Cameron threatens lifetime tenancies
David Cameron has suggested the Conservative-led government could do away with lifetime tenancies, contradicting promises made before the election.
In a question and answer session with members of the public in Birmingham, the prime minister said it makes sense to look at a more ‘flexible system’ of tenure.
In the run up to the general election Mr Cameron came under attack from then housing minister John Healey, who accused the Conservatives of wanting to end secure tenancies.
At the time, Mr Cameron said the allegations were ‘simply untrue’ and a spokesperson for the Conservatives said the party had ‘no policy to change the current or future security of tenure of tenants in social housing’.
But today 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.’
He said the question ‘will lead to quite a bit argument’ and that he was ‘not talking about existing tenants’ but that for future tenants it could be asked whether there would be more social mobility if people moved through social housing, rather than regarding it as something they get for life.
David Cameron takes questions from the public: the council housing question is 27 minutes into the clip.
View results 10 per page | 20 per page | 50 per page |
Have your say
You must sign in to make a comment
Readers' comments (78)
Anonymous | 03/08/2010 5:36 pm
So Cameron has lied then
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 03/08/2010 5:43 pm
So what Mr Cameron is saying is that if you have a council home and improve your 'lot' you can be forced out! Where is the incentive for working hard and bettering yourself?? Nevermind Mr Cameron your ill thought ideas will promote further welfare dependency just like previous policies issued by Labour as who is really going to improve their lot when they could lose their home?? It will create further welfare dependency, job well done, penalise the working class as usual. The working class who cant afford to buy or private rent but whom work hard for a living!! Whilst in the process create more sink estates when you shift the workers on. What an attitude, people who are not in employment can keep their homes where as those who earn a bit of money and do well for themselves cant. I have heard about the feckless having babies to get a home now your policies would encourage them to further breed and not work!!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 03/08/2010 5:48 pm
How are you going to montior your shorthold tenancies Mr Cameron. Would it be anyone who earns over 12,000 pounds they are out. I guess you could create a quango to montior this idea!! Why dont you send out a message dont get a decent paid job otherwise you could lose your home. However if you dont want to work or work part time you could keep your home, with some small sanctions i.e. maybe a cut in housing benefit. What would you rather have a small sanction or lose your home and be forced into the private rental market and extreme high rents. You answer that question Mr Cameron.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
kass | 03/08/2010 5:54 pm
how could our CALL ME Dave get away with an answer like that?
If anyone is still in doubt about the need for social residents to have their own INDEPENDENT voice, Dave's repudation of his promise no to touch secure tenancies should have have cleared all doubts once and for all.
Unless we have the ONE TENANCY ONE VOTE system at the soonest it's good bye to social housing - and it won't come back for centuries.
Please support and promote the ONE TENANCY ONE VOTE in your own area...If you don't future present and future generations will be destitute and homeless.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
William Heywood | 03/08/2010 10:29 pm
Rather than this punitive approach it would be far better to provide attractive alternatives to encourage downsizing. Where there are desirable sheltered schemes or bungalows to retire to older tenants vote with their feet and free up family houses.
I suspect that rather than attack security of tenure the Govt will go for variable rent levels. An annual review of ability to pay and a sliding scale from affordable to market rent. If tenants find themselves paying market rents anyway they may then choose to buy or rent privately.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 03/08/2010 11:09 pm
I agree with the PM on this one. You have to remember the PM is from London. Anyone outside of London will struggle to find the logic in what he is saying because the philosophy of increased housing mobility is only attractive to people with jet-set London lifestyles. In London, things move very quickly, because of the raised level of alertness in human beings who are engaged more in earning an extra ‘bob or two’ to survive the rat race within London. This need to survive, almost acts as a catalyst to the rate of human activity, which also helps to increase the acceptability of housing mobility too, as a consequence. Anyone living in London, who is constantly looking for the next 'raise' in income, will find the idea of moving home very attractive, whereas the remaining population (a vast majority), will find the idea repulsive, because it would mean forsaking their friends and families, for money(!).
So on the basis of the above argument one could easily conclude that increased housing mobility is significantly attractive to 'Capitalists'.
And yes, I am a capitalist too.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
| 03/08/2010 11:33 pm
"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."
Hmmm. Not sure I like the sound of that. And he was doing so well up until now.
If Cameron wants to concentrate deprivation on council estates this is one sure fire way to do it. Only the basket cases will remain. As if needs based allocation has not created enough of them already...
Now if Cameron said, if you have a council flat in an area of Central London with high employment, and still haven't bothered to work for the last 5/10/20 years (yes it's that bad where I am with 60% of 16-34 year olds having never worked despite there being 1.3 jobs per head of population) then we will boot you out and you can go and live on benefits forever in somewhere horrible like Hull or Cleveland where there is low demand for housing. Your Central London flat will then be offered to someone who can be bothered and will contribute. That would the proper Conservative thing to do. Not this.
His current proposal is the antithesis of a mixed community agenda, and will turn council estates into 100% welfare ghettos. Can't see this helping RTB leaseholders at all. Or anyone worth helping for that matter.
Choose your words more carefully next time Mr. C....
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 04/08/2010 0:12 am
No offence ILAG, but every city has a ghetto, and a lot of rural communities are being turned into ghettos, by government, European, and international financial policies. Such policies ensure capital is only available to those with capital. The rest can starve, or find other ways to 'get' capital, and if that involves criminal activity, then so be it. Welcome to capitalism, my friend. It's all about capital. With it, you're stuffed!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 04/08/2010 7:34 am
Come on you lot, don't pretend you didn't see this coming. We all know the Conservative's pathological hate of social housing. We saw it through the 70's and 80's when they tried everything they could to destroy the supply of 'Labour votes'. They couldn't get rid of social housing though. They've at last realised how to do it. Let it destroy itself. Instead of continuing to create mixed communities in social housing, which we have all been trying to do for years, the Conservatives will now be creating 'no go areas' where rent arrears and ASB proliferate. Sustainability will fall, costs for tenancy turnover will soar, and neighbourhood pride will vanish. Then they will blame social landlords, who will be unregulated by then, for poor management. Social housing suicide.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
michael barratt | 04/08/2010 8:22 am
The Tory vision for the future is to introduce flexible working conditions into the home in order to further coerce council tenants into compliance. Measures that are intended to take away the independence of 'battler' and leave them at the mercy of the state. A state (irrespective of which major political party in power) run by a privileged Oxbridge elite on behalf of big business.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment