View from City Road: Compulsory redundancy insurance won't fly
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.That old chestnut - the idea of introducing compulsory redundancy insurance for all mortgage holders - is apparently in the air again; it is easy to see why the Government should find it attractive.
Stories of unemployed Hampstead residents being paid pounds 1,800 a month through income support to remain in their lavish mansions have already sown the seeds of disquiet about the current system. It is not difficult to find pub politicians who contend that those who can afford to buy their own houses should sell them, rather than rely on the State, if they get into financial difficulties. Most attractive of all, it would save pounds 1.2bn - or 1.5 per cent of the soaring benefits bill.
But even the most cursory analysis reveals fundamental flaws. First, it discriminates against homeowners in favour of tenants - who already take more than seven times as much in housing benefit as homeowners do in mortgage payments. Having spent years encouraging people to buy their own homes, it makes little sense to introduce policies that tempt them back into rented accommodation again.
Second, it would be virtually impossible to make it compulsory. Quite apart from the problem of policing it, no insurer will take on an unacceptable level of risk. Is the Government really going to be happy to see those in high-risk jobs - like miners, for example - denied a mortgage because they cannot get insurance cover?
If the system is not made compulsory, however, much of the cost would simply be transferred from one part of the system to another, as redundant homeowners sold up and moved to a rented home.
Sorry, Mr Lilley, but it won't fly.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments