Uninspired by the Localism bill

Nearly Legal gives a good run down of the housing part of the localism bill here.

Personally the whole bill looks like a cheesy sleight-of-hand attempt to distract from the real issue: cuts all round for public services, particularly local councils.

It’s a real cheek to have the housing stuff published in a bill before the end of the current consultation period.

And I still don’t get the point of the whole flexible tenancy rubbish.

3 Responses to Uninspired by the Localism bill

  1. Karen Buck has a lot to say about flexible tenancies, and loss of secure tenure. It creates ghettos, transit camps, places where nobody has an investment in their property or the immediate area, no continuity of friendships and neighbours, the constant fear of having to move on, a gipsy like existence.

    “Karen Buck was superb with a long talk about the possible loss of secure tenure of council tenants should a Conservative Government be elected and implement the plans outlined by Localis in Principles their now infamous document on Tory proposals for council housing.

    She drew a parallel with the experiences of black migrants from the American South coming to Chicago in the 1940s and becoming the victims of slum landlords while suffering the indignities of being “frequent movers”, people unable to take their place in society for want of a stable home address. [The Promised Land – Nicholas Lemann] Karen put forward the view that in the absence of secure tenure and having only an AST with two months to quit, council tenants would become a transient population, unlikely to be registered with a GP, their children changing schools, unlikely to be on the electoral register and to vote. She pointed out that Conservative think council tenants are second class citizens.”


    Please forgive me for quoting from my own blog but it’s the best resource I have at the moment.

  2. inks2010 says:

    I read an article by Karen Buck about the Flexible Tenancy recently, I can’t remember where though. I think she’s missing the main point, the flaws in the Flexible Tenancy idea are huge (Right To Buy for Housing Association tenants, anyone?) compared to the fairly minor effect on communities of people having slightly shorter term roots.

    The increased residualisation implied (using social housing only for the most vulnerable) will have a bigger impact than the short term residency.

  3. I don’t see it as an either/or issue. Within the reduced (residualised if you like) or remaining social housing, flexible tenure will be “a bad thing” because it will further reduce the quality of life for those living within it, in my opinion. Things are bad enough already, this is one more nail in the coffin of council housing.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: