Tories attack 'shocking' Labour housing record
The Conservatives have attacked Labour’s record on housing as ‘truly shocking’.
In a report on the widening gap between rich and poor under Labour, the Tories highlight statistics showing the number of households on local authority waiting lists rising to 1.8 million in 2009, and house building figures dropping.
It shows that 18,428 homes a year were built under the Labour government between 1997 and 2008, while 40,538 homes were built each year when the Conservatives were in power.
The report, Labour’s two nations, says people living in the most deprived areas are twice as likely to be on a waiting list for social housing, and households are four times more likely to be homeless and in priority need of housing.
It says: ‘Conservatives recognise the importance of social housing and security it provides. We will protect and respect the rights of social tenants.’
In the introduction, Conservative Party leader David Cameron says: ‘Labour’s great claim is that they are “for the many, not the few”. That rings hollow today. This report exposes the truth: after thirteen years in government, the party that prides itself on fairness has delivered the very opposite. Labour have failed the poorest in our society.’
Housing minister John Healey said: ‘It is a bit rich for the Tories to be saying that they’ll “protect and respect the rights of social tenants”, when their real plans for the eight million people in public housing are to end secure tenancies and equalise rents to market levels.
‘You have to wonder how the Tories expect to tackle any issue of housing need when they’d have scythed a billion out of the housing budget in this year alone, their housing spokesperson believes the state should play little or no role, and their councillors are more likely than any other party to vote down planning consents.’
Inside Housing is looking to recruit a panel of readers to offer their opinions on key issues in the run up to the general election. Each week, the panel will be emailed to ask them their view on the latest hot topic, and which party they’d vote for. If you’d like to take part please email your details to gene.robertson@insidehousing.co.uk.
The panel will run from 19 March, and no new members will be added after this point. All responses will be anonymous, and the details you supply will only be used to contact you in relation to questions for the panel members.
Related images
View results 10 per page | 20 per page | 50 per page
Have your say
You must sign in to make a comment
Readers' comments (45)
B.S.Townroe | 22/02/2010 9:56 am
Irony by-passes for all! Remind me, who sold off millions of affordable homes? Who left a £19bn repair backlog in council stock? It couldn't be Her Majesty's memory-challenged opposition, could it?
Odd how they don't mention the reduction in homelessness or their own failure to help anyone who was repossessed during their tenure in office. Or not.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Steve | 22/02/2010 10:01 am
So if the Tories get in we can look forward to no new social housing being built, a bit of right to buy, no investment to maintain decent homes delivered over the last few years and rising rents and loss of security of tenure for social housing tenants? Oh good. That will resolve everything.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Repairman | 22/02/2010 10:05 am
Social Housing - does this include the number of two income families with a BMW or Mercedes on the drive and a joint income of £45K + and only pay about £100 a week rent, I always thought social housing was for the needy until they get on their feet again or to support vulenerable people who cannot look after themselves. Perhaps this also includes young people who decide to not bother with contraception and can't afford to bring up baby (but have one anyway) and can't be bothered to get a job but have SKY tv and do the lottery each week and both smoke and drink and have two holidays a year. It's great to know where our taxes are spent, and it's irrelivent who is in power. In terms of the waiting lists, neither party has addressed the issues on immigration or on perfectly fit people who choose to saty on the dole and not contribute towards society in any way. Bring back 1947 with conscription and workhouses for the poor.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Steve | 22/02/2010 10:43 am
And rationing? At least that might address a bit of obesity, eh?
I thought social housing was originally for anyone who would choose to live in it, people who were employed and so on. It was for an economically diverse population. It has largely been the Thatcherite era and beyond obsession that culled social housing and brainwashed the vast majority into thinking owner-occupation was the only tenure, even if it killed you to achieve it. Hence the marginalisation of the public sector housing.
Clealry the system has been abused by some, in the same way as tax laws are abused by the rich. We need the resources to deal with both of those issues. I believe that the system is in need of major reform that would prevent the dependency culture we have. To actually feel better off by getting a job from receiving all the benefits you can receive, you probably need to get a job paying between £30 and £40k.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
bizarreloverectangle | 22/02/2010 11:16 am
Just in case anyone has missed the coded reference - 1947 is the year before the Empire Windrush sailed from Jamaica to the UK, and has been previously identified by the BNP as their "cut-off" date regarding immigration. Pity the previous poster chose not to be explicit about this - I wonder why?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Melvin Bone | 22/02/2010 12:03 pm
'It shows that 18,428 homes a year were built under the Labour government between 1997 and 2008, while 40,538 homes were built each year when the Conservatives were in power.'
I notice that no-one is disputing these extraordinary figures showing massive Labour shortcomings...
Anyway this is all just target practice until the actual manifestos are launched.
And lets not forget the elephant in the room is our National Debt.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
kass | 22/02/2010 12:08 pm
The first thing the tories will do in power in social housing, will be to mess about with social tenancies instead of creating and building new homes. So no way I am going to vote for them.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Karen | 22/02/2010 4:47 pm
Oh for heaven sake will they give it a rest. "He said", "She said", "broken promises", "I'm not telling you how I'll make it better but I'll tell you how the other party didn't help".
Would it be that they all stood up and said "okay we've all made a right pigs ear of this - lets try harder and try to get it right" rather than just bitch all the time.
I've tried really hard to support (and certainly not spend money with) organisation who "sell" based on what THEY can achieve, not what the others cant. If you cant "sell" it on your own merits then you are effectively admiting you have no merits.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Nicholas Xenakis | 22/02/2010 6:08 pm
Miss-spending £20 billion on the Iraq expedition didn't help perhaps (see Table 6.1 Iraq War Costs 2007-2010, page 157, 'The $3 trillion War - The True Cost of the Iraq Conflict' by Nobel Prize in Economics Joseph Stiglitz and Linda Bilmes, Penguin Books 2008).
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
ProMan | 23/02/2010 8:36 am
Nice plug Nicholas - what department do you work in for Penguin :)
to be honest, this is all a bit Pot, Kettle for my liking and i agree with Karen, why can't they all just (get along) acknowledge no-one got it right yet and try harder in the future.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment