The pantomine villain of the Labour party conference has posted an extraordinary 7,000-word online defence of his policies.
Hammersmith & Fulham leader Stephen Greenhalgh faced a barrage of criticism in Brighton over a Localis pamphlet he co-authored calling for radical deregulation of social housing. Housing minister John Healey challenged Tory leader David Cameron to disown what he called ‘secret plans to double or triple the rent for eight million people’. Tenants from the West Kensington estate were also there to protest about redevelopment proposals.
But Greenhalgh quotes former Labour ministers, Labour council leaders, housing associations, the Housing Corporation, the Tenant Services Authority (TSA), the Chartered Institute of Housing (CIH) and left-leaning think-tanks in support of what he’s doing with the borough’s housing in a blog on conservativehome.com.
The council leader argues that Hammersmith & Fulham’s housing strategy is ‘based on empowering individuals and families to help themselves and take up the opportunities that are and will be developed’ and that its estate regeneration plans are similar to those being planned by other boroughs across London.
And he says he is continuing a debate about the future role of social housing that was started by former Labour housing minister Caroline Flint and subsequently taken up by the CIH, TSA, Housing Futures Network and Smith Institute.
Labour and local critics will disagree but, with Conservative delegates due to discuss housing at the party conference in Manchester this morning, it’s a debate that seems set to run and run - up to the election and beyond.
Have your say
You must sign in to make a comment
Readers' comments (2)
Joe Halewood | 06/10/2009 9:45 am
Greenhalghs response is not just extraordinary (and very badly written) it is delusional. More specifically at its heart is the rationale that social housing is a step up to home ownership and that, a priori, is its purpose.
It is this unrepentant dogma and principle that becomes delusional when one considers the facts of living there as he outines below:-
Deprivation and House Price:
•According to the Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) 2007, Hammersmith & Fulham is within the top 40 most deprived in England (ranked 38th from 354 local authorities and 13th out of the 33 London boroughs).
•70% of the councils housing stock is now located on housing estates. 22.5%of council rented dwellings are based within 66 high rise blocks and a further 60% are within 1,213 medium rise blocks.
•The average 2 bed rent in the borough is £360 per week according to April 2009 Hometrack information.
•The average house price recorded by the Land Registry in the borough in April 2009 was £424,543. Although house prices have fallen in recent times the average house price in April 2004 was £335,295. This means that house prices over the last 5 years have increased by 27%.
•The average income in the borough (estimated from local data in 2008) identified the average income as £41,662 and average savings at £6,267.
•This provides a income to house price ratio of 10:1.
•However barely 1-2% of the stock in the borough is low cost homeownership housing.
The home ownership 'ideal' is beyond the vast majority of pockets and is frankly unattainable, yet his blueprints persist in seeking the unattainable.
He with his cronies at Localis then used this flawed dogma to create housing policy such as removal of security of tenure to attempt to attain this unattainable ideal - (the property owning democracy.)
Further he wants these misguided and unworkable policies to be applied nationally.
In a borough with the average wage being 150% of the national average wage still needing a mortgage facility of 10 times this (or 15 times national aveage wage) this ideal is cloud cuckoo land in practice as well as theory.
Yet he persists in this deluded lunacy as the rationale. Even LCHO is way beyond the means of the vast majority of people so is it any wonder only 1-2% is?
And as for reducing security of tenure in the social sector and market rents - well if Joe Public wishes to work 65 hours a week at the miniumum wage just to pay their rent alone..... get in the real world ad remove yourself from the ivory tower you call public office
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
John Moss | 10/10/2009 4:00 pm
Please read the report and consider the whole proposal, rather than select one or two elements which would never happen in isolation.
http://www.localis.org.uk/images/Localis%20Principles%20for%20Social%20Housing%20Reform%20WEB.pdf
Security of tenure is currently for life. We suggest it stops being for life and tenancies would all be the same, modelled on ASTs. That makes understanding the tenancy a lot easier for everybody and they can be for any length and landlords could offer what they thought appropriate. Longer for those with greater needs, shorter for those who want it.
We also suggested that security might remain for those whose ability to pay the rent was dependent on support through HB.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment