Cameron to bring back secure tenancy opponent
Share
The head of a think tank that has advocated linking housing to work and removing lifetime tenancies would lead social policy under the Conservatives.
Tory leader David Cameron announced yesterday that Iain Duncan Smith, a former Conservative leader and head of the Centre for Social Justice, would ‘be responsible in government for bringing together all our work to help mend the broken society’.
Last December, Mr Duncan Smith’s think tank published a report, Housing Poverty, which called for social housing policy to be used as a ‘lever’ to get people back into work.
It suggested the idea of ‘commitment contracts’ where tenants would agree to seek work in return for help with training and childcare. And it also advocated giving council and housing associations freedom to let their properties ‘as they see fit’ ending the ‘stifling requirement’ that social tenancies be secure for life.
The report was written by a group of experts chaired by Notting Hill Housing Group chief executive Kate Davies.
In his speech to the Conservative Party conference yesterday, Mr Cameron said Mr Duncan Smith ‘had dedicated himself to the cause of social justice, and shown great courage in standing up for those least able to stand up for themselves’.
He said Britain is still suffering from ‘stubborn social problems’, and attacked the record of the Labour government on fighting poverty.
‘You have failed and it falls to us, the modern Conservative Party, to fight for the poorest who you have let down,’ he said.
View results 10 per page | 20 per page | 50 per page
Have your say
You must sign in to make a comment
Readers' comments (47)
Jim Paton | 09/10/2009 5:48 pm
Oh dear! So the theory of council estates as transit camps rides again. What we desperately need, of course, is stability and permanence so that we can solve our problems sustainably.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
kaleem sheikh | 09/10/2009 7:03 pm
Yes Mate. But where are the jobs and where are the bankers ???
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Dave Hollins | 09/10/2009 8:13 pm
Many influential Tories - Iain Duncan Smith, Stephen Greenhalgh, other Tory Council leaders, that strange chap who works for Boris Johnson - all advocate ending secure tenancies. And their advisers like Kate Davies of Notting Hill and David Cowan of Places for People - get paid from tenants' rents to attack tenants rights. This is clearly being considered by the Tory front bench but I suspect they're not honest enough to admit it, perhaps because it will alienate tenants.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Bryan Latter | 10/10/2009 8:30 am
Ian Duncan-Smith should consult other experts with regard to social housing for which there is a greater need than ever before. Experts that don't have a vested interest such as Kate Davies of the Notting Hill Housing Association. Their shared home ownership schemes are as unaffordable as others offered by housing associations that also currently enjoy too much freedom to let vacant homes at market prices.
Experts from Organisations like Defend Council Housing, Shelter & Local Councils that are only concerned with the provision of affordable homes to rent.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
WATT | 12/10/2009 9:27 am
Tenants, Leaseholders, worry not - the TSA will be fighting your cause - you know that one with Keith Exford on board ( major HA, vested interest? ) and Peter Marsh ( Housing Corp - yep Tenants got great service because of their HA Regulation ). Fantastic.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Peter | 12/10/2009 11:08 am
What is the obsession about secure tenancies at the moment? What are the real problems are being caused as result of secure tenancies? What is going to be resolved or achieved if secure tenancies are removed?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Melvin Bone | 12/10/2009 12:28 pm
What are the advantages of a lifetime tenancy versus a fixed term/renewable tenancy (for claimant and for landlord)?
Jim. You stated that: 'What we desperately need, of course, is stability and permanence so that we can solve our problems sustainably'. What do you mean in real terms?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Ged Quayle | 12/10/2009 2:19 pm
Here we go 'round the mulberry bush... So the plan to make being a council tenant punishable by eviction plods on its own, deranged way regardless. Mind you, it's starting to feel like 1979 all over again, so anything Cameron can do to stall the Tory bandwagon's fine by me.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Brian Capaloff | 12/10/2009 2:46 pm
'What are the advantages of a lifetime tenancy versus a fixed term/renewable tenancy'? That is a question that needs to be asked of the tenant, not of housing professionals. What are the advantages (he asked rhetorically!) of a settled community, of knowing that you can set down roots, of knowing that the punishment for finding work is not that you and your children will have to up sticks, leading to the creation of urban ghettos, and so on?
I don't know about Jim, but what I mean by 'permanence' is 'permanent', i.e. so long as the secure tenant wishes to remain and so long as the conditions of the secure tenancy are maintained. Only from this level of security can we hope to fully establish the roots of community that flow from sustainability.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Melvin Bone | 12/10/2009 2:52 pm
Ged: "Mind you, it's starting to feel like 1979 all over again"
Oh no...I think the country is in a much worse state than it was in 1979. Labour have had much more time to mess the economy up this time. Jim was a saint compared to Gordon.
Back on topic: Why should a lifetime tenancy exist?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment