Friday 23 March 2012

A Tale Of Two Budgets

I've said on this blog before that I have tried to get into the minds of ministers in this government, without, I hope, actually thinking like them myself. I consider this to be a necessary evil because only that way can I build an idea of what might happen next and start the process of aligning our organisation to whatever the future might bring.

What's inside? Time will tell.
Governments are always in a hurry at the start of their term, hoping that by the time they need the electorate's support again, the worst effects of whatever changes they want to make will be forgotten. As their term progresses the rate of change tends to fall, but you can still get indications about what might happen after the next election. It's a moot point whether the rate of change from this government has yet peaked, but with the exception of the so-called "Granny Tax" there wasn't that much unexpected in this week's Chancellor's Budget. However, there was one - long term - thing, that struck me powerfully.

As ever with budgets there were the nominal winners and losers. Smokers, drinkers and drivers will, predictably, feel hit. Industry and high-rate tax payers will feel slightly less pain than the rest of us, as their role to create the employment that is designed to help the "squeezed middle" and to get people off welfare is encouraged and nurtured. For the so-called "crushed bottom" (and it's a bit of an indictment that such a phrase can emerge) there was, frankly, not much light at the end of the tunnel, and if you rely on welfare the concern would be that the light could be an oncoming train.

It was comments on welfare that really struck me. Already, the welfare reform bill with its benefit caps and bedroom tax is taking significant sums of money out of the pockets of the poorest. The government say that they are so determined to break the dependency cycle, that they are prepared to fight the next election on the grounds of further cuts of £10 billion to welfare spending. This is a point that the housing sector should not take lightly, because that money is coming out of the pockets of our tenants.

As a strategic response I can see three possible directions, the first two of which are distinctly unattractive. We could go “upmarket” and let our homes mainly or exclusively to those in secure work, leaving to others the task of dealing with the poorest and most vulnerable in our society. Then there is a response that sees us cut rents and engage in the kind of race to the bottom currently seen in the social care arena as Supporting People budgets get withdrawn.

At THT we are exploring a different approach which sees a focus on helping people manage budgets and find work. We are fortunate – Trafford is one of the economic engines of the whole of Greater Manchester with good employment prospects, even more so now the Metrolink extension has been announced which will run through the Borough to the Trafford Centre and create a promised 5,000 new jobs. So there are work opportunities that we can link our residents with.

So, approved on the same day as the Chancellor's Budget, but without the same underlying narrative of cuts, Trafford Housing Trust's Budget creates a whole new team of money and job advisors to support residents with getting into work. These aren't the only extra posts, within what we clearly see as a budget for growth. We will be taking on a further eight local apprentices and providing volunteering opportunities for a further six young people. We will be investing more in new homes than ever before and creating new jobs in the process. Our CleanStart programme which provides work opportunities for offenders leaving (and in a new move – for those still inside) prison goes from strength to strength.

When the new regulator comes calling and asks what our approach to value for money is, my Board is clear. Building new homes is just a part of it, rebuilding lives is just as important.

No comments:

Post a Comment