Bolitics The New Condem Government

[Ads]

I think if Cameron can peel away the rural Liberals then the Conservatives will be in power ad infinitum.

[Demitri_C]

cameron is one smart ****, clegg is the one getting crucified by the critics while teh tories are escaping critism

im sure cameron knew this would happen

it will be tories for next 12 then labour vback after. its an endless cycle

[drat01]

I think if Cameron can peel away the rural Liberals then the Conservatives will be in power ad infinitum.

Absolutely no chance of that happening. Already you are seeing the traditional Tory media picking gaping holes in Cameron's approach, its obvious they are no supporters of his style and (lack of) substance.

For a Gvmt s early into it's reign to only be a few points ahead in the opinion polls against what was supposed to be a hated party 42/37/12 shows that they do not have the mass populous support that you would have expected. The Tory party are playing the blame game at the moment with all the flack going on to the hapless Clegg, but once the summer mood of the country changes to winter then their ratings will drop.

We see even today more of the lies with attacks coming on front line services like the NHS and the privatisation by stealth that the Tory party especially were famous for and are bringing in. The Gvmt are using some pretty despicable tricks in trying to change the voting setup and not allowing parliament proper and right time to debate.

The UK populous is not a silly as the political folk sometimes think and they can see already the lies and deceit oozing out of those who are in power now

As Chris Huhne says in the mail

You think we're unpopular now - just wait for next year, says Huhne, as tensions mount over scale of cuts - worse is to come to satisfy the paymasters

[Ads]

The traditional media can moan all it likes, because ultimately they have nowhere else to go and Cameron knows this. You’re thinking too short terms. Headlines today won’t matter a jot in 5 years, so to speak.

To quote my mate;

But actually, the party has to tack leftwards. Unlike the tories in 1997, Labour in 2010 came very close to being wiped out. If the Tories had won outright, we could be in big trouble to the Lib Dems on the march. Old Clegg has done more to shore up the party in one move, than the leaders could do in a whole parliament. We were and still are so close to completely losing any sense of a discernible core, that a tack leftward - done rightly - is completely necessary. It might cost us 2015, but my personal opinion is we're very likely to lose that anyway, dependent on what sort of deal is made between the coalition partners. But at least it'll give us a healthier platform to win in 2020. That sound's absurdly long-termist, but it's kind of what I think.

[blandy]

Definitely Ian. Once the effects of Osbourne's lunacy start to take hold the tories will plummet. I'm not sure though that labour will rise back though - they'll still get a lot of the blame for the mess being there in the first place, but people will see the tories and Lib Dems making it worse.

[leviramsey]

Excellent .sig, blandy :D

[snowychap]

Cameron seeks more social division

An end to lifetime council tenancies was signalled today by David Cameron as he warned the coming public spending cuts will not be restored when the economy recovers.

Cameron said he wanted to see fixed terms for all new council and housing association tenancies lasting as little as five years to help increase social mobility.

The prime minister admitted that "not everyone will support this and there will be quite a big argument". Speaking in Birmingham, he said: "There is a question mark about whether, in future, we should be asking when you are given a council home, is it for a fixed period? Because maybe in five or 10 years you will be doing a different job and be better paid and you won't need that home, you will be able to go into the private sector."

A consultation paper, due to be published as early astomorrow, will say the new short-term tenure would be for local councils to implement, but would involve regular reviews of tenancies to see if the council tenant still needed such a large property or had sufficient income to shift to the private sector.

At present council tenants have secure tenancy for life. Housing association tenants have secure tenancy for life after a probationary year. Council tenants have the right to hand the property over to their children, whereas housing association tenants do not.

The communities department estimates that it costs each taxpayer £35 a week to keep people in affordable homes, and it is argued the tenancy for life is an inefficient use of scarce resources.

Under the government's proposals council tenants could be forced to downsize. A total of 234,000 households in the social tenant sector are overcrowded while 456,000 are under-occupied, meaning people have more than one extra spare room, according to official figures.

The government has already announced separate plans to cut housing benefit.

Defending the reforms that have proved too politically explosive for Labour housing ministers to implement, the coalition's housing minister, Grant Shapps, said last night: "It is quite clear that the real losers from the current system are the 1.8m people on council house waiting lists who the current arrangements do not help.

"It is time to consider whether our affordable housing system can be better used and whether one of the benefits would be greater social mobility. Any benefits from these changes might take many years, but it does not mean we should shy away from doing something. This will have no impact on existing council or housing association tenants."

Shapps has been holding private talks with key housing groups to persuade them to back the reforms.

Critics of the proposed reforms say it could disincentivise the unemployed to seek well-paid work as they might lose their tenancy as result. There are also fears that it would increase the chances of council estates becoming ghettos of the workless poor.

The homeless charity Shelter said tonight: "We do not believe the big question in housing policy is security of tenure for new tenants. The prime minister has sidestepped the fundamental cause of our housing crisis – the desperate lack of affordable housing supply."

Helen Williams, assistant director at the National Housing Federation, said: "There is a case for looking at what is offered to new tenants, as a way to seeing if over time social housing could help more people."

Cameron today urged the public to recognise that the deficit was a moral issue and suggested public spending would not be restored to its current levels when the economy improves.

"Should we cut things now and then go back later and try and restore them?" Cameron asked. "I think we should try to avoid that approach … people should open their minds and find new ways of doing more for less. We're going to have to change the way we work. How can we do things differently and better to give the value for money?"

With the Spending review due to be published in October, he urged people to recognise there would be light at the end of the tunnel, and that "it is not all doom and gloom". Cuts of 25% – the equivalent of a 5% cut every year – was what many businesses and families were facing with their own budgets.

He said his aim was to tackle the big ticket items like pensions public sector pay, and welfare before tackling smaller budgets.

[snowychap]

The cuts are not ideological claims Cameron whilst blowing a raspberry and making a dog out of ballons.

David Cameron today dashed hopes of public sector funding levels being restored once the budget deficit has been addressed, saying he expects staff to find new ways of working to deliver services on less money.

The prime minister told an audience in Birmingham that cuts imposed by his government should be "sustainable".

"We are going to have to change the way we work," he said. "How can we do things differently and better to give value for money?"

Urging voters to recognise that his administration was thinking in terms of cuts of 5% a year, rather than a big bang cut of 25% immediately, he nevertheless said that the government was focusing on the big-ticket items such as welfare, pensions and public sector pay rather than smaller cuts in other departments.

Cameron outlined the government's long-term outlook on the day he and his deputy prime minister, Nick Clegg, jointly sent a letter to cabinet colleagues reminding them that reducing the deficit is the "most urgent issue facing Britain".

The pair said that because the new administration, "unlike previous governments, would govern for the long term", it would allow ministers to take "difficult decisions".

Cameron squared up to these decisions after being confronted by a public sector worker during the question and answer session in Birmingham today – one of three public sessions he intends to conduct this month.

The woman – who did not give her name – urged the prime minister to give a pledge that he would review cuts being imposed to tackle the deficit once the austere times are over "and you have the money back in the bank".

The local fire brigade worker cited the "sweeping cuts" the service had already endured since 2003 and warned that the new round of cuts due to be imposed would mean more fire engines taken off the road.

Citing the dramatic increase in the deaths of firefighters, and an increase in deaths as a result of fire, she asked him: "Will you give me a pledge today that when these austere times are over, and you have the money back in the bank or you're balancing your books, that you will look at anything that is cut during this period and go back and get in those fire engines back in the places they are needed to support the public?"

Cameron refused to make the pledge.

"The direct answer to your question, should we cut things now and go back later and try and restore them later, I think we should be trying to avoid that approach," he said.

"Because I'm not saying we won't have to make cuts to all sorts of difficult services, because we will, but let's try and do it in a way that actually is sustainable. And try to make sure that the fire services that we have is capable of doing the very important work we want it to do but let's all open our minds and think how can we work in a different way."

Cameron admitted in an interview before his public Q&A that he and Clegg were "learning as we go along" and "won't get everything right".

But he insisted that the new administration was a "good, strong, stable government".

"We are living beyond our means and (must) tackle it," he told the audience, who were taking part in his latest 'PM Direct' meetings.

"Every family knows that as a business you cannot go on living beyond your means indefinitely. You have to make sure that revenue and spending come into balance. At the end of this parliament we will be paying £17bn in interest just on the interest on debt, (which) is more than we spend on schools."

He added: "There is a moral responsibility. I don't think we should be racking up our debts for our children to pay. We need to be fair to future generations, and this generation should deal with its own problems."

During a Q&A session that lasted approximately one hour, the prime minister fielded a number of questions on the government's cuts agenda as well as his 'big society' initiative.

A question on social housing provision prompted the prime minister to say that, in his view, council houses should no longer be granted "for life".

He added that it would make sense for tenants to be given fixed-term deals in future so they can be moved on if their circumstances change. He was responding to a mother of two teenagers who said she had slept on a blow-up bed for two years because her council could not find her a bigger house.

Cameron said: "At the moment we have a system very much where, if you get a council house or an affordable house, it is yours forever, and in some cases people actually hand them down to their children.

"And actually, it ought to be about need. Your need has got greater ... and yet there isn't really the opportunity to move."

He conceded that attempts to reform the system would cause "a big argument", but he said it was right to look at a more flexible system.

[leviramsey]

Maybe, being an ocean away and all, there's something I missed, but why should the state be providing housing to those who are on a good wage?

(though I suppose the same could be said with respect to medical care).

[snowychap]

Maybe, being an ocean away and all, there's something I missed, but why should the state be providing housing to those who are on a good wage?

(though I suppose the same could be said with respect to medical care).

It doesn't, on the whole. Social housing provision is scarce and it, therefore, goes to the most needy (other than people already occupying accommodation).

However, people who get council housing (I'm really not sure there are many nowadays) and those who get social housing via housing associations (that's me, that is) are granted an assured tenancy. That's something which can only be taken away for very specific reasons (mainly non payment of rent, I think - but I'd guess Peter would give us more details on that).

What Cameron is suggesting (though it won't come across as that to those who wouldn't want to listen) is a scenario where no one gets assured tenancies but more than that (combined with the automatic decrease in HB) is an effort at ghettoisation.

A disgraceful piece of idiocy riding on the back of a not so daft idea.

I mean if his proposal were intertwined with increasing social housing stock then I'd be less likely to call him an almighty prick.

[leviramsey]

It doesn't, on the whole. Social housing provision is scarce and it, therefore, goes to the most needy (other than people already occupying accommodation).

That combination of reduced social housing stock and giving those who had the good fortune to get in when there were openings means that the provision doesn't go to the most needy: there are surely some number of people who got places in social housing who now have enough money (hitting a lottery/football pool, if you accept that it's impossible for people's incomes to rise) to not be living in social housing and their continued presence in social housing prevents those who are more in need from receiving the benefits.

There are two possible solutions to that situation:

* increase the stock of social housing

* means test participation in social housing

[bickster]

It doesn't, on the whole. Social housing provision is scarce and it, therefore, goes to the most needy (other than people already occupying accommodation).

That combination of reduced social housing stock and giving those who had the good fortune to get in when there were openings means that the provision doesn't go to the most needy: there are surely some number of people who got places in social housing who now have enough money (hitting a lottery/football pool, if you accept that it's impossible for people's incomes to rise) to not be living in social housing and their continued presence in social housing prevents those who are more in need from receiving the benefits.

There are two possible solutions to that situation:

* increase the stock of social housing

* means test participation in social housing

Thing is Levi, most people who do receive good fortune and increased wealth just move on anyway, this isn't about what Cameron suggests it is. The Blue team ran down the social housing stock by introducing the right to buy and even the poorer people who can get finance (usually at vastly inflated rates) normally exercise that right after the required 5 years. (the housing stock therefore isn't social anymore) This is about something else completely. The HA's in some cases are sitting on great building land but can't get rid of the damn pesky tenants, who can stay there for life, the buggers, when theres money to be made selling the property to developers. This is the first stage in just being allowed to evict people from social housing with no good reason at all, its the thin end of yet another wedge

[snowychap]

It doesn't, on the whole. Social housing provision is scarce and it, therefore, goes to the most needy (other than people already occupying accommodation).

That combination of reduced social housing stock and giving those who had the good fortune to get in when there were openings means that the provision doesn't go to the most needy: there are surely some number of people who got places in social housing who now have enough money (hitting a lottery/football pool, if you accept that it's impossible for people's incomes to rise) to not be living in social housing and their continued presence in social housing prevents those who are more in need from receiving the benefits.

There are two possible solutions to that situation:

* increase the stock of social housing

* means test participation in social housing

Excuse the fact that I'm a bit pissed but, no shit, sherlock. :?

Yes there are two possible solutions: the first has been suggested for the last three decades and would seriously help the problems that many people have with obtaining decent housing and the second would trump forward like nothing else in incresasing social division.

I am a fan of means tested benefits (as long as they don't engender a situation of poor social interaction) but Cameron isn't suggesting that (actually he's suggesting the soundbite of that because he knows that it couldn't apply to existing tenants).

It's as much of a nonsense policy (one which will undoubtedly be enacted) as IDS's move to get a job and Caroline Flint's 'kicked out of home for anti-social behaviour' were.

[snowychap]

This is the first stage in just being allowed to evict people from social housing with no good reason at all, its the thin end of yet another wedge

Not even the government can do anything about existing assured tenancies, can they? That would require some serious primary legislation, surely?

[bickster]

No I agree with you Snowy, those that have assured tenancies now are safe, this is abut the future

[snowychap]

No I agree with you Snowy, those that have assured tenancies now are safe, this is abut the future

Yep, I'm now having to scour my contract/tenancy agreement to see if the promise of an assured tenancy after a 12 month period (of no bother, &c.) is revokable.

[snowychap]

BTW, the one big thing about Cameron's proposal is that social housing (in his view) is a temporary thing - it's part of the support system.

It is something else to be looked down upon (by intimation rather than anything express).

It's a grim view of 'the modern world' (even more grim than the Labour view) - never mind, those that do well for themselves can console themselves that putting a cross against 'Lab' salves all of their antisocial inadequacies.

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

By the end of the Tory reign i'm half expecting John Cleese to come round my street with a wheelbarrow proclaming 'Bring Out Your Dead'.

[snowychap]

By the end of the Tory reign i'm half expecting John Cleese to come round my street with a wheelbarrow proclaming 'Bring Out Your Dead'.

I imagine you'll have a lot of suggestions for his intake.

[leviramsey]