Miliband to propose overhaul of social housing allocation policy

[pap]

Article on the Guardian website suggests that Miliband is going to propose shaking up social housing allocation policy.

 

He will say local authorities should be required in preparing social housing allocation policies not simply to take into account need, but also people's contribution to society – "whether the recipients are working, whether they look after their property and are good neighbours".

 

He will say: "Our first duty should be to help the person who shows responsibility, and I say every council should recognise the contribution people are making."

 

Full article.

 

I think I've said something very similar myself, on this forum.

 

Personally, I think we need a lot more social housing and that people who work should get priority. It's little wonder that the council estates are getting worse when priority is purely based on need. A young girl on her own with a few kids is always going to get priority over a single couple looking to start a family.

 

Surely this is a policy that people would support across the board, irrespective of party colour?

[Thedelldays]

Would not worry would Ed says.

 

Once he refuses to back the public strikes the unions will have him removed before the next election

 

Watching the highlights of the conference today it was scary how the unions control the labour party

[View From The Top]

Would not worry would Ed says.

 

Once he refuses to back the public strikes the unions will have him removed before the next election

 

Watching the highlights of the conference today it was scary how the unions control the labour party

 

In other news big business owns the tories.

[pap]

Let's be honest. An opposition leader is going to have limited influence on Government policy irrespective of the level of union involvement.

 

And off-topic on the first post, TDD. That's some swagger there, kid

[Thedelldays]

In other news big business owns the tories.

 

Indeed but I bet Cameron could chose his own cabinet. Which Ed could not/can't do

[1976_Child]

Miliband is a dweeb. A wet blanket. A complete non-entity.

 

He is a disgrace to the Labour Movement... because he has never held a proper job in his life: School (privileged), University (Oxford) and then a cushy 'advisor' role before contesting an un-winable seat (cut his teeth against the Tories!!) before landing a dead safe seat. Whoppeee Dooo Dahh!

 

Keir,

Ramsay,

Ernest,

Harold

and even Hugh

 

Where are the real men of the Labour Party?

 

With all that is going on in this world, the rich lining their pockets and controlling the 'bail outs' for their own good. Where are the real men?

 

Miliband? Don't make me laugh. He is a pipsqueak. Still sucking at his mother's tit. The Labour Party used to stand for something. Now it is led by career-politicos like Miliband and the odious Balls.

 

I long to be able to put my mark next to the real Labour Party at an election. A real Party with FIRE in its soul. FIRE for what is right and fair. Not going to happen with Miliband so I will vote Green locally and nationally, and UKIP in the Europeans.

[saintbletch]

In principle pap, but in practice it just sounds a non-starter. It asks more questions that it answers in my opinion.

 

Surely the obvious implication of such a policy is that the unemployed, the less domestically-inclined and the bad neighbours amongst us would find themselves excluded from social housing.

 

And before the jingoism starts up stating that "they've had their chance", "**** 'em" or similar; I'll ask "where would they go?"

 

Ignoring the obvious "Who cares?", the answer would probably be that as a society we would have to find somewhere for them to live. And surely that would result in many similar 'families' being pushed into the same sink estates creating ghettos.

 

I like the idea but moving the problem isn't solving the problem.

 

A la Ed Balls' "We can't promise to alter the spending plans if we come into government". Isn't this just another headline-grabbing "We've learned from our mistakes, you can trust is, give us another go" exercise?

[EastleighSoulBoy]

With talk on this thread of Unions owning Labour and Big Business owning the Tories.

 

Maybe this has a relevance?

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lqN3amj6AcE&sns=em

 

Kind of fits in, in a worrying way.

[bridge too far]

Indeed but I bet Cameron could chose his own cabinet. Which Ed could not/can't do

 

Err - yes he can

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15054351

[Viking Warrior]

Come on 1976 Harold Wilson was a crook . Gaitskel wasn't around long enough shame John smith died so suddenly he might have been one of the few labour leaders I liked and I'm not a labour supporter

[pap]

In principle pap, but in practice it just sounds a non-starter. It asks more questions that it answers in my opinion.

 

Surely the obvious implication of such a policy is that the unemployed, the less domestically-inclined and the bad neighbours amongst us would find themselves excluded from social housing.

 

And before the jingoism starts up stating that "they've had their chance", "**** 'em" or similar; I'll ask "where would they go?"

 

Ignoring the obvious "Who cares?", the answer would probably be that as a society we would have to find somewhere for them to live. And surely that would result in many similar 'families' being pushed into the same sink estates creating ghettos.

 

I like the idea but moving the problem isn't solving the problem.

 

First of all, congratulations on being the first poster to actually post an on-topic response.

 

As to your concerns, I think the only way that such proposals would work would involve building a lot of new decent houses and applying the new allocation rules to the new builds. Let's be honest, many of our social housing estates are not in a great state at the moment. I'm not sure how appealing they'd be to the sort of people that this policy is aimed at.