Councils will be a focus for united opposition to fixed term tenancies,
un'Affordable' (up to 80% market) rents and evictions due to Housing
Benefit cuts. Each council landlord has to agree a Tenancy Strategy by
next January. A Shelter report sets out useful arguments and questions - see here .Council
housing is a much-needed alternative to the failing private housing
market. With 4.5 million people on housing waiting lists and
homelessness soaring, with millions more trapped in insecure and
inadequate housing, what we need is investment in a new generation of
first class public, affordable, secure and accountable council housing.What you can do :
Organise local campaign meetings with tenants, trade unions,
politicians and housing campaigners - contact DCH for help and speakers,
leaflets.
Join us at the TUC and party conferences, and other events
(see dates below) and at the massive TUC march on 20 October in London,
A Future that Works
Email to order copies of the new DCH newspaper out in September (£20
for 100/£120 for 1,000) or new Right to Buy - Warning and other posters
(10 for £1/100 for £7).
Dates and events
DCH@TUC Brighton 9-10 September - email if you can be there
London activists meeting - Housing for the 99% 7pm Camden Town Hall WC1H 9JE
ARCH (Assoc of Retained Council Housing) Tenants' conference Kettering Conference Centre 19 September see details here
Labour conference Manchester from 30 Sept, with DCH fringe meeting Friend Meeting House 6pm Tue 2nd October Note
Council and other landlords must consult on use of new tenancies
and rents before Jan 2012, following the Localism Act 2011.
May-July 2012 saw another 42% fall in new council and Private Registered
Provider (PRP or housing association) homes, compared to the same
period last year - see figures here and here
See the latest Housing Emergency Briefing here
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Barnet Eye supports the Defend Council Housing campaign. Guest Blogs are always welcome at the Barnet Eye
Showing posts with label Council Housing. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Council Housing. Show all posts
Tuesday, 28 August 2012
Monday, 14 May 2012
Council Housing changes - A victory for crass stupidity
I have a question for you. How old do you think you will be when you die? Fifteen years ago, I never gave this question a thought. Then in 2000 my mother had a stroke. Prior to this, she'd been going on four cruises a year, having a career as a successful businesswoman. I'd pop round to see her, share a Guinness on her return and be regaled with tales of her trip up the Amazon, or round Australia or to Ephasus in the Med. When she was 75, she looked 60 and was enjoying her life. Then she had a stroke. In the space of two minutes she aged 30 years. When she was admitted to Barnet General hospital, I was shocked. They put her on the geriatric ward. I was enraged. How could they consider her a geriatric? Three weeks before she'd been sunning herself on a cruise, the life and soul of every party. Sadly, I found out she was in the right place. The four cruises a year became an annual pilgrimage to Lourdes with a disabled group. The chats over a pint of Guinness became a nightly occurrance. Failure to appear on time would lead to panicked phone calls. As she could no longer cook, lunch became meals on wheels. Although my mother had hundreds of thousands of pounds in the bank, she was totally dependent on other people for her existence.
So what has all of this got to do with Council Housing? She was wealthy, she could afford her care? Well there is one element of the equation that the Tory policy makers both locally and nationally seem to be unable to grasp. That is that the people who cared for my mother. The cleaners who mopped the ward at Barnet General hospital, the lady who delivered her meals on wheels, etc all have to live somewhere. Any of us can be struck down at any time. If you look the wrong way, when you cross the road - SPLAT - a life of reliance on carers. If you price accomodation out of the reach of ordinary people, then there will be no carers. There will be no cleaners. It is all very well saying that people should not have "a council house for life". What should they have? A sleeping bag and a pitch under Westminster Bridge. Of my siblings, I am unique. I am the only one never to live in Council accomodation. My parents moved from a Council House in Wise Lane to their own place in Millway in 1960, two years before I was born.
I was lucky to have a mother who understood economics and social justice. She viewed Burnt Oak Estate as a victory for humanity and human spirit. Working class people could live in a decent house, have a decent garden and could afford it. Green spaces were designed for children to play on. The residents worked in local factories such as Boosey & Hawkes, Van Den Plas and De Souters. Occasionally, some hapless local Conservative would make a snobbish comment about Burnt Oak and then spend fifteen minutes getting it in the neck, being told how estates like Burnt Oak were the lifeblood of Great Britain and the true source of our wealth. She would point out that money was ultimately made by people who got their hands dirty. They have the right to live in decent homes and have enough money to lead happy lives. Every change to council housing law under the Conservative Party has made this more difficult. The right to buy legislation, one of Thatchers most popular polices has resulted in estates like the Watling being transformed into cash cows for sleazy private landlords. The council tenants took advantage of the discounts, bought up, moved out and copped a huge profit (which I don't begrudge them). The houses were bought by landlords seeking maximum profit for minimum work. A trip around the Watling estate thirty years ago would reveal a well maintained area with youngsters playing on the greens outside their homes. Sadly, with every year, it appears more run down and shabby. My grandmother lived in Milling Road, Burnt Oak for twenty years, I was raised to be proud of that fact. I daresay that if she was alive today, there would be people on the right clamouring to sling her out of her home.
Even more sadly, none of the receipts from the sales was used for building new homes. As a result, we have a social housing crisis. On BBC London, we hear of councils "prioritising" certain professions. This is indicative of the snobbish Tory thinking. Cleaners and carers are bottom of the pile. It may amuse you to know that I was discussing the issue of getting a cleaner with a local Conservative (I've just opened a new studio complex and need one). His response "I know a lovely Polish girl, who will charge you next to nothing". I couldn't resist it. I asked what he thought about immigration policy "It's disgusting, I'm all for leaving the EU and stopping all this nonsense". That is the flaw in the UKIP/BNP argument. If we shut the borders and sling out the immigrants, the country would collapse.
The solution is simple. We need to protect council housing, stop the relentless march of London housing towards "luxury flats". Rather than compelling developers to provide "social housing" in developments, we should have a joined up policy, where we ensure that builders meet the requirements of existing local communities, rather than trying to attract people from far and wide to clog up "desirable areas". If there are 6,000 people on the Council waiting list, lets house them first in new housing. Once we've fixed our local problem, then we can start worrying about luxury flats for people moving from other parts of the country.
One day, you may be old and dependent on other people. If you need a nurse to wipe your bum or a lady to deliver your dinner and you've priced them all out of the neighbourhood, then please don't complain.I have one final question for you? Do you believe in ghosts? Sadly for me, I'm forced to. You see every time I hear about another Tory attack on Council Housing, I hear the screaming banshee of my mothers soul screaming in my ear that I should get off my fat, lazy, pampered arse and do something. That is why this blog supports council housing and decent social housing for people at the bottom of societies ladder.
So what has all of this got to do with Council Housing? She was wealthy, she could afford her care? Well there is one element of the equation that the Tory policy makers both locally and nationally seem to be unable to grasp. That is that the people who cared for my mother. The cleaners who mopped the ward at Barnet General hospital, the lady who delivered her meals on wheels, etc all have to live somewhere. Any of us can be struck down at any time. If you look the wrong way, when you cross the road - SPLAT - a life of reliance on carers. If you price accomodation out of the reach of ordinary people, then there will be no carers. There will be no cleaners. It is all very well saying that people should not have "a council house for life". What should they have? A sleeping bag and a pitch under Westminster Bridge. Of my siblings, I am unique. I am the only one never to live in Council accomodation. My parents moved from a Council House in Wise Lane to their own place in Millway in 1960, two years before I was born.
I was lucky to have a mother who understood economics and social justice. She viewed Burnt Oak Estate as a victory for humanity and human spirit. Working class people could live in a decent house, have a decent garden and could afford it. Green spaces were designed for children to play on. The residents worked in local factories such as Boosey & Hawkes, Van Den Plas and De Souters. Occasionally, some hapless local Conservative would make a snobbish comment about Burnt Oak and then spend fifteen minutes getting it in the neck, being told how estates like Burnt Oak were the lifeblood of Great Britain and the true source of our wealth. She would point out that money was ultimately made by people who got their hands dirty. They have the right to live in decent homes and have enough money to lead happy lives. Every change to council housing law under the Conservative Party has made this more difficult. The right to buy legislation, one of Thatchers most popular polices has resulted in estates like the Watling being transformed into cash cows for sleazy private landlords. The council tenants took advantage of the discounts, bought up, moved out and copped a huge profit (which I don't begrudge them). The houses were bought by landlords seeking maximum profit for minimum work. A trip around the Watling estate thirty years ago would reveal a well maintained area with youngsters playing on the greens outside their homes. Sadly, with every year, it appears more run down and shabby. My grandmother lived in Milling Road, Burnt Oak for twenty years, I was raised to be proud of that fact. I daresay that if she was alive today, there would be people on the right clamouring to sling her out of her home.
Even more sadly, none of the receipts from the sales was used for building new homes. As a result, we have a social housing crisis. On BBC London, we hear of councils "prioritising" certain professions. This is indicative of the snobbish Tory thinking. Cleaners and carers are bottom of the pile. It may amuse you to know that I was discussing the issue of getting a cleaner with a local Conservative (I've just opened a new studio complex and need one). His response "I know a lovely Polish girl, who will charge you next to nothing". I couldn't resist it. I asked what he thought about immigration policy "It's disgusting, I'm all for leaving the EU and stopping all this nonsense". That is the flaw in the UKIP/BNP argument. If we shut the borders and sling out the immigrants, the country would collapse.
The solution is simple. We need to protect council housing, stop the relentless march of London housing towards "luxury flats". Rather than compelling developers to provide "social housing" in developments, we should have a joined up policy, where we ensure that builders meet the requirements of existing local communities, rather than trying to attract people from far and wide to clog up "desirable areas". If there are 6,000 people on the Council waiting list, lets house them first in new housing. Once we've fixed our local problem, then we can start worrying about luxury flats for people moving from other parts of the country.
One day, you may be old and dependent on other people. If you need a nurse to wipe your bum or a lady to deliver your dinner and you've priced them all out of the neighbourhood, then please don't complain.I have one final question for you? Do you believe in ghosts? Sadly for me, I'm forced to. You see every time I hear about another Tory attack on Council Housing, I hear the screaming banshee of my mothers soul screaming in my ear that I should get off my fat, lazy, pampered arse and do something. That is why this blog supports council housing and decent social housing for people at the bottom of societies ladder.
Wednesday, 15 February 2012
Barnet Homes - Failing the tenants and nominated for awards
Today the Hendon Times reports that Barnet Homes, the quango which is responsible for the provision of Council housing in the London Borough of Barnet, has been nominated for an award for best customer engagement initiative category. When people ask me why I bother writing a blog, this is yet another classic example of the reason. It is because the local press fail to cover important local issues properly. You see there was another big story about Barnet Homes yesterday, but sadly you'd only have read it on this blog, because the local press are more interested in press releases where all the work is done for them by the PR departments of these large organisations.
If you read this - http://barneteye.blogspot.com/2012/02/scandal-exposed-abject-failure-of.html - you will read how a council report reveals that many disabled tenants of Barnet Homes are forced to live in crumbling tower blocks, where lifts are beyond repair and the emergency alarms don't work. What is more of a story? The award or the failure to maintain estates in a safe manner for a period of many years. The excuse? "Legacy systems" whatever this means? Given that they took over in 2004, they've had plenty of time to sort this legacy out. The other excuse is that the blocks are earmarked for demolition and this programme is "running late". As the blocks are likely to be around for the foreseeable future (a figure of ten years is mentioned, and who knows what will happen in that time), it is clear that Barnet Homes had no proper plan for regeneration and have failed thousands of their most deprived tenants in Barnet.
Once again, I urge the local press to start doing their jobs and report the real issues that affect the people of the London Borough of Barnet. For any local journalists who are interested, check out this site - www.defendcouncilhousing.org.uk - who have been campaigning for an end to the scandal for many years.
If you read this - http://barneteye.blogspot.com/2012/02/scandal-exposed-abject-failure-of.html - you will read how a council report reveals that many disabled tenants of Barnet Homes are forced to live in crumbling tower blocks, where lifts are beyond repair and the emergency alarms don't work. What is more of a story? The award or the failure to maintain estates in a safe manner for a period of many years. The excuse? "Legacy systems" whatever this means? Given that they took over in 2004, they've had plenty of time to sort this legacy out. The other excuse is that the blocks are earmarked for demolition and this programme is "running late". As the blocks are likely to be around for the foreseeable future (a figure of ten years is mentioned, and who knows what will happen in that time), it is clear that Barnet Homes had no proper plan for regeneration and have failed thousands of their most deprived tenants in Barnet.
Once again, I urge the local press to start doing their jobs and report the real issues that affect the people of the London Borough of Barnet. For any local journalists who are interested, check out this site - www.defendcouncilhousing.org.uk - who have been campaigning for an end to the scandal for many years.
Tuesday, 14 February 2012
Scandal Exposed - The abject failure of Barnet Homes
There are massive regeneration projects going on all over Barnet. One of the most important pieces of work in this program is (supposedly) to replace clapped out sub-standard accommodation blocks dating from the 1960's and 1970's with modern decent housing. Many of these blocks have become prohibitively expensive to maintain and tenants have to suffer virtually permanent problems with lifts and other items failing. Barnet Council responded to this by creating an Arms Length management Organisation (ALMO) called Barnet Homes to refurbish or replace this stock.
The ide a of the ALMO is that it is not bound by the red tape which affects councils and can move quickly to address issues. A recent council document has revealed the abject failure of this strategy. The Barnet Eye is calling for the Council to admit that the Barnet Homes ALMO experiment has failed, and to bring all council housing back in house. This will bring democratic control back into Council housing and end the policy of neglect for the people living in the worst estates on the Borough. The game has been given away in a DPR entitled - Regeneration estates essential lift works leaseholder charges -
Section 2.2 tells us that the worst estates were not included in the "wider Decent Homes programme". So let us assume that there is a parallel "Barnet Homes Crap Homes programme", for those estates most in need of regeneration. Here's what the report says.
Section 8.1 explains further :-
And then it gives the residents of the "Crap Homes programme" the bad news in section 8.2.
In section 8.4 they let the horrendous state of these blocks completely out of the bag. Barnet Homes has been in existence since 2004 and yet it has taken 8 years to start to address "management systems which are unable to report emergency alarms". This to me is truly shocking.
Perhaps the most shocking statement in the whole report is in section 4.1, the revelation that the tenants of these blocks have a "Higher proportion of Households with disabilities". Is this how Barnet Council and Barnet Homes look after the most vulnerable people in their care? Put them in clapped out buildings, with lifts that are prone to breakdown, with no management systems in place to rescue them when they get stuck? The answer is clearly yes, because it says so in the Council's own report, in black and white.
Is there anyone in the Borough, who can disagree that this is a scandal? Is there anyone who can argue that we are failing our most vulnerable neighbours? I cannot hide my disgust at this whole issue and I call for the resignation of Tracey Leese and her management team and the immediate abolition of Barnet Homes. I suspect the only part of the "Arms Length" strategy that has worked for Barnet Council is to keep the most vulnerable people in the Borough at "Arms Length" from the Councillors who are meant to represent them.
Here is the full, shocking report.
DPR-6 - Lift Maintenance
The ide a of the ALMO is that it is not bound by the red tape which affects councils and can move quickly to address issues. A recent council document has revealed the abject failure of this strategy. The Barnet Eye is calling for the Council to admit that the Barnet Homes ALMO experiment has failed, and to bring all council housing back in house. This will bring democratic control back into Council housing and end the policy of neglect for the people living in the worst estates on the Borough. The game has been given away in a DPR entitled - Regeneration estates essential lift works leaseholder charges -
Section 2.2 tells us that the worst estates were not included in the "wider Decent Homes programme". So let us assume that there is a parallel "Barnet Homes Crap Homes programme", for those estates most in need of regeneration. Here's what the report says.
Most properties on the priority regeneration housing estates were not included in the wider Decent Homes programme which was successfully completed by Barnet Homes in 2010. This is because these homes are due to be demolished and replaced with new homes over the next 2 to 15 years. However, the Council has a duty to ensure that homes are maintained to a reasonable standard whilst they are still occupied and awaiting demolition.
The Council has developed plans to demolish the four largest council housing estates- West Hendon, Grahame Park. Stonegrove/Spur Road and Dollis Valley- and replace them with new homes as part of its regeneration plans.
There has been some slippage in the regeneration programme and it is expected that many of the properties will remain occupied for a number of years. The Council has a duty to keep these properties in a habitable condition for as long as they remain occupied.
The existing lift units have outlasted their useful life. The units have become unreliable and have a tendency to breakdown. This is because of material fatigue, increased mechanical failure of the moving parts and systems failure due to old legacy control and management systems which are unable to report emergency alarms.
Demographic analysis has shown that a higher proportion of households on the regeneration estates are from Black and Minority Ethnic household than for the council housing stock as a whole. In addition, more households are families with children and there are higher proportions of households with disabilities.
Here is the full, shocking report.
DPR-6 - Lift Maintenance
Tuesday, 1 June 2010
Council Housing in Barnet
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).
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).
Monday, 12 April 2010
Guest Blog : Important Council Housing issues
By Robert at Barnet Defend Council Housing,
Hello. I'm not a blogger but with the election approaching, the issue of the future of council housing is something which will affect many people in Barnet. We have thousands of people on the waiting list and huge developments in Barnet which fail to even touch on these issues. What sort of a society allows huge housing developments, building homes for 60,000 people from outside the borough of Barnet, whilst not even scratching the surface of the council house waiting list. Please click on the attached links to find out more information about the future of council housing in London.
Hello. I'm not a blogger but with the election approaching, the issue of the future of council housing is something which will affect many people in Barnet. We have thousands of people on the waiting list and huge developments in Barnet which fail to even touch on these issues. What sort of a society allows huge housing developments, building homes for 60,000 people from outside the borough of Barnet, whilst not even scratching the surface of the council house waiting list. Please click on the attached links to find out more information about the future of council housing in London.
Thanks to Rog at the Barneteye for letting me use his blog.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert at Barnet Defend Council Housing is a campaigner for better Council housing in Barnet. All guest. There is a link to the campaign in the sidebar.
Friday, 27 February 2009
Affordable Council Housing
I just performed a Google search on the following text (cut and paste this into one and try it yourself)
"Labour mp" "affordable council housing"
I wanted to do a blog on what MP's had to say about this subject. I was hoping to find a selection of articles to quote. The results shocked me. There were only 37 hits returned and not one from a major national Newspaper.
We''ve had a "Labour" Government for 12 years with huge majorities. The Labour party are meant to look after working people. My parents moved into a council house in 1948 as this was what working couples used to do. They bought their own home in 1960, as their business had taken off. The philosophy then was that couples need some help starting out, once they have secure finances they move on.
The philosophy of today is one of stress, debt, dodgy private landlords, insecurity and worry.
As I pondered this, I remembered that it's not Labour, it's NEW Labour - I always wondered what the NEW in New Labour stood for. I think I've figured it out.
Nepotistic - Have you noticed the number of "poweful families" involved with New Labour?
Egotistical - Macho policies devised to show tough Leadership (tough on the poor that is)
Wealthy - How many senior New Labour figures are from poor backgrounds?
Is it any wonder they never mention affordable council housing? Just as a comparison, I did the following search to see what our "New" Labour MP's really care about.
"Labour mp" allowances
That returned 29,200 hits and there lies the problem with Great Britain today.
If you want my advice on achieving financial security in Great Britain today? Choose your parents well.
"Labour mp" "affordable council housing"
I wanted to do a blog on what MP's had to say about this subject. I was hoping to find a selection of articles to quote. The results shocked me. There were only 37 hits returned and not one from a major national Newspaper.
We''ve had a "Labour" Government for 12 years with huge majorities. The Labour party are meant to look after working people. My parents moved into a council house in 1948 as this was what working couples used to do. They bought their own home in 1960, as their business had taken off. The philosophy then was that couples need some help starting out, once they have secure finances they move on.
The philosophy of today is one of stress, debt, dodgy private landlords, insecurity and worry.
As I pondered this, I remembered that it's not Labour, it's NEW Labour - I always wondered what the NEW in New Labour stood for. I think I've figured it out.
Nepotistic - Have you noticed the number of "poweful families" involved with New Labour?
Egotistical - Macho policies devised to show tough Leadership (tough on the poor that is)
Wealthy - How many senior New Labour figures are from poor backgrounds?
Is it any wonder they never mention affordable council housing? Just as a comparison, I did the following search to see what our "New" Labour MP's really care about.
"Labour mp" allowances
That returned 29,200 hits and there lies the problem with Great Britain today.
If you want my advice on achieving financial security in Great Britain today? Choose your parents well.
Monday, 23 February 2009
The BNP smile on Mike Freer's stupidity
Freer flies the flagMike Freer is supposed to be a politician. As leader of the Council he's meant to show leadership. He's meant to take responsible decisions that protect the citizens of Barnet from harm. Now I don't know what Mike Freer's biggest worry in Barnet is, but mine is the possiblity of the BNP gaining popularity. I don't know anyone who absolutely hates black people, so I don't think the BNP's message on race is attractive around here. When the news broke about the BNP membership list, I was pleased to see there was only one member in Mill Hill. The only issue that I can see, where the BNP may make headway is the issue of social housing. I don't for one minute believe that the BNP really care too much about this issue but they know their racist message resonates for young working class people struggling to find a home to start a family. Even with the recent falls in house prices, buying a home, where you have might get 4 times your salary as a mortgage is way beyond the means of people on £10-20,000 per year. In times gone by the first option for people in this position would be council housing. Unfortunately, since the disasterous Thatcherite policy of selling off the Council stock of homes and not replacing them with new ones, the situation in Barnet has deteriorated. As I have mentioned before, the situation is so bad that a friend of mine who is a widow with 4 children, one of whom is disabled, has not received a council house, even though she was made homeless when her husband died in February 2001. Her husband was a driver who worked for many years with London transport and the London Ambulance service. She has been told she doesn't have enough points for Barnet and as such she's still in temporary accomodation. The suggestion from Barnet Council? Move to Norfolk. Rip her children, traumatised by the loss of their father from Cancer away from their friends and give them even more stress.
Fortunately the intervention of Andrew Dismore prevented them from being evicted a couple of years ago, but I think the attitude of Barnet Council is callous and cruel, to a family which has suffered. People such as my friend are in a position where far right organisations such as the BNP will say "Look at all the Council Housing being given to immigrants". As people have a feeling of injustice, they think that these opportunists care about them and fall for this line of reasoning. Now what the BNP don't tell them is that the problem doesn't lie with immigrants at all. It lies with the policies of the Tory Barnet Council. The reason people cannot be housed is that there aren't the homes. There are 13,637 families on the waiting list (of all creeds and colours) They are all deemed to not have "sufficient points". They are all the victims of this injustice. The first job of Mr Mike Freer's council is to look after the most vulnerable people in the borough. Is he doing this? No he's not. He's got a plan to build homes for 80,000 people in Barnet, but how many of these are Council homes for those in temporary accommodation? How many are allocated for the citixens of Barnet who need a home now? Well according to a report in todays Times group, the already shabby figure of 3,369 (just over a fifth of the waiting list) asked for by Boris has been rejected by Mike Freer. He wants to only have between 1,135 and 1,700.
So I ask you this. Do you think that Mike Freer's plan to build 80,000 homes where only one tenth of the people on the waiting list will actually get a home is fair to the citizens of Barnet? Personally I think that the plans for this many dwellings will not only ruin Barnet but will cause social division and real resentment. Let me tell you who will benefit a) Those property developers who haven't gone bust. b) The BNP who will be able to go around peddling the notion that all of the non existent council houses are being given to immigrants. c) Mike Freer's Council officers who go on expensive planning junkets to the Cannes in the South of France at a cost of £5,000 to the taxpayer for the week.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)