All posts by Tony Gosling

Beginning his working life in the aviation industry and trained by the BBC, Tony Gosling is a British land rights activist, historian & investigative radio journalist. Over the last 20 years he has been exposing the secret power of the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) and élite Bilderberg Conferences where the dark forces of corporations, media, banks and royalty conspire to accumulate wealth and power through extortion and war. Tony has spent much of his life too advocating solutions which heal the wealth divide, such as free housing for all and a press which reflects the concerns of ordinary people rather than attempting to lead opinion, sensationalise or dumb-down. Tony tweets at @TonyGosling. Tune in to his Friday politics show at BCfm.
Posted

Concerns raised over Brighton and Hove City Council’s biggest sell-off of downland in 20 years

Leave a comment

9 Nov 2016 / Neil Vowles
http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/14876063.Concerns_raised_over_council_s_biggest_sell_off_of_downland_in_20_years/

MORE than 100 acres of downland held in public ownership for decades is being flogged off in the biggest sale of its kind for 20 years.

Campaigners are calling for a freeze on the 120 acre downland sell-off by Brighton and Hove City Council warning of damaging repercussions for the South Downs with a loss of public access and reduced conservation at important wildlife sites.

The sales are being arranged by the cash-strapped council, which has to find 18 million of cuts in the next financial year and 145 million by 2020.

The sale includes two sites of special scientific interest, part of a Scheduled Ancient Monument, a 50-year old nature reserve and two vital parts of the Devil s Dyke setting according to opponents of the sale.

Council bosses said the land represented just one per cent of its 12,000 acre Downland estate, the equivalent of around 7,000 football pitches, with the sale of “less valuable heritage assets” in a bid to help fund the 5.8 million Stanmer Park restoration project.

Campaigners are concerned that the sales could be just the beginning of a wider sell-off but council officials insisted no more are planned at present.

Land sales causing campaigners concern include three acres of The Junipers at the old Sussex Wildlife Trust Saddlescombe Nature Reserve sold to a private buyer for the paltry sum of 35,000 .

Environmentalists say it is the sole remaining site for juniper in East Sussex, a well-known site for rare orchid species and bats, and the single most important plot in the whole Downland estate.

Devil s Dyke Field has been sold to its tenant while the ten-acre Park Wall Farm at Falmer was snapped up for 175,000 though the council said it would be protected as grazing land.

Campaigners are also unhappy about the proposed sale of the 22-acre site The Racecourse outside Poynings, a wonderful fossil site that is the match of the better-known Bridport Cliffs in Dorset, and the loss from public ownership of Plumpton Hill Scarp though the council has said this will continue to be farmed by Plumpton College with public access fixed in perpetuity.

Environmental campaigner Dave Bangs said all the land should be kept in public ownership in perpetuity.

He added: These sales open the door to privatisation of Brighton s entire Downland Estate.

Without democratic public accountability we must expect threats to public usage, neglect, damage to important wildlife habitat, inappropriate development, and more shooting and hunting.”

Chris Todd, of Brighton and Hove Friends of the Earth, said: “We have real concerns about this, most of the public is largely unaware of what is being done.

I think people thought it was just a few minor old buildings or pieces of land of small value whereas they are proposing to sell hugely important wildlife sites.”

A city council spokeswoman said: The sites chosen are non-core assets owned by the council, some of which are outside the city s boundaries.

Most of the Downland Estate is within the South Downs National Park and protected by the highest level of statutory protection possible.

When the council sells land we take advice from specialist agents to make sure appropriate control mechanisms are put in place to protect the council and the city s residents against future development or possible changes in use.

THESE ARE NATIONALLY IMPORTANT WILDLIFE SITES

SIR Herbert Carden is one of the founding fathers of Brighton and the city s impressive downland landholding is considered by many to be his greatest legacy.

His vision, 80 years before the South Downs National Park was created, was to preserve the Downs for the enjoyment of its residents and protect the city s water supply.

Sir Herbert was prepared to back up his ideology with his wallet, buying land when it became available and reselling it to the council at no profit.

It is a vision and an example that subsequent Labour politicians in the city have failed to live up to, according to environmentalists opposed to proposals to sell up to 120 acres of publicly owned downland.

Chris Todd, of Brighton and Hove Friends of the Earth, said: The council is seeing this land purely as a money-making resource but it was originally purchased to protect the area from development and protect the water supply.

It was purchased for its conservation value and that has been completely forgotten.

I think we have lost a bit of vision in the city.

For environmental campaigners with long memories, talk of downland sales under a Labour council is a strong case of d j vu.

In 1995 Brighton Borough Council proposed the sale of large swathes of the estate.

The proposals, prompted by financial concerns following a change in local government financing, were reined in, in the face of widespread opposition.

Mr Todd said: 20 years ago the council tried to sell off the downland thinking it wasn’t really valued and they got a rude awakening.

Since then the council has respected the public desire to maintain public ownership of the Downs.

They might not be trying to sell off on the same scale this time but these are nationally important wildlife sites being sold off.

Two decades on, the move is again being driven by financial necessity, this time to raise around 2.5 million of match-funding for the Stanmer Park restoration.

Brighton and Hove City Council said it had been forced to plan creatively to save one of the city s most picturesque, historically significant and most visited parks .

But environmentalists claim that the land being sold off is of greater environmental value than Stanmer Park.

Brighton-based author and environmental campaigner Dave Bangs said: We estimate that the total sum gained so far from these sales is around 290,000.

This is below the price of one suburban semi in many parts of Brighton and a pathetic sum for such dreadful losses of land with multiple public values.

Maintenance, let alone restoration, of the city s heritage gems and green spaces is becoming increasingly strained with ever dwindling budgets austerity measures will mean the council will have cut £145 million from its budget between 2011 and 2020.

It means that for major works, such as the long-proposed restoration of Stanmer Park, the authority is largely reliant on outside bodies such as the Heritage Lottery Fund.

Even then the council is expected to do its part in match-funding what it receives.

In times of plenty, that additional funding could be found within existing budgets and reserves but now funding has to be found through selling assets assets which could provide revenue for the council for years to come.

There remain serious reservations over the proposed 5.8 million Stanmer Park project which includes the restoration of 20 hectares of the park s landscape, reconfiguring traffic and creating new horticultural training opportunities.

Mr Todd said: I think it is a good idea to reduce the number of cars in the park by increasing the perimeter car parking but not at the cost of so many trees while the idea of having a supermarket sized car park in the middle is illogical and nonsensical.

Of real concern for campaigners now opposing the sell-off is the question of what will happen to land once it goes into public ownership.

The past history is not good according to Mr Bangs.

A 2011 report by campaigners revealed that more than half of Forestry Commission land sold in and around Sussex had been made inaccessible to walkers after passing into private hands.

Barriers built up along public rights of way, breaches of environmental safety standards by hunting and the dividing up of woodland were all observed.

Mr Bangs said: It s happened before.

St Mary s Farm, which was sold by Brighton Council, had ancient pasture and woods bulldozed and it s now a game bird shoot.

Woods sold by the Forestry Commission are now without public access, neglected and used for shooting.

Residents are being reassured that downland will continue to be protected under private ownership.

A South Downs National Park spokesman said: We work closely with both private and local authority landowners.

Approximately 60 per cent of the National Park, all of it in private hands, is now covered by farm clusters groups of farmers and landowners working together to make a real difference to our landscapes, habitats and wildlife that they couldn t achieve alone.

Planning permission would be required before any land could change from agriculture to other uses.

For public rights of way an owner would need to apply for permission to change rights and this is very unlikely to be approved.

But Mr Todd warned that private sector ownership was likely to leave a negative impact.

He said: You are not going to get huge housing development suddenly appearing on the Downs but you could see incremental development which in its way is the most damaging.

What s more likely is that the land could be ploughed up which makes it less accessible The people who buy this land will want to get a commercial return on it, managing the wildlife is not likely to be their number one priority.

And the worst case scenario is that downland could fall into the hands of unscrupulous landowners who show disregard for wildlife conservation.

Earlier this year, campaigners were left aghast at the damage wreaked by wealthy landowner James Hyatt who ordered the felling of 13 acres of ancient forest at Pondtail Wood near Hurstpierpoint.

Mr Todd said: Although Pondtail Wood was not sold from public ownership, there is nothing to stop somebody from purchasing land from Brighton and Hove City Council and selling it on.

Anyone could end up with these bits of land and could do all sorts of things before authorities can step in to do something about it.

RECREATION USE LIKELY

Expert view by Simon Lewis

I EXPECT that a lot of these pieces of land will go to neighbouring properties depending on their location and proximity to other landowners.

The site at Saddlescombe is just three acres of scrubland which could go to anybody really.

I imagine it would probably be most attractive to someone from the horsey community, someone who wanted a nice little site for their pony.

It s far more likely to be used for recreation, for a pony, than for any kind of shoot or anything like that.

Plumpton Hill is the last of the sites to go and it has an agricultural tenancy on it so there is almost no chance of getting vacant possession on that unless the college goes out of existence.

I would expect it would go to an institution, it certainly isn’t a very profitable investment so that is why it is going for such a low price.

It s highly unlikely that it would get anything through planning for the sites.

It depends a lot on the proximity to the villages and to other buildings but I would be very surprised to see any development on them whatsoever.

Even for horses you would have to get planning permission for a stable though you could try for something temporary.

Posted

Mipim UK and BNP Paribas: Property speculators are carving up our cities

Leave a comment

By Daniel Margrain – 23rd October 2016 – follow Daniel on Twitter

Wed take money off the devil—meet the property speculators carving up your city

In a previous article, I outlined how the creation of a major asset bubble as exemplified by the rising cost of housing, is a deliberate government policy geared towards satisfying the asset diversification needs of the super rich rather than meeting the human need for homes for ordinary people to live in. In other words, the key motivating factor determining the Conservative governments housing policy, is not to end the housing crisis, but to bolster the investment opportunities of the rich which will make it worse.

To this end, the government under former PM David Cameron, almost nine months ago, announced its decision to demolish what remains of council homes and replace them with private housing. The Housing and Planning Bill, which became law in May, is forcing families living in social housing and earning £30,000-£40,000 in London to pay rents nearly as high as those in the private sector. It is also compelling local authorities to sell ‘high value’ housing, either by transferring public housing into private hands or giving the land it sits on to property developers. It is this combination of factors that explains the exponential growth in the construction of new tower blocks throughout London and other major cities.

Mipim UK Property Speculators Convention

A Tory housing policy focused on encouraging safe conditions for foreign investment funds and financial safe havens for billionaires, was the context for the Mipim UK Property Speculators Convention at Kensington Olympia in west London (19-21 October). Sir Edward Lister, chair of the government’s Homes and Communities Agency, explained “We’re involved in bringing parties together, marketing areas to attract the right kind of people to them…We brand local authorities, industries and areas to make them attractive to investors.”

“One of the things that attracts people to the UK is the relative stability,”said John Slade, CEO of BNP Paribas Real Estate in the UK. “But popularity is more important to politicians than the future of our businesses.” “The government remains absolutely committed to ensure that the UK remains one of the most open places for investment,” he said. But investment opportunities are undermined following any attempts by the government to increase supply.

Increasing supply would not only have a detrimental impact as far as large investors are concerned, but will also adversely affect the property investment portfolios of politicians. The 126 MPs who declared that they receive rental income from property, represent over 19 per cent of the house, the vast majority of whom are Conservatives. It’s in the joint interests of MPs and major property developers who lobby on their behalf to continue to push the market further into housing and to loosen planning controls.

 Social cleansing & privatisation of space

The impact of the lack of availability of affordable housing (combined with the bedroom tax) is twofold: It results in the effective social cleansing from major cities of the poor and those on middle incomes, and alters former public spaces into sanitised privatised ones. This process not only reduces the demographic mix of locales, but it also undermines social networks and local economies upon which local businesses depend for their livelihoods.

More broadly, the hollowing out of large parts of cities changes our perceptions of what constitutes private and public spaces and for what use the state intends to put them to. The February 13 edition of the Guardian reported on a London rally that protested against the corporate takeover of public streets and squares. Protesters cited London’s Canary Wharf, Olympic Park and the Broadgate development in the City as public places now governed by the rules of the corporations that own them.

The main issues that underpinned the London protests relate to how economic conditions are re-redefining many urban spaces as cultural centres of production. This is leading not to diversification but rather to a uniformity in which the high street, airport, shopping mall, museum and art gallery are increasingly speaking corporate culture rather than aesthetic pleasure.

Privatised public zones are appearing throughout Britain. They include Birmingham’s Brindley place, a significant canal-side development, and Princesshay in Exeter, described as a “shopping destination featuring over 60 shops set in a series of interconnecting open streets and squares”. Intrinsic to the privatisation agenda is the Public Space Protection Order (PSPO). Introduced by the coalition government, the PSPO is another form of social cleansing that is intended to criminalise those sleeping rough and to drive them from towns and city centres.

In other words, the formal ordering and disciplining of the poorest within urban spaces has had the affect of pushing them to the periphery, out of sight and out of mind of urban powers for whom responsibility is increasingly disavowed. In this way, spaces are shaped by neoliberal economic forces which alter the landscapes of cities and re-package them under the banner ‘urban renaissance’.

Landscapes of power

Begun under New Labour, the ideology that underpins urban renaissance reflects a historical contradiction between planning in terms of social need and the process of competitive accumulation which is expressed in living and working urban spaces. This contradiction can be traced back to the 1947 Town and Planning Act. Although urban planners have often been cast in an heroic role protecting the public from shoddy contractors and the short-term drive for profit by speculators, town planning has been skewed historically by deeply undemocratic practices.

Under Theresa May’s government these undemocratic practices are manifested in the kind of supply-side strategies for urban investment outlined above. Examples are regeneration programmes predicated on place promotion and development with culture, heritage and conspicuous consumption in mind. This vision, in other words, is paradoxically linked to the ideology of progress as seen through the visual lens of economic power.

The expression of this power can be seen in terms of the redevelopment of waterside areas such as London’s Docklands. Although a regenerated or ‘cleaned up’ Docklands maintains some of the visual references of its past, it nevertheless is a space that has lost almost all the social and political symbolism it once carried. It is a view of the past that has lost all power to express what that past meant.

In effect, developers in these circumstances remove all ‘unsuitable’ symbols of the past within the urban landscape and replace them with superficial inauthentic post-industrial elements. They succeed in this ‘Truman Show’ totalitarian image-making by projecting the collective desires of the powerless into a corporate landscape of power.

Back at the convention

Meanwhile, back at the speculators convention at Olympia, Sir Edward Lister, chair of the government’s Homes and Communities Agency, who also happens to consult for real estate giant CBRE, claimed that last year was the best year for house building on record, yet last year under 40,000 new build registrations in the public and affordable sector were made. In the immediate post-war years (1945 to 1951) some 1.2 million new houses were built. In 1968 a record 425,000 homes were built, over 180,000 of which were local authority homes.

Mass council house building is the most effective way to house people but this undermines the profits of private firms. One way they do this is by holding onto land rather than developing it, so that prices are pushed upwards. As prices within the private rental market soar, more firms are trying to get their hands on the profits generated. According to 2015 research from Paragon PLC, the private rented sector (PRS) “is the second largest housing tenure, accounting for one-in-five homes in England alone, overtaking the social rented sector for the first time since the 1960s. This represents a significant increase in the number of households living in private rented homes.” The report added, the PRS has “more than doubled since 2001 and is now the second largest housing tenure…PRS is now home to 4.9 million households.”

Private – good, public – bad 

The increase in private rented dwellings is largely the result of the fact that council housing has been gutted and the majority of people can’t afford to buy their own homes. But investors think that the change in numbers is down to the market reflecting what people want. Tory policy for housing focuses on getting people to buy houses. But this ideological drive is out of sync with the needs of capital. Investors need a political climate in which renting is encouraged. However, the Tories are ideologically tied to a house buying culture. This isn’t the case in countries such as Holland or Germany where government investment in social housing for rent is the norm.

According to the Department for Communities and Local Government annual report into social housing selloffs, of the 21,992 dwellings sold over the past year in the UK, 12,557 were sold by local authorities and 9,435 by housing associations. The local authorities figure is a 1 per cent increase on last year. The housing association figure represents an 18 per cent rise. Government funds for housing associations are drying up. In order to make money these associations are effectively forced to sell their properties to the private sector. The profits gained are then reinvested into their businesses reducing the overall availability of affordable housing stock.

Essentially, housing associations behave like private companies. This process is being accelerated as a result of the Housing and Planning Act which forces local authorities to sell off council housing. The proceeds are then used to encourage housing associations to extend Right to Buy which will reduce the amount of affordable housing stock even further. As long as the Tories remain in power, the likelihood local communities will remain stable and socioeconomically diverse in the not too distant future is remote.

https://www.cultureandpolitics.org/

Posted

Abolishing Standards Board for England may have undermined planning system

Leave a comment

Axing a local Government standards and ethics watchdog could have undermined the planning system, campaigners say.

Christopher HopeBy , Senior Political Correspondent 6:30PM GMT 11 Mar 2013
A decision by the Coalition to shut down a council standards and ethics watchdog could have undermined the planning system, campaigners say.
The Campaign to Protect Rural England raised the prospect that the planning system might no longer be “fit for purpose” because of a decision by the Government last year to axe a quango which enforces ethics and standards among councillors.

The Standards Board for England ensured that councillors’ conduct did not fall below a required standard, before it was abolished in March 2012.

Since then councils have been required to adopt a code of conduct based on the seven Nolan principles of public life. However there is no compulsion in law to force local authorities to establish any code.

Neil Sinden, Policy and Campaigns Director, Campaign to Protect Rural England, said he was worried its abolition was damaging the integrity of the planning system.

Writing on telegraph.co.uk, he said: “CPRE believes that local councillors should fulfil their planning responsibilities to the highest standards of probity and transparency. They must be beyond reproach.

“The latest revelations raise serious questions about whether the current standards regime, particularly following the recent abolition of the Standards Board, is sufficient to ensure public confidence in the operation of the planning system.

“As the full force of the Government’s planning reforms begin to be felt on the ground, as well as more damaging development in the wrong places, we are set to see a surge in public concern about whether the planning system is fit for purpose.”

Mr Sinden said the CPRE was worried that there were only “limited opportunities” for people to complain about how planning permissions were granted.

He said: “There are currently very limited opportunities for those who have concerns over the way these responsibilities are exercised.

“Judicial review is often prohibitively expensive and the Government is currently considering curtailing its scope. Recourse to the Local Government Ombudsman is usually too late to be an effective remedy.”

He added: “In CPRE’s view, our system of controls over land use and development, exercised through the planning system, should be regarded as one of the triumphs of the post-war settlement, alongside the national health service.

“For its continued effectiveness, it relies above all else on public confidence in local planners and councillors who between them are usually responsible for around half a million planning decisions each year.”

A Communities and Local Government department spokesman said: “The old Standards Board regime prevented councillors from championing the interests of their local residents and suppressed freedom of speech.

“Councillors were told that they couldn’t vote for or against a development if they had campaigned on the issue in a local election. We have replaced this discredited quango with new rules on transparency, and a new criminal offence to tackle the extremely rare instance of corruption.”

Related Articles

Posted

Evictions reach new high as 19,000 private renters forced onto streets in just one year

Leave a comment

Homelessness crisis reaches new high as 19,000 private renters forced onto streets in just one year

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/homelessness-crisis-new-high-19000-private-renters-forced-onto-streetsyear-a7335756.html
‘Figures are a heartbreaking reminder of the devastating impact our drastic shortage of affordable homes is having,’ says chief executive of Shelter
Harriet Agerholm @HarrietAgerholm 16 hours  ago

https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/Diggers350/conversations/messages/6038
Just under 43,000 families made homeless across all sectors in the last year Getty
The number of private renters becoming homeless is at its highest level in England since records began.
Almost 19,000 households became homeless after being evicted by a private landlord in the last year, a 200 per cent increase compared to five years ago and the highest number on record.
Across all the sectors, just under 43,000 families were accepted as homeless by their local council in the last year � a rise of 35 per cent from five years ago.
According to official statistics released by the Department for Communities and Local Government, the end of an assured shorthold tenancy – the most common form of rental agreement – has become an increasingly common reason for becoming homeless.
The spiralling costs of housing coupled with cuts to welfare spending have been blamed for the steep rise.
English councils dealt with 200,930 requests for help from people on the verge of homelessness in the last year.
Jon Sparkes, head of homelessness charity, Crisis, said: �We need a change in the law to prevent more people from losing their home and to make sure all homeless people can get the help they need, while councils need the funding to make this work.
�Prevention has already been shown to work in Wales, where it has dramatically reduced the need for people to be re-housed.�
A bill put forward by Bill Blackman MP to address the problem will have it’s second reading in late October  It proposes a new duty for all local authorities to take action on behalf of anyone threatened with homelessness within the next 56 days, regardless of what their priority status is.
Responding to the figures, chief executive of homelessness organisation Shelter Campbell Robb said: �These figures are a heartbreaking reminder of the devastating impact our drastic shortage of affordable homes is having.
�Every day we hear from families struggling to keep their heads above water when faced with the double blow of welfare cuts and expensive, unstable private renting, with far too many ultimately losing the battle to stay in their home.
�On top of this, stripped back budgets and a drought of affordable homes are making it increasingly difficult for overburdened councils to find homeless families anywhere suitable to live.”

Posted

Neighbours form human chain around Bristol mum’s house to stop eviction

Leave a comment

Simon Robb for Metro.co.uk Thursday 22 Sep 2016 2:21 pm
http://metro.co.uk/2016/09/22/neighbours-form-human-chain-around-a-mums-house-to-stop-eviction-6145004/
A woman facing ‘revenge eviction’ has been given a lifeline after her neighbours gathered to form a human chain around her home.
Nimo Abdullahi, 39, claimed her landlord tried to kick her and her five children out of their home after she complained about the rising damp.

This is the moment kindhearted neighbours in Easton, Bristol, formed a human chain around a mum's house - to stop her being kicked out in a 'revenge eviction'. See SWNS story SWSAVE; Nimo Abdullahi, 39, was told she and her family would be thrown out of their home of 12 years after she complained to her landlord about damp. But in a bid to protect the mum-of-five from a 'revenge eviction', residents and campaigners turned out to stop it happening. Around 30 people stood side by side, arms linked, to build a wall of bodies in front of the privately-rented property in Easton, Bristol. All morning, more neighbours joined the blockade - with a newlywed couple living opposite the family cutting up their wedding cake to keep the protesters sustained. When bailiffs turned up at 11am on Tuesday, they weren't able to get inside.
This is the moment kindhearted neighbours in Easton, Bristol, formed a human chain around a mum’s house – to stop her being kicked out in a ‘revenge eviction’. See SWNS story SWSAVE; Nimo Abdullahi, 39, was told she and her family would be thrown out of their home of 12 years after she complained to her landlord about damp. But in a bid to protect the mum-of-five from a ‘revenge eviction’, residents and campaigners turned out to stop it happening. Around 30 people stood side by side, arms linked, to build a wall of bodies in front of the privately-rented property in Easton, Bristol. All morning, more neighbours joined the blockade – with a newlywed couple living opposite the family cutting up their wedding cake to keep the protesters sustained. When bailiffs turned up at 11am on Tuesday, they weren’t able to get inside.

But neighbours and campaigners turned out in force to stop bailiffs from forcing the family out of their home in Easton, Bristol.
A newlywed couple living opposite even cut up their wedding cake for all the protesters.
When the bailiffs arrived on Tuesday morning, they were unable to get past the 30 protesters who stood strong.
Nimo claimed the landlord tried to evict them numerous times before and even threatened to get the police to do the job.
She said: ‘It has a big problem with damp. This is bad for us, because my children have asthma and it is not a good place.
‘Until recently, the carpets everywhere were very old and dirty and we would ask the landlord to improve things, but he was difficult.
‘Many times I asked him, and a lot of times he would threaten us.’
Neighbour Jenny Ross said: ‘We don’t want people in our community treated like this. It’s a revenge eviction and people deserve decent rented accommodations.’
Another neighbour, Kirsten Parton, added: ‘I’m here because of the way she’s been treated by her landlord, it is simply not on.
‘She and her family are part of the community and have been here for quite some time.’
Nimo is being helped by Acorn, a local grass roots movement which fights for renters’ rights.
Efforts have been made to get in touch with the landlord.

Posted

BURIED: UN slams Tories over UK human rights abuses

Leave a comment
JUNE 28TH, 2016 Steve Topple STEVE TOPPLE UK

Facebook Twitter

BURIED: UN slams Tories over UK human rights abuses

While the country is entrenched in the mire of the EU referendum fallout, the Tories have just been slammed by the United Nations (UN) – for human rights abuses.

But not abroad. Here, in the UK.

As The Canary previously reported, on the 15 and 16 June the UN Human Rights committee on economic, social and cultural affairs publicly reported its questioning of the Tories, after more than two years of evidence-gathering concerning the impact of their policies on society.

A report was submitted by the UK government, from which the final conclusions and recommendations, which were released on Monday night, have been drawn. And the UN pulls no punches in its assessment.

Failed policies

The criticisms are overarching, and in some cases staggering – covering nearly every area of government policy. It appears the UN have three levels of disdain: “regret”, “concerned” and “seriously or deeply concerned” – and the latter, worryingly, comes up relating to two specific areas.

The committee spoke at length about asylum seekers; specifically, that our government is failing them “due to restrictions in accessing employment and the insufficient level of support provided”. It goes further and says that they are, basically, being denied the health care that they are entitled to under international law. The UN also slams the government over its treatment of migrant workers, in terms of exploitation, low pay and health care access – specifically citing the fact the Tories ignored its last set of recommendations.

The government comes under criticism for its sales of weapons to foreign countries and lack of legislation surrounding this. A pertinent issue at present, with the Tories coming under increasing pressure to block arms sales to Saudi Arabia, who are currently accused of committing war crimes in Yemen.

The UN is also critical of the practices surrounding government-backed private companies’ conduct in foreign countries. This specifically relates to an investigation by Global Justice Now, surrounding the Department for International Development ploughing money into private education companies in Uganda and Kenya – at the cost of their free education systems. It seems the Tories not only want a profit from the UK’s schools, they want it from other countries’ schools as well.

There were numerous other areas in which the Tories came under fire: their failure to tackle tax avoidance; the 2016 Trade Union Act and blacklisting of workers; the reductions in the corporate tax rate; the decimation of the legal aid system; the failure to introduce the 2010 Equality Act in Northern Ireland and the continued illegality of abortion; the gender pay gap; the under-funding of mental health services; worsening of social care for the elderly; the lowly minimum wage; violence against women, and the lack of female representation in high-profile public roles.

However, the most damning indictments and truly staggering ones were surrounding austerity, unemployment, living standards and welfare reforms. And the majority of the barrage of criticisms were aimed at the impact these had on the vulnerable and the disabled.

Forgetting the most vulnerable

In short, criticisms were fired at the Tories over:

  • the number of self-employed, part-time and zero hours contracts jobs, and the effect on marginalised people.
  • the housing crisis in the UK, including the lack of social housing, sky-high rental prices and rogue landlords.
  • the “exceptionally high” levels of homelessness and the Conservatives’ inadequate response to this.
  • the government’s record on education and failure to address inequality affecting pupils attainment levels.
  • a failure to address food poverty and the heavy reliance by millions on food banks.
  • the rising levels of poverty among marginalised groups, and the government’s failure to tackle child poverty.

But perhaps the two most astonishing sections were those dedicated to what the UN described itself as having “seriously” and “deeply” concerned views on – the effects of austerity, and welfare reforms on the disabled and most vulnerable in society.

The UN said of the Conservatives’ austerity measures:

the Committee is seriously concerned about the disproportionate adverse impact that austerity measures, introduced since 2010, are having on […] disadvantaged and marginalized individuals and groups. The Committee is concerned that the State party has not undertaken a comprehensive assessment of the cumulative impact of such measures […] in a way that is recognized by civil society and national independent monitoring mechanisms.

Translated? The UN is saying that the government has forced through austerity measures without bothering to think or care how they would affect the poor, the disabled and the vulnerable – and that in doing so, they have flouted agreed international standards. The government had already been warned once by the UN in 2012 regarding this – but the Tories chose to ignore it. They were told that (regarding austerity):

such measures must be temporary, necessary, proportionate, and not discriminatory and must not disproportionately affect the rights of disadvantaged and marginalized individuals and groups and respect the core content of rights.

The UN said the government now must review all austerity measures since 2010 and the impact they have had on the marginalised groups they refer to.

However, the severest criticisms were of the 2012 Welfare Reform Act and the Welfare Reform and Work Act of 2016 – and the language and recommendations from the UN were unprecedented.

Unparalleled human rights criticisms

In no uncertain terms, the UN said that it was:

deeply concerned about the various changes in the entitlements to, and cuts in, social benefits, introduced [in the two acts] such as the reduction of the household benefit cap, the […] spare-room subsidy (bedroom tax), the four year freeze on certain benefits and the reduction in child tax credits. The Committee is particularly concerned about the adverse impact on […] disadvantaged and marginalized individuals and groups, including women, children, persons with disabilities, low-income families and families with two or more children. The Committee also is concerned about the extent to which the State party has made use of sanctions in relation to social security benefits and the absence of due process and access to justice for those affected by the use of sanctions.

This is exceptionally strong language from the UN. Having compared the report on the UK to that of Angola, nowhere in Angola’s does the phrase “deeply/seriously concerned” appear.

Nor does it in the reports for Burkina Faso, France, Sweden or Macedonia. The only report that ours is comparable to is that of Honduras – a country with one of the highest murder rates in the world, and one which is subject to tourist travel warnings from both the US and the UK.

The recommendations from the UN are even more far-reaching.

It says the government should:

restore the link between the rates of state benefits and the costs of living and guarantee that all social benefits provide a level of benefits sufficient to ensure an adequate standard of living, including access to health care, adequate housing and food; Review the use of sanctions in relation to social security benefits and ensure that they are used proportionately and are subject to prompt and independent dispute resolution mechanisms.

But the most staggering part is that it says, without hesitation, that the government needs toreverse all benefit cuts that were introduced in both the 2012 and 2016 acts. It also stipulates that it expects the government to provide “disaggregated data” on the impact of the welfare reforms, specifically in marginalised groups.

Sadly, there is an inherent flaw with everything that the UN has stipulated – none of it is legally binding.

The UN state in their report that they are “disappointed” that this, and previous, governments have not taken the “covenant” (agreement & rules) of the committee and written them into domestic law. It urges the government “to fully incorporate the covenant rights into its domestic legal order and ensure that victims of violations of economic, social and cultural rights have full access to effective legal remedies”. That is, if a person feels that the government has breached its human rights under the UN’s covenant – it can take them to court.

The likelihood of this government, or any future one for that matter, adopting the UN’s rule is slim to say the least. But it is sorely needed.

Broken Britain? Again?

Speaking to The Canary, Disabled People Against Cuts (DPAC) said:

The response and recommendations of the report provide a damning declaration of the catalogue of the removal of rights that the Tories have imposed in their heartless regime. The report is to be welcomed for its forthright language and its recommendations. It contains everything that DPAC and campaigners have pointed out time and time again. For example, the call for a cumulative assessment of the cuts, the withdrawal of legal aid cuts, the targeting of funds to alleviate increasing poverty, reversal of welfare reform cuts, linking of cost of living to social security payments and a review of sanction procedures. If this report were a political party, it would win the next election. Labour – keep your elected leader and take note.

The report is one of the most damning assessments of a Western government in modern times. But to those who have been at the sharp end of recent policy changes, it will come as no surprise.

The government has to report back to the UN on certain aspects immediately, otherwise, the next review will take place in 2021.

Sadly, with a Tory government looking set to lurch even further to the right, and a Labour party in a state of implosion, things may well become even more precarious.

It seems, as always, that it will be down to us, the public, to try and force meaningful change.

And meaningful change must come – because already, for many, it is too late.

Get involved.

Support Disabled People Against Cuts (DPAC)

Sign the petition to stop cuts to disabled people’s benefits

Posted

Revealed: Homeless charities ‘complicit’ in rough sleeper deportations

Leave a comment 

http://www.politics.co.uk/news/2016/09/15/homeless-charities-complicit-in-rough-sleeper-deportations

“Homeless individuals are sitting ducks for immigration enforcement”
By Natalie BloomerThursday, 15 September 2016

Two well-known homeless charities are accused of being ‘complicit’ with the deportation of foreign rough sleepers from the UK, Politics.co.uk can reveal.

Leading homelessness charities St Mungo’s and Thames Reach worked on a scheme to tackle ‘entrenched’ rough sleeping in London, which also involved immigration enforcement teams removing people from the country against their will.

Documents released by the Greater London Authority suggest the charities supported the ‘administrative removal’ of some foreign rough sleepers.

Administrative removals are deportations carried out against people who may have breached the conditions of their stay in the UK. Under government guidance announced this year, just being seen sleeping rough is considered a breach.

Campaigners today hit out at the charities for being ‘complicit’ with deportations.

“Homeless individuals are sitting ducks for immigration enforcement,” Rita Chadha, the chief executive of Ramfel, a refugee and migrant group, said.

“The fact that some homelessness charities can be complicit in such work is to our collective shame.

“People need to start questioning where their donations to some homeless charities are going. Are they really helping individuals or are they subsidising state-sanctioned enforcement?”

Former mayor of London Boris Johnson asked the homeless charities to work on a ‘payment by results’ basis, in order to help fulfil his promise to eradicate rough sleeping from London’s streets.

GLA documents reveal that in 2012, Thames Reach and St Mungo’s were commissioned to provide a number of services to around 800 so-called “entrenched” rough sleepers. But the programme, which was called a Social Impact Bond (SIB), also aimed to “reconnect” EU nationals with their home countries.

“Reconnections” are usually described as voluntary help for people who want to return home. But an update on the SIB in 2015, suggests they can also refer to forced removals from the country.

In the update, the GLA told the Investment & Performance Board (IPB) that “the number of reconnections abroad had fallen short of the providers’ targets” but that “with ten SIB clients having recently been referred to the Home Office for administrative removal, the number of reconnections in this year may well exceed the providers’ in-year target”.

The SIB is just one of several GLA projects to tackle rough sleeping in the capital. In the authority’s commissioning framework they make it clear that any charity wanting to provide their rough sleeping services would be expected to cooperate with immigration officials to remove EU nationals.

The framework comments on their “notable success” in working with Immigration Compliance Enforcement (ICE) teams, who liaise with “local authorities, service providers and the police” to deal with EU nationals who are neither employed or self-sufficient.

The document goes on to say: “This has involved testing a process of administrative removal for those individuals overstaying or not exercising their treaty rights. The GLA has supported this response and will continue to support similar initiatives in the future.”

Charities co-operated with scheme to remove ‘entrenched’ rough sleepers

Thames Reach’s contract to carry out the GLA’s ‘reconnection’ work ended earlier this year. However, in a response to the Communities and Local Government (CLG) Committee homeless inquiry they confirmed they support the practice of forced removals. They said:

“For different reasons there is a reluctance to take up this voluntary reconnection and for some, inevitably, an administrative removal carried out by the Immigration Compliance and Enforcement (ICE) service becomes necessary.”

They also suggested that a solution to reduce the flow of migrants to the UK who end up sleeping rough would be to increase “enforcement by ICE teams” where EU treaty obligations are not met.

Ramfel has raised concerns about the GLA’s reliance on charities to assess immigration cases and questioned whether their staff have the necessary skills and experience to provide accurate advice.

“We have seen a number of individuals who have felt pressured to leave the UK or have been told they have no alternative but to return home, when actually there are a variety of options available to them to remain here,” Chadha said.

St Mungo’s confirmed that they had worked with other agencies to ‘reconnect’ foreign rough sleepers. The director of the Street Outreach Service at St Mungo’s, Petra Salva said:

“St Mungo’s does not remove rough sleepers who are not exercising their treaty rights. Our work is with vulnerable people sleeping rough. We support people to move away from the streets, have a place to call home and to rebuild their lives. We consider the person and the best route off the street for them. That can involve working with other agencies, including reconnection within other London boroughs, to other parts of the UK or overseas.”

When contacted by Politics.co.uk, Thames Reach said that they were only currently engaged with assisting voluntary reconnections. A spokesperson said:

“We know that rough sleeping is dangerous and can kill.  At least 83 verified rough sleepers died last year in London. Where it is needed, we make sure that vulnerable people get the support they need to make a successful return home, and get the help they need when they get there.”

Posted

Private landlords double housing benefit haul to £9.3bn

Leave a comment

By Hannah Richardson BBC News social affairs reporter

  • 20 August 2016
Flat balconyNearly half of all housing benefit claimants are now in work

Private landlords in the UK received twice as much in housing benefit last year – £9.3bn – as they did a decade ago, a report says.

The National Housing Federation (NHF) study said the increase was due to a big rise in the number of private tenants claiming housing benefit.

The NHF said this particular group of people had grown by 42% since 2008.

In 2006, some £4.6bn in housing benefit was paid to private landlords, a figure which had more than doubled by 2015.

NHF chief executive David Orr said: “It is madness to spend £9bn of taxpayers’ money lining the pockets of private landlords rather than investing in affordable homes.”

“The lack of affordable housing available means that a wider group of people need housing benefit,” he added.

Working poor

Had these housing benefit claimants been living in social housing instead of renting from private landlords, taxpayers would have saved huge sums of money over seven years, the NHF report estimated.

It said that taxpayers paid £1,000 more per year, per family renting in the private rented sector, than they did for those in social housing.

This amounted to an average of £2.2bn a year extra being handed over to private landlords, at a cumulative additional cost of £15.6bn over the past seven years, the NHF analysis says.

If this extra housing benefit bill for just one year had been spent on creating new affordable housing, the NHF added, then nearly 50,000 new homes could have been built.

The report also points out that a larger proportion of families claiming housing benefit in the private rented sector are now in work.

“Today, nearly half (47%) of all families claiming housing benefit in the private rented sector are in work – this is nearly double the proportion it was six years ago (26%),” the NHF said.

‘Tenants failed’

A government spokesman said it had been taking action to bring the housing benefit bill under control.

He said: “Since 2012 the amount going to private sector landlords has actually been falling – something which the National Housing Federation fails to recognise.”

“We are also committed to building the homes this country needs and investing £8bn to build 400,000 more affordable homes.”

Chris Norris, head of policy at the National Landlords Association, said the private rented sector was responding to the increasing demand for homes from a growing proportion of tenants who are being failed by the social housing sector and housing associations.

“The NHF is clearly still reeling from the news that its members have been ordered by government to reduce spending over the next four years, so it comes as no surprise that they are looking to shift the emphasis and point the finger elsewhere,” he said.

“However, the private rented sector plays a pivotal role in providing much-needed homes for tenants so there seems no real purpose in the NHF taking a cheap shot at landlords for what is a failure on behalf of successive governments to adequately allocate its housing budget and to incentivise the building of new homes.”

Posted

Queen Elizabeth has vast, secret, Bank of England shareholding

Leave a comment

    Tony Gosling Jun 12, 2012 At last making some real headway with this vexing question of who owns the shares of the Bank of England. This ain’t nationalisation ma’am!
    2 Extracts from

1077025._UY475_SS475_

    WAR OF THE WINDSORS A Century of Unconstitutional Monarchy

By Lynne Picnett, Clive Prince and Stephen Prior With additional historical research by Robert Brydon Mainstream publishing – 2003 ISBN: 1 84018 766 2

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2012/06/496942.html

http://www.911forum.org.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=161285#161285

https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/Diggers350/conversations/messages/4291

    EXTRACT 1/2: THE BANK OF ENGLAND NOMINEES In early 1973 new legislation governing the ownership of shares was proposed by the Heath Government. This would force stockbroking companies to disclose the names of the individuals on whose behalf they bought shares (to prevent them gaining a controlling interest in a company by buying shares in several different names). The Queen was concerned that this would mean that details of her private investments would be made public, which would allow her personal wealth to be calculated – which the royal family had always strenuously avoided – and asked her Private Secretary, Sir Martin Charteris (who had succeeded Sir Michael Adeane in 1972), to express her anxiety to Edward Heath. The legislation was delayed, but eventually became law – under Labour in 1976 as the Companies Act. However, a special clause was included that exempted a new shareholding company, Bank of England Nominees. This was established with the purpose of handling investments solely on behalf of heads of state and their immediate families. This allowed the Queen’s investments and those of her family – along with those of other heads of state, such as the Sultan of Brunei, who were quick to take advantage of the exemption – to be effectively concealed. Extraordinarily, not even the Chancellor of the Exchequer is permitted to know about the Queen’s personal investments. Andrew Morton writes: The result of this legislation has been to cocoon further the royal finances in a web of mystery. Journalists who delve into dusty share registers find the impenetrable phrase ‘Bank of England Nominees’ staring back at them when they try to find a hint of royal investment in a company. The justification for the clause was that public knowledge about where the Queen invested her money might influence the market. However, that this was just an excuse is revealed by a memo sent from the Palace to the Government saying that it is ‘to be congratulated on a neat and defensible solution’. In other words, the Palace were pleased that the Government had come up with a way of justifying the secrecy.
    EXTRACT 2/2 ……..Thanks to the legal privileges she enjoys – such being able to hide her investments behind the screen of the Bank of England Nominees – the Queen’s personal wealth is literally incalculable. There is no information available to enable it to be calculated with certainty, although a recent analysis by the Independent estimated Elizabeth II’s personal fortune to be around £175 million. Of course, the question can fairly be asked why her subjects need to know about her private means, which are quite separate from the government funds intended to pay for her expenses as Head of State. But the distinction is not always clear: for example, although the estates at Balmoral and Sandringham – acquired in Victoria’s reign – are said to be the Queen’s private property, there is evidence that Victoria and Albert acquired them at least partly with money diverted from the Civil List, in which case surely the state has a claim on them? And when these houses are occupied they are paid for by the taxpayer, on the grounds that wherever the Queen is she is always the Head of State. What of the Royal Collection – the works of art that according to one estimate are worth around £7 billion, and which contain three times as many paintings as the National Gallery? In theory the Queen holds all these ‘in trust’ for the nation; in practice she alone possesses them, while they remain largely unseen by the rest of us (at anyone time, less than a half of a per cent of the collection is on public display). There is also the very vexed question of the ‘grace and favour’ properties, paid for the state but occupied by……
    WAR OF THE WINDSORS CONTENTS Acknowledgements Prologue 1. ‘A Kingly Caste of Germans’ 2. ‘The People’s Prince’ 3. ‘Christ! What’s Going to Happen Next?’ 4. ‘A Kind of English National Socialist’ 5. ‘The Most Unconstitutional Act’ 6. ‘The End of Many Hopes’ 7. ‘The House of Mountbatten Now Reigns!’ 8. ‘That German Princeling’ 9. ‘In Spite of Everything, He was a Great Man’ 10. ‘After All I’ve Done for this F-ing Family’ 11. ‘There are Powers at Work in This Country About Which We Have No Knowledge’ Notes and References Bibliography Index

Posted

Empty homes: graphics show shocking extent of Britain’s unnecessary homelessness

Leave a comment

Empty Homes in England

Empty Homes in England04 March 2016

Many cities across Britain are becoming more and more like ghost towns as absentee owners push up property prices but fail to contribute to the local economy.
Many cities across Britain are becoming more and more like ghost towns as absentee owners push up property prices but fail to contribute to the local economy.

There are multiple reasons as to why properties are left empty on a long term basis with the top four being:

  • Landlords are unable to afford repairs for it to be suitable for a new tenant
  • It’s an inherited property and the new owners are unsure what to do with it
  • Renovations are taking a long time or they have stalled
  • The owners are waiting for the market value to increase before a sale

Unsurprisingly, more than three quarters of British adults (78%) think that the Government should place a higher priority on tackling empty homes.

In addition, with cuts to housing benefit, welfare reform and a huge lack of affordable housing, homelessness is a crisis that has seen a 26% rise in the last four years. Statistics have shown that if empty homes were put back into use, there would be the equivalent of eleven homes per person registered as being accepted as homeless and in priority need.

Whilst public perception and the vast numbers of homelessness and empty homes instill a sense of urgency, official statistics show that numbers of empty homes have been consistently decreasing over the last 10 years. There’s still much to be done; however, it’s positive that the cities and community groups are making a stronger effort to reduce both numbers.

We are on hand to support new owners with selling their homes in a swift and effective manner to get properties back on the market and inhabited as soon as possible.

To show further support to the campaign to prevent homelessness and support those without homes, we have made a donation to “Homes from Empty Homes”.

For further information support regarding empty homes in England, you can visit:

For further information about homelessness in England, you can find out more at:

You can download our data visualisations as a PDF by clicking here