The Independent reports that The Boy Wonder believes it is better to grant council housing on a 'fixed term' basis.
"The Prime Minister said it makes sense for tenants to be given fixed-term deals in future - so they can be moved on if their circumstances change."
"Not talking about existing tenants but, for future tenants........."
'So they can be moved on'? WTF and how is that going to work? So DC is to decide how someone's income should be spent and on what? And the difference between 'council housing' and 'social housing' is what? As for the difference between 'existing tenants' and 'future tenants', one has to wonder if he has cleared this idea with his masters in Brussels? In particular I would refer to Article 21, Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU): "Every citizen shall have the right to move and reside freely within the territory of Member States....". If it is the 'right' of someone from another country to live here 'freely', then it must, surely, be the 'right' of those already here?
1 comment:
You've misunderstood this. Freedom of movement doesn't imply everlasting subsidy.
What he wants to change is the lifelong secured tenancy by which someone who was once poor - and deserving of help - gets cheap housing at the taxpayers' expense for the rest of their lives.
Actually it's worse than that, because council house tenancies can be - and usually are - passed down the generations, regardless of means or need.
Assistance for the poor and the unfortunate, yes; permanent subsidy for anyone who was (or whose relatives were) once poor or unfortunate but may now be quite successful and prosperous, no.
It's a great idea; naturally, he will never deliver it, due bureaucratic inertia, vested interest sabotage, and sheer funk, but for once Dave has a good policy here.
Post a Comment