Removing secure tenancies 'undermines big society'
The government is undermining the big society through its policies including the removal of secure tenancies, according to journalist Rod Liddle.
Mr Liddle, associate editor of the current affairs magazine the Spectator, told the Chartered Institute of Housing’s south east conference in Brighton today that the government’s policies are preventing the big society, which seeks to empower communities, from happening.
He said the governments’ political reflexes are opposed to the concept. He said: ‘Every law this government enacts is designed to undermine the notion of a big society.
‘To have a big society where people have a stake in their community and take part in agreeable voluntary action, you need to have a sense of community in the first place.
‘This means people feel secure wherever they live and there is a longevity in their tenure and so they actually feel a part of the community. This is undermined in part by the conflicting Tory vision of an endlessly mobile labour force scouring the country in search of ever more temporary short term jobs, living in ever more temporary short term accommodation, moving on before they have had a chance to put down roots and become better involved in their own communities.’
Mr Liddle also cited the now abandoned proposal to sell off England’s public forests as a policy directly opposed to the big society.
Have your say
You must sign in to make a comment
Readers' comments (8)
Rick Campbell | 10/03/2011 4:51 pm
No kidding?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Sidney Webb | 10/03/2011 5:00 pm
"This is undermined in part by the conflicting Tory vision of an endlessly mobile labour force scouring the country in search of ever more temporary short term jobs, living in ever more temporary short term accommodation, moving on before they have had a chance to put down roots and become better involved in their own communities."
I have finally caught on that this is actually joined up Tory policy making. What is described above - a nomadic temporary low paid workforce - needs to be created out of the British public to replace the migrant temporary low paid workforce that will disappear due to immigration quotas (assuming the Tory landowners can be convinced to stop bringing tithed labour in to work their farms and processing plants). But then this centuries old form of workforce was only permitted as a replacement for the West African Slave workforce.
Tory synergy, either love it or it will kill you!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Rick Campbell | 10/03/2011 6:00 pm
By not selling off the forests, will this provide the opportunity for people to live in 150,000 of the trees or are we supposed to migrate to the forest and dress in Lincoln green or whatever?
AND would these tree houses be required to have toilets? -- the reason I ask is that I suspect people won't want to be having a wee wee because Shapps, IDS, Pickles, et all have been taking it for months.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Gresley | 10/03/2011 7:16 pm
Too many of those opposing are arguing that the consequences will be so unexpected and so dire that the Coalition will change direction. The consequences are intended, their impact will not be felt by those responsible.
Rod Liddle has, as PSR has noted, captured in one paragraph the thrust of the coalition's social and economic policy. There is indeed nothing accidental about the policies adopted and being pushed forward by th Coalition. A transitory workforce, frightened an d scared and never in one place long enough ot beging to rebel against the system. While I am sure there is no formal Project Plan, there is, due to a shared world view amongst the Coalition's members and supporters, no need for one. They are all 'working towards' the same goal. An essentially feudal society in which social strcuutre remains unchallenged and the interests of those with override the interests of those without. The very notion of the greatest good for the greatest number is entirely alien to the Coalition. Hence any opposition or challenge based upon their policies being divisive and detrimental to the majority or the wider national interest will fall on deaf ears.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Chris | 10/03/2011 8:38 pm
Gresley, PSR and Liddle have it clearly identified; but where is the official opposition? Silent, complicit, or both?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Gresley | 11/03/2011 11:06 am
Listen? Hear that? Tis the sound of Cruella de Flint singing in the bath...
Hello Dave, my old friend
I've come to talk with you again
Because a vision softly creeping
Left its seeds while I was sleeping
And the vision that was planted in my brain
Still remains
Within the sound of silence
In restless dreams they slept alone
Narrow streets of cobblestone
'Neath the halo of a street lamp
I turned my collar to the cold and damp
Because my dreams had come true and everything was right
In the cold dark night
Leaving me the sound of silence
And in the naked light I saw
Ten thousand people, maybe more
People walking without stopping
People working without hoping
People sleeping in gutters with nothing left to share
And I didn’t care to
Disturb the sound of silence
And the people bowed and prayed
To the capitalist god they made
And the sign flashed out its warning
In the words that it was forming
And the sign said, "The words of the Coalition are written on the subway walls
And tenement halls"
And whispered in the sounds of silence
(With apologies to Simon and Garfunkel)
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Sidney Webb | 11/03/2011 11:18 am
Gresley - what are you doing in the Shadow Human's bathroom?
Will the Labour Party either get off of our knees or own up to being the Party of the owning class.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Gresley | 11/03/2011 11:33 am
The things I do for housing....
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment