Passport Facts 2017

Avoid last minute passport panics by:

# Check your passport before booking a holiday. Your insurance will not pay out if you miss your trip because your passport is out of date.

# Remember some countries require it has 6 months left before expiry date, while others (e.g. South Africa) insist you have a least two blank pages in your passport. Check these requirements (and whether you need a visa) at gov.uk/foreign-travel-advice.

# Do allow four to seven weeks for a new passport to arrive. Streamline the service by using the Passport Check & Send service at the Post Office. It costs an extra £9.75 (2017) but useful if you are short of time.

# If you end up needing a last-minute passport, there is a premium one-day service costing £128 (2017).

Source: Item in Good Housekeeping, June 2017

Pensions, Triple Lock and Hoarding

Pensioners will carry on hoarding cash if state won’t step in by Phillip Inman.

The question over the state pension triple lock is part of a wider debate about incomes and wealth in old age and how, as a society, we adapt to the escalating costs of improved life expectancy, increasing care costs and, crucially, property prices.

Many do everything to avoid paying higher taxes and hoard whatever assets they have accumulated, as state support decreases. Now grandparents and parents feel obliged to provide more than just a good start in life for the youngest members, possibly for as long as they are alive. This explains why the Tory promise to raise the inheritance tax threshold for couples to £1m by 2020, and also why wealthy pensioners argue the state pension and winter fuel allowance should remain a universal benefit.

No one should want house prices to rise at double or treble the rate of earnings growth to reach affordability levels that effectively mean homes in places with decent jobs are out of reach for most people, but home owners are happy when a house or flat sells for more than the previous one and predictions of a downturn can spark panic. Pay as little stamp duty or capital gains tax as you can and recycle the proceeds to provide a leg-up for your own offspring.

In early 2017, a weakening economy, a squeeze on disposable incomes from higher inflation and stagnant wages growth, and the knock-on effect of lower tax receipts, means money must be raised elsewhere. One option is scrap the 2.5% annual rise part of the pensions triple lock, which links the basic state pension to whichever is the higher of earnings growth, inflation or 2.5% and scrapping the 2.5% lock.

Pensioner groups argue those on the lowest incomes will be the worst affected, which is true, especially when cuts in the real value of the state second pension, and the move to a flat-rate pension, are taken into account.

But keeping a universal benefit also benefits the better off. Why should today’s workers make sure pensions increase at a faster rate than their own pay, especially when it leads to greater income inequality among the country’s 12 million pensioners.

One answer is to means-test the basic pension. An alternative would be to design an income tax system specifically for the country’s 12 million pensioners; one that increases the tax burden for the third who have more than enough money to enjoy their retirement. Or, at least, charge the 1.1 million retirees who are still working national insurance.

It is impossible to change pensions and taxation while the state refuses to look after the elderly in care, and build enough homes for those on low and middle incomes to bring down prices, so wealthy pensioners will continue to take more out than they put in and hoarding it.

Source: Pensioners will carry on hoarding cash if state won’t step in, by Phillip Inman, The Guardian, 29 April 2017

Name Order in Ballot Papers

Did Trump win because his name came first in key states?

A leading political scientist, Jon Krosnick, has spent 30 years studying how voters choose one candidate rather than another, and says that in states where the margin of victory was narrow, elections were won because a candidate was listed first on the ballot paper, and that includes Donald Trump’s election as US President.

At first sight this seems to make little sense. Are voters really so easily swayed? Most of them are not and vote for the party they usually do. But a minority are swayed because of a human tendency to lean towards the first name listed on the ballot, which has caused increases on average of about three percentage points for candidates, across many elections. And candidates whose last names begin with letters picked near the end of the lottery have it tough, never getting the advantage that comes from being listed first on the ballot.

Political scientists call this the primacy effect. It has the biggest impact on those who know the least about the election they are voting in. You are more likely to be affected if you are feeling uninformed and yet feel obligated to cast a vote - or if you are feeling deeply conflicted between two candidates. When an election is very close the effect can be decisive, such as the 2016 election in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin.

Some states always list parties in the same order. Some allow the state's officials to make a new choice each time. Some put the party that lost in the last election at the top of the ballot. Some list alphabetically.

Of the numerous cases where the primacy effect is thought to have influenced the result of an vote, one is Hillary Clinton’s unexpected January 2008 win over Barack Obama in the New Hampshire primary to elect the Democratic Party's presidential candidate. Her name was at the top of a long list. Obama's was near the end.

Source: BBC website: Did Trump win because his name came first in keystates? Published on 25 February 2017

Homelessness: the Finnish Solution

What can the UK learn from how Finland solved homelessness? The Nordic country is the only EU state not in the midst of a housing crisis. Juha Kaakinen, chief executive of the Y-Foundation, explains how Housing First works.

A survey by the EU housing organisation Feantsa found every EU country in the midst of a crisis of homelessness and housing exclusion, with the exception of Finland, where they give homeless people permanent housing as soon as they become homeless, rather than muddling along with various services that may eventually result in an offer of accommodation. This approach is now being considered in the UK.

What is Housing First?

Housing First focuses on ending homelessness instead of managing it, by offering permanent housing and needs-based support for homeless people instead of temporary accommodation in hostels or emergency shelters. Permanent housing means an independent rental flat with own rental contract. People do not have to earn their right to housing by proving their capability to manage their lives. Instead, they are provided with a stable home and individually tailored support.

How has it worked in Finland?

Since 2008 the national homelessness strategy in Finland has been based on the Housing First model, as a result of dedicated cooperation between the state, municipalities and NGOs. Investments have been made to provide affordable housing and shelters have been converted into supported housing units. For example, the Y-Foundation provides 16,300 low cost flats to homeless people in Finland.

New services and methods of help have been developed to match the multiple needs of individual tenants. Finland has all but eradicated rough sleeping and sustainably housed a significant number of long-term homeless people, and is the only country in Europe where the number of homeless people has declined in recent years.

Has there been any backlash to Housing First?

There was a strong political will to find new solutions for homelessness. There were a few local reactions concerning the location of new service facilities, which were mainly overcome by open interaction with the neighbourhoods.

Financially, how does Housing First work?

The key things are affordable housing and support. Extra funding that the state has allocated for flats and services has been an incentive for the municipalities to implement Housing First. Tenants pay rent and are entitled to receive housing benefits. Depending on their income, they may contribute to the cost of the services. The rest is covered by the municipalities. They provide the support themselves or buy support from other service providers, mainly from the NGOs. Stable living conditions enable the use of mainstream services instead of using expensive emergency services, saving money in the long term.

Were there any initial problems that needed to be ironed out?

No major problems were met: there was a clear focus for the national strategy from the start, and the city specific implementation plans included concrete objectives and resources to meet them. But the unconditional housing was hard to accept by some people in NGOs which had previously been working with different set of values.

How easily can the model be replicated in other European countries?

The Housing First model can be replicated even though housing conditions may vary from country to country in Europe. Providing permanent homes for the homeless should be a target instead of temporary solutions.

There is no quick fix to all life situations but a solid base provides the foundations upon which to improve the welfare of the homeless. The first step in change is the change in attitudes.

In Finland this has been a national strategy, not a local project. This new approach and convincing results have raised broad interest internationally.

Source: BBC website What can the UK learn from how Finland solvedhomelessness? Published on 22 March 2017.