Mr. Shapps, Decent Homes, and Hoops

The housing minister Grant Shapps announced the other day that extra funding for decent homes may no longer be restricted to ALMOs who have acheived a two-star rating. Under proposals published by the HCA, councils who have opted to retain their housing management under direct control would also be allowed to bid for extra money. The consultation paper can be found here: http://bit.ly/aSQDlT

This plan has prompted responses along the lines of "Unfair! How dare you change the rules when all those ALMOs have 'jumped through all those hoops' to get their 2 stars  in order to get their hands on the dosh". Well perhaps we need to step back and think about this a bit. Maybe Mr Shapps is actually doing something positive for once. Amongst the many negative things that he has done so far - and there have been many - he could be about to change a deeply flawed policy that Blair and Brown would not be shifted on. Blair's government set the decent homes standard, which has to be seen as a positive policy due the history of underinvestment in the council housing stock by successive governments. But then came the catch - only councils who were willing to jump those 'hoops' were able to access the money to enable them to reach the decent homes standard. And despite successive Labour Party conferences voting in favour - the so-called 'fourth option' of investing in 'traditional' council housing under a democratically elected local authority - was steadfastly ignored by the Labour leadership. Only those councils who agreed to transfer their stock to a housing association or to set up an Arms Length Management Organisation (ALMO), were able to obtain additional funds to reach the minimum decency standard. On top of that, New Labour said that only those ALMOs which reached the Audit Commission's 2 star (good) rating would qualify. Hence the 'hoop jumping' complaints.

Whilst I can fully understand the feelings of these ALMOs (and their 'parent' councils) who believe that they have had to implement considerable changes in order to meet government targets. But, was the original Labour policy 'fair'? Complaints by several local housing authorities who, for a variety of reasons, chose not to become a housing association or an ALMO, were that they too could have achieved - and many did - a 2 star or even a 3 star rating, but that there was no opportunity to access extra resources. This clearly led to a belief that the policy was more about who owns and manages the housing stock rather than about the actual need for investment. The challenge now for the council/ALMO sector is to resist accusations of unfairness and try to work within a policy framework which although is not perfect, may just be an improvement on what was there before.

A further point is maybe there are some ALMOs who have successfully jumped their hoops and are now delivering improved services for their tenants and have carried out major investment works to their stock - have perhaps made a jump in the right direction?

New learning4housing website launch!!

I am pleased to announce that the NEW learning4housing website is now live and kicking!! The site contains details of the most popular courses that L4H can provide, including a wide range of housing management subjects. In addition, courses on management skills and personal development skills are also available - and all can be tailored to your specific needs. Please take a moment to have a look and feel free to let me know what you think. You can find us at the same address: www.learning4housing.co.uk

Coalition Housing Policies

There was a post to the Inside Housing discussion boards the other day that I thought posed some interesting points on the current housing poilicies that are being followed by the coalition government. I thought that it might be worth re-posting this in an attempt to stimulate some debate on the issues that have been raised. Please let us have your opinions, thoughts, responses to this post. I am sure that some will agree and some will disagree - but debate is healthy...

"There is no realistic parliamentary opposition to the Coalition. The Coalition is simply the continuation of New Labour which in turn was the next step down from the Thatcher/Major period. For example, James Purnell has already boasted that Ian Duncan Smith's mandatory 'community' work for the unemployed simply builds on his own plans to force the unemployed to work for nothing. Flint was the first to suggest making tenancies conditional on work. It was Labour who restricted support for owneroccupiers who have lost their jobs to two years. All Labour have had to say about the new housing policies so far is that cuts to benefits should be introduced a little more slowly. Not a meaningful word about increasing the supply of homes, of helping first time buyers get mortgages for themselves rather than pay the mortgages of their greedy, parasitic private landlords, of the unaffordability of the new 'affordable rent', of the effective demise of national planning policy. Lectures to China on their supposedlack of democracy is hypocritical. We have the same concept, a single political framework and ideology, but available in a choice of colours.


And before people start accusing me of supporting 'scroungers', the 'workshy', 'feckless tenants' can I simply again reiterate that we have just 450,000 vacancies available at the moment. Yes, there is churn but the fact remains - 450,000 jobs, 1,5 million on JSA anda further 3 million on other out of work benefits with another 1.5 million predicted by a number of reputable sources to join them in the next year or so - if every job was filled, even allowing for churn, at any given time between 1 and 4 million people would be without work. The one thing missing from the welfare and benefit reforms is the subject of Beveridge's 1944 report on full employment - that commitment by government to maintain full employment, defined as 97% of the working age population. And I think Beveridge meant with living wages not slave labour rates.


Housing is unaffordable for so many people, not because they are idle, feckless, scroungers but because since 1979 we simply haven't built enough to allow supply to keep pace with demand. Nothing has replaced the municipal sector that was there 1945 through 1979, not for fun, not to create idle feckless people, but because the government recognised that the capitalist system simply could not afford to or was unable to provide homes for everyone. So it filled the gap to maintain a sense of decency for us all. And to keep the workers well housed and fit for work.


Government - and by that I mean ConDems and Labour - no longer govern for the people or indeed the country. They have become so detached from the society they purport to represent that they simply can no longer conceive of anpolicy, practice or initiative that doesn't come out of a think-tank bubble, that doesn't pander to upper class and privileged prejudices"

Is this a bit of a simplistic view of the situation, or are there some grains of truth here? Let's have your views and opinions on where housing policy is likely to take us in the next few years.

Housing Benefit debate

The House of Commons debate on the proposed housing benefit reforms is to take place this afternoon. The debate outside Parliament has led to some very emotive remarks, with Polly Toynbee of the Guardian even referring to the policy as a 'final solution' (for which she later apologised as being inappropriate). Organisations such as Shelter, the Chartered Institute of Housing, the National Housing Federation, and even Boris Johnson, have also waded in, with predictions of chaos and of hundreds or thousands of people being displaced from more expensive areas, leading to 'ghettos' of rich and poor being created. The Labour Party, who have called this debate, are clearly hoping to either embarass the Lib Dems, or to get them to vote against the coalition. Be sure to listen or watch this afternoon, for what should prove to be a very interesting debate.