Housing policy consistent with 'Big Society'?
I thought the Tories want to shape a ‘big society’ – you do not achieve that proposing an idea that would alter the makeup and social structure of many of the societies and communities the ‘big society’ concept is supposed to help.
Presumably a large motivation for Cameron in building the ‘big society’ would be bring back the sense of community in Britain, one that served us well in generations gone by – where neighbors’ help each other out. It is true that has somewhat deserted us as society has progressed in the modern era.
I would assert that the sense of community would still remain relatively strong in some areas where council and affordable housing still stands. It is that sense of togetherness that I am alluding to here, one arguably that has been lost in middle England. It is that sense of community that would prop up this ‘big society’ concept more than any, the idea of helping ones neighbor would have increased meaning – and in any case when public services are cut and volunteers expected to fill the void, those volunteers would be far more likely to come from those communities that they would serve. The ‘big society’ then is an idea that points towards and is perceived to cater for the needs and wants of the vulnerable, and typically where council housing is prevalent.
Why then is Cameron and his Housing minister Grant Shapps proposing to radically alter the makeup of these communities? Surely then the ‘big society’ would be set for the likelihood of increased failure?
The ideas recently aired about council housing would do that. Taking away the security, a huge fundamental plus in affordable and council housing and instead granting five or ten year tenancies would take that away. Council tenants are not nomads who wander the land looking for jobs, or the prospects of employment. Like their middle class counterparts they would appreciate the opportunity to lay down roots, and security for their family.
Cameron was quoted as saying “There is a question mark about whether, in future, we should be asking when you are given a council home, is it for a fixed period? Because maybe in five or 10 years you will be doing a different job and be better paid and you won’t need that home, you will be able to go into the private sector.” It is quite clear the only viable reason this legislation would be introduced is to move council tenants around like cattle.
Communities and societies, however ‘big’ they are supposed to figuratively and literally become will not do so if they are directed around in a way that would resemble cattle being branded with a hot poker.
The idea that communities can thrive under such temporary conditions us nonsense. Community spirit relies on many factors-a sense of belonging, pride in your environment, creating & working towards something, developing relationships & ties with others.
None if this can be achieved under the idea that your circumstances change & your out. Why would someone care for a community that won’t last? Or a house & local environment that won’t be anything to do with them for long? Or neighbours who might be moved on before long? Community requires roots, a sense of belonging, a common purpose & desire to care & look out for one another. Short term tenancies destroy any hope of this.
Spot on Jo. It shows a complete misunderstanding and lack of empathy on Shapps & Camerons part.
A clear solution, which is strikingly obvious (yet costs a few quid) is the construction of more affordable housing, obviously also creating jobs in the process…coalition don’t seem the type to throw a few crumbs to the poor though…