A common theme of my posts about the party’s strategy over the last few months has been my scepticism about the strategic decision taken to love everything the coalition does. As I wrote in July, the risk with trying to ‘own’ the entire government record is that we get blamed for the things we’ve opposed or got changed yet don’t get credit for what we’ve achieved:
The danger is that, rather like a good speech writer, the party may end up making many significant changes to government, improving what is being done, but whose good work is not noticed by the public as it is behind the scenes.
So this was very welcome news over the weekend, courtesy of the Independent on Sunday:
The Liberal Democrats are to adopt a new strategy of laying claim to aspects of coalition policy in an attempt to reverse the impact of government spending cuts on their poll ratings.
In a significant U-turn from the pledge to “own” the entire government programme, Lib Dem strategists at the party’s Cowley Street HQ will spell out where key reforms would not have happened if the Tories had been in power alone. This includes taking the credit for significant areas of policy covering welfare, energy, housing, and constitutional reform.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Lib Dems are reviewing policy and strategy says PoliticsHome
From Norman settlement to a civic square
Church Green video
Thinking of standing for election or re-election next year? Helpful questions to consider
Andrew Tampion
Anthony Acton
Kira Collins
Tom Bailey
Simon Robinson
80 Comments
How about a genuine change of tack rather than naked spin. How about actually refusing to support the most diabolical aspects of this Thatcherirte cabal? You could start by saying that the plan to throw people out of social housing after two years if they earn beyond some arbitrary figure is the most socially divisive and disgusting of the many dreadful things so far proposed. I grew up on a council estate, my mum still lives there, at certain stages my hard working family may have breached these kind of levels and would have been thrown out of their home and community. Is this really a liberal law? You should be ashamed of yourselves. You are collaborators and will be treated as such by the British public.
N Makhno: do you believe that if someone is in need at some point in their life, they should then be entitled to social housing permanently for the rest of their life – and able to pass this life-time right on after they die as well? If not, what would you do that is different from what the government is doing? Is it the threshold you disagree with, or the grace period or…? Or is it that once in trouble, permanently housed is what you believe in?
I do not believe social housing is like unemployment benefit, a temporary palliative, that was never the intention it was a state provided alternative to the private sector of Rachman et al. It is a persons home you are dealing in, whatever happened to the concept of the cradle to the grave? You are behaving like the Victorians. Out of the social housing into the workhouse. I grew up on a council estate unaware that we were third class citizens, we were proud of our home. This is the next level of the Thatcherite assault upon social housing. You will leave ghettos of the truly desperate, rather then proud communities of the working class.
What concept of the cradle to the grave? Must have missed the point that some people have a right to be subsidised by the state and taxpayer for their entire life
My every visit to articles on the LDV these days is consumed with frustration that Labour voters see it as their right to free speech to leave bilious comments on a section of the web that is decidedly Liberal Democrat.
It’s not wrong… it’s just a bit weird and stalkerish.
Clearly Kevin you believe that social housing is little more than the last redoubt of the desperate. I thought it was part of the post war plan for homes for heroes, the idea that decent people deserve decent housing throughout their lives whether they can afford what the market determines or not. They also deserve decent education and health but they are under attack too. The cradle to the grave is the true big society, the idea that collectively we can make sure in a wealthy country that everybody has a decent life. But then you are the neo-Thatcherites who have little time for such old fashioned ideas.
“My every visit to articles on the LDV these days is consumed with frustration that Labour voters see it as their right to free speech to leave bilious comments on a section of the web that is decidedly Liberal Democrat.”
You really need to take that up with the owners of the site, who say:
“We welcome comments from all our readers, including those who are supporters of other parties, or none at all.”
And if you think it’s only “Labour voters” who are complaining about the actions of this government, you really are out of touch. Personally, I’ve never voted Labour in my life.
N Makhno: just so I’ve got it clear then, imagine the case of someone who falls on hard times in their early 20s and gets social housing. Are you saying that even if, say, they in their 30s subsequently set up a company that is a run-away success and become a multi-millionaire you think they should remain entitled to stay in their social housing right through until they die and then be able to pass it on to their children (along with a multi-million pounds inheritance)? And do you think that anyone who thinks they shouldn’t have that right is a neo-Thatcherite?
“consumed with frustration that Labour voters see it as their right to free speech to leave bilious comments on a section of the web that is decidedly Liberal Democrat”.
Yes your right, it’s called free speech, just a shame you feel ‘frustrated’ by it, but then that says more about you than the poster of a so called ‘bilious comment’
And just for the record I agree with a lot of what N Makhno has written (or at least the sentiment) and I can assure you that I am not a Labour voter and never have been, in fact, I have until recently a Lib Dem member, but if your comment is typical of the current ‘Liberal’ view I may well revise that.
Mark, and do you think its fair that someone who may of lived in a house for several years and spent their own money on decorating it and carrying out minor repairs could receive a pay rise at work which suddenly pushes them over a set threshold of what they can earn by a few pounds and so is told they will have to leave their house , meaning their kids could have to leave the local school and the family have to move to another area.
Mark. That is just ridiculous, but actually yes. Of course that doesn’t happen, but rather that ludicrous and unimaginable case than you throw tens of thousands of people out of their homes and communities because they have earned a few hundred pounds too much to be deemed worthy of social housing. There was never this kind of barrier to social housing because it was not seen as a benefit but a right. Do we take away state “subsidised” schooling or health if you earn too much? Well not yet, but that is the next logical step. Stop thinking of social housing as a sop to the failed, it is more like social transport, or should we means test everybody who gets on the bus to see if they can afford a car? Sorry, but you clearly like ridiculous examples.
@ Mark Pack
“Are you saying that even if, say, they in their 30s subsequently set up a company that is a run-away success and become a multi-millionaire”
Can you tell me just how many Multi Millionaires there are currently in social housing? anyway we are not talking about millionaires I thought we are talking about the ‘working class’.
There has not been a Census on homes in England and Wales since 2001, The next census is due in 2011
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/census2001/profiles/commentaries/housing.asp
Census 2001 – People and their homes in England and Wales Results
22,539,000 households in England and Wales
21,660,000 Occupied
727,000 are vacant
151,000 are second homes or holiday accommodation
The average Household is 2.36 people
There are approximately 55 million people living in England and Wales.
It does not take a rocket scientist to work out, that there is a massive shortage of housing (Especially affordable) in England and Wales.
Even if you used the assumption of 22’539’000 households being adequate to support 2.36 people that would only equate to 53’192’040 people
Obviously though a significant proportion of those 22.5 Million properties are 1 & 2 Bedroom properties, hence the reason that 2 million households are overcrowded.
Why the Government is not waiting for the 2011 Census results before making any decisions on Social Housing is outrageous.
Mark Having read your retort again, do you really think that soclal housing is only for those “in trouble”? My family were never in trouble, my father was “in” the war my my mum working “in” the health service, their children “in” state schools. We were also “in” a tightly knit inner London community of similar, decent working people. But since Thatcher’s right to buy policy that estate has gone down, the pride removed. Now you want to turn it into a temporary stop for the socially challenged, to be vacated as soon as they earn enough to cram into the latest Rachman alternative. This is the ultimate insult to ordinary “hardworking” people, the harder they work, the more likely they will be homeless.
Nige, Vince: I was asking about the principle – do you in principle believe such people should have the right to social housing for life (and for their family beyond that)? If not, where do you draw the limits?
There’s certainly plenty to be debated about the practical details of where the government’s proposals look likely to draw the limits, but the case that you and others have been putting, if I understand it right, isn’t about those practical details but rather that in principle once you are in social housing you should never have to leave it, regardless of how rich you may become, and that also that right can be passed on, regardless of how big an inheritance you also leave. Is that the principle you sign up to? The alternative principle obviously is to say that social housing should be allocated on the basis of need, which seems to me the much better principle.
Mark. Instead of supporting a system whereby people are thrown out of their homes and communities because they have worked too hard, or been too lucky, why not call for a major programme of social housing building? When we were truly broke as a nation, we built all these precious council estates, lets get working and build more so that we have enough to make social housing a normal un-stigmatised choice for anybody who wants to opt for that model.
The problem with kicking anyone moderately successful out of their council house is that you will turn mixed council estates into sink estates.
We should be encouraging those who have succeeded to stay to create ‘comprehensive’ housing.
by the way mark. You lot should be careful about discussing principles. Not a subject you’re very strong on right now.
I’ve posted regarding this several times, but I still don’t think th ebalance will be right. There is a need to state publically that Tory policies are disagreed with (but are a price of coalition). It is that rather than highlighting the areas where Liberal Democrats are influencing policy that is really needed. The trouble is that, like many others on this blog (and not just those that voted Labour Mat Smith!!), I don’t believe Clegg, Cable and Alexander do disagree with the Tory policies. They just seem to be falling over themselves to attend the great Tory love in.
Performances like Cable’s utter tosh on the politics show don’t help. He may have convinced someone with his words but most I have spoken to found it laughable. His insistance that nothing really mattered except a document that did not exist before the election, and that voters had no chance to vote on, was probably the best argument against electoral reform I have seen. Elections will become a guessing game of who will drop which principles to get into bed with whom. A kind of Westminster big brother (perhaps Davina will be available to replace Peter Snow).
Before they can spin the effectiveness of themselves in coalition they will need to define themselves in coalition.
@ To all posting on social housing…
The real problem here is that Thatcher sold all the Council houses and didn’t allow the councils to replace them with the money. We need enough publically owned houses to ensure that this becomes a nothing point.
I grew up in a council house, we lived in Surrey and could never have afforded either private rent, and certainly never dream of buying. I have been far more fortunate than my parents were at my age, have bought a house, will have paid for it before I retire and will therefore have the benefit from it. I don’t believe that most people stay in social housing because they really want to it’s more about need.
The real problem is that people stay in large houses after there families have grown up, stopping other familes having the same benefits they did. The answer again is more housing, but of differing types and sizes. If you offer a couple in their early 60’s a dodgy flat in the centre of town, they will not want to move. A small bungalow in a quieter area and they will willingly go and the 3 bedroom house next to the schools can be used again for it’s original purpose.
In short provide reasonable options and people will be reasonable….
“I was asking about the principle – do you in principle believe such people should have the right to social housing for life (and for their family beyond that)?”
If it’s a matter of principle, please can you tell us what principle the party was advocating during the election campaign?
I certainly don’t remember anything like this being suggested by Nick Clegg. Is my memory playing tricks?
Getting back to the original article, if the IoS report is true then this is welcome news.
Has anyone told Vince?
Nige asks ‘Can you tell me just how many Multi Millionaires there are currently in social housing?’
Well there’s Piers Corbyn – doyen of defend council housing and other trotskyite causes, brother of lefty Labour MP Jeremy and millionaire long range weather forecaster.
Clearly the sort of person who deserves a taxpayer subsidised home for life…
N makhno: if social housing is a right, not a benefit, akin to public transport, surely it must then be a universal right? This, of course, is impossible without nationalising the whole housing sector. You seem to insist it is a right, but only for some who – at some arbitrary point in their lives – were deemed to have that right. The trouble with your position is that by insisting that this right, once accessed, is permanent, you effectively deny that same right to other who may have greater need of it.
At the heart of this policy is the question of how many of those who are homeless – in temporary accomodation, at the very bottom of the housing pile – could be moved to council houses if those able to afford market rents vacated them.
The current situation is, perhaps the most socially divisive of all.
If true, this is welcome news, though a very long way from what the party should do, and has to do, if it is to survive – ie, leave the “coalition” and get rid of Clegg.
It seems to me that “coalition” supporters fall into two discrete camps: the Cleggmaniacs and the Clegg apologists. The Cleggmaniacs tell us that the Liberal Democrats and the Tories basically believe in the same things, that the Tory Party is socially liberal and civil libertarian, and that on the key issues of deficit reduction and student tuition fees, the Conservatives are right and the Liberal Democrats wrong. The Clegg apologists, on the other hand, profess to dislike to Tory Party and all its works, but plead the Marshal Petain defence: there was no alternative, and things would have been a lot worse if we hadn’t done it – as though that is going to impress the voting public and save Clegg and his acolytes from the electoral guillotine.
Sesenco: can you define what “coalition” means if it must exclude all and any compromise between parties?
“This includes taking the credit for significant areas of policy covering welfare, energy, housing, and constitutional reform.”
“It includes claims that major welfare reforms “would not have been possible” without Lib Dems in power, while Andrew Stunell, the Lib Dem communities minister, suggested 150,000 new affordable homes were only planned “because of Liberal Democrat influence in government”
150’000 affordable new homes, is not something to trumpet about, It still only equates to 30’000 New homes a year
Going by the 2001 census. There was a shortage of 800;000 Homes in England and Wales
That’s not including the 2 million homes that are classed as overcrowded.
I believe the 2011 census will show that housing shortage is much worse now, than it was 10 years ago.
Taking credit for the policies covering welfare, Why on earth would Liberal Democrats want to take credit for that?Considering the policies covering welfare include,
removing Mobility component of DLA for people in Nursing homes
Reducing housing benefit by 10% for JSA claimants of over 12 months
Reducing LHA to 30th Percentile, equating to on average £9 a week cut in Housing Benefit to every household
changes to the work capability test which is throwing hundreds of thousands of sick and disabled people of benefits
Changing the eligibility of working tax credits from 16 hours a week to 24 hours a week, and reducing child care costs from 80% to 70%
Taking the credit for policies on Energy, That would include the 8 Nuclear Power stations, that Liberal Democrats where against before the election.
I am sure Liberal Democrats should take the credit for these policies, The conservatives would not be able to implement them without the Liberal democrats.
I am also sure the electorate will also give them the credit they deserve at the next elections as well, and rightly so
Incidentally, it’s interesting to see the Lib Dem rating in the ICM poll that’s just been published.
Previously supporters of the party leadership have tried to tell us that the poor poll ratings are really just down to YouGov, and that according to other companies the party is performing much as it generally does away from elections – ICM in particular being held up as an example.
But ICM now has the Lib Dems on 14%, which is an exceptionally poor rating by that company’s standards. It equals the low achieved 4 days before Ming Campbell’s resignation in 2007, but apart from that it is the least popular the Lib Dems have been since early 2001.
@Sesenco
I think the group you call the Clegg apologists are still coming to terms with the reality of the Coalition and in Govt they are more or less stuck within the line set by Clegg.
We have a group within the leadership who have found a deeper common cause with the Tories than anyone realised. Day by day they are working to entrench this. David Laws freed from Govt seems to be doing much of the active work of linking us to the Conservatives, even creating space for the idea of a longer term arrangement. His pronouncements make me wonder why he remains a Lib Dem.
I doubt Clegg has the political skills to chart a way out of Coalition after 5 years to enable us to fight a strong independent campaign. I hope we develop our own policy making independent of Govt and minimising the influence of Clegg and his faction. It is the only way I can see that will enable us to fight with any clarity at the next Gen Election.
This is a welcome step. Too often there is unecessary cover for ideological right-wing politiking, such as Gove’s baffling changes to supposedly ‘liberal-lefty’ teacher training provision.
http://etonmess.blogspot.com/2010/11/teacher-training-right-way.html
On council housing. I believe this was definitely a step too far for the Tories and something the Party should have steered clear of. At some time, if it should be solvent again as a nation, that secure well paid jobs have returned a plenty – it would then be time to look at this issue. What is the average age now when people start buying their first house? – 40? and these are the best paid. The chances that many of the semi skilled and unskilled will be in a position to buy their own home, in the short or medium term, is very low.
Since the number of homes to be freed up are likely to be few, this has to be set against the anxieties it will cause those given council homes from now on [I think the clause just applies to new council lets] . For the majority, although they will know that they are not earning enough to buy their own place, they are likely to have a lifetime of uncertainty of never feeling secure or being certain of a permanent place to live. I wonder if Cameron will personally call on council house tenants and ask about ‘wellbeing’? This is pure Tory ideology devised by a group of whom the vast majority have never, and are likely to never face homelessness.
The LibDems can take whatever credit they want for the unpopular scutwork the Tories have handed them. The prize the Tories are after is their economic strategy succeeding – that’s what will returm them to power after the next GE and they intend to win as a FPTP party and will have cut Clegg and his clique adrift long before so that the electorate don’t think they assisted with the economic transformation.
The Tories have no intention of letting the LibDem leadership clique cling onto their coat-tails till the next election although they don’t mind throwing them a few ermine robes in the interim and other baubles of goverment power.
But the crunch will come and the Tories will have already worked out their strategy and timetable and the Clegg leadership clique will be left shocked by the blitzkreig when it comes.
Personally I don’t think the Tories will do enough to turn the economy round enough to win the next GE outright. So a coalition with the LP and what is left of the LibDems is a possibility.
But that will only happen if principled people in the LibDems take back their once-proud party and send packing those Tories in their ranks who are currently wagging the dog.
I am also concerned that some LibDem posters on here think that supporters of other parties or none shouldn’t be on here and have likened them to ‘stalkers’. Obviously the right to free speech is going as well if this lot want to exclude comment and criticism. If you are so sensitive gawd knows how you will be able to handle voters on the doorstep – ach maybe you’re as well heading for the bunker now and saving yourself a lot of angst.
The arguments advanced over the proposed housing changes are puerile and seem to hang on hypothetical self-made millionaires refusing to leave the sink estates they were born in. Oh Yea? They also seem to focus on the financial aspects and give little or no consideration to the social impact of what is proposed.
Of course LibDems are getting more like the Tories every day and will be no doubt happy to see Rachmannite landlords clean-up financially from those ejected fron social housing because of a wage rise. Like so much of what is happening with this Coalition – everything is being rushed through at breakneck speed with little or no time for detailed drafting or analysis.
Of course this suits the Tories who don’t give a damn about huge swathes of society and it helps to bamboozle everyone including, it would seem, most of the LibDem parliamentary party.
On the change of tack, although welcome – I simply do not believe it will have any discernible effect. In order to convince the public that the Party is battling for the least fortunate there needs to be issues which result in public wrangles. Some drama is needed if it is to impact on the public consciousness. NC & DC pushing, shoving and shouting at each other would do the trick :).
Sidf If the queues for busses are too large we provide more busses. Most people will always chose to buy a house if they can afford to do so, but the state should be able to provide decent, affordable accomodation for those who wish to take that choice. The analogy with schools and hospitals is more apt, or should we start to see state education as only for those poor wretches who cannot afford private schools and chick them out once they earn too much?
EcoJon: So asking people what principles they’d based their social housing policy on is “puerile”? Hmm…!
Anthony, just a thought but you do realise that three years on from whatever poll rating we got after Mings resignation the party won its largest share of the vote in a general election since 1983? And that four years on from the 2001 low you refer to we elected the largest number of MPs the party has had since the days of Lloyd George?
Regardless of views about the coalition or its individual policies it is an awful long way to the next election and getting hysterical about poll ratings at this stage doesnt really strengthen an argument.
Mark Pack
Posted 22nd November 2010 at 9:14 pm | Permalink
Nige, Vince: I was asking about the principle – do you in principle believe such people should have the right to social housing for life (and for their family beyond that)? If not, where do you draw the limits?
…………………………………………………….
Mark you are reffering to what is currently Liberal democrat policy. Why did you not show your opposition to this policy sooner ? Did you really think the party policy was utter rubbish but were you just too shy to say ?
@ Ed Maxfield – I think you have to describe a plausible scenario where you can envisage the Party’s poll rating improving to pre-election levels – or even improving.
Well, I doubt many of the events that took place between the beginning of 2007 and May 2010 would have seemed plausible if you had predicted them so I am not sure of the value of looking ahead to 2015. But since you ask I will offer three reasons why the party’s position might be expected to recover by then:
1. The party, its leadership and its ministers are all in new territory at the moment. You could expect them to learn from their mistakes
2. The Labour Party is in a terrible mess and is only just beginning to realise how big that mess is. Far from being a transformational figure a la Obama, Ed Miliband is already confronting talk of possible challenges to his leadership! If the media narrative over the next four years is dominated by talk of Labour splits and party weakness then they will be ill equipped to capitalise on coalition unpopularity
3. Most obviously, economic recovery. The government has staked its entire political capital on this and I dont see any reason why the political benefits will accrue only to the Tories if it works. That view just reads across some lazy journalistic assumptions.
Strange but true that the vast majority of the electorate pay far less attention to politics than people who post on political websites at midnight. Their interaction with party politics is minimal, their reactions more emotional than rational. If people are feeling better about the economy and their own personal financial position by 2015 then it is quite feasible to suppose that the Lib Dems will benefit from that regardless of how angry (Labour or Lib Dem) party hacks are feeling at Nick Clegg.
Of course, if we have to bail out Spain, Italy, Portugal and Greece by 2015 the government might want to look at reinstating the Septennial Act to give itself more chance of people reaching the up slope…
Actually, we should just be charging them a fair market rent, instead of continuing to pour tax millions into subsidising the wealthy middle classes with free housing. Which is in fact exactly what the government is planning to do. Funny, that.
Also, a two-year contract is ridiculous, as anybody who has actually rented housing would know. Six months is the standard; one year at the outside. Tenants will still be getting a very generous deal compared to those of us who actually work for a living.
John: It’s not an issue I’ve given a great deal of thought to in the past, and so far I’ve got an open mind on it. It being past Lib Dem policy is a decent point, though on the other hand I’ve got a lot of time and respect for Andrew Stunell so that really reinforces why I’m approaching this issue with an open mind.
What I’ve seen of the criticisms so far fall into two parts – practical issues about the (very important) details – e.g. what’s the minimum grace period someone might have if their circumstances change – but also a lot of very stark and strident claims about how anyone who dallies in such ideas is an extreme right-winger and how people moving every few years means the collapse of communities. Those arguments leave me deeply unconvinced. Does it make you an extreme right-winger to think that social housing should be allocated on need? I’m still not sure quite what the principle is that people think should be applied if it isn’t basing a system on need? All but one of the people who have responded to my question in this thread have (so far) avoided that question. If there is a good alternative principle, let’s hear it – but why the reluctance of so many to address the question I’ve posed?
And whilst I’ve certainly got concerns about the impact on local communities and diversity within them, the sort of extreme claims we’ve seen plenty of – at least online 🙂 – are along the lines of how if people move every few years communities will be wrecked and people won’t be part of them. Well, when I’ve been in the private rental sector I’ve moved every few years – and not always by choice (e.g. having to move because of where I could get a job). I thought I’d played an active and positive role in the communities where I’ve lived. But to read what other people have said, the mere fact of moving every few years looks to have made me a social wrecker who should have been told to stay in just the one place. Again, not the most persuasive of arguments!
@Anthony Aloysius St
Why would I wish to ‘take it up with the owners of the site’ when I already stated I agree that free comment is welcome?
Free comment is and should be welcomed in all corners of the web. As I said, it’s not wrong, it’s just a bit weird that *some* Labour supporters hang out here. I would equally find it strange if you enjoyed sitting in the opposition team’s house in a football game. Perfectly at liberty to do so, but… bizarre.
And I don’t think it’s only Labour voters concerned by the actions of this govt. Did I say that?
@nige
Jumping to conclusions again! I am not frustrated with free speech in the slightest. I welcome free speech like every other man, but I can still get frustrated by what people use it for, can’t I?
In my experience, resorting to ludicrous extremes straight out of the gate simply to justify the principle behind something, more often than not is a good indicator that the principle is very shaky.
I can see some merit behind the changes to social housing policy. It would seem obvious that need for housing should come first when dealing with limited stock and while this is the case with council housing waiting lists (the more needy jump the queue), it isn’t good enough. Therefore, again it’s justifiable to encourage those who are able to afford so to move out of council housing to free it up.
That said, there are still enormous problems and dangers with the proposed changes and putting forward Del-Boy like scenarios about millionaires hogging council flats is hardly addressing them.
There IS a danger that by setting stringent income thresholds determining the right to council housing, you do risk creating sink-estates where all successful members of the community are leeched away. This is arguably already a problem in many housing estates including some notorious ones close to where I live and whilst I’d normally say that I’d be ready to be proven wrong by a policy, I really can’t see how the proposed changes will do anything other than make it worse.
Another problem is that when the benefit system is being overhauled in order to remove inherent disincentives to work or get higher paying jobs, it seems utter madness to then create another great big disincentive in the form of social housing. A couple live in a council house and are comfortable yet their combined income rises when one receives a promotion. Suddenly they exceed the threshold and can no longer live in their council house. Instead they are thrown to the mercy of private landlords (because they can’t afford to buy) and so suddenly their outgoings skyrocket far in excess of the rise in their income. Thus they are worse off. So why try and get a promotion unless it’s an enormous one? I’m in danger of constructing my own ludicrous scenario if I carry on but I do feel it’s plausible.
My biggest problem is that essentially I feel many of the cuts and changes regarding housing (including housing benefit changes) seem punitive, seem to be things taken away, without any real attempt to create a realistic alternative beyond vague allusions of the market sorting it all out eventually. For instance if these changes occurred alongside real attempts curb high rent prices, then it wouldn’t seem anywhere near as bad. But to go back to the point of the article, I hope this is the kind of thing the Liberal Democrats will be far more vocal in putting forward rather than cringeworthy and unconvincing cheerleading of bad policies.
@ Ed Maxfield
I think your 1&2 are incidental to 3. As far as I can see it does turn on whether the Coalition is successful in turning the economy around. If this happens, credit will go to both Parties, but I do believe the vast majority will go to the Tories as the spending cut program is generally viewed as Osborne’s show – and your point with regard to the general disinterest in politics will emphasize this viewpoint.
The Tories have chosen a risky strategy, since I am not at all convinced that the strategy will work because I don’t think British industry is sufficiently competitive in the global market. I believe the Party should disassociate itself from the measures, apart from any policies which are more or less Lib/Dem policies and act as a separate party viewing those who are ministers as seconded to the Coalition. I see this as a much safer route since not too much credit will come to the Party if there is success, but great blame will be attributed if it is a disaster.
@ Mark Pack
I suppose the fundamental question is whether you believe that those who simply cannot and will never be able to afford to buy property should be obliged to use the private sector to rent rather than be housed through social housing. The difference is that those who expect to eventually buy also expect to be in a position where they can, if they so choose, ‘put down roots’ and stay in their house to raise a family – very many do; whereas those who will never be able to afford a house and have to rely on private renting can never be assured of security of tenure so therefore can never put down roots.
If you think the lower paid should have this right then you will only push existing tenants out in extreme circumstances and make every effort to increase the stock of social housing. If you believe they should not – you make every effort to stimulate the private rental market.
This seems to me to be the deciding factor, Since I believe that putting down roots is a vitally important issue for most people – certainly those who are or are planning to raise a family – I would make every effort to increase the social housing stock.
@N Makhno
In theory, I’d agree with you.
But there is a massive shortage of social housing in this country. And when it comes to social housing for familes, the situation is even worse.
It’d be great to have a massive building programme. But that didn’t happen in the boom years over the last decade, and, with the public finances in such a dire state, it’s not going to happen now.
The coalition plans for 150,000 new social houses to be built over the next four years. But that’s a drop in the ocean. And considering that the senior partners of the coalition are the Tories, I think even that many is surprising.
So there will be hard choices.
Every person who stays in social housing when they no longer need it, keeps another person in housing need.
Every person occupying a four bedroom house, when they only need a two bedroom house, is another family living in appallingly cramped accomodation.
Any measure to try to free up social housing for those in desperate need is going to be controversial, but wouldn’t it also be controversial to do nothing? I’m unsure about the best answer. But I know this. There aren’t any right answers.
@Steve Way “The real problem here is that Thatcher sold all the Council houses and didn’t allow the councils to replace them with the money”
I agree. And that the policy of right-to-buy at a discount has become a political totem that no one dares to challenge.
I also like your suggestion of small bungalows. I know there are councillors who have contributed to this thread. Perhaps they can tell us if this has been tried, and if it works.
@Craig “The problem with kicking anyone moderately successful out of their council house is that you will turn mixed council estates into sink estates”
That’s an important issue, which is why new social housing should be in small developments.
The coverage of the migrant workers’ cap seems to reflect the new approach, with the BBC clearly stating this is an area where the LibDems have forced a lower cap on the Tories in government.
don’t know about you but I am getting a bit fed up with the idea that absolutely everything the government does is completely wrong and deliberately aimed at hurting those at the bottom of the heap. I don’t mind Labour posters (or anyone else) commenting on this site, and I don’t mind criticism of coalition policy either. I have some criticisms of it myself. For example, on housing policy, there clearly are some problems – underprovision of social housing, underoccupancy, social housing finance, empty homes, where to build new ones etc etc – but I am not sure the government is coming up with perfect solutions, particularly on HB. No, it’s the complete demonisation of the Lib Dems in some of the comments that I object to. Nothing wrong with debating policy. A lot wrong with being obnoxious.
If anything these changes to social housing will make the housing shortage even worse and i’ll give you an example as to why.
I am extremely lucky as i live in a council house now. The reason for this is, i met my wife some eight years ago , she had two children , one aged 15 and one 14. I rented a one bedroom flat and she was claiming housing benefit on a two bedroom private house. The only way we could ever live together was if we got a council house as, i could not afford the rent on a two/three bedroom house. I am a postman and my flat money at the time was around £270.00 a week.
My wife had her name on the council list and luckily enough we were offerred a three bedroom house and moved in together with my wife immediatley saving the state all the benefits she was claiming. I also performed overtime at work and used the money to do the house up as it wasn’t in the best of states. We now pay £110 a week rent and currently living in the house are the elder boys and a now younger brother. None of us have ever claimed benefits since we moved into the house. My wife now works part time at the local hospital and although i still do the same job i am obviously on more money because of pay rises. All of this was only possible because we have a council house.
Now if these new rules were in place then, it is highly unlikely that me and my wife would of been able to do what we did, first of all she would of not of taken the chance of losing her benefits and then in two years time possibly being thrown out of her house and i would not of taken the chance either. We would of probably carried on living apart and having a more casual relationship, thus keeping my wife on benefits .
If we had decided to take up the option of the house for two years, firstly i would of spent none of my own money doing the house up and my wife would defintley of not gone back to work. Even with her not going back to work there is still a possibility we could be thrown out as my wages have gone up in the last few years. If that was the case , we would of not been able to rent a three/four bedroom house for the whole family and we would have to tell the elder two (who both have low paid jobs) that they couldn’t move with us. How would they get somewhere to live, well theres only one way they would be able to afford somwhere and thats through social housing. So in way foul swoop , one family has been removed from social housing but another two people are now placed on it.
You might think this is far fetched but be rest assured everything ive said is true and there are plenty of people in exactly the same position as me. Robbing someone of the chance to permamnent housing is a lot more complex than some of you seem to think as there are very few cases that are black and white and what you save in one area could actually costing the state more in the long run as my story i hope proves.
@Vince
Thanks and well done for sharing your personal information which shows that the situation is far more complex than some people here seem to realise. Particularly people like Andrew Suffield who said:
“Tenants will still be getting a very generous deal compared to those of us who actually work for a living.”
A bizarre and false dichotomy between ‘those who work for a living’ and ‘those who are tenants’, which served to do nothing but illustrate ignorance of the issues.
do you believe that if someone is in need at some point in their life, they should then be entitled to welfare permanently if they need it – and able to pass this life-time right on after they die as well?
do you believe that if someone is in need at some point in their life, they should then be entitled to NHS care permanently if they need it – and able to pass this life-time right on after they die as well?
Thin end of the wedge Thatcherite spin to defend the indefensible. Expect to see more of these type of ‘arguments’ soon as Cameron plans some more right wing policies to placate the hopping mad eurosceptics in his Party and leaves Nick to clean up the collateral damage on this side as usual.
Welfare and Housing are being cut to the bone with the poor, disabled and vulnerable in the firing line for some of the most draconian punitive measures since Thatcher herself. Trying to claim these areas as victories would be akin to to George W. Bush or Blair claiming Iraq as a victory.
Very Bad Idea.
We can claim electoral reform as a victory when we win the AV referendum.
But sadly, so far the leadership’s strategy for actually doing so has been so subtle as to be opaque.
“Anthony, just a thought but you do realise that three years on from whatever poll rating we got after Mings resignation the party won its largest share of the vote in a general election since 1983?”
It’s a bit difficult to see what point you’re trying to make. “Opinion poll ratings can go up as well as down”? Well, of course. But it doesn’t happen at random. In 2007 the rating went back up because the party ditched an unpopular leader!
But of course the other aspect of this is that the party’s popularity is hitting historic lows at a time when the polls show the Tories to be still at least as popular as they were in May. This isn’t generalised disenchantment with the government – it’s specific disenchantment with the Lib Dems.
That being the case, I think it would be a big mistake simply to assume it will magically reverse itself before the next general election – let alone before next May, when the AV referendum will take place.
“As I said, it’s not wrong, it’s just a bit weird that *some* Labour supporters hang out here. I would equally find it strange if you enjoyed sitting in the opposition team’s house in a football game.”
It might help if you could be bothered to read what other people wrote.
As I said, I am in no sense a Labour supporter. I’ve never voted Labour in my life.
The story in the Independent does not suggest a very different approach to strategy and messaging from that which I advocated in September in the Guardian:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/sep/17/liberal-democrat-conference-coalition-power
and the Financial Times
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/02725eda-c420-11df-b827-00144feab49a.html#axzz166hAb7L2
LDV Bob – a poor analogy. Council housing is more like someone requiring an operation, but after recuperation staying in their hospital bed until they die and then their children taking it over. That’s what the policy is trying to address.
However I’m not convinced that – for the reason outlined above eloquently by Vince – it will achieve what it is supposed to do and will provide a disincentive to getting on and up that will counter the incentives supposedly being built into the welfare reforms.
But the days of council housing providing ‘comprehensive’ housing are long gone, the reality on the ground is now that the vast majority of council housing is for those with the lowest socioeconomic backgrounds and prospects – after all to get a council (or RSL) peoperty these days you have to prove you are least capable of getting any other form of housing and have the highest level of deprivation and dependency. So given it is the safety net we ought to be encouraging those no longer in need of it to free up the scarce resource for those who need it more.
In terms of the thrust of the original post – If the IoS is right about this reorientation then that looks like a very positive development.
In terms of the housing issues more specifically, @Mark Pack wrote:
“I was asking about the principle – do you in principle believe such people should have the right to social housing for life (and for their family beyond that)? If not, where do you draw the limits?”
“Does it make you an extreme right-winger to think that social housing should be allocated on need? I’m still not sure quite what the principle is that people think should be applied if it isn’t basing a system on need?”
One problem with this debate is that it lacks perspective and is a bit parochial. Of course there are other systems of allocating social housing. Look at somewhere like the Netherlands where until relatively recently more than 40% of households lived in “social” housing (and it is still over 30%). Not all of those people can be “in housing need”.[A significant criterion for allocation in the Netherlands is age of household head, which doesn’t even feature in our system. But that is just shows how different societies make different judgements about who deserves assistance.] Under this type of mass housing approach social housing is not stigmatised because people from across the income distribution live in it. It isn’t taken to indicate some form of social failure, as it is by many in this country. If you visit a relatively poor estate in a country like the Netherlands your immediate response is something along the lines of ‘you think this is poor? you should see …’ – Precisely because they have managed to sustain mixed communities even the poor areas are not that far from the social norm (which isn’t to say that in the Netherlands they don’t perceive themselves as having housing problems).
Of course that was precisely the model that we had in the UK until the 1970s. But following the shift against council tenants in the early 1970s – constructing them as sponging off the tax payer – and then the Thatcherite move to ‘set them free’ through the Right to Buy we have progressively residualised our social housing stock and stigmatised its occupants. The ultimate purveyors of this type of residual model are the Americans. But I would have thought that no one considered the Projects as a desirable model for social housing (not even the Americans!).
The last government aimed to try to create more mixed communities in a bid to dilute material deprivation and to create communities with more social capital. In a real sense the government was moving away from allocation on the basis of need precisely because focusing entirely on need had led to some of the problems that they were trying to address. While that might not have been entirely well conceived, it had a better diagnosis of what the problem is.
The policies proposed yesterday seem likely to through the whole business into reverse. What makes neighbourhoods function successfully is a topic that is a bit too big a topic for a comment like this – but clearly there are different models that can thrive. In some dynamic environments neighbourhoods of highly mobile urban professionals can be very successful. But there are rather fewer social housing neighbourhoods where more mobility (out of the area) by better off households is likely to be a sensible prescription. The concern is much more for stabilising areas not destabilising them.
While these are decisions about whose welfare to prioritise – those in the social housing or those on the waiting list – they are also decisions about the individual and the collective. For the long time housing policy focused on the rights of the individual (RTB etc) to the significant detriment of the collective (neighbourhood stigmatisation and decline). Then there was a move to recover the broader picture and think about housing allocations from the community perspective. We seem to be moving back towards losing sight of the aggregate impact of decisions on individual allocations.
@ AAS
‘But of course the other aspect of this is that the party’s popularity is hitting historic lows at a time when the polls show the Tories to be still at least as popular as they were in May.’
As someone else has commented ‘The Tories have played a blinder!’.
“Actually, we should just be charging them a fair market rent,”
When the market is as dsyfunctional as Britain’s housing market, the concept that current market rates are fair is ridiculous. I rent privately. If I had a mortgage on the place, at 2008 market prices, it would take approximately 21 years of the rent I pay to pay it off. In other words, if I stay here for life, the landlord will have earned well over twice the value of the house, and still own it afterward. For doing virtually nothing! Fair?
” instead of continuing to pour tax millions into subsidising the wealthy middle classes with free housing.”
Two things. First, what??? How many wealthy middle classes have social housing? Basing your views on an absolutely tiny minority is ridiculous. Second, social housing is not subsidised. Over the lifetime of a property it earns far more than it’s cost. It’s just the profit is much, much lower than the distorted private sector in housing. The notion that it is subsidised is false.
“Which is in fact exactly what the government is planning to do. Funny, that.”
Is it? Seems to me they’re going to start a system where if you become just marginally better off (far from wealthy or middle class) you might lose your right to a house and have to move miles and miles, uprooting your family, leaving the community, possibly making your job very difficult to do – to satisfy some alleged sense that because you’re a little better off you deserve nothing. Seems to me they’re starting a system where when your husband, wife or parent dies, you’re going to be thrown out of your home. Lovely.
“Also, a two-year contract is ridiculous, as anybody who has actually rented housing would know. Six months is the standard; one year at the outside. Tenants will still be getting a very generous deal compared to those of us who actually work for a living.”
Just plain offensive. Lots of people in social housing work for a living – you clearly don’t know anyone who lives there, because you are obviously a snob, but it doesn’t change reality.
I had no idea supporters of the Lib Dems were so anti social-housing and the people who live in it. Maybe you are more suited to this coalition than your pre-election promises suggested?
In this thread is the oft repeated “statistic” that the coalition will be building 150,000 new “affordable homes”.
They are not.
In order for the financing to work, these homes will have be be rented at the intermediate level of 80% of market rent (that is if the banks will lend the money to finance these projects at all – something there is considerable scepticism about).
80% of market rent is not an affordable rent for many low paid people so could lead to a two tier social housing sector (especially as qualification rules are also changing). Alternatively, it could in the medium to long term produce a massively increased Housing Benefit bill as more and more tenants in these homes require help with their increased mortgages. This in itself may well create a further poverty trap, as they are unable to make up the difference between vastly increased social rents and low paid job, finding unemployment the only option (though of cvourse they will also be stung by the pernicious 10% cuts).
@Mark Pack
Allow me to address all your points gradually. You do in fact understate the impact that constnt movement can have on communities and can have in treating a place as a home. You quote your own example mark … Now by definition you are the exception because i would guess you are a community activist. I am guessing that you do not have children to worry about schooling (please tell me if I’m wrong) as this would immediately make your experience of moving from temporary house to house (and never having a home) far less trivial. First lets clarify that you are NOT saying that council accomdation should not be a slightly longer term temporary Bed and breakfast solution ? If it is you will simply turn affordable and attractive homes to ghettos of unemployment and desperation . Then who knows we may try to find common ground.
The reason incidently why so many peopls are attacking you full on is the complete lack of trust that many now have about coalition proposals . When a policy is 75% bad it is sometimes tricky to debate about the 25% good.
A question meanwhile for you …. and ANDREW …. why has have you not metioned the instant abolition of the RIGHT TO BUY this is surely not housing for social reasons in any shape or form?
@Alex M: thanks. That’s just the sort of comment I wasn’t talking about earlier 🙂
@Vince: thanks for sharing that. Doesn’t your point about how many shades of grey there are in this debate (with, as you put it, very few cases being black and white) rather highlight my point that a lot of the extreme rhetoric is rather misplaced?
@Dan: The hospital analogy is a good one. Another is accommodation provided by universities to students. Should students be entitled to stay in that accommodation after they graduate and for the rest of their lives? Alex and others make some good practical points about the impact on communities, but what I still don’t see is why people equating thinking that public services should be available on the basis of need, rather than inherited right, as somehow automatically counting as extreme right-wingery.
As I said, I’m far from convinced that it does. Imagine that reality was reversed and the proposed new policy was existing policy, with a government proposing to change it. Would we all be cheering and saying, “Fantastic! People can now inherit the right to stay in social housing, this is a major progressive step forward that will help those most in need the most”?
@Mark
“I was asking about the principle – do you in principle believe such people should have the right to social housing for life (and for their family beyond that)? If not, where do you draw the limits?”
In Principle I do believe people should have the right to social housing for life yes.
We where encouraged for decades to think as, a house being a home and not just a place where you live. That’s partly the reason why thatcher introduced the Right To Buy Scheme in the first place.
Of course the Middle and the upper classes in their large town houses and country mansions, loved this Idea at first, as it boosted the value of their own homes and made them feel much richer.
Then as more council homes where sold, and less social housing was replaced, Property Prices then started to soar.
Pricing the so called “middle classes” out of their own market.
Due to the massive shortages in social housing, because the stocks where not replaced as they were sold, more and more people who where reliant on welfare, where forced to rent in the Private sector, Pushing the rents up higher still.
Which resulted in people from Middle income families again struggling to afford the High Rents and Mortgages.
The fact of the matter remains, you can not blame the poor, and those on welfare for the housing crisis that we have.
They did not create this mess, but everyone seems so keen to blame them and want the government to hit them with benefit cuts and sanctions.
The Government needs to learn from past mistakes.
They need to put an end to the right to buy scheme, but at the same time, they need to build at least 800’000 New “affordable social housing”
They also need to open up some of the green belt land and build appropriate housing “bungalows” that are solely for the purpose of pensioners, who would be more inclined to give up their 3 bedroom terraced houses in the cities, for a more quieter purpose built communities on the outskirts.
At the end of the day, we need to have cheap, affordable housing for everybody that needs one.
Only once there is enough social housing, will house prices and rents stop soaring, Then maybe the middle and upper classes can stop moaning about being priced out of the cities
Markpack, No it doesnt say to me the rhetoric is misplaced. It says to me that this whole policy is far from progressive and will many people never having the chance to not only have the security of living somehwere they can call their home let alone start their own family.
Another thing i can’t understand , is how many of you actually believe you subsidise my rent. The house i live in was built in 1955, so for the last 55 years people have been paying rent on that property. The price of building this house has been covered tenfold so the rent i pay on that property goes straight to the council. So where is anyone subsidising my rent ?.
@MrsB
“don’t know about you but I am getting a bit fed up with the idea that absolutely everything the government does is completely wrong… I don’t mind … criticism of coalition policy … but …. it’s the complete demonisation of the Lib Dems …that I object to.”
Oh, OK. No, it certainly isn’t all wrong. There is certainly a sense of relief, for example, that we are free from the tyranny of an over-mighty central bureaucracy. That we’re not going to keep on dragooning our children into harder and harder work on dumber and dumber exams gaining higher and higher grades, to the greater glory of the Great Educators of New Labour!
But the problem with an on-the-one-hand-on-the-other-hand approach is that it encourages inertia. Those of us who believe that we have hitched our wagon to a train which is fundamentally going in the wrong direction need to make that point loud and clear. We are a centre-left party which believes in fairness and cares about the planet. At the moment we are working in opposition to those goals. That is what we must change!
Matt – if these proposals go ahead (and they are not final BTW) then the right to buy for new tenants will be abolished (whether as an unitended consequence I don’t know).
There is surely a certain irony of a Tory housing minister proposing to abol;ish the right to buy?
Vince – on the subsidy issue – you’re right in a way – except that council housing finance is so byzantine that most council’s with council housing are still paying off the money they borrowed to build them in the 40s and 50s. Council’s aren’t allowed to pay off the outstanding capital – only the interest, so the loan principle never gets paid and huge chunks of tenants’ rents then gets used to subsidise other tenants housing benefit while the government tells councils and housing associations what rents to charge.
A much simpler and more accountable system that basically allowed councils to act as not for profit landlords with large property portfolios would certainly lead to more homes being built and improved. This report – which I was involved in producing while working in Southwark (London’s biggest landlord) – highlights how the housing finance rules are hindering and makes some interesting suggestions for a way forward:
https://member.lgiu.org.uk/whatwedo/Publications/Documents/Once%20and%20for%20all.pdf
I hope its recommendations will be looked at seriously as part of the coalitions consultation on its housing proposals.
About time too. Part of being the smaller partner in a coilition is that we have to accept some policies we do not like. That is both inevitable and democratic, as after all the Tories did get more votes than us. If we really want this grand experiment in coiliton government to wrk we need to try and educate the public as to how it works. That means being open about the fact that we have to accept some Tory policies we are not in complete agreement with and also highlighting those Lib Dem policies that are being implemented even though the Tories are not in complete agreement with them.
I am not contributing to Liberal Democrat Voice any more, as it is too depressing and I got fed up saying the same things again and again and again. But please put here, and in all those many other places where it is appropriate, the following message from me:
I TOLD YOU SO
Why not (and I’m aware of at least a couple of arguable problems with this) simply charge a rent based upon income?
ie, if the average person rents a flat/house for X amount and has an income of Y, then charge the same amount at the same level of income (or some appropriate percentage thereof), and then scale upwards (and downwards) according to income.
No sudden jump, no sudden ending of contracts?
@Mark Pack who said: ‘EcoJon: So asking people what principles they’d based their social housing policy on is “puerile”? Hmm…!’
Let me remind you what I actually said: ‘The arguments advanced over the proposed housing changes are puerile and seem to hang on hypothetical self-made millionaires refusing to leave the sink estates they were born in. Oh Yea? They also seem to focus on the financial aspects and give little or no consideration to the social impact of what is proposed.’
You have every right to disagree with my belief that it’s childish to argue against people having the right to remain in social housing indefinitely by citing that one or more of them might suddenly become millionaires and refuse to quit their social housing, Personally I am more concerned about the tens of thousands of people across the UK who might be adversely affected by this latest coalition policy rather than the mythical millionaire who would have the cash anyway to pay exorbitant rents to a private landlord or purchase a new home which I’m fairly sure would have been a first step in any case.
I was unaware that any of the posters here had any input into the social housing policy and if this is actually the case I would love to hear first-hand what principles they used in formulating the policy.
However, from the comments I read from non policy makers it does appear that they seem to praise the financial benefits for the government flowing from the new policy rather than turn the spotlight on the huge social consequences both to individual families and communities.
And I would add to my earlier post that I don’t see the new policy as actually helping those further down the line who would then get the vacated social housing as there is a strong possibility that those evicted might end up in the bottom of the pile for a variety of reasons in a cynical revolving door cycle.
The only real answer to the desperate lack of social housing is the building of large numbers of social housing units and I really believe this is the time to do it in terms of giving the construction industry and allied suppliers a huge boost and also provide much-needed employment. It really seems a win-win solution as there will probably never be a cheaper time to build houses.
If we have money to bail out Ireland then we have money to build houses and I am not attacking the assistance to Ireland although it is rather rich to see the Tories giving our money to bail out Irish banks when they opposed this in the UK – it’s also worth remembering that a lot of our deficit comes from that measure and similar ones designed to prevent a total collapse of our economy and thank gawd the Labour government saved the UK from the worst ravages of the worldwide economic recession.
@ Sesenco
“It seems to me that “coalition” supporters fall into two discrete camps: the Cleggmaniacs and the Clegg apologists.”
I think you will find this is deliberate strategy. Wear the shoe that fits the circumstance policy.
There is merit in trying to find a middle way through the current wide divisions in the Party in order to hold it together and I believe that is what MP is trying to do. However, I also believe the root of the problem is that the two people, who for most represented the Party in the people’s eyes before the GE – NC & VC, have been taken over by their Tory minders – NC by Cameron and VC by David Willetts. I am afraid both are now puppets in their minders hands.
I cannot condemn them, neither are experienced government ministers, they are outnumbered by their Tory Cabinet colleagues who are supported by many who have held high office and they have been convinced, rightly or wrongly, that the is a desperate financial crisis.
As a consequence the Party, judged by the behaviour of NC & VC, has become something entirely different to the one that fought the GE – hence the rapid fall in the polls. I am afraid this is not a problem that can be papered over.
This is interesting-
http://twitter.com/julian_glover/statuses/7109925108977664
‘David laws at Institute for Govt: libdems working with Tories in power means “oranging process going on at a rapid rate”. As in Orange Bk’
Lib Dems, you’ve been tango’d.
Mark – addressing one or two of the issues you have said have not been answered by other posters. I was lucky enough to hear Andrew Stunell at the weekend, and I hope his assurances that another 150k social rented houses (including, he said, Council houses) come true over the next 4 years! We certainly need them.
You ask about “the principle” of allocating social housing, and I would have little doubt that people would argue need is the important issue. However, need has been defined in a number of ways, homelessness or threat thereof, state of health, number of kids, disability (and old age would figure in that calculation quite often). But whether being below a certain income should feature or not is a very different issue. I was in a council home for 4 years earlier in my life, and we had to exceed a certain income to qualify! Very nice brand new house it was too.
We cannot get away from the fact that it is the low level of supply (and the wealth and income gaps in society) which has caused the desperate level of demand. This was fuelled by Right to Buy, and abolition of that will help. So far so good. BUT, you should not avert your eyes and pretend that a policy of regular means testing on your principal residence is a good principle. That will just create fear and, probably, dishonesty. Many here have made the point that mixed communities rather than just the very poor is a much healthier situation, and this current proposal can only lead to areas of extreme deprivation. I think n,makhno is essentially right, and I don’t think you do yourself any favours by trying to prove him silly for “not having a principle” on which to base his argument. In sum, we should try to encourage people to move on, when they clearly no longer fit the housing they have, and we should try to create incentives (“bungalows” as some on here have talked of), but we should not exert undue pressure to deprive people of their house. In other words, something like current policy. Whether, Shapps and Stunell’s building programme is big enough or quick enough is an open question, but they deserve good marks for trying to improve one of the greatest blights in modern Britain.
Returning to your “political presentation” theme, both with this subject and benefits and several others, problems were created under Thatcherism, which were not properly addressed under New Labour (because of their “move to the right” / wish to assuage tabloid criticism). As a coalition we need to acknowledge Tory failings as being the heart of this, and not keep blaming Labour alone. This just looks like yah boo politics, and is simply not true, and does not show our even handedness. Chris Huhne’s appearance with Sayeeda Warsi a few weeks ago was a particularly crass example of this.
The key statement is “Lib Dem strategists at the party’s Cowley Street HQ will spell out where key reforms would not have happened if the Tories had been in power alone.”.
Currently, I pay little attention to Lib Dem strategists at Cowley Street , and I would imagine the press even less. Until all senior Lib Dems spell out what those key Lib Dem reforms are, and that means those in the government, Nick, Vince, Danny etc etc, no-one will be told, and it will make no discernable difference.
I think we need to go further and start saying things like “We don’t like X, but it is part of the compromise we have had to enter into to achieve Y.” But do those in authority have the confidence to do it?
@Matthew Huntbach – I know how you feel, but it would be a pity if you do decide not to participate here any more. I have found myself agreeing with many of your comments over the last few months. And I think the tide is perhaps beginning to turn.
@Mike(the labour one) – if our friend mr glover is reporting david laws accurately then that’s a worrying statement he’s made. Unless he was saying it to sound the alarm and condemn it was a very undesirable development, which somehow suspect he wasn’t.
@David Allen
“But the problem with an on-the-one-hand-on-the-other-hand approach is that it encourages inertia. Those of us who believe that we have hitched our wagon to a train which is fundamentally going in the wrong direction need to make that point loud and clear.”
I can’t speak for anyone but myself, but if those writing hyperbole are trying to convince me, it won’t work. There are a too many comments for me to be able to read them all thoroughly. If a comment goes over-the-top, or just repeats assertions that I’ve read a hundred times already on this site, I tend to just skip it and read the next one.
The posts that influence me are the ones that appear to be written by some listening, rather than speaking into a megaphone. And those tend to be the posts I reply to.
That said, David, I generally read all your posts with interest … 🙂
A few months ago, I heard that Tory strategists had decided that it was important not to be defined by the cuts. That the government had to have positive policies as well. I get the impression some Lib Dems have adopted a similar strategy.
I’ve sometimes been pretty uneasy about how this has worked out.
When you’re cutting £83bn from spending, it’s really stretching credibility to claim that you can do more then the previous government.
For example, the announcement that there would be a big cut in funds for social housing, but the coalition were going to build more houses than Labour did. When that was announced, I’d be very interested to know what the focus groups said. I suspect it was a big raspberry. Certainly, I didn’t believe it, and then spend some time trying to get under the spin to see what on earth they were talking about.
There will be policy areas where deficit reduction is less relevant, such as civil liberties. But if we’re having to cut, I think we’ll win more respect if we’re honest about it.
So, to take that housing example, I’d have preferred something like: “Housing is being cut like everywhere else. But we’ve found a much more cost effective way to get houses built. As a result, we plan for there to be 150,000 new houses built for social housing.”
That would have been more credible, and consistent with the other things the government was saying about the cuts.
I don’t even need to respond to this beyond quoting it for emphasis.
On the Coalition, I’ve been a Liberal and later LibDem for 40 years. I can’t be a Cleggmaniac or a Clegg apologist because I didn’t vote for him: I voted for Chris Huhne. I think your earlier contributor is right: the Party has been “tango’d” at least at the top.
I think Mark Pack you are wrong to see social housing as a form of ‘outdoor relief’, only for the poor. If we go back to the days of Lloyd George (yes, him!), Council houses were built at the request of both Liberal and Tory governments as the most cost-effective way to provide large numbers of decent homes for the ‘working classes’. They were also the only way to provide the numbers of homes needed to rehouse those affected by the large scale slum clearances, even into the 1970s.
I know because I was Deputy Chairman of Housing in Liverpool 1974/75.
(I also opposed clearances where I believed the houses were worth improving; and during my time, Trevor Jones pushed through the first mixed development on cleared land with some of the homes built for sale.)
I believe the state has duty to enable all to have access to secure housing all their life. With property prices well out of reach of those on average earnings, that must mean the provision of appropriate, secure social housing tenancies for those who need them.
In practice, the two-year limit on security is far too short to allow a family to settle and their children to grow. Comparing social housing to the lottery of shorthold tenancies leaves families unable to grow and prosper.
The ‘right to buy’ should be cancelled forthwith. If tenants have paid rent for long enough to justify a RtB discount, that could be reflected in a rent discount.
If tenants financial circumstances change, that should be reflected via changes to rents or changes to housing benefit, not by threatening security of tenure.
If children have left home (less likely in today’s market conditions) then parents or single elderly should have the option of appropriate (and cheaper)accommodation in the neighbourhood) not a ‘bungalow’ estate on a greenfield site miles away (like some bungaloid ‘banlieu’).
Finally, if excessive rents and overcowding in London are the real problem, then we need to address the question, as a nation;”Can we afford London.”
Hi, I agree with the new strategy, We have been a little lapdog’ish with our approach.
The main problem is that, like me, most of the electorate are not political animals. They do not go to bed with “The Prince” and the “Art of War” on the bedside tables. They do not spend hours comparing charts and statistics.
They simply work on the basis of Trust. The problem is as politics has become more open that trust has evaporated for all parties. Politicians and the people close to them have got too involved in the Game and have lost this core value.
Our party has taken this to a new low with the signed pledge business. We are now seen as more sleazy than the conservatives and labour put together. Until we resolve this, and the only way is for Nick to say it is a free vote based on the individual conscience of his MP’s. What he then does in private to persuade and arm twist is up to him and the wips but at least it would put us back on the higher ground. If not then I’m afraid those of you who think this will simply disappear are hoping to much and all the political spin and strategy in the world wont help us.
Two quick comments:
The LibDems need to work to define themselves and the positive contributions in the coalition. Unfortunately, through a series of very poorly managed policy missteps, any statements towards positive contributions will appear to be “But we did this…”. They will always be viewed in the context of attempts at redemption for previous failures. In my opinion, the only solution is to allow open votes on significant policy issues. It will make clear that the LibDems are a dissenting voice in the Coalition where the policies directly conflict with the LibDem platform. Accentuating positive coalition policies will only serve to reinforce the idea that the LibDems are servants to the Conservatives only all issues but fed a bone or two on occasion.
Secondly, a constructive working relationship with our coalition partner is an important part of being in government as opposed to opposition. However, there is a difference between being allies and being subjects. I think it’s important that with any policies, the party identifies what approach it would take if not in coalition and then separately identifies where it has compromised. This distinction has not been strongly made.