Housing delivery key to Big Society plans
Passing control of affordable housing delivery down to neighbourhood level will form a key plank of the coalition government’s Big Society policy, the prime minister has said.
David Cameron today told a Liverpool audience that power would be shifted from Whitehall elites to the ‘man and woman on the street’ to help the latter tackle the country’s most tricky social issues.
‘The Big Society is about a huge culture change where people, in their everyday lives, in their homes, in their neighbourhoods, in their workplace don’t always turn to officials, local authorities or central government for answers to the problems they face,’ he said.
Council leaders, social entrepreneurs and local activists had appealed for greater control to plan the ‘look, size, shape and feel of housing developments,’ he added.
‘It’s my hope – and my mission – that when people look back at this five, ten year-period from 2010, they’ll say:
‘In Britain they didn’t just pay down the deficit, they didn’t just balance the books, they didn’t just get the economy moving again, they did something really exciting in their society.
‘Whether it is in building affordable housing, tackling youth unemployment, inviting charities to deliver public services, the people in Britain worked out the answer to the big social problems.’
Have your say
You must sign in to make a comment
Readers' comments (8)
Melvin Bone | 19/07/2010 1:48 pm
OMG.
Kass, here is the chance you have been waiting for.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 19/07/2010 3:06 pm
Melvin, i would expand on that:
OMFG!!!
Cameron to public: "please do our job for us"
There is a reason: " people turn to officials, local authorities or central government for answers to the problems they face,"
That reason is knowldge, skills, experience, expertise, funding, capacity etc etc.
"(the public) want greater control to plan the ‘look, size, shape and feel of housing developments"
I'm sure they do, but do they have the knowledge and skills to meet the legislative requirements for such a development. Obviously not, if they did they would work in development.
Utterly ridiculous, although we should be getting used to this nonsense by now. Only 4 1/2 years to go......
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Sidney Webb | 19/07/2010 4:51 pm
Power is having the economic control and ability to make conclusive decision to determine policy. As neither of these items are being devolved how can our peacock prime minister claim this to be the greatest redistribution of power since whatever it was he said before I nodded off.
DC - how much money is being made avaalable for house building? - LESS
DC - how soon will our young people get a chance for housing? - LESS
DC - when will social rent become a realistic choice for those seeking housing? - NEVER
So what exactly has changed compared to the last 30-years then?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Bernard Townroe | 19/07/2010 4:52 pm
I've heard some patronising cobblers in my life but this just about takes the biscuit, in fact the whole selection box. Was there ever a more arrogant bunch spouting meaningless soundbites that make New Labour's 'Third Way' appear to be the deepest of intellectual thought?
The message, though, is clear. You have a choice - afford everything you need to live to a decent standard or don't. And if you don't, it's your fault - or that of the non-existant 'community', for is not that what their heroine said, "there is no such thing as community, merely an aggregate of individuals"? In this case, that is a bunch of millionaires removing basic rights from the rest of 'society' and then tasking that self same 'society' with providing the basics for those who are clearly nothing more than the barely-deserving poor.
If this is the 'Big Society', it is morally and economically bankrupt before it has begun. Shame does not come close.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 19/07/2010 5:28 pm
What's DC on? I thought this coalition is about realism! Shame on you for coming up with such patronising Mandelson sound bites!!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
simon sezz | 19/07/2010 6:59 pm
I'm concerned - is the idea voiced by Melvin and "anonymous" that the only people who would get involved would be unsuitable ones?
There are significant numbers of organisations which are tenant-led, from ALMOs to co-ops. Some co-ops have been around for decades. There are also other, new types of social enterprise which deliver homes.
HAs are generally pretty useless when it comes to the empty homes agenda (except Hyde) but these other bodies excel at it - would it not be more useful to retain an open mind and see what we can do?
Your trade body, the NHF, recently published the results of a consultation they did in this area. They seemed to think that there was huge potential for freeing the HCA to assist smaller bodies and incentivising (because mere encouragement doesn't work) HAs to actually, you know, do something rather than simply play Sudoku on their Blackberrys.
Incidentally, I doubt that Cameron has a clue what he's talking about. But if you agree simply because you have a low opinion of social tenants, you're no better than he is.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 20/07/2010 7:48 am
This is interesting, will this mean residents including tenants will decide if land within their community goes for private executive house building, commercial and business use, social housing with an RSL or will it mean its ring fenced for community housing - big opportunity for rural areas, also what if the community ring fence monies from the sale of land or houses to their own community needs (wow£ Internal - external improvements ie executive homes style environmental improvements) direction of travel with this is definitately one to watch. brilliant concept - cannot see RSL's or Councils going for this, even if Ministers arrive to see whats happening on the ground - watch this one£
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Phil Carsley | 20/07/2010 10:54 am
Another load of tosh from Cameron. People are employed to do such jobs for a good reason and he doesn't appear to have addressed the issue of the numerous quangoes/regulatory bodies that will need to be set up to monitor this daft idea.
What really grates is the fact that he plans to use "dormant" bank accounts to pay for it.
The sooner we get rid of this lunatic coalition, the better we'll be. But then if the electorate had the guts to vote any other way than tribally (or at all) we wouldn't be in this mess.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment