New benefit cap of £500 a week rolled-out across Britain

The reason why so many of the 70,000 households affected by the Cap, live in London (about 40,000 households) is down to the inclusion of housing benefit in the Cap. So it impacts on those renting, and more particularly those renting from the private sector, not those renting from social landlords, where rents are lower. I suspect that many of the other 30,000 households affected live in the South East of England, or the centres of other large conurbations. It will hit mainly hit singles or couples with many children because those families demand (note the use of the word) large and expensive properties to shelter their brood. To avoid the cap people can work for 16 hours per week to qualify for working tax credit - simples init! Or else they can move to cheaper locations. The benefit Cap isn't unreasonable - it represents £35,000 before tax and NI and as a safety net figure is, in my view, more than enough. Outside of London and other high rent cost areas the Cap could be lower, and I predict that this will be a policy promoted by some of the parties at the next election. The main problem with housing benefit without the Cap is that it encourages people to seek the best property they can irrespective of the cost - because they will not pay for it. The Cap introduces a very small element of reality into the situation, that forces some (about 1 in 40 of the jobless) to have some regard for the cost of their accommodation for perhaps the first time. This is a long overdue reform and has much further to go once the principle is accepted by the general population.

In response to Centrum46 - I occasionally partook in what was known as the 'milk round' - the assessment of University leavers seeking a job. At times I was pleasantly surprised but mostly indifferent or in despair. Not just the thinness of intellectual input but the thinness of worldly knowledge. Even the brightest could be wanting in the latter. But most of all I was disappointed in the lack of 'guts' and ambition and the need to make a good job of whatever you did. It was not quite a case of 'I have a 2.1 so I deserve recognition' but pretty close to it. Convoluted and incomprehensible letters went straight to rubbish, but a decent letter and initial interview report I received resulted in the chap securing a second interview with me, for a position in international marketing. I remarked that at times he may need to spend time in Brussels. "Why is that?" he asked.

I was referring to my own grammar school: "Although the Grammar School closed in 1969...." ...before Mrs Thatcher the Milk Snatcher! ...The place had a socialist council... so the Grammar School went after monks created it almost 600 years previously! If a person were to have sports talents, then a sports academy might be appropriate... no such targeted education for academic talents... I would have been ignored and wasted at a comprehensive. How do I know? - I have inside knowledge giving private tuition! You would not credit the tales I hear!