Candidates clash over 'distrust' of housing sector
The two candidates competing to be vice president of the Chartered Institute of Housing have clashed over government perception of the housing sector.
In a head to head debate organised by Inside Housing today housing consultant Jan Taranczuk said UK government politicians have a ‘distrust’ of the housing profession that needs to be addressed.
He said the situation is better in Wales and Scotland where there is a ‘much closer working relationship’ between the relevant arms of the CIH and their respective governments.
However his rival, Orbit Group chief executive Paul Tennant, disagreed with Mr Taranczuk’s assessment. He said the CIH has a good relationship with housing minister Grant Shapps, but argued more should be done to promote the wider benefits of good housing.
‘We make a huge different to the health agenda, we make a huge difference to the environmental agenda, a huge difference to the economic agenda, there is a very, very broad offer that we bring to society as housing organisations, so I’d want to build on that,’ he said.
The candidates also disagreed on security of tenure, with Mr Taranczuk arguing against fixed-term tenancies. ‘There needs to be stability to allow people to progress,’ he said.
Mr Tennant said Orbit is introducing five year tenancies, but that two years would be too short a term.
‘I think what we are trying to do here is make best use of what is still a scarce resource,’ he said.
‘We have too few homes, that is a fundamental issue, what we are trying to do is manage pragmatically what we do have.’
The vice president, who will become president in 2013, is being elected by CIH members for the first time. Voting closes on Monday 30 January.
Listen to a recording of the debate
Have your say
You must sign in to make a comment
Readers' comments (10)
F451 | 25/01/2012 4:34 pm
If Paul Tennant can see that more needs to be done to promote the benefits of good housing, why does he see a 'good relationship' with the demon king as an advantage.
It is like a haemorrhoid being congratulated for the benefits of digestion.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Ernie Gray | 25/01/2012 4:46 pm
Whether we like Shapps or not, Paul in my view is correct that we do have to work with him to infulence and ensure that housing has a voice even if the CIOH is nor really listened to. Better to be at the table......... etc
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
FXT | 25/01/2012 5:04 pm
Hasn't there been rather to much of sacrificing all principles in order to be 'at the table'. I can't help suspect it has more to do with advancing careers than the sector. There is after all no such thing as a free lunch.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Joe Halewood | 25/01/2012 5:16 pm
I will listen to the debate later but find common ground with both candidates. Thats not fence-sitting as I believe the CIH has been increasingly irrelevant in the last few years and my interest is whether either candidate can make it more relevant.
Shapps has stated recently that the housing sector is politicied and its left of centre and a distrust is there and Shapps' 'lazy consensus' speech was an attempt to deflect blame to the sector and label it left-wing. We will see more of this strategy in the near future.
It is better the devil or indeed 'demon king' you know too and because of Shapps attack on the sector, then sector does need to show the benefits and the wider benefits of good housing as well as to differentiate it from the private sector that Shapps favours.
The comments on fixed term tenure seem to be to challenge or be pragmatic and the sector needs to challenge and be proactive in that challenge especially given the first-move advantage of Shapps labelling it as leftist and of having a lazy consensus. Yet its very difficult for CIH to be proactive given Shapps announces a new 'policy' every 5 minutes and what challenges have come out of CIH to Shapps have been reactive and frankly too little too late. By contrast the private rented sector issue proactive challenges and has been very successful at doing so.
Any sector claiming to represent its members doesnt wait to respond to barbs from government it should lead the agenda and CIH hasnt been doing that.
We have a chronic social housing shortage and a rampant private rented sector charging far too much as a result of lack of regulation. Can anyone recall the CIH getting this on the national agenda?
It hasnt and the agenda is being led by soundbite after soundbite from Shapps often highly error strewn and full of myth such as 8m social homes when there are 4; sub-letting has 160k cases (almost double the number of prisoners); heralding downsizing that doesnt stack up as in the FreeSpace case last week, ensuring RtB2 will provide a 1 for 1 replacement when that doesnt stack up; the lazy consensus debacle; blaming housing shortage on tenants; and so many more not least the affordable (sic) housing model.
Can anyone recall the CIH position on these? Perhaps the media attention they have found on this election would have been better spent on the real issues above, many of them are easily disproved after all.
As always challenging government lead to charges of political bias, other agenda or just outright temerity. Yet when government challenge others then 'challenge' is seen as one of the 4 legitmate 'c's of Best Value. Its time the CIH find their purpose and if that doesnt include challenge it will become even more inconsequential and irrelevant.
Good luck to both candidates you are going to need it! (Yes that is fence-sitting!)
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Kevin | 26/01/2012 8:13 am
it's about time CIH stood up to be counted.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Harry Lime | 26/01/2012 9:08 am
Is it better to be outside the tent urinating in, or inside the tent urinating out? The chair of the CIH can afford to be somewhat combatory with the govt of the time (whatever it's persuasion) as it's a professional body, not a govt one.
Being slightly controversial, as Chief exec of a major RSL would Paul Tennant be worried about upsetting the govt, and by default the HCA when it would come to Orbit applying for grant funding??!!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Omega 3 | 26/01/2012 12:27 pm
Correct me if I am wrong pls- but did not the CIH recommend the ending of security of tenure before Schapps - seems like under Tennant the CIH will become Schapps poodle- I am totally in favour of evicting one Tennant
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
steve king | 26/01/2012 3:13 pm
As a tenant of a large housing association in Wiltshire, I have no doubt why this distrust exists, tenants have lived with it for very many years - as studying the many pages of comments on Inside Housing confirms ! Maybe the government politicians read inside housing aswell, and have gained a true picture of HAs from what they read here.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
anthony hayward | 26/01/2012 11:16 pm
Neither of these two candidates can even grasp the issues of Social Housing due to the state it is at the moment.What I suggest is before either of you start throwing bricks at each other spend sometime on the frontline then perhaps both of you will get a reality check and thats from one consultant to another.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Renee | 27/01/2012 5:42 pm
It’s time to stop being personal and remind ourselves what this ballot is really all about. Our focus surely needs to be on choosing the most appropriate person to raise the profile of the Institute and to represent our interests at the highest possible level. Given his leadership pedigree and excellent professional reputation across the sector, my vote is firmly with Paul Tennant.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment