Charities revolt against plan to abolish housing benefit for under-25s

13 charities, including Shelter, Barnardo’s and the Teenage Cancer Trust, warn that the move will "take away a vital safety net".

The abolition of housing benefit for the under-25s would be the coalition's most irresponsible cut yet, inevitably leading to a sharp rise in homelessness. With George Osborne nonetheless expected to confirm the move in his Autumn Statement on 5 December, 13 charities, including Barnardo’s, the Teenage Cancer Trust, Crisis and Shelter, have written to today's Times (£) urging the government to think again. They warn that the cut will "take away a vital safety net for young adults who lose their job, experience domestic violence, become ill or disabled, or who are themselves bringing up children. And it will penalise working young adults with low earnings."

The latter point is an important one. Osborne and David Cameron have consistently sought to portray housing benefit as a payment for the unemployed, with the Prime Minister recently stating: "if you're a young person and you work hard at college, you get a job, you're living at home with mum and dad, you can't move out, you can't access housing benefit. And yet, actually, if you choose not to work, you can get housing benefit, you can get a flat."

What Cameron either doesn't know or won't say is that nearly a quarter – 23.2 per cent – of working age claimants are in employment, with 93 per cent of new claims between 2010 and 2011 made by households containing at least one in-work adult. Those who claim housing benefit do so to compensate for substandard wages and/or extortionate rents. If Cameron wants to "tackle" the welfare bill, he should seek to increase the former and reduce the latter.

The letter goes on to note that while the PM "suggests that young adults who fall on hard times should move in with their parents... for many, this is simply not an option and could place them at risk."

It states: "Their parents may be violent or abusive, or may have thrown them out because of their sexuality, or relationships may have broken down. Some will be young people leaving care. What’s more, many under-25s are already parents themselves. If they fall upon hard times they cannot be expected to squeeze their own young family back into their childhood bedroom."

Quite so. Of the 381,000 under-25s who claim housing benefit, 204,000 (54 per cent) have children. Cameron has at least pledged to exempt those who are leaving care or those who have suffered abuse from the cut, but he has said nothing to suggest that it will not apply to those with children. Thus, as the letter concludes, "It will blight the future of some of our poorest and most vulnerable young adults and that of their children. We urge the Government to reconsider." Let us hope it does.

The 13 charities warn that the abolition of housing benefit for the under-25s will "lead to increased homelessnes". Photograph: Getty Images.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Getty
Show Hide image

Is defeat in Stoke the beginning of the end for Paul Nuttall?

The Ukip leader was his party's unity candidate. But after his defeat in Stoke, the old divisions are beginning to show again

In a speech to Ukip’s spring conference in Bolton on February 17, the party’s once and probably future leader Nigel Farage laid down the gauntlet for his successor, Paul Nuttall. Stoke’s by-election was “fundamental” to the future of the party – and Nuttall had to win.
 
One week on, Nuttall has failed that test miserably and thrown the fundamental questions hanging over Ukip’s future into harsh relief. 

For all his bullish talk of supplanting Labour in its industrial heartlands, the Ukip leader only managed to increase the party’s vote share by 2.2 percentage points on 2015. This paltry increase came despite Stoke’s 70 per cent Brexit majority, and a media narrative that was, until the revelations around Nuttall and Hillsborough, talking the party’s chances up.
 
So what now for Nuttall? There is, for the time being, little chance of him resigning – and, in truth, few inside Ukip expected him to win. Nuttall was relying on two well-rehearsed lines as get-out-of-jail free cards very early on in the campaign. 

The first was that the seat was a lowly 72 on Ukip’s target list. The second was that he had been leader of party whose image had been tarnished by infighting both figurative and literal for all of 12 weeks – the real work of his project had yet to begin. 

The chances of that project ever succeeding were modest at the very best. After yesterday’s defeat, it looks even more unlikely. Nuttall had originally stated his intention to run in the likely by-election in Leigh, Greater Manchester, when Andy Burnham wins the Greater Manchester metro mayoralty as is expected in May (Wigan, the borough of which Leigh is part, voted 64 per cent for Brexit).

If he goes ahead and stands – which he may well do – he will have to overturn a Labour majority of over 14,000. That, even before the unedifying row over the veracity of his Hillsborough recollections, was always going to be a big challenge. If he goes for it and loses, his leadership – predicated as it is on his supposed ability to win votes in the north - will be dead in the water. 

Nuttall is not entirely to blame, but he is a big part of Ukip’s problem. I visited Stoke the day before The Guardian published its initial report on Nuttall’s Hillsborough claims, and even then Nuttall’s campaign manager admitted that he was unlikely to convince the “hard core” of Conservative voters to back him. 

There are manifold reasons for this, but chief among them is that Nuttall, despite his newfound love of tweed, is no Nigel Farage. Not only does he lack his name recognition and box office appeal, but the sad truth is that the Tory voters Ukip need to attract are much less likely to vote for a party led by a Scouser whose platform consists of reassuring working-class voters their NHS and benefits are safe.
 
It is Farage and his allies – most notably the party’s main donor Arron Banks – who hold the most power over Nuttall’s future. Banks, who Nuttall publicly disowned as a non-member after he said he was “sick to death” of people “milking” the Hillsborough disaster, said on the eve of the Stoke poll that Ukip had to “remain radical” if it wanted to keep receiving his money. Farage himself has said the party’s campaign ought to have been “clearer” on immigration. 

Senior party figures are already briefing against Nuttall and his team in the Telegraph, whose proprietors are chummy with the beer-swilling Farage-Banks axis. They deride him for his efforts to turn Ukip into “NiceKip” or “Nukip” in order to appeal to more women voters, and for the heavy-handedness of his pitch to Labour voters (“There were times when I wondered whether I’ve got a purple rosette or a red one on”, one told the paper). 

It is Nuttall’s policy advisers - the anti-Farage awkward squad of Suzanne Evans, MEP Patrick O’Flynn (who famously branded Farage "snarling, thin-skinned and aggressive") and former leadership candidate Lisa Duffy – come in for the harshest criticism. Herein lies the leader's almost impossible task. Despite having pitched to members as a unity candidate, the two sides’ visions for Ukip are irreconcilable – one urges him to emulate Trump (who Nuttall says he would not have voted for), and the other urges a more moderate tack. 

Endorsing his leader on Question Time last night, Ukip’s sole MP Douglas Carswell blamed the legacy of the party’s Tea Party-inspired 2015 general election campaign, which saw Farage complain about foreigners with HIV using the NHS in ITV’s leaders debate, for the party’s poor performance in Stoke. Others, such as MEP Bill Etheridge, say precisely the opposite – that Nuttall must be more like Farage. 

Neither side has yet called for Nuttall’s head. He insists he is “not going anywhere”. With his febrile party no stranger to abortive coup and counter-coup, he is unlikely to be the one who has the final say.