More stupidity and ignorance from those folk at Joseph Rowntree Foundation

****

In an article about the use of words - a po-faced little lecture from the word police - the author, one Gary Rae, says this:

That said, according to the Department for Work & Pensions’ own figures, last year we overpaid 0.7% of the welfare budget due to fraud. Compare that with an estimated £70 billion lost through tax evasion.

Note the two figures - the first one is an accurate and referenced link to information from the government. The second one - well it's a load of rubbish, deliberately misleading rubbish. Here's the truth:

The latest estimates show that tax evaders, including those operating in the hidden economy and those who undertake organised criminal attacks on the tax system, deprive the public purse of around £14 billion

Still a lot of money but not anywhere close to Mr Rae's figure. With one flutter of his typing fingers the author destroys his argument (albeit a very thin argument) and reveals himself - and JRF - to be just as manipulative and exploitative of language as the rest of us. That and misleading.

...

The obesity problem isn't getting worse...or so says the Joseph Rowntree Foundation

****

I keep saying this - mostly because it's true. But the nannying fussbuckets are wrong - most recently Anna Soubry, "Public Health" Minister - who also pointed out that poor people* were more likely to be "obese".

Surprisingly, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation in a desire to nobble Ms Soubry, revealed the truth:

Over time, there is little sign of the inexorable rise in obesity that underlies some of the concern about the issue. Rates for children did rise and peak in 2004 but have since fallen and are now no different to what they were in the late 1990s.

Got that folks. The obesity epidemic is a complete myth - we don't need to ban advertising, impose "fat" taxes or stop McDonald's opening within 50 miles of a child.

*We should note that most fat people aren't poor - what Ms Soubry is saying. However, poor people are more likely to be fat than rich people. We should remember that there are lots more people in the category "not poor" than in the category "poor" (despite what The Guardian would like you to believe).

...

JRF remind us why lefties shouldn't be let anywhere near housing markets

****

I know. I know. JRF are a sainted, untouchable collections of lovely cuddly trendy lefties. But when they write about affordable housing and housing markets we should never forget their massive vested interest as the owner of a substantial stock of housing let at "social rents".

And their latest ideas are pretty strange. They want to change the basis of Council Tax claiming that it skews the housing market because it doesn't accurately reflect housing values. Apparently (or so their spokesman said on the radio this morning) this will sort out the volatility of the housing market.

And JRF propose mortgage credit controls:

There is strong evidence to support the view that the FPC should be given powers to employ
quantitative controls on mortgage credit, as a means of securing financial stability.

On the one hand JRF talk about government supporting people in buying houses (yes folks, I know this was what got us into the mess in the first place) - in this case by a jolly scheme called SHOP designed so poor folk can have default-free mortgages. A scheme AIG would rush at no doubt:

The fund would be used to purchase ‘block’ insurance from the private sector. Block insurance is much cheaper than individually purchased (retail) insurance as the fees/up-front costs are much reduced. In the event of a designated risk (loss of employment, self-employment, accident or sickness) borrowers would be entitled to a fixed period (e.g. 12 months) of non-means tested assistance that would cover both interest and capital payments, after a short period of lender forbearance.

And then they propose mortgage credit controls to stop volatility in the market. The technical economics term for this is: "having your cake and eating it".

Then we get to the crunch of JRF's lobby: loads of lovely subsidy for rented - specifically 'affordable' rented - housing. Note the contradiction between encouraging home-ownership (through promoting softer lending and default-free mortgages) and lobbying for more rented housing!

....

In which I wish the Joseph Rowntree Foundation would take its prejudices elsewhere than Bradford

Although the Joseph Rowntree Foundation does some good research it is sadly blind to the reality of its ‘poverty-mongering’ in Bradford. Over the past few years, JRF has run a “Bradford programme”:

Working in partnership with others to make a positive difference to the people in the city, and improve our understanding of issues in a diverse community.

All very worthy and so typical of JRF’s approach but I worry that, by beginning with a prejudice about the city and by immersing itself in the places and people that reinforce that prejudice, the charity do the City a disfavour.

So what is that prejudice JRF open with? It comes in three parts:

1.       Caricaturing Bradford as a place dominated by and fractured by issues of race and cohesion. JRF’s assumption is that they are “challenging existing stereotypes” when, in truth, they reinforce the stereotype of a racially-divided city

2.       Defining the city in terms of its victim status – its poverty, its crime and its struggle. This is the mindset that transformed a confident city into what we have today, the view that others – governments, business, ‘leadership’ – are responsible for the problem and that its resolution lies not in enterprise but in “getting our fair share of resources”

3.       Ignoring, absolutely and complete, the city’s suburbs and the villages that surround the urban core. JRF do not venture in their work to explore the lives of ordinary people in Queensbury, in Sandy Lane, in Baildon or in Apperley Bridge. Indeed, at times these people seem to be view as suspicious bystanders rather than contributors to the wealth and success of Bradford

None of this is to say that JRF’s work is ill-meant but it is to observe that, despite the years working in Bradford, the charity has clung limpet-like to its initial prejudice regardless of the evidence that it is a false description of the City. Evidence of higher rates of business creation, increased levels of self-employment and rising community aspirations are pushed aside as they do not fit with the predetermined view of Bradford as a victim, as a place of poverty.

JRF also remains wedded to qualitative research placing greater emphasis on the remarks of residents than on the gathering of data. Nowhere within this multi-million pound set of studies can I find robust, quantitative research conducted to look at Bradford’s problems. Rather than seeking to measure and assess – as good researchers should – JRF can only see to ‘participate’ and ‘engage’.

Such research methods – embedded deeply into the place studied – are not without their value if what we’re about is understanding culture, values and behaviours. But if, as JRF proclaim, they are seeking to guide the City towards better policy-making then we are navigating by asking random people for directions rather than using a map.

And just so you don’t think I’m making all this up, let me show you the evidence of the first caricature of Bradford – the pathology of racial politics – from a JRF funded project, JUST West Yorkshire: (this is from a e-mail bulletin – the website is very out-of-date)

As the disorder spreads to other London boroughs, residents of Bradford, Oldham and Burnley are probably reliving the divisive legacy of the Northern disturbances which strained community relationships and created a breach between the police and Asian communities who metaphorically sold their shares in the police as public confidence dipped.  If we are to draw any lessons from Bradford’s 2001 Disturbances then it must be that an effective policy response will not be found through recourse to simplistic rhetoric – whether it be about parallel and segregated communities in 2001 or about the increasing gun and knife ‘criminality’ among African-Caribbean youth in 2011 - but by sustained engagement with multiple and complex social problems.

This comes from the latest of this organisation’s left-wing diatribes and, in a sort of Trotskyite conclusion these folk say:

The rioters in Tottenham have just sent out their own message from the 'social market index' trading in public trust and confidence: between them, swingeing public sector cuts and Big Society tokenism have all meant the government has already defaulted on its obligations to the people of Britain. The big question is whether the government will be able to hear this message over the chatter between Wall Street and the City and – even if it does – whether it is capable of abandoning its ideological fixation with zombie neo-liberalism and, instead, invest in fostering the bonds of community. If it fails to do so then the hot money must surely be on the further growth of the already massive deficit in social harmony - and the consequent emergence of the Big Bad Society.

I suppose JRF will claim distance from this nonsense but for my part I want them to take responsibility for the prejudice they spawn. Maybe, Julia Unwin is happy to support those who would excuse away riot, violence and looting as some form of legitimate protest, but I would rather she took JRF’s cash and spent it elsewhere than Bradford.

....

Joseph Rowntree Trust argues for a subsidised housing market with mortgage controls - self-interest or stupidity?

****

According to a report from dear old JRF, there is an urgent need for 'reform' to prevent another bout of boom and bust in the housing market. This seems to be the gist of their proposals:

Credit controls, such as maximum loan-to-value mortgage ratios, should be considered, the report argues. The taskforce acknowledges this could restrict access to mortgages but says reducing volatility is ‘in the wider public good.’

So we ration mortgages in order to prevent house prices rising and instead shove people into a tenure that isn't what they prefer:

The report says more social rented housing with secure tenure is required as it is the most suitable option for households which seek long-term security but cannot access the mortgage market.

And to do this we need more government spending:

The report says this can only be delivered if there is sufficient subsidy.

Finally, to cap it all we further hobble the mortgage market by removing any downside to borrowing (remember dear reader that this was one of the problems with the US sub-prime market and look where that got us):

The report also argues for a better safety net for borrowers, including making sure borrowers have more information and tools to assess mortgage affordability and a partnership insurance model which would provide cover for mortgage capital and interest payments in the event of loss of income through redundancy, sickness or accidents.

So there you have it - government-approved mortgages, subsidised house-building in the wrong tenure and a 'safety-net' that will act to raise the cost of borrowing. All underlined by a steady increase in government spending on housing. And these people think that will "stabilise" the market?

Do remember, of course, that Joseph Rowntree own thousands of houses for rent and are a significant developer in that sector. So maybe this is just self-interest!

....