, this particular rise in the cost of living is the consequence of deliberate policy by the Chancellor, George Osborne: under the slogan Help to Buy, his last budget offered up to £130bn of tax-payer funded support as security for mortgages that banks would otherwise have refused to underwrite. That is on top of his Funding for Lending scheme, which was intended to increase the credit supply to businesses, but which in practice has flooded into home loans.
Given that the growth in the country’s housing stock has been extremely sluggish, even as family formation has increased, the result is obvious: homes are getting more expensive again, not just in London (where there never was a collapse) but across the nation. Yet, as I say, this is widely taken as good news for the incumbent government.
One reason for this paradox is that unlike standard purchases, the home is seen as an asset whose value can increase and thus provide a gain in wealth. And when its value – on paper— does go up, that tends to makes the owner feel happier. The fact that the same owner will realise that increase in wealth only if he sells without having to buy something else of similar size; well, that side of the equation only causes pain when people actually do need to buy again. But just 3 per cent of the housing stock is actually bought and sold each year, so during that time there are 97 per cent of home-owners sitting back and enjoying an increase in their psychic wealth.
This is only a disaster for first-time buyers; it is precisely such people, most of whom can put down just a very small amount of cash, that Osborne’s latest scheme is designed to help. And for all borrowers, the combined effects of keeping Bank of England rates at abnormally low levels and the simultaneous injection of vast sums into bank balance sheets through quantitative easing, has made it possible for those in secure employment to get mortgages for as little as 1.5 per cent per annum.
So happy days are here again? Maybe not for long. These low rates for borrowers are not just abnormal but unsustainable. Normally, base rates are about 2 per cent above inflation, and the cost for individuals to borrow against property is about 2 per cent above that. In other words, the normal rate for a home loan, with inflation at around 3 per cent as it is now, should be at least 7 per cent. And it will be, when the money printing tap is turned off, and the government can no longer simply underwrite the bond market by buying its own debt.
What proportion of those now borrowing at say, 2 per cent, will be able to continue paying the mortgage installments when they are at 7 per cent – that is, three and half times more, in terms of cash required to meet the bill each month? A lot less than 100 per cent of them, that’s for sure. This was exactly the mechanism that caused the credit crunch—and the annihilation of vast swathes of the banking sector. Cheap mortgages in the United States, admittedly many of them self-certified in a way which would now not be possible, suddenly became not so cheap when rates began to move up quite sharply in 2007. It then turned out that many lenders — or the firms to whom they sold on their loans— were completely unprepared for the scale of debt delinquency. Result: bust.
The other aspect of this debacle was that successive US governments, obsessed with the idea of extending home ownership to poorer families, had instructed the state-insured mortgage firms Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to direct at least half their loans to borrowers with below-average incomes. George Osborne’s Right to Buy might not have the institutionalised lobbying power of Fannie and Freddie—which had senators and congressmen in their pockets — but as a financial mechanism it is identical.
The only good thing in this potentially disastrous policy is that it gives the Financial Policy Committee of the Bank of England the right to end the scheme after three years; and the new Bank governor, Mark Carney, said earlier this month that “if Help to Buy is contributing to an underlying vulnerability to risk in the UK economy, I would fully expect that the Financial Policy Committee would not expect to extend it.”
Yet this presupposes that the scheme had indeed been contributing to economic vulnerability, rather than sustainable growth. It is also what one would expect. Perhaps the biggest long-term problem with the British economy is the way in which too much money has — with the active connivance of successive governments— been sunk into housing, and not enough into goods which actually have productive potential. As Adam Smith, the great prophet of market economics, observed centuries ago: a home is a grand thing for the people who live in it, but contributes nothing to anyone’s revenue –including the owner’s (unless it is rented out).
Fortunately, it is now not just the unproductive sector of the economy which is emerging, blinking, into the sunlight. Manufacturing is growing, with the car industry leading the way: the industry at one point in 2012 became a net exporter, for the first time since the 1960s. That is nothing like the turnaround in the oil and gas industry in the US, where fracking has caused a doubling of that country’s energy exports in the last year alone: it remains to be seen whether the motley band of c-list celebrities, eco-fruitcakes and full-time protestors manages to block the expansion of the British gas-production business – and with it the chance for our indigenous industries to benefit as US firms have done from low-cost local gas.
Regardless, George Osborne has already been able to refute his opposite number Ed Balls’ charge, made in 2011: “We were told that public sector job cuts would be outweighed by the rise in private sector jobs…it has been a complete fantasy.” Yesterday the Office for National Statistics released figures showing that while public sector employment has fallen by 423,000 under the coalition, private sector jobs have increased by 1.3 million; and last year the rise in private sector employment was almost five times the size of the drop in public sector jobs.
These are the figures which have caused the almost hysterical outbursts within the Labour Party atEd Miliband. Their original policy of waiting for the economy to win the election for them is past its sell-by date. Worse still for the opposition, Osborne’s highly political home loans policy is working like a happy pill – even though it’s a dangerous placebo.
Who Gets What and Why? (6 April 2014)
I've been saying for a long time that in these tough economic times people living in rented accommodation have been getting a raw deal compared to their neighbours and friends who have a mortgage.
And that's because mortgage payers have seen their housing costs fall significantly over the past five years with interest rates being at artificially low levels - whereas the cost of rented accommodation keeps going up as this article from the BBC web site shows with a big increase of 7.63% in West Dunbartonshire Council, for example.
Yet to add insult to injury the Scottish Government has announced extra spending on free school meals for a Primary 1-3 school pupils which is worth £114 million over two years or around £330 a year for each child - for families with children.
But not to the less well off families of course because their children already receive free school meals, so all these extra millions of pounds are going to support the better off - like Scotland's school teachers who enjoy much better than average pay.
Now Scotland's largest teaching union, the EIS, has been campaigning in support of these changes which is understandable as it is clearly in the interest of EIS members, but the bigger question is "Is such a policy fair and socially responsible?".
I say "No" because in my view the money would be much better spent on targeting the the less well off instead of further cushioning the lives of the better paid, especially when you stop and think that the majority of teachers will have been benefiting from the mortgage situation over the past five years.
So if you ask me, the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament has got this all wrong - the lower paid are the ones who deserve a break not people in already well paid jobs.
West Dunbartonshire Council announces housing rent rise
Rents for council house tenants in West Dunbartonshire are to rise by 7.63% from 1 April, it has been announced.
The council said the increase would add an extra £4.67 each week to the average weekly rent over the year.
Housing convener, Cllr David McBride, said the rent rise was "needed to pay for the major improvements required to our properties".
He added: "Increasing rents is never an easy decision but I believe our tenants understand why we need to do this."
P1-3 pupils in Scotland to get free school meals
The Scottish government matched a plan being introduced in England
All Scottish P1-P3 pupils will get free school meals from January 2015, First Minister Alex Salmond has announced.
He said the move, affecting 165,000 youngsters, would boost health and was worth £330 a year for each child to families.
The move matches a plan being introduced in England, in September this year.
Opposition parties accused the Scottish government of playing catch-up, and taking credit for Westminster policies.
The first minister also told the Scottish Parliament that free childcare would be expanded to every two-year-old from a workless household in Scotland by August, affecting about 8,400 youngsters.
Mr Salmond said a further extension of the policy to reach 15,400 two-year-olds by August 2015 would see Scotland delivering 80 million hours of childcare to pre-school children, which he said was the greatest amount in the UK.
The free meals announcement came after UK ministers announced plans to offer pupils in the first three years of primary school in England a free cooked lunch.
All Scottish P1-P3 pupils will get free school meals from January 2015, First Minister Alex Salmond has announced.
He said the move, affecting 165,000 youngsters, would boost health and was worth £330 a year for each child to families.
The move matches a plan being introduced in England, in September this year.
Opposition parties accused the Scottish government of playing catch-up, and taking credit for Westminster policies.
The first minister also told the Scottish Parliament that free childcare would be expanded to every two-year-old from a workless household in Scotland by August, affecting about 8,400 youngsters.
Mr Salmond said a further extension of the policy to reach 15,400 two-year-olds by August 2015 would see Scotland delivering 80 million hours of childcare to pre-school children, which he said was the greatest amount in the UK.
The free meals announcement came after UK ministers announced plans to offer pupils in the first three years of primary school in England a free cooked lunch.
Scottish ministers followed suit, partly by using extra money going to Scotland, through the Barnett Formula, as a consequence of the English plan.
Mr Salmond said the Scottish government announcements would bring improvements, but fell short of the childcare revolution which Scotland needed.
Ahead of the independence referendum on 18 September, the Scottish government said all three and four-year-olds, and vulnerable two-year-olds, would get 1,140 hours of childcare a year by the end of the first parliament, in the event of a "Yes" vote.
But opposition parties said SNP ministers had the devolved powers to realise their childcare plans now.
Mr Salmond told MSPs: "We need to create a tax welfare and childcare system that doesn't plunge children into poverty, as the UK government is doing, that puts us on a par with the best childcare systems in the world.
"That is why the future of Scotland's children is the future of Scotland, and why Scotland's future is an independent one."
Scottish Labour leader Johann Lamont said the free school meals plan was promised by the SNP in 2007, but never delivered, adding: "Now it has been reprised, because the UK government has acted on it and provided the money."
She said of Mr Salmond's childcare vision: "What he had was an opportunity to show his new-found commitment to childcare was more than a referendum ploy and start delivering for working families and children now."
Ruth Davidson, the Scottish Conservative leader, added: "A cynic might say that the SNP, having promised the earth and failed to deliver for years, has only now re-discovered its commitment to free school meals because the coalition government is delivering it.
"Today, we have a Westminster policy delivered with Westminster money, and the SNP playing catch-up but trying to claim the credit."
From Democracy Live: Alex Salmond announced his plan in parliament
However, the free school meal and childcare expansion plan, being funded at a total cost of £114m over two years, was welcomed by Scottish Liberal Democrat leader Willie Rennie, a long-time campaigner on the issue.
"The best educational investment we can make is in two-year-olds, because that can change their life," he said.
"If we're going to break the inter-generational cycle of poverty we can make efforts at later stages - we can do stuff about youth unemployment, we can try and improve life chances through schools - but the best impact we can make is in doing it at the age of two."
John Dickie, head of the Child Poverty Action Group, told BBC Scotland the school meals announcement was long overdue, adding: "The pressures on families and their ability to support their children are extraordinary, so providing a free school lunch to children in primary one to primary three is a very immediate, direct and well-evidenced way of supporting families at a time of increasing pressures."
Scottish Labour leader Johann Lamont said the free school meals plan was promised by the SNP in 2007, but never delivered, adding: "Now it has been reprised, because the UK government has acted on it and provided the money."
She said of Mr Salmond's childcare vision: "What he had was an opportunity to show his new-found commitment to childcare was more than a referendum ploy and start delivering for working families and children now."
Ruth Davidson, the Scottish Conservative leader, added: "A cynic might say that the SNP, having promised the earth and failed to deliver for years, has only now re-discovered its commitment to free school meals because the coalition government is delivering it.
"Today, we have a Westminster policy delivered with Westminster money, and the SNP playing catch-up but trying to claim the credit."
From Democracy Live: Alex Salmond announced his plan in parliament
However, the free school meal and childcare expansion plan, being funded at a total cost of £114m over two years, was welcomed by Scottish Liberal Democrat leader Willie Rennie, a long-time campaigner on the issue.
"The best educational investment we can make is in two-year-olds, because that can change their life," he said.
"If we're going to break the inter-generational cycle of poverty we can make efforts at later stages - we can do stuff about youth unemployment, we can try and improve life chances through schools - but the best impact we can make is in doing it at the age of two."
John Dickie, head of the Child Poverty Action Group, told BBC Scotland the school meals announcement was long overdue, adding: "The pressures on families and their ability to support their children are extraordinary, so providing a free school lunch to children in primary one to primary three is a very immediate, direct and well-evidenced way of supporting families at a time of increasing pressures."
Analysis
BBC Political editor, Scotland
Alex Salmond's critics suggested his enthusiasm for free school meals was driven by external factors: the availability of cash from the Treasury as a consequence of the previous announcement of a comparable scheme for England; a desire to cosset parents - and especially mothers - with an eye to the referendum.
The first minister insisted he was persuaded by the advantages of the policy: it encouraged uptake including among those who were nominally eligible at present; it improved the health and wellbeing of youngsters and thus their educational attainment
Alex Salmond's critics suggested his enthusiasm for free school meals was driven by external factors: the availability of cash from the Treasury as a consequence of the previous announcement of a comparable scheme for England; a desire to cosset parents - and especially mothers - with an eye to the referendum.
The first minister insisted he was persuaded by the advantages of the policy: it encouraged uptake including among those who were nominally eligible at present; it improved the health and wellbeing of youngsters and thus their educational attainment
Give to the Needy (29 December 2013)
In the run up to Christmas Scotland's largest teaching union, the EIS, burst into fairy-lights by demanding that Scotland's 'share' of the extra public spending announced recently by the Coalition Government at Westminster - should be used to provide free school meals to all children in primaries 1, 2 and 3.
Now this is serious money we're talking about - around £60 million a year, I think, because Scotland will expect to get 10% or so of the extra public spending announced by the Chancellor, George Osborne, in his autumn statement.
Which is of course a free handout of taxpayers money to people who earn above average incomes - because school meals are already free to people on low incomes and to those claiming benefits.
So, the big beneficiaries of the new policy in England and Wales are the better off - since the less well off gain absolutely nothing from extending free school meals to children whose working parents are perfectly well able to meet the cost themselves.
In fact the policy benefits people exactly like EIS members, as I can't believe that any of Scotland's teachers currently qualify for free school meals - as things stand.
But if I had a Magic Wand, I would target this £60 million on the less well off and probably not just those with children - since that leaves out a great many people who have never had children or whose kids have grown up.
To my mind, £60 million spent on those most in need, would do far more good than spreading £60 million across the whole population - or in this case just people with children of a certain age.
Now some people say that social benefits should be 'universal' or available to everyone on the same basis - free NHS prescriptions in Scotland are a good example although they are not really free since the cost is met out of general taxation.
Yet this approach does not apply to the cost of housing and I've written before about the £20 billion windfall that mortgage payers have enjoyed in recent times which has not been shared with people who rent their homes or living on a fixed income.
So why not use the extra money in a more meaningful and imaginative way, for example, by holding down rents in the social housing sector?
Because this particular group within the Scottish population has not benefited from the artificially low interest rates that Scotland's mortgage payers have experienced in the past 5 years - which means that since 2008 mortgage payers have effectively been receiving special treatment as far as their standard of living is concerned.
A much better and fairer use of £60 million, if you ask me, as such a policy would put a significant amount of money in the pockets of those at the bottom of the income ladder - instead of subsidising members of the teaching profession and EIS (Educational Institute of Scotland).
The statistics tell their own tale - Scotland's share of the great £20 billion mortgage windfall is around £2 billion which makes £60 million look like chickenfeed.
So the argument about universality, about everyone being treated the same way, does not stand up to serious scrutiny.
£20 Billion Windfall
Presumably it does what it says on the tin - seeks to speak up for families with children - because the FPI claims that average income of households with children will drop between 2011 and 2016.
By 4.2% would you believe or around £1,250 a year - depending on the exact income of the household in question.
But I say - so what - what does that have to do with the price of mince?
Because unless you factor in other things - such as how much some households have benefited from our artificially low mortgage rates - then the FPI's claim is completely meaningless.
I know some folks - some with others without children - who are saving hundreds of pounds every month necause of low interest rates - worth many thosuands of pounds a year.
So spare me all this special pleading from special interest groups - as ever they are concerned with their own narrow agenda - and have no time for the big picture.
And the big picture means big savings - not for everyone - but for those paying mortage interest when rates dropped like a stone - and the bigger the mortage the bigger some people's windfall.
Here's what I had to say on the issue in 2011 - no doubt the £20 billion figure now needs to be revised - in an upwards direction.
'All in this together' (September 15th 2011)
When people start urging us to take the view that 'we are all in this together' - it's time to stop and think.
Who's 'we'? - will do for a start.
The fact is that not everyone in the UK has been doing badly in these hard economic times - in fact people who are in a secure job and who have been paying a mortgage off - are doing very nicely thank you very much!
Compared to lots of other people anyway.
And just to demonstrate this point here's something I wrote back in March 2011 - arguing for a 'windfall tax' on the £20 billion that mortgage payers have saved in recent years - as a resul tof artificially low interest rates.
Now the people who are not part of this £20 billion windfall are - typically - the less well off and those on fixed incomes who rely on their savings - which produce little or no interest these days - to help pay the bills.
So why don't we hear any of this at the TUC conference - where delegates are good at telling everyone else what to do - but seldom come up with practical ideas for resolving problems.
A special windfall tax would recoup just some of the £20 billion that mortage payers have gained - simply through sheer luck - and it would seem to embrace the 'were all in this together approach'.
Which the present government and the trade unions both espouse when it suits their own argument, of course.
I imagine most union leaders are paying mortgages - because most live in private housing - and most will have benefited hugely out of the artifically low interest rates - we have witnessed in recent times.
Ironically the one union leader who would escape a special 'windfall tax' on mortgages - would be Bob Crow - who has been living in subsidised social housing in London for years.
But a windfall tax on mortgages would be redistribute income between the 'haves' and 'have nots'.
A windfall tax would be progressive because it would tax 'unearned income' - and would be likely to affect the majority of delegates this year's TUC.
In other words - a real life demonstration of solidarity - that we really are 'all in this together'.
Windfall Tax On Mortgages (March 4th 2011)
I read a remarkable statistic the other day - which made me stop and think.
The Financial Services Authority (FSA) has apparently calculated that the UK's artifically low interest rates in recent years - have meant an unexpected windfall of £20 billion to the nation's mortgage payers.
Yet another example of the old saying - 'It's an ill wind that blows nobody any good'.
In this case £20 billion to the good - and the bigger the mortgage - the bigger the killing people have made - without any effort or risk.
While those who can't afford or no longer need a mortgage (e.g. low paid workers and pensioners) - have lost out big time, comparatively speaking.
So I have a suggestion for the government and our policy makers.
Bring in a special windfall tax on mortgages which claws back some of this £20 billion - and use the money to reintroduce the 10p tax rate to help the low paid.
Low paid workers will spend the money - because they don't have a lot to start with - and that will help to boost the economy.
Readers will remember that the 10p tax rate was abolished by the 'man with a moral compass' - Gordon Brown - in one of his worst decisions as Prime Minister.
But here's a chance to right a great wrong - help the lower paid - boost our flagging economy - and with money that has simply fallen into people's laps by sheer luck - nothing else.
