Gordon Grim's housing "promises" are a sham
Robert Henderson
Before everyone gets over-excited about Gordon Brown's supposed promises
on housing they should realise the following:
1. His "Social housing for local people" is as bogus as his "British
jobs for British people". Such preference would fall foul of both
British and European law; British law because of the requirements of
our equality legislation and the obligation on local councils to house
vulnerable people in need, especially those with dependant children,
and European law because any person legitimately resident in the EU has
the right to move to any part of the EU and receive equivalent treatment
in terms of social provision to the citizens of the receiving state. It
is also probable that the Human Rights Act would come into play, most
probably with the clause relating to the right to enjoy a private life.
2. The proposed building of 95,000 new "affordable" homes is minute
compared with the need or what would be physically possible. (Council
House building reached a peak of 300,000 per annum in the mid 1950s to
give a comparison.)
3. Many of the proposed 95,000 homes would be for part ownership or use
by Housing Associations, neither of which gives those living in them the
security of tenure or influence over rent and other charges which being
a council house tenant brings.
4. This government has at best 11 months to run. Even if new legislation
is not required (something which not clear at this point), there is
simply not time to put large scale contracts out for tender, complete
the legally required competitive bidding process and sign the contracts
before the General Election.
5. It is as certain as it is possible to be in politics that the next
government will be a Tory one. (Since polling began in Britain in the
1940s, no Government has been so consistently far behind in the polls
this close to a General Election as Labour currently is and won). If the
Tories do form a government they can, and most probably will, scrap
Brown's plans.
Brown's promises on housing and other matters such as the NHS (the new
NHS rights are not to be legally enforceable) should be seen for what
they are, a cynical attempt to minimize the damage to Labour at the next
election.
RH
--
Robert Henderson
Blair Scandal website: http://www.geocities.com/ blairscandal/
Personal website: http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk
Fred
Are his statements and pronouncements now taken seriously by anyone?
John Bennett
Ask Billy Black boy:-))
John Bennett
Bob, as usual, clinically dissects and surgically removes the corruption
from the blathering wound under the nostrils of the head of the Scotch
Mafia mouthpiece.
Well done Bob:-)
JNugent
> Before everyone gets over-excited about Gordon Brown's supposed promises
> on housing they should realise the following:
> 1. His "Social housing for local people" is as bogus as his "British
> jobs for British people". Such preference would fall foul of both
> British and European law; British law because of the requirements of
> our equality legislation and the obligation on local councils to house
> vulnerable people in need, especially those with dependant children,
> and European law because any person legitimately resident in the EU has
> the right to move to any part of the EU and receive equivalent treatment
> in terms of social provision to the citizens of the receiving state. It
> is also probable that the Human Rights Act would come into play, most
> probably with the clause relating to the right to enjoy a private life.
> 2. The proposed building of 95,000 new "affordable" homes is minute
> compared with the need or what would be physically possible. (Council
> House building reached a peak of 300,000 per annum in the mid 1950s to
> give a comparison.)
And what a wonderful success that was, eh? Our inner cities and peripheral
council estates are an absolute workers' paradise, aren't they?
> 3. Many of the proposed 95,000 homes would be for part ownership or use
> by Housing Associations, neither of which gives those living in them the
> security of tenure or influence over rent and other charges which being
> a council house tenant brings.
Why should council house tenants be able to exert influence over rent and
other charges (other than through the rental market, like any other tenant)?
If the influence is exerted via the local council and its election, this is
tantamount to corruption ("Vote for me and I'll make you better off at
someone - anyone - else's expense").
> 4. This government has at best 11 months to run. Even if new legislation
> is not required (something which not clear at this point), there is
> simply not time to put large scale contracts out for tender, complete
> the legally required competitive bidding process and sign the contracts
> before the General Election.
New legislation would almost certainly be required for the resumption of the
carpeting of our towns and cities with yet more council (as distinct from HA)
properties. If it were not so, the more politically and elecorally "aware"
councils would never have stopped.
> 5. It is as certain as it is possible to be in politics that the next
> government will be a Tory one. (Since polling began in Britain in the
> 1940s, no Government has been so consistently far behind in the polls
> this close to a General Election as Labour currently is and won). If the
> Tories do form a government they can, and most probably will, scrap
> Brown's plans.
Not necessarily. As bad a policy as it is (in its overall effect) council
housing has one marked advantage over housing association provision: the
right to buy. Perhaps HA tenants should simply be given the RTB (and let the
emperors of the housing associations learn to live with it).
Mike
>
> - Show quoted text -
They are taken as announcements of general intention by the client
state reassuring them that all will be done for their comfort - not
exactly as billed but in as far as can be got away with by taxing
others. Good enough to make it worthwhile. Not necessary for the
detail to be believed.
I see in Today's Mail Utley says Wales and NI will soon have 70% of
their incomes from the state (CEBR source?.