The article was nothing too exciting but that phrase leapt off the page (out of the screen?):
A scheme aimed at preventing people losing their homes in England proved to be below target but above budget, a report has concluded. The Mortgage Rescue Scheme enabled not-for-profit housing associations to buy a stake or all of a home and allow the residents to continue living there by renting it back.
The National Audit Office (NAO) said it helped 2,600 households avoid having their homes repossessed. However, the target was 6,000. The rescues were also supposed to cost a total of £205m, but actually cost more than £240m, the NAO found.
£240 million divided by 2,600 = £92,000. You could build two council homes for £92,000.
At least Margaret Hodge, a Labour politician, has clearly read the memo about Indian Bicycle Marketing:
"The scheme has helped fewer than half the number of households expected and each rescue has cost more than three times as much as expected, with overall costs sitting at £240m," said Margaret Hodge, who chairs the Public Accounts Committee. "Spending £35m more than planned yet not reaching all those in need does not represent value for money for taxpayers' investment in this scheme."
The scheme was launched by the Labour government in 2008...
Import the Third World
1 hour ago
9 comments:
She's not criticising the (Tory) government, she's having a go at the DCLG, who cocked the whole thing up by being lazy (now there's a surprise!), it appears.
"£240 million divided by 2,600 = £92,000. You could build two council homes for £92,000."
The power of sums. You'd think they they might try it, these political types.
Hold on a minute, could I sell my flat to a HA and rent it back at subsidised rent or is there a catch somewhere?
This sounds more like a bailout of Big-Loan, than something to help prevent people being homeless...
Well, yes, the overshot certainly shows incompetence. And the scheme clearly would help prop up house prices, which is obviously a bad thing.
But the £240 million has not been "spent", or at least not lost. It has been used to purchase assets - the stakes in those 2,600 homes.
B, this is one of several schemes which Hodge's own government dreamed up to keep the house price bubble going, all of which failed (in cost or administrative terms), although to be fair, they did manage to re-inflate the bubble.
AKH, you'd think, but they don't.
BE, if you are one of the people who ticks the right boxes, then yes. You might have to lose your job first though.
AC1, exactly.
AC, OK, half of it has been spent, as they could have used that money to build twice as many council houses for the repossessed; hey presto, nobody's homeless, and people who wouldn't qualify for a council house can buy a private house for much cheaper.
For the next Poll Can I suggest
Does the state intervene in the economy to:
Maximise Economic Growth
Maximise Rent Seeking.
Other Please State.
She's not criticising the (Tory) government, she's having a go at the DCLG, who cocked the whole thing up by being lazy (now there's a surprise!), it appears.
And who runs the DCLG? Who creates the schemes? Who creates the employment laws that govern how we can hire and fire such people?
Civil servants are mostly lazy, useless, bureaucrats. If you're running government and don't strip it down to the simplest form, you only have yourself to blame.
AC1, you may and you just did.
JT, that's the slightly less polite but more correct answer.
Post a Comment