Skip to main content

The House of Lords and Overcrowding

It is a bit odd that the House of Lords have voted down a proposal that encourages unemployed people who are under occupying a council house or housing association property to downsize. There are lots of people living in overcrowded accommodation. At the same time there are people who have spare space.

It is as if those Lords voting for the amendment are not concerned about overcrowding.

These rules already apply to those people renting a private sector property.

Comments

Jerry said…
John I have to disagree with you here, which must be a first, your not looking at the wider picture, I had a two bedroom house, due to circumstances I only used one bedroom,for obvious reasons would that mean I would have to move out, then if things changed for the better what would happen then, its not about kicking people out of their homes simply because they have a spare room, build more affordable housing, the situation of hand me downs is not as common as it used to be, building more affordable housing creates jobs keeps the building industry alive, or better still devise a plan to bring back in to use the 1 million un-occupied and derelict houses, there are over ten thousand in the outskirts of Liverpool alone, the city council was going to develop them but sadly due to cuts some two years later these houses still stand empty though still in conditions to be lived in. look at the bigger picture John.
john said…
The point about the government's proposals is that people are not forced to move out. Currently what happens (at times) is that people are forced to move.
moira said…
Ive just moved into a housing association property and the tenancy agreement says that if this is underoccupied in the future that they can decide not not renew my tenancy and help me downsize. So does this still apply from 2 months ago?
john said…
That has been the case for some time.
moira said…
It cant be now if the House Of Lords has opposed it?Or are they allowed to be ignored? why is it just unemployed people?
john said…
What affects you has been the law for a number of years.

Popular posts from this blog

Statement re false allegations from Esther Baker

Statement by John Hemming
I am pleased that the Police have now made it clear that there has been a concerted effort to promote false criminal allegations against me and that the allegations had no substance whatsoever.
I would like to thank Emily Cox, my children, Ayaz Iqbal (my Solicitor), my local lib dem team and many others who supported me through this dreadful experience. There are many worse things that happen to people, but this was a really bad experience.
It is bad enough to have false allegations made about yourself to the police, but to have a concerted campaign involving your political opponents and many others in public creates an environment in which it is reasonable to be concerned about ill founded vigilante attacks on your family and yourself. Luckily there was a more substantial lobby to the contrary as well, which included many people who were themselves real survivors of abuse, which has helped.
I am normally someone who helps other people fight injustice. …

Homelessness vs Selling Books

Candidates in elections tend to find themselves very busy with lots of things to do.  It is, therefore, necessary to prioritise things to ensure that the important things are dealt with.

To me the issue of homelessness and rough sleeping is an important issue.  Therefore, when Birmingham's Faith Leaders group contacted me to ask me what I would propose and whether I would work with them to make things better I was pleased to respond with my views and indicate that I would work with them after the election.

The Faith Leaders Group (Bishops and other religious leaders in Birmingham) have now sent out their report.

Sadly, according to their report,  I was the only candidate for Yardley to respond.  The group in their report said:

"Particularly disappointing was the lack of response from some of those candidates seeking re-election as MP for their respective constituencies."
It is worth looking at the priorities of my opponent.
Interestingly today she has decided to be at th…

Millionaires and politics

The Labour Party spent most of the last election criticising me for being a successful businessman (aka millionaire). That is business in the private sector employing over 250 people. It is worth looking at the situation for the Labour Candidate now:

For the year 2016-7 Annual Income from Parliament74,962Specifically for her book51,250Other media income etc5,322.82Total declared income131,534.82

Traditionally anyone with an annual income of over £100,000 has been considered to be a millionaire. I did not use my position in parliament to increase my income.


I have been asked for sources for this. This BBC piece looks at how one should define rich. It was written in 2011 so the figures will be slightly out of date. There are perhaps 2 relevant pieces:
"In 1880 a rich person would have had £100,000 in assets or an income of £10,000 a year, he says. About a hundred people a year died leaving £100,000 and by 1910 this was 250 - "a microscopic fraction of the number of death…