As a former council employee I can clearly tell you all that it is not the house that is the problem, but the inhabitants. Some are beautifully cared for and some are slums. The tenants should be monitored and made to care for the home and the garden. By law. Make people care for a national asset.

robin, Oxford,

Duncan Smith’s dead parrot proposals for social housing

Hasn’t Iain Duncan Smith heard that Margaret Beckett has said that the idea of scrapping tenancies for life is going nowhere? After a meeting with the new housing minister, in which he questioned her about the idea, union leader, Jack Dromey of UNITE, confirmed that the idea is a dead parrot.

Another dead parrot idea Duncan Smith is trying to resuscitate is one that aims to press tenants into the uncertain future of homeownership. A foolhardy social engineering idea that ignores the lessons from the current economy meltdown and the increase in repossessions.

Like all social engineers who seek to manipulate social housing tenants with their flawed ‘incentives,’ Duncan Smith ignores the underlying causes of the ghettos of poverty; generations of bad practice in public services and the social engineer’s misguided manipulation.

Generations of tenants, some of the most vulnerable people in society, have suffered from the impact of bad practice on a far greater scale than most other sectors of society. The effects of bad practice are as much in evidence today as ever. They include; worklessness, the poverty trap, poor health, bog standard education, crime hotspots, and above all, poor housing conditions and housing services.

These effects are exacerbated by a history of capitalist greed. A marauding greed now recognised as the root cause of the current economy meltdown, which too many people in powerful positions have been unable or unwilling to prevent happening. As a consequence we now have an unhealthy culture of sub prime borrowing and lending, city fat cats and obscene incomes and bonuses for the heads of failed organisations. Duncan Smith’s homeownership proposal would lead to more of this − the uncaring and unrestrained capitalist machine will ensure this outcome.

Right to Buy was a classic piece of Tory social engineering, and a major cause in changing what were once desirable places to live into the ghettos of poverty from which many tenants cannot find the means of escape.

This 1980s vote winning scam by Duncan Smith’s Tory party lead to the best social housing stock being snapped up without it being replaced − leaving today’s council housing stock unsuitable for the 21st Century rented housing needs.

Duncan Smith’s aim to improve social tenants’ quality of life is without doubt a worthy cause but one impossible to achieved using his social engineering means. This is because all social engineering can do is to rearrange old systems into new systems but the new system will always contain an inherent flaw. That is, the system will always create ‘winners’ and ‘losers.’ This means that tenants who are enjoying favourable circumstances and therefore able to take advantage of the system while tenants with unfavourable circumstance are unable to do so − as was the case with Right to Buy.

So, what’s the right action in response to ghettos of poverty? Simple, all social engineers, including Duncan Smith, should engaged in the task of ensuring public service providers raise their game by applying good practice consistently in their daily tasks. This would be much more beneficial to tenants than advocating this social engineering nonsense that is really only a rearrangement of the effects of bad practice in public services while ignoring the root cause.



Peter Marron

peter Marron , Falmouth , Cornwall

Council housing, Labour's great hope of the 40's, 50's & 60's. "homes fit for heroes" and what new bright ideas do new labour have, more of the same. If you don't make people responsible when they can always go to nanny and be looked after.

steve tea, manchesher, cheshire