Tory twists and turns on knocking down housing

That is one view of the video. Another is that it shows Stephen Cowan causing unnecessary worry to the residents for his own political purposes. I say this because one thing that emerged unequivocally from what Stephen Greenhalgh said was that H&F residents would not be moved to the Thames Gateway, yet Mr Cowan continues to raise that threat.

That is not nice.

That's a bit rich... in secret talks to demolish people's homes?

So Labour in pursuing the barking madness of its airport expansion policy and they want to destroy entire villages and communities, thousands of homes, small and large businesses, churches (complete with graveyard), schools, listed buildings (including World Heritage).

Much of Heathrow's speculative plans were also done in secret for the Third Runway.

Also going back on its the words of the government's last T5 public enquiry that said further expansion at Heathrow would be 'environmentally unacceptable'; BAA and BA sworn in testimony it would never seek a third runway.

As it turns out based on spurious data from the aviation industry that this government simply swallowed and took as the gospel truth. All to give a private monopoly more shopping spaces in its airports.

Did I forget to mention another 10,000 homes that would fall under illegal levels of PM10 & NO2 pollution and so would be within their rights to demand government compensation and rehousing too?

So how many people's lives would be upheaved, communities destroyed, entire villages razed for more runway tarmac, 20,000? 35,000? or 50,000?

Makes that video look small-fry.

Just remind me which party has been in government for the last 12 years?

During those 12 years in power, which party is it that hasn't moved to allow local councils to spend the money they receive from housing to develop new housing?

Labour has enforced the "social housing" requirement on all new builds to the extent that no one wants to develop land in my area due to abhorance at having a load of social misfits dropped on top of us.

Prescott's deeply anti middle class policy of grading back gardens as brown field sites (which will be thrown out by Cameron) has just increased the apathy towards social housing in middle class areas.

I am happy to admit that at a residents meeting recently called to block back garden infilling I drew a clear picture of high density social housing being built on large backgardens on the edge of the North Downs that would blight the area, result in increased crime and have groups of feral kids roaming unfettered.

The local residents pretty much all agreed, either we blocked it or we all moved. Fortunately we blocked it.

So can I say this, so long as you have an undercalss with no controls over their behaviour, a police force who won't act against kids and youths causing havoc and a government who sees social housing placement as a political act then I and most other middle class people I know will tell you to go and build the social housing but to build it elsewhere

God! You guys make me laugh! You've been in power for over twelve years and yet have built fewer Council Houses during that period than Margaret Thatcher! And yet you have the gall to criticise the Conservatives! Anybody remember John Prescott's £60,000 house competition? Or Gordon Brown announcing a big social house building programme in 2007? Nothing happened in either case as per usual with New Labour (which seems to be held together with bulls*it). This post is too silly for words! Don't insult the intelligence of the man in the street with such unworthy nonsense.

Housing is so important, particularly good quality and affordable housing be that social or private. Where I live affordable, local occupant housing starts at £170,000, the average job pays minimum wage, if that’s affordable I’m a Tory.

Shelter is a basic need and this has to be addressed.

Planning to move people from there homes and to plan it in secret is a disgrace, maybe it’s the new transparent politics the MPs are all now talking about! O how I look forward to it then!

Interesting to see if he has any links to the companies he was in talks with.

God do these people not get it, are they trying to put people off politics.

With new builds only 10% of the housing has to be affordable, what is affordable, it isn’t affordable where I live. Bad policy, all about making money not homes.

The reason that humans developed as they did was because we can learn, yet we seem to be talking an evolutionary back step. Greed and the pursuit of money has lead to the banks crashing and house prices going out of control and yet we do not want to learn from this!

It is the same in many areas though. The general view is that those percieved as feckless and lazy can be moved on to a different area, resources used for them will be freed up, crime will drop and anti-social behaviour will be reduced.

It's the same argument used for travellers, a sort of 'not in my backyard' policy and it isn't just Conservatives that do this, it is every party who wants to 'improve' their figures.

It may well improve figures on bits of paper flying round the local government departments, but it is much the same as the Job Centres. They tick the boxes but don't really tackle the root cause of the problem and come up with a viable solution. The very same happens in education; removal of difficult students to 'improve' the overall figures, but those children need to be educated somewhere.

With significant investment in social housing, bringing much needed construction jobs to communities, there is a chance that things could be turned around in a generation. Those percieved as feckless and lazy, the vast majority, are really just in need of reasonably paid work, reasonable quality housing and reasonable social amenities. The problem is that once the construction phase has finished and the few full time jobs the new social amenities have provided are taken, these areas are still left with a huge gaping hole - jobs.

Until whatever government in power realise that unless industries are revived in this country any investments in job centres, housing, hospitals, schools and other frontline services are unsustainable, we won't get anywhere. How long do you think any government can get away with creaming taxes from the real wealth providers of this country to prop up the lower paid? Why should people who have worked hard for a good standard of life be punitively taxed to the hilt to fund social housing and then essentially give all the people who live in them subsidies for their entire working life because there aren't the jobs there to allow them to fund themselves?

We import so much into this country that there is an argument now to reinstate certain industries and give them a kick start for the benefit of the entire country. This would work hand in hand with environmental concerns, as the amount of emissions increased by these new industrial sites would be offset by the millions of gallons of fuel needed to transport goods in from abroad. A good start would be a few selected pits to be reopened, but with an emphasis on those who live locally to the site being given preference for the jobs created. This would reduce the amount of coal we import, and possibly give us the opportunity to export a product for once, bringing some real wealth back to the country. It would give the people local to these reinstated sites something to train for, a reasonable wage and generate wealth for an area that could then be used to fund bigger and better social housing projects.

A return to mining may not be the total solution to the problems of modern society, but it is a start and it would stop this relentless drain of taxes on people who eventually won't just sit quietly and ignore what a succession of governments have done in this country for the past 3 decades.

If the government had some interest in peoples needs rather than politically correct dogma then perhaps building basic housing would not be so incredibly expensive.

The misguided cry of 'let them eat cake' pales in to insignificance when the labour government have already outlawed bread...

The cost of building houses isn't the problem. It's the cost of the land, which was inflated by credit creation which went totally out of control.

Nothing the Tories are saying gives any indication that they actually have the first idea what the problem actually is, any more than Labour did. It's systemic fiscal reform which is needed IMHO - by which I mean a switch to taxation of privilege, rather than people, and a monetary system based upon value, rather than a claim over it issued ex nihilo by credit intermediaries.

There's nothing party political about that.

Mr Healey MP is right, we can't trust the Conservative Party on social housing, but the sad fact is, we can not trust Labour either. There has been so little investment in the past 30 years, is it any wonder that council estates look like they're falling to bits?

I was in Liverpool last year and saw something quite interesting. The demolition of high rise flats, 3 blocks of them. Then a little further down the road what they had replaced them with which was a very small 3 storey affair with inadequate parking, nice landscaping and fancy brickwork, but generally little boxes to shove people in. I'd be interested to know how many people the high rise flats housed in comparison to the new Ikea-style boxes.

Until the Labour Party get their finger out on social housing they have no room to lecture us on the Conservative Party or anyone else.

Yes but high rise doesn't work, it is impossible to live in high rise with out being dehumanised and losing all respect for your environment. Just look at the barbican... oh...

I'm not suggesting the high rise works, I'm saying that you can't demolish a high rise and then provide a small number of houses or flats as an alternative. Where are all the people supposed to go? The 'modern' answer seems to be to the private sector housing, but this leaves a lot to be desired in most areas.

Sorry my sarcasm wasn't clear enough -- the barbican centre has high rise and was a fanatastic place to live when I was there.

It ain't the flats, its the people you put in them that makes/breaks em.

If council tenants didn't make such bad neighbours to each other then housing them wouldn't be such a big problem.

I don't think we need any lectures on social housing from the party which gave us Prescott and his Pathfinder demolition spree.

Why must I repeat the word "disturbing" again and again on this website. The parties must get thier acts together.
Sadly if Labour is acting in the manner of the ruthless Conservatives then I am appalled.

We need difference, we need democracy, if people cannot be given a clear seperate choice between the parties then extremists lunatics will benefit as they did in the Euro-election.

I really, really dislike unelites in my party who want to play at being Conservative.

When local land development frameworks, planning consents and local political priorities are taken into account, it should be noted that it actually falls to local councils whether to deliver new social housing in their areas or not.

During the decade up until the 2006 local elections, Labour controlled Hammersmith and Fulham built more social housing than any of the other London boroughs - at one point it was more than all 33 of London's Councils put toghether. That was despite being one of the smallest boroughs and having the 3rd highest land prices in England and Wales.

The video shows how that policy was radically changed when the Conservatives won control three years ago and; as it's happenning under the leadership of David Cameron's chief of his Local Government Innovation Unit; the video therefore gives an insight into Cameron's proposed policies for social housing.

The Hammersmith and Fulham Conservative's policy is now to demolish affordable homes and move people out of our part of West London. Actually, once Boris was elected as Mayor of London, H&F's Conservative Administration lobbied them to allow them to stop building new rented accomodation - which he agreed to. The Conservative policy is also nowto sell off much of our council housing stock when it become vacant - instead of letting it to one of the nearly 10,000 people on the waiting list.

Look across London (where housing need is greatest) and the only affordable homes currently being built are largely in Labour controlled councils. Similarily, over the last ten years, Tory controlled councils have nearly always resisted building any new social rented andf low cost home ownership housing - causing them often to be at loggerheads with Mayor Ken Livingstone during his tenure.

While, I think there's a lot that needs to be done in this area, I do think that it is fair to say that the Tories can't be trusted with social housing. This video demonstrates the underhand tactics David Cameron's favourite Tories will go to get rid of it. Meanwhile, the number prove that it's Labour that's delivering on the ground across the capital.

Regards
Stephen Cowan

Leader of the Opposition, the London borough of Hammersmith and Fulham
Former Chair of Housing for London Councils (up until the 2006 local elections)

Stephen - Exactly how many units of social housing did Hammersmith Council "build" in the decade up to 2006? Are you confusing "building social housing" with insisting on "affordable housing development" provided by private developers when carrying out private schemes in the Borough? If the latter (and I'm pretty sure that is the case), you are being disingenuous.