Something else that Bob E pointed out to me...

... is that so-called think tank DEMOS will recommend anything you like if you are prepared to "fund their research".

The Guardian merrily rehashes the press release:

Last week the Campaign for Housing in Later Life was launched at a housing summit in Westminster to urge government to improve the housing choices for older people.

Esther Rantzen, the campaign's spokeswoman, addressed MPs and representatives from the housing industry and presented a report from the Demos think tank highlighting the chronic undersupply of appropriate retirement housing in Britain, which it calls, the "next big housing crisis".

Hmm, without looking, who do you think might have a vested interest in building loads of retirement homes, or at least getting planning permission for them?

Shall we have a sneaky peek at the acknowledgements in the DEMOS report..?

This report has benefited from the support, hard work and expertise of a huge number of people.

First, I would like to thank the members of the Home Builders Federation, whose generous funding made this research possible...

It all seems a bit mad until you know who paid for it

From The Independent (h/t Bob E):

Patients who exercise regularly and avoid fatty foods should go to the front of the queue for NHS operations, a think tank urges today.

People should be able to use supermarket bills and gym membership forms to prove they lead healthy lives and access priority non-emergency treatment, according to the centre-Left think-tank Demos. It also suggests that welfare claimants who exercise regularly should be given larger payments in recognition that they are behaving responsibly.

That all seems like the usual bansturbation, but the fun thing about Demos is that a lot of their more off the wall "research" is "generously supported by...". So let's look up the report, rather bizarrely titled Control Shift (yes we know you want to shift control, to yourselves, and it isn't funny):

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Marius Ostrowski and Katherine Stevenson for their contributions to this work – both were invaluable and I am very grateful. Also at Demos the advice, support and wisdom of David Goodhart, Claudia Wood, Duncan O’Leary, Ralph Scott, Sophie Duder, Josephine Brady and Rob Macpherson have been vital to this project. Thank you all.

This report is the final output of a long-running collaboration with Zurich [a large insurance company] – whose in-house experts have been generous with their time and insights.

And in case that wasn't clear, the foreword is co-written (or co-signed, at least) by the CEOs of Zurich UK General and Zurich UK Life.

They said it, not me...

After their savage kicking by the Home-Owner-Ist majority a few months ago, The Intergenerational Foundation have waded back into the fray with A Manifesto for Younger and Future Generations.

One of them is pencilled in to appear on the BBC Breakfast TV show tomorrow morning at 7.20. I wonder what The Daily Mailexpressgraph will/would think of this sort of stuff...

5. Re-balance Housing Wealth

• The massive rise in house prices over recent decades is a key reason behind rising intergenerational unfairness. Many young people cannot afford to buy even a small flat while IF research has shown that over-consumption of housing by the over 60s has risen rapidly.
• The longevity revolution leads to more prolonged demand for housing amongst older owners and tenants. Official policy should therefore help those who want to downsize through provision of more suitable housing and fiscal incentives.
• Tax incentives on buy-to-let properties should be reduced. It is absurd, for example, that landlords do not pay National Insurance on their unearned income, and can fully offset any loan interest off against tax.
• Council tax should be reformed to reflect each property’s true value and to make occupying a large house when you no longer need it more expensive.

6. Fairer Taxation Across The Generations

• The government should overhaul the tax system with regard to intergenerational fairness.
• The current tax system is systematically disadvantaging younger workers where older workers pay less tax (higher personal allowances and no National Insurance) and the light taxation of income from savings and property disproportionately helps the older generation.
• The government should consider reducing or scrapping universal benefits (which are not means tested) such as winter fuel allowance, free prescriptions and free bus passes.
• Pensioners on low incomes already have access to various tax credits and these universal benefits cost the taxpayer well over £6 billion each year.
• At the very least the government should make these benefits voluntary, so that wealthier pensioners may decide not to claim them.

7. Transparency of Government Debt Recording

• The build-up of public debt and liabilities is unfair on younger and future generations.
• All government borrowing should be on balance sheet.
• The government should calculate what the current obligation is for the state pension, and include it in official liabilities so that the burden being passed from one generation to another is more transparent.

And we need "think-tanks" to tell us this..?

Obsidian stated the bleeding obvious back in May (and I'm sure he wasn't the first).

From today's Metro:

Supermarket chains would pocket a £700 million windfall if minimum pricing for alcohol was [sic] introduced, new research suggests. Tesco, Britain's biggest supermarket chain, stands to reap the most rewards, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies. The think-tank looked at the effect of a 45p minimum price for alcohol [sic] and said it would benefit retailers more than the public purse [well, duh]...

It prefers higher taxation which would raise more money for the government [double duh].

My letter to the Evening Standard

While I agree with Andrew Haldenby (Letters 15 September 2010) that government spending has to be reined in, it is quite untrue to say that "most public sector costs are in the workforce".

According to HM Treasury*, public sector salaries and pensions cost £169 billion in 2009-10; old age pensions and welfare payments cost £217 billion; and the largest single item - at £281 billion - was money paid to private sector companies.

In other words, private sector businesses receive £1.66 for every £1 spent on public sector salaries or pensions; not only does the government employ one fifth of the workforce directly, it also spends one fifth of Gross Domestic Product on procurement from the private sector.

* See Table 5.3 here

And here's the letter to which I refer:

Think tanks

I have deleted the 'Petitions' section from my side-bar (it didn't seem to generate many signatures) and added one for 'Think tanks' instead. Some of these produce valuable research or thought-provoking ideas, some of these are there for light entertainment purposes and at least one is there out of childish spite.

I'm still not sure what a 'think tank' is, but if you ever have something that's half-way worth publishing, try hawking it round them. They don't pay much, if anything, but it's all grist to the mill.