Ok, lets start with the basics. Do you believe that everyone has a right to decent accomodation, regardless of their financial circumstances? I do. Do you believe that every child deserves to live in suitable accomodation, where they have enough space to do their homework without being disturbed and have an outside area to play in peace and safety (usually described as a garden). I do. Do you think that siblings of different sexes should not have to share bedrooms, especially when they hit puberty? I do.
I happen to think that what I've described above is the minimum requirement for a civilised society. Sure, I recognise that for short periods of say up to six months, it may not always be possible for practical reasons, but the bottom line is that in any case where a family or an individual has been in a situation for more than six months, then the system has failed.
There have been some rather interesting comments on this blog. Some of the readers seem to think that the answer is to build homes all over the green belt. I disagree as there is plenty of opportunity to use existing space better. I happen to believe that all of the current housing woes are the fault of Margaret Thatcher and her "right to buy" policy for council housing. I object to this on two grounds. Firstly I see no earthly reason why the government should ever sell off its assets on the cheap, be it gold, council housing or nationalised companies. We will be paying for all of these poor decisions for years to come. Most utility companies are now in foreign hands, repatriating huge profits abroad and under investing in maintenance. Gold reserves were depleted for a perceived short term punt, which we all know went horribly wrong. As to the housing situation.
Secondly, there was no part of her cunning plan to replenish the stock of council houses. Once they were sold, the councils had nowhere to house people in need. This resulted in the crazy situation where they rent back the homes they used to own and sold at a huge discount, for rents far above their value. It is the economics of the madhouse. Not only that, but these homes are badly maintained and owned by people with no sense of community. They don't care who lives there so long as they get their "secure rent". That is why people like Mrs Angry have ended up as the new blogging queen of Barnet, with her tales of woe about her neighbours.
It is, as has been noted in this blog, impossible for low income families ever to get decent secure accomodation. There are over 6,000 families on the council waiting list. How can this be? After the second world war, my parents married and were given a council house in Wise Lane Mill Hill. How could it be that even though the country was virtually bankrupt and much of the housing stock had been destroyed, there was a ready supply of homes? The answer was simple. There was the political will to make it happen.
We now have a broken economy, huge homelessness problems and structural deficits which will saddle us with debt for generations. What happens when children are raised in an environment when there's no cash, nowhere to study and do homework and nowhere to play? Sure some will come through and pull themselves up by hard work, but they are at a huge disadvantage. Is it right, equitable or fair that the children with the worst start in life are saddled with the least opportunities and the worst options at every turn? The place to start to address this issue is locally, by ensuring that there is decent council housing for all local families with children.
Have a look at this page on the Barnet Council website. It's their equal opportunities page :-
http://www.barnet.gov.uk/index/community-living/equality-diversity.htm
This is typical of all that is wrong with the way the people who run Barnet Council think. The place where equal opportunities matters is with children. What is the point of a council which "wants to promote equality in its widest sense and also be sensitive to how services can affect people differently depending on their age, faith/belief and sexual orientation"
yet has no policy to make sure that every child in Barnet has a decent and secure place to live. Every child of every family which is on a waiting list is being discriminated against and is having their human rights infringed. Every child on the waiting list is personal failure for Leader of the Council Lynne Hillan and Barnet Council CEO Nick Walkley. It's all very well having a lovely equalities page on the council website spouting truffles and pork pies to keep all of the various well organised pressure groups happy, who have generated an industry out making ever more ludicrous demands for equality, but whilst the poorest and most vulnerable children in Barnet suffer it is graphic example of how rotten our core values are.
Over the weekend we saw the unedifying sight of Lib Dem treasury spokesman, David Laws, resigning because he'd given his partner £40,000 for living expenses. His excuse - he wanted to keep his private life private. It yet again reminded us all that we are happy to pay huge subsidies to MP's to have second homes, yet hundreds of thousands of people don't even have first homes. Sure MP's from Scotland have to live somewhere whilst on business, but why not have a council flat for them. One bedroom, kitchen, bathroom, living room, which they are allocated whilst they are in London on business. If they want a bigger flat they can do what everyone else does. Sort it out for themselves.
With all of our problems, it really is time we took some tough decisions. Lets sort out the things which matter and end this ridiculous culture of politically correct job creation schemes, where councils are rammed full of people doing nothing useful. Nick Walkley could start by saying this. "We are going to build 7,000 council homes in the next two years. They will be decent homes and we will house everyone on the waiting list". Where should he put them? Somewhere on the sites of the homes for the 60,000 people he's planning to import into Barnet with the various developments he's talking to developers about as we speak. By having lower density housing, creating better quality homes and dealing with the problems of Barnet, rather than creating new ones, we would all benefit.
Lets end the culture of starting bonkers schemes, setting up all sorts of ALMO's etc and lets get real. The solution is obvious. Decent quality council homes. Ones Nick Walkley and Lynne Hillan would be happy to live in (not together I add, I wouldn't wish that on Mr Walkley who seems like quite a nice bloke).
14 comments:
Excellent blog. When the Government talks about "Affordable" housing,it is referring to both the social-rented Council and Housing Association (RSLs) and intermediate housing, of which there are a number of different 'products'but generally some sort of part rent/part ownership. The question is,
Affordable for whom?
Unaffordability is greater in London than elsewhere, with a much higher percentage of people unable to afford anything other than social-rented housing.
Average house prices in London are double the England average, average private rents are double tjhose of housing associations.London council rents are 30% higher than national average council rents and London housing association rents are 23% higher than the national average.
Source for the above statistics and the Newsletter
The London Tenants Federation,
http://www.londontenants.org/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hniB8Wxg8ok
(My understanding is that, Barnet coucil have never selected a council tenant to represent them at the London Tenants Federation, (LTF)while most of the other councils have done so from a federation)
http://www.defendcouncilhousing.org
http://www.defendcouncilhousing.org.uk/dch/resources/DCHManifestoMarch2010.pdf.uk/dch/
Many Thank to Rog T
As soon as I read the first line I thought "but there are no council homes thanks to Mrs Thatcher and her promotion of greedy, selfish ways".
We are already paying the legacy of those many hard years of Thatcherism. Now we live in a country where people are (on the whole) out for themselves, raising selfish children who think the world owes them a living, and where nobody takes any real responsibility for themselves or their actions. The greedy witch actually created a nanny state by playing the 'blame game' although she claimed to be promoting free enterprise, sadly at the expense of all of us.
Now she's suffering degenerative mental health problems, as did her best pal Ronald Reagan (that's karma for you!), yet we allowed these mad dictators to run the world for all those years......
This blog has turned into a hard left ranting fest! So why would anyone work if they get a 'decent' home for free? Who's paying for that... Surely if everyone should get a 'decent home', they should also be entitled to not have to starve or freeze so the government should give, of right, a 'living wage' to everyone... where does it stop? All sounds lovely but how do you achieve this?
Can't beat good old Karl Marx, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" as that seems just what you are arguing for....
P.S. Moaneybat all housing is 'affordable' I'm not aware of any house in this country that isn't owned by someone therefore it was affordable to them
Well, thanks for the coronation, Rog: now maybe I will get some respect from my kids ... ! Just to explain that it isn't former council housing that is being used to plug the gaping hole of social housing, as far as I am aware it is any private accommodation that is offered to the Barnet Homes 'Homechoice' scheme.In all areas, from the least advantaged to the most affluent. Look at my 'Gimme Shelter' blog if you want to hear my family's experience of what happens when a substandard property is used in this arrangement.
Daniel Hope: I don't think it is outrageous to suggest that all human beings are entitled to be helped not to starve, or freeze, or live in squalor. We are talking surely about those in the greatest need, not lazy feckless eejits who can't be bothered to provide for their own families. The horrifying thing to me, anyway, is that a family considered to be 'vulnerable' and therefore in urgent need of housing, should end up in a property infested by rats because it has not been inspected beforehand. In our case, the family were appallingly behaved, but most families in this category surely need and deserve help with housing: even after our time in hell, I still believe that those in genuine need must be given assistance. The cost to local tax payers of subsidising such families in private rented accommodation is also an argument, one would have thought,for an obvious need of greater investment in social housing.
Dan,
Are you seriously suggesting that children should work? Don't they deserve a decent home existence if their parents are lazy?
Unlike you, I don't think that even lazy people should sleep rough. They should have decent but basic accomodation. Should they starve to death? Should there children? I don't think so.
I would like to see changes made so that feckless parents can't starve their kids to death, using their child benefit etc to fund alcohol and drugs. I think children have the right to three square meals a day, regardless of how awful mummy and daddy are.
If all of this makes me a hard leftie, so be it. I think that it is patently clear that the free market has failed the average citizen of London with regard to affordable housing.
Hard right commentators such as Dan often quote these mythical lazy bastards, but in my experience they are in the minority in London. Most people are just struggling to get by.
As someone who runs my own business, has never claimed benefits and who is involved in running charity projects for out of work youngsters (funding some of it from my own pocket), I feel a bit better equipped to comment than some people. Generally the kids who are at the bottom of the pile aren't the ones who had great starts in life. Give them a chance and they are often the ones who achieve most.
Still it's good to hear other viewpoints and Dans opinions, because the current system is failing most of us and we need to do something
Daniel
It is one of the reasons why the Conservatives de-selected you or another way of putting it, booted you out. Read what you stated.
Note which party disingenuously portrayed itself as the "party of the left" but did not get a mandate nor the majority. Why, it's called TRUST, The Conservatives were not trusted by all of the electorate to govern by itself.
You are also correct, a living wage, begins with a compulsory 'minimum wage' and those who work in the public sector and also in retail need a decent wage, the latter from employers.(2) Government your 'left of centre' Conservative ensures that nobody starves, via income support, nor do they freeze with the cold weather payments for the most vulnerable in extreme temperatures (not quite the slums to make movies)- it is the private utility company from overseas that screws us all. (3 ) You are right again on 'affordable' homes owned by those who could 'afford' to buy them and as you rightly state, affordable to them.(4)Who is Karl Marx? If each according to his ability can afford it then quite rightly he should meet his own need, just like RogT. So yes, good old Karl Marx got it more right then your your ability to understand both your statement, the blogger and the subject.
There is a great deal of the ex-Councillor Freer, now MP, in you, in that you agree with, 'his each according to his ability to pay for the services you need in Barnet, EasyBarnet. Your remark, elsewhere, follows:
25 May 2010 22:21
Daniel Hope said...
@moanybat - lets clear away a bit of your puff.
As for housing "waiting lists" as a measure of success - what a joke and a load of baloney. Lets take this to pieces. Firstly, say Barnet started to build tonnes of social housing, will the list go down? Yeah, maybe for a few months but then everyone from everywhere would turn up on Barnet's door and the list would shoot right back up. Want to get the list down? Solution - build nothing - people will get the hint and move elsewhere. bring in builders to build houses that people want to buy."
Is the above your ultimate solution to those who cannot afford to buy? When should we envisage your good-self paraphrasing THAT great speech by the late conservative Enoch Powell?
Where do the young around your age, on mimimum wage and the vulnerable homeless, whom cannot afford to buy "those houses that people want to buy" WHERE EXACTLY, DO THEY GO?
Sadly you have not read RogT's blog nor the comments of others. Finally, recall the year 1979, the start of watching the young sleeping on the streets and the 1980s when many lost their homes and ended up on the street. Where did they go?
Thatcher, came close to creating the circumstances to make a film like "Slumdog Homeless". Note the British successes of those who came to London from those developing nations whose first start was a council house, some from the Conservative Party in the House of Commons.
Sadly, Future Shape is you, because you don't remember the millions of homes that were destroyed during the war, who do you think housed your grannies and grandads? Go back and read that 25 and 26th May feedback. Facts!
@Rog - where did I ever call for child labour lol Go read the work IDS has done and is going to implement in government. The big "welfare for life" state with generation after generation after generation of people looking for handouts by the state to survive, instead of working is over.
Why should some people have to work to live and others, who are fit to work, have their homes and livings provided by others? What's decent and moral about that?
The best thing that can happy to kids from such broken families is they are fed, clothed and housed well and given a great education so they can hopefully escape the lifestyle of their parents. Unfortunately Labour saw social mobility drop during their time in office. That has to be reversed and IDS will see it reversed.
This is the common ground position of UK voters. If you want to brand them hard right wing, that's up to you.
@Moaneybat - it's very simple. Council's should be given the duty to make such land available to ensure there is enough housing for people. That's should be the end of their duty.
Your obsession with communist style 'cradle to grave' government provided housing, with lifelong tenure for those lucky few, is as immoral and it is unfair.
Why should people who refuse to work be pampered in this way whilst people on very low earnings have to live in a cheap bedsit.
Dan,
This blog was all about my belief that families are entitled to a decent quality of life. You retorted with
"So why would anyone work if they get a 'decent' home for free? Who's paying for that"
In answer to your question, the future generation of taxpayers. I get called "hard left" (which incidentally I don't really mind) for proposing that families should be entitled to decent living conditions and there children to have a healthy environment to study and play in.
Ultimately in your hard right vision, poverty is self replicating and children suffer. To me that is plain wrong. Ian Duncan Smith has realised that hard line Thatcherism doesn't work. Maybe it's time you did too.
... 'lazy feckless eejits' is meant to be ironic: those who have the most points in the housing list and who have any chance of being given any attention at all, are the ones with the most need of social housing, often with needs which by any standards would require support in housing and in other ways,ie 'vulnerable'families or individuals. Those with children quite obvioulsy particularly need assistance and no, in any decent society they should not be punished for the failures of their own parents.I do believe that neglectful and abusive parents should be held accountable for their treatment of their children, however, otherwise you are putting the childrens' rights at a lower priority than their parents. These families should be given priority for housing, but there should be an adequate basic stock of suitable local authority owned housing for this purpose, these families should not have to be decanted into the private sector where, currently, they are then abandoned to the mercy of unscrupuous landlords and in accommodation with no basic required standard of health and safety assessment, standard of decoration, facilities, or even cleanliness. That this is the case in the twenty first century is incredible to me. I wonder how much the total cost of maintaing such families in the private sector is? It would appear that the hard right Tory attitude skulking behind this housing policy prefers to pay that price rather than invest in building council houses, purely out of political dogma rather than economic sense. And no, Daniel, there's nowt wrong with a hard left ranting fest: seems highly appropriate in the circumstances.
Dan
Now i'm going to lose respect.
There is a Freer about you. One of the gretest failure of our nation is it's products of a failing education system. You are one of those and if you did get to university tacpayers money was truly wasted. Your comment:
" Council's should be given the duty to make such land available to ensure there is enough housing for people."
Who exactly does the land belong to, on Edgware Stonegrove Colindale Grhame park Dollis Valley and much of Brent Cross cricklewood West Hendon?
"Cradle to the Grave" simply does not happen and I do not think that my kids with the MSci from a 'Red Brick' Russell Group University is going to live of your taxes while serving to keep you protected. Know what I mean. Add to that the Warsi's of this this world in the Conservative Governmemt who had a start in the council home. One of those Challengesd Cameron for the leadership. "Cradle to the grave" indeed.
Rog T pays you a compliment out of his kindness. You did not answer the provide a solution your rhetoric is similar to the politicians of the 1930s Germany, know what I mean
@RogT so we're gonna borrow even more money so the next generation will have to pay for their parents' homes and then their own. Brownonomics lives.
" Daniel Hope said...
@RogT so we're gonna borrow even more money so the next generation will have to pay for their parents' homes and then their own. Brownonomics lives."
BROWN IS NOT HERE OVER THE NEXT FIVE YEARS. IN CASE YOU HAVE NOT UNDERSTOOD YOUR VOTE AND WHY YOU DID SO due to a lack of understanding of our non-constitution-. Government is CUTTING BACK THE PUBLIC SECTOR BORROWING REQUIREMENT.
However, I hope they increase the funding of further education colleges so you may enrol on a Governmen Politics and Economics course to be the next Harold Laski. You've heard of him, yes or no?
Dan
The work that IDS has done only confirms the work done years earlier by, one of the greatest minds on THINKING THE UNTHINKABLE and being radical about BIG WELFARE State,
Frank Field
You don't know what happened to him in doing so, do you? Old IDS that failed leader in opposition, will come at it from a different direction but, will end in the same way. precisely due to "the common ground position of UK voters."
ex-Councillor burton is your best hope for your ideal. Bon Chance!
Post a Comment