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.

...

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!

....

On participation...(and why people don't)

***

I have written on diversity, on the idea of the progressive and on markets (although I was rather snarky). Since this has become an ongoing theme, I thought I’d set out a few thoughts on another oft-raised “matter of importance”: participation.

Some while ago I wrote a piece entitled “In Praise of Idiots” where I argued that voter abstention wasn’t such a terrible thing.

“Now the good left-wing liberals at the Guardian think this grumpiness, this disengagement, this disinterest is a problem. And that’s where I disagree – the core consideration is the extent to which we are able to live as Greek idiots. Quietly, privately, without bothering our neighbours with our problems – and when such people want change they will get up from their armchairs, walk away from the telly and vote. The idea that not being bothered with voting most of the time makes them bad people is a misplaced idea – they are the good folk.

Above all we should listen quietly to what this “apathy” calls for – it is less bothersome, less interfering, less hectoring and more effective government. Such people want government to be conducted at their level not to be the province of pompous politicians with overblown and lying rhetoric. And they want the language of common sense, freedom, liberty and choice to push away the elitist exclusivity of modern bureaucratic government.”

Which brings us to participation. There is a presumption in policy-making that increased levels of participation result in better policy, more accountable government and variations of society being “fairer”, “more equal” or “more democratic”. So when organisations like the Joseph Rowntree Foundation discuss the issue there is no questioning of that basic assumption – it is axiomatic that higher levels of “participation” are good.

The problem I have with this is echoed in the JRF report:

“Many attempts at community participation fail because organisations promoting involvement are unclear about the level of participation on offer. Limited consultation ,with few real options, which is presented as an opportunity for active participation is likely to result in disillusionment.”

So let’s look at what the typical opportunities for “community participation” encompass:

There’s voting – we get a say in who toddles off down to Brussels, Westminster or the Town Hall but no say over what they do while they’re representing us. We are not participating but passing across our rights to participate to our “representative”

There’s the local forum – nearly everywhere has them plus extensive and expensive bureaucracies supporting such activity. And they’re very useful – for the policy-maker since they are consultative rather than participatory. More importantly, such forums get low turn outs because folk have something better to do on a wet Wednesday evening than sit watching patronising powerpoint presentations in some drafty community centre

There’s the survey – usually self-selecting rather than representative and mostly limited to “yes/no” boxes. And this clearly isn’t participation but opinion research (however badly conducted it may be)

Or how about “participatory budgeting” – a great idea but even in Porto Alegre where it’s something of a religion fewer than 3% of citizens take part. And those taking part ore disproportionately older, richer and better educated than the average

So either we are taking the horse to the water and it is stubbornly refusing to drink or else people think it’s a waste of time. And I’m pretty sure that the problem is the latter rather than the former. Most people do not want to participate in a highbrow discussion about investment priorities, regulatory options and other matters of bureaucratic importance.

If you want people to participate, you have to give them something – not a £5 voucher for filling in a survey but real control over the things that matter to them. And that means the schools, the local health centre, the community centre, the sports hall, the park and the cops. If you make people responsible for something they will participate. If you merely consult – or worse pretend that their input really will affect the policy choices of bureaucratic decision-makers – then people will, quite sensibly, stay at home watching whatever rubbish the telly is showing that evening!

...