Another Tory Manifesto Pledge hits the deck - Tories U-turn on plan to build more socially rented council housing

First topic message reminder :

Plan to build genuinely affordable homes ditched by housing minister

The Conservatives have U-turned on a flagship pledge to build “a new generation” of social housing announced in their manifesto just weeks ago.

Theresa May personally promised her policy would deliver “a constant supply of new homes for social rent”, but her housing minister has now admitted planned homes would be let at significantly less affordable rents.

The embarrassing admission represents the second about-turn on a Conservative manifesto pledge, after the damaging furore around the “dementia tax”.

Tory officials played down the reversal, but Labour claimed it showed one of the Prime Minister’s key pledges to help low-income families had “fallen apart”, while the Chartered Institute of Housing branded it “very disappointing”.

In mid-May the Conservatives announced they would build “a new generation of homes for social rent”, in a policy seen as critical to winning over the kind of working-class voters Ms May needs to steal seats off Labour.

The Tory manifesto spelt out a plan for “new council housing deals”, which would help councils "build more social housing”. And, in an intervention that spoke to the policy’s importance, Theresa May personally pledged it would create “a constant supply of new homes for social rent”.

But in an interview on Friday with trade magazine Inside Housing, minister Gavin Barwell admitted the party was planning to continue to build homes with higher rents and was not in fact reinstating traditional socially rented council housing.

Asked whether the homes would planned by his party would be let at low-level council rents, the minister said: “No, I think the idea is that they are what you’d call affordable rents in housing terminology, but they are social housing.”

The Department for Communities and Local Government defines social rented housing as having lower rents “determined through the national rent regime” – a specific formula set by the Government.

Affordable-rent housing, meanwhile, is separately defined, and simply requires homes to be “of no more than 80 per cent of the local market rent” – meaning rents could be considerably higher. In practice, social rent tends to come in at around 40 per cent of market rent, meaning that in some areas the difference in rent could be twice as much.

CIH chief executive Terrie Alafat called the switch “very disappointing”, adding: “In reality affordable rents are still often out of reach to a significant proportion of the population.

“We have to commit to building new homes that people can afford.”

The apparent reversal comes after Theresa May was forced to U-turn on the “dementia tax” care policy – introducing a cap at the last minute as her Tory poll trickled away amid the backlash.

Ms May also dropped a pledge to force companies to put ordinary workers on their boards of directors, scrapped a flagship rise in National Insurance for self-employed workers in this year’s Budget, and changed her mind on whether to call an election.

There has also been confusion over the Tory policy to scrap universal free school lunches for infants to save money and replace them with breakfasts – after it emerged the party had only budgeted 7p for each child. The party has indicated that those costings are now defunct.

Labour's shadow housing secretary John Healey said the Tories’ only housing announcement of the general election was collapsing.

“This is another policy pledge from the Prime Minister that has fallen apart,” he told The Independent.

“The housing minister has now contradicted Theresa May's only housing announcement of this election campaign. She promised that the Conservatives would build new homes for 'social rent', he has confirmed they will not.

“The Prime Minister now urgently needs to level with the public. Either her housing minister is wrong about Conservative housing policy or she is. Which is it?”

Asked about Mr Barwell's comments, a Conservative spokesperson said: “We will be supporting new council housing at below market rents. Councils will be in the lead in deciding the precise form of tenure – we expect a mixture of social and affordable rent, as at present.”

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tories-housing-policy-u-turn-affordable-homes-general-election-2017-manifesto-a7769866.html



Uncosted manifesto that might just as well have been written on toilet paper so they could tear bits off of it.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

If they're taking advantage, they're not in need then. Anyway, I don't see why some people should get subsidised housing and others can't. If they're claiming benefits, they don't actually need low rent.

The benefits system including Housing Benefit has a cap and limitations.  If you're single, then they won't pay for you to go into a three bedroomed house for example.  So yes, they do need low rent just like everyone else.   We do hear silly stories about whole families being put up in £1m homes but that's rare.

The person on benefits isn't paying the rent out of their own money though, so they don't have to think about how much the rent is, other than the cap issue.

As an aside, this is why I think the "bedroom tax" is fundamentally fair. A person who rents privately can't get housing benefit for a house which is bigger than they need, so why should those in council houses?

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

People don't need lessons on how to live in the country! It's common sense.

Well clearly they do based of the experiences Victor has had with many townies

Yes, but he probably expects them to embrace the country lifestyle. They're not obliged to do that. Mind you, people often move out of cities to get some peace and quiet, and find out that tractors and farm animals can make quite a lot of noise.

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:
They're artificially high because landlords know they can charge what they like. If they're making a profit, they're money grabbing. Most people are money grabbers really, which is why the Government needs to do something about it.

If rents were forcibly lowered, house prices would drop - bad for those who hoped to sell their house for a huge amount of course, but good for the country in general.

they cannot charge what they like, they can charge what the market will stand.

do you work?
if so do you work for less than the person sat next to you?
no you get paid what the market says you should.

I do know what you mean, but the problem is that there are always people who are able to pay large amounts in rent, and in the same area there are many people who will work for minimum wage. It's a strange discrepancy really. In some areas, house prices and rents are so absurdly high compared to the average pay that I don't understand who on earth is buying those houses or renting them.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Thorin wrote:


They would still get less than the person who would be full time Horatio. So not saying you are wrong, but would be surprised if you did. Most permanent staff would be in uproar if people were as temps getting paid more. So if you did, that to me would be wrong. Not knocking but can you imagine full time staff knowing that?

I agree that some zero contracts with certain temp agencies do jerk people around. Its more to do with the agency itself and what they have signed up to with an employer. As I say most people I know it suits them. Some get screwed about and only know the day before if they have work. That I find wrong, as they could at least let them know whether they have a full weeks worth of work. There is 3 agencies used at the hospital. Two are good and one is poor and yet they use the poorest one the most, go figure eh?

I worked for years as a PA/secretary.   I spent some of that time doing temp work, and it's general knowledge within that industry that temps get paid more.   Not once did I ever come across any full time staff I worked with as a temp being bothered by that.   Most of them had no idea what money I was on anyway.   I got paid around £4 per hour more as a temp than any full time work I ever got.  But I guess this must vary from industry to industry, as I know you work in the NHS, so perhaps temp work is different within that.

I also worked as a temp secretary, and I agree that the pay was better per hour than for perm staff.

Mass immigration is the root cause of the problem.