‘I will fight against any homes transfer’ (From Swindon Advertiser)
Get involved! Send photos, video, news & views. Text SWINDON NEWS to 80360 or email us
‘I will fight against any homes transfer’
7:00pm Thursday 1st September 2011 in News By David Wiles
LABOUR councillor Steve Allsopp has resigned from a shadow board which could become the new housing association responsible for Swindon Council’s housing stock.
Swindon Council is to ballot tenants on a plan to transfer all the properties to a new not-for-profit housing association in order to dodge a £158m bill from the Government.
The Conservative administration says this bill would prevent it from keeping the 10,500 homes at minimum standards of decency.
However, the Labour group opposes the transfer, claiming it would reduce democratic accountability.
Coun Allsopp said: “The Labour group had put me on to the shadow board of the proposed housing association in order to keep a close eye on the shadow board’s decisions.
“However, after attending the first shadow board meeting I learnt that this body would be approving the stock transfer ‘offer’ to tenants.
“Because of this, it would have been difficult for me as a shadow board member to campaign against a stock transfer – the Labour Party’s position.
“After speaking to the Labour group leader about this, I have taken the decision to stand down from the shadow board of the proposed Swindon Housing Association and the Labour group will not be offering a replacement on the board.
“I will now be spending all my time on this matter campaigning against any Swindon council house stock transfer.”
The board is being set up for a new proposed not-for-profit housing association after Housing Minister Grant Shapps approved the council’s bid to ballot tenants on transferring their housing stock to the new organisation.
The board will play a central role before and after the tenant ballot and, if tenants vote for the stock transfer, it would become the board of the new housing association.
Four councillors have been nominated – three Conservative and one Labour – and the council is interviewing to appoint four tenants and four independent expert members.
Coun Russell Holland, the cabinet member for One Swindon, communities and housing, said another councillor would be found to fill the vacant slot because there must be four councillors.
He said: “This is about tenants, their homes, their future and their choice. Whatever Coun Allsopp does is entirely a matter for him.
“My priority is to ensure the tenants have all the information they need to make an informed choice.
“There’s an independent tenant adviser, so any information the council puts out is checked by the adviser, because it’s more than a consultation, it’s a vote, the tenants will make the decision.”
Coun Holland said the council was negotiating with the Government to postpone the November ballot so tenants can have more time to ask questions.
Comments(18)
sn5
says...
6:52am Fri 2 Sep 11
I 2 Could B
says...
7:21am Fri 2 Sep 11
sn5 wrote:Indeed. The fact that Kevin Small ever had anything to do with the running of a town this size is only outdone in terms of astonishing political appointments by the fact that John Prescott was at one time the deputy prime minister (won't we look back on that one in horror in years to come!).
scott, what ever one says about the current leadership at least they are better than the last labour leaders we had, bates & her half wit side kick benfield - have a look at their many failures
The local Labour group would be the very first to whinge if the council paid the £158m bill to the government (how, exactly?) and then couldn't afford to keep the freebie/way below market rent housing up to scratch.
As ever, Labour want it all. Everything to everyone (as long as they're not rich or bankers) and to hell with the cost of it. After all, we can just keep on merrily borrowing, eh?
Well, no, we can't. All the borrowing was done under Labour, there's no money left. This is it, folks, get used to it... and never forget who brought us to this situation: Blair, Brown and their inept Labour governments.
A.Baron-Cohen
says...
9:59am Fri 2 Sep 11
Robfm
says...
10:10am Fri 2 Sep 11
We can see clearly what 'fully understanding' is going to mean with advice from this group.
Whilst not in any way being a Labour supporter, I have to admire the integrity of Councillor Allsopp for resigning.
dglaholm
says...
10:35am Fri 2 Sep 11
Robfm
says...
10:40am Fri 2 Sep 11
house on the hill
says...
11:24am Fri 2 Sep 11
What I have never really got my head around with council housing is that surely is was built for the benefit of Swindon as a whole and not just those lucky enough to be current tenants. It was built mainly with tax payers money and at least half of the income the housing department receive for its ukpeep also comes from tax payers money. Around 65% of tenants receive either full or part housing benefit and even more receive some form of benefits from the tax payer and the rents are kept low mainly to keep the benefit bill down.
Also everyone talks about choice, but there are very strict criteria for qualifying for a council house. If it was about choice, I am sure the vast majority of private renters currently paying around £600 for a 2 bed would be queued round the block for a council house at around £65 a week, so it is not about choice it is about need.
As a prevous poster said, we cannot sustain tenancies for life not just because it isnt fair, but with a double dip recession on the cards, an ageing population and a massive pension crisis looking, we cannot afford as a country to allow those who clearly no longer have the need for subsidised housing to have it. We will just go bust if we try. And in the same way that benefits are a safety net and stop when circumstances improve, then council housing should be the same, we only have a limited amount of houses and they have to go to those most in need as benefits do.
We need to look at the bigger picture and not just this narrow idea that only current tenants should have a say in this. All those on the waiting list both present and future will be affected by this decision as is the whole of Swindon. Typical of a labour councillor to want more "control", they dont care about people only how much of thier lives they can control.
This is a massive decision and must be made for the befefit of all of Swindon now and in the future and the whole criteria for staying as tenants also needs to be changed. I am sure many willl disagree, but they will usually be the narrow minded selfish ones who cant see or dont care about the bigger picture. The world is changing rapidly and we must change with it or sink without trace. If this does go against, then they wont be able to moan about the condiditon of the properties or the length of the waiting list as they had thier chance to change it and didnt take it. Vote yes for eveyones benefit
Robfm
says...
11:33am Fri 2 Sep 11
You are right in much of what you say, these are houses built to accommodate those in Swindon unable to purchase their own for whatever reason. The allocation should therefore by definition be fiscally led.
candid friend
says...
11:47am Fri 2 Sep 11
When Labour had control a small group of councillors and officers were actively promoting a transfer. They turned very nasty when officers advised against it.
In the event the Labour Group backed the officers.
Robfm
says...
12:23pm Fri 2 Sep 11
Perhaps part of the information SBC should be imparting to tenants is the salary scales of those being employed by the new 'not for profit' organisation, in that way the tenants could calculate how much money would in fact be available for repairs and renewals per house over the next 10 years.
house on the hill
says...
1:36pm Fri 2 Sep 11
peatmoor pirate
says...
2:18pm Fri 2 Sep 11
house on the hill wrote:It is not those most in need who benefit from Council housing, it's those who qualify againt a certain criteria of "need" who qualify at head of queue.
Rob, as a businessman, you know full well there are good and bad expamples in everything, so just naming one failure really isnt helpful at all. What I have never really got my head around with council housing is that surely is was built for the benefit of Swindon as a whole and not just those lucky enough to be current tenants. It was built mainly with tax payers money and at least half of the income the housing department receive for its ukpeep also comes from tax payers money. Around 65% of tenants receive either full or part housing benefit and even more receive some form of benefits from the tax payer and the rents are kept low mainly to keep the benefit bill down. Also everyone talks about choice, but there are very strict criteria for qualifying for a council house. If it was about choice, I am sure the vast majority of private renters currently paying around £600 for a 2 bed would be queued round the block for a council house at around £65 a week, so it is not about choice it is about need. As a prevous poster said, we cannot sustain tenancies for life not just because it isnt fair, but with a double dip recession on the cards, an ageing population and a massive pension crisis looking, we cannot afford as a country to allow those who clearly no longer have the need for subsidised housing to have it. We will just go bust if we try. And in the same way that benefits are a safety net and stop when circumstances improve, then council housing should be the same, we only have a limited amount of houses and they have to go to those most in need as benefits do. We need to look at the bigger picture and not just this narrow idea that only current tenants should have a say in this. All those on the waiting list both present and future will be affected by this decision as is the whole of Swindon. Typical of a labour councillor to want more "control", they dont care about people only how much of thier lives they can control. This is a massive decision and must be made for the befefit of all of Swindon now and in the future and the whole criteria for staying as tenants also needs to be changed. I am sure many willl disagree, but they will usually be the narrow minded selfish ones who cant see or dont care about the bigger picture. The world is changing rapidly and we must change with it or sink without trace. If this does go against, then they wont be able to moan about the condiditon of the properties or the length of the waiting list as they had thier chance to change it and didnt take it. Vote yes for eveyones benefit
As an example, I have a 19 yo son, who works full time for minimum wage, paying his taxes etc. Because he lives with us and is not homeless, the current system basically says he has no need of social housing (for which he'd happily pay rent) and he'd have to wait donkey years for a place if he ever got one. private rents are too high for him at moment so he will of course stay with us.
This in itself is fine, but if he was unemployed and we were dysfunctional parents who threw him out, he'd somehow be more deserving and be housed more quickly.
Those who work hard and pay their taxes never seem to benefit from such schemes sadly. So, those who benefit from social housing should stop moaning and thanks their lucky stars, cos there are plenty out there who'd love to have the opportunity
I 2 Could B
says...
2:46pm Fri 2 Sep 11
Even worse, those who are afforded the most generous handouts, in return for them doing absolutely nothing, are usually the most vocal at whinging about how hard done by they are. Time for a change.
Robfm
says...
6:31pm Fri 2 Sep 11
prole
says...
1:44am Sat 3 Sep 11
If the council house stock remains with the council after the ballot, the £158M will need to be paid to central government but the £9.5M subsidy payment from SBC will cease.
SBC will be able to service the £158M debt with the additional £9.5 million that no longer goes to central government without affecting the service.
The difference being that when the debt is serviced, the council house stock will belong to SBC lock stock etc.
The Tory administration are misleading the tenants in saying that servicing the debt will create a £70M whole in the council housing account over 10 years.
This is rubbish, and assumes an interest rate of 6% even though similar finance SBC borrowed for Witchlestow is at a rate of 3%.
Financial institution will compete to finance local authorities who wish to keep their housing stock, as it will constitute a safe haven for investors and interest rates will be low.
Russell Holland
says...
8:45am Sat 3 Sep 11
While debates about the merits of the political parties are interesting - I am trying to avoid them because I think this needs to be about the tenants.
Basically, Council housing is paid from tenants rents and by law this cannot be used to subsidise other things and cannot be subsidised by Council Tax. So the Housing Revenue Account is "ring fenced".
Under the present national "subsidy system" basically the Central Government has formulas to set rents and works out what expenditure Councils need. For Swindon the deemed income is more than the deemed needed expenditure so there is a "surplus" So Swindon tenants pay £9.5million to the Central Government which is then redistributed to other Councils. So Swindon pays a so called "negative subsidy" or tenants tax.
Starting in 2009 under Labour Minister John Healy the proposal was to move from a subsidy system to a self financing system - he also said the option to transfer to a Housing Association should be available for tenants. This means that Councils get to keep all of their rents - so tenants would no longer have to pay the "negative subsidy". But (and this is the big but) there would be a one off allocation of a calculated debt and Swindon has been allocated £145million.
For some Councils the cost of financing the debt will be less than the subsidy they currently pay so they will be better off. But for Swindon we have identified a £72million shortfall over 10 years. This means we will have relatively less under the self financing system which means tenants will have to wait longer for investments such as kitchens and bathrooms in their homes.
Because the Council identified this shortfall we asked the Housing Minister to ballot tenants to see if they would like to vote for transfer because there are financial benefits to this. Namely, instead of paying the Government £145million - any money borrowed by a Housing Association could be invested in the housing stock itself. The Housing Minister agreed to this at the beginning of August and now the work in providing tenants information is happening. For reasons I don't understand the Labour Group voted against going to ballot so they didn't want tenants to even have a vote about this.
But let me completely clear - tenants are going to make the choice. There will be a vote and they will decide. My role - as I said - is to provide tenants with the information they need to make an informed choice. I respect the rights of tenants to make this choice so I am not going to try to tell them how they should vote. This is up to them.
I welcome discussion on this issue, but it would be a shame if it became a party political debate because this needs to be about the tenants.
Robfm
says...
8:55am Sat 3 Sep 11
Perhaps Councillor Dave, or Dale would like to challenge what prole has said, because if true the administration is certainly misleading tenants. Perhaps the Adver ought to investigate further, and put it in the hard copy so more tenants get to know.
Dick-Turpin says...
8:02pm Thu 1 Sep 11