Idiotic Housing First proposal in Liverpool by inept Crisis

Crisis, the single homeless charity, got some money for research into Housing First  which is a potentially excellent solution to many problems in single homelessness that can and will work … but not in Liverpool.  This proposal should never have passed any feasibility stage never mind got as far as being adopted.

You can see what has happened here which is regrettably all too typical of Housing Think  – a term I use consistently when no thought goes into housing issues – as Crisis also got political backing for it in Liverpool and they engaged admitted experts to undertake the research and today they published the research and the Mayor of the Liverpool City Region Steve Rotheram said he was going to adopt this and, as you would expect there is widespread TV, radio, print and other media reporting on this which calls this a radical change of national import as a major pilot of a large scale HF service.

This Housing First proposal and policy wont work and never could and that really angers me as a supported housing consultant from Liverpool who has worked in, managed, managed the managers and advised single homeless providers for 24 years.  I also designed set up and operated and managed a Housing First model 20 years ago and know the model can work and work very well. Yet when and not if it buggers up in the Liverpool City Region and it will do so despite the appetite for it amongst many relevant actors, it threatens the entire model known as Housing First from being adopted elsewhere and thus resigned to history, something that it does not deserve.

The bloody obvious was missed from the outset by the passion of Crisis to get a HF model into operation and that is the housing stock supply in the Liverpool City Region of the five Merseyside councils and Halton.

All variants of the Housing First model – which to oversimplify allocates those who are homeless a property first and not conditional on addressing support needs such as drug, alcohol, offending, mental health, etc ahead of allocation – require suitable properties which are almost exclusively 1 bed properties to be available.

We know that 1 bed properties are in short supply as the bedroom tax and the inability to downsize has proved.  More significantly we have actual data and fact in the English Housing Survey which reveals that 28.2% of all social housing has 1 bedroom.  Yet we also have fact that the Liverpool City Region areas have a pitifully low proportion of 1 bed properties at 16.83% in Wirral, 16.72% in Liverpool, 15.03% in Knowsley, 14.96% in Sefton and just 12.41% in St Helens and that data is in the Statistical Data Return provided to the social housing regulator.

Simply the LCR area has just 15 in every 100 social housing properties being 1 beds compared to 28 being 1 bed properties as the English average.  The LCR region is the last place you would choose to pilot a large scale Housing First pilot unless you wanted the Housing First model to fail and I know from speaking with Crisis that this is not the case.

It begs the question why was this simple known fact not considered before going ahead with this research, proposal and adoption on this bull in a china shop approach?

Housing First in the LCR area cannot work on a large scale basis because of this. It possibly can on a smaller scale though only a few limited housing associations may take part as only a few of them have anything over 10% of their stock as 1 bed an note there are no council landlords in the LCR area.

It could work on a shared accommodation basis with for example two persons sharing a 3 bed property for which the LCR area has a surfeit of supply with the LCR areas all having more than 50% of total properties as 3 bed+ compared to the English national average of 36%.  That shared model stacks up far better financially for social landlords however there is very little appetite for shared housing by HA’s for low risk general needs tenants so we must assume there will be even less for higher perceived risk tenants such as those who are homeless.

In summary the very pertinent point is that this Housing First proposal for LCR should never have got off the table given the facts of the housing stock in the region yet nobody thought to even check whether the Housing First model was feasible in this critical regard.


The above despite being 2013/14 table and not changed to any significance shows the English national average of 1 bed stock among social landlords to be 28.2%

Data I have collated from the 2015/16 Statistical Data Return by all social landlords in the area reveals the 16.83% for Wirral to the 12.41% St Helens figures I mentioned above.

Additionally those HA’s with over 20% of total stock which is still 25% below the English national average are those HA’s with small stockholding with the exception of Liverpool Mutual Homes and all other former council landlords have less than 15% of stock being 1 bed properties.

Even if new SRS developments included 1 bed properties and they do not I strongly doubt these would be allocated on a higher risk Housing First basis.

Will the Housing First LCR large scale pilot have to rely upon the private rented sector?  Yes if this proposal proceeds into LCR policy and that does not meet the underpinning of stability and security in the Housing First model and in operational terms having a private landlord with a tenant supported by a visiting support officer is hugely problematical and to be avoided.

These are just some of the reasons why Crisis choosing the Liverpool City Region for a large scale pilot of Housing First is madness and idiocy.  There are regrettably many more that are ridiculously complex to explain even to a homeless professional audience and all of these issues require a huge amount of assumption as to the actions of landlords and tenants and also in a theoretical vacuum of how such a policy interacts with housing and housing welfare policies and changes.

I genuinely admire the radical nature of Housing First and we do need radical policy change as all previous homelessness oriented policy initiatives have failed and from governments of all persuasions over the past 20 years or more – mostly from an ignorance of what homelessness is and means.  It is a hugely complex area that is extremely dynamic and can never be solved by a simple theory even with the huge backing that Housing First now has.

It takes time and costs money, the two issues that all politicians despise, because of its huge complexity.

Homeless hostels have done a good containment job for decades yet have been chronically underfunded for decades too and it is worth remembering that accommodation based homeless hostels were found to cost 35% less than visiting support services (at £17 per hour compared to £23 per hour) the so-called floating support by the Audit Commission back in 2005 during the Supporting People programme.

When you have a cash limited amount of money to deliver such services why would you choose the 35% more expensive form of support?

That is just one of the apparent anomalies of the Housing First model and only becomes cost-effective when you have a greater than 35% improvement in outcomes (however nigh on impossible it is to measure outcomes in any case!) Yet Housing First can work and does work elsewhere outside the UK in relation to rough sleeping but ONLY when it is used as an add-on to it and not a replacement for it which I suspect is the real agenda of the current vogue for Housing First as a model – or quite simply a cost cutting exercise on a very vulnerable client group that is seen as not deserving and always has been in all forms of homelessness.

I could easily draft 5000 more words on this off the top of my head to really dig deep into the huge changes by central and local government and by landlords that are necessary to accompany the previously perceived radical Housing First model itself yet one thing is 100% certain – this HF large scale model cannot possibly work in the LCR area and needs a fundamental rethink.

Housing First may be ‘sexy’ but its dangerous and ill-conceived

Housing First is everywhere. It is the latest ‘sexy’ idea being promoted as THE panacea for single homelessness and I have grave concerns over the slapdash way it is being so eagerly promoted and also what it is hiding as its real agenda.

HF in theory is very laudable and I have direct professional experience of setting up limited Housing First schemes and also seen larger scale models of it in operation in the USA and also followed reports and research on it for many years. I am thus very much in favour of the model(s) in principle yet I have major concerns over

(a) the appallingly lax consideration of what it means in UK practical terms,

(b) the effusive superficiality given to HF by its current champions,

(c) the many other agendas at play most notably the alleged cost savings that have been claimed for it,

… and most important of all, how all these factors will undoubtedly and inevitably lead to a much reduced and much inferior overall homeless service being provided and delivered and make the homelessness ‘problem’ much worse.

Homelessness is a huge area and a very complex one and no magic cure can appear out of the ether to solve it.  The Foyer model as lauded as a panacea by the Blair government and has been tried and with no discernible positive impact.  We had in Dame Louise Casey, a rough sleeper czar who then became the troubled families czar and was knighted for these ‘sexy’ initiatives yet rough sleeping has increased 134% since 2010 and the less said of the Troubled Families scheme the better!

Louise Casey like David Lord Freud was a Blairite appointment who then was retained by the Conservatives.  Oh look this is cross-party and apolitical approach to the scourge of homelessness … and that hasn’t worked either!  And know we even have dead woman walking Theresa May herself discussing Housing First out of desperation and large scale ignorance of what Housing First is and would mean.

Denn eben wo Begriffe fehlen da stellt ein Wort zur rechten Zeit sich ein

This quote by Goethe translates as when ideas fail, words comes in to save the situation and in this case those words are Housing First, the latest sexy idea of the great and good who are all desperate to appear to be doing something and have that superficial appearance as their key priority just as they did with Foyers and No Second Night Out and so many other sexy yet superficial homeless solutions that have failed.

Just as they did with the Third Way and Communitarianism and Troubled Families and Austerity and other sexy words given to ideological solutions to problems that government and politicians fail to even scratch the surface of in their understanding of those problems.

Austerity creates increased homelessness systemically just as lack of social housebuilding has just as ‘get on your bike and look for work’ did when Tebbit said it all those years ago and created much more homelessness in seaside towns in the UK by it which in turn created much more insecure private rented bedsits in those locales and still to this day we see in seaside towns a far higher rate of HB claimants there in the PRS than in any other village, ton or city across the UK.

In short there is a fundamental lack of defining what the UK homelessness problems are in the first place before imposing political panaceas to solve them – and in the case of Housing First even fundamental practical problems such as where are the properties in which to place homeless persons first without conditionality are available.

Added to this political ineptitude is the all pervasive bottom line cost which as per usual in only seen in the immediate term by budget holders in central and especially local government and even with this I today read that research into a large scale Housing First system across the Liverpool City Region will cost £242 per single homeless person per week in an area with a 1 bed LHA rate of £90 per week and scant mention of how the LHA Maxima Cap to start in April 2019 will impact.

Proposing a Housing First solution across the LCR region when only 37% of its estimated costs can be assured (£90 of £242 pw) aptly shows the dangerous lack of thought that goes into such proposals for all involved and also reveals that the belief of those who propose it is so so misplaced in its theory.  By all means put in cultural support and champion and promote better solutions but not when the tap can be turned off on a whim even if all that investment in all forms of support provides positive results.

The LCR devolved government does not even have control over that additional ‘support’ monies of £152 per person per week (£242 – £90) which resides with each of the six individual local authorities who make up the Liverpool City Region! Some of those six LAs have in-house support services that they will prioritise over NIMBY homeless services and all will prioritise support funding for older peoples services over single homeless ones with the deserving over undeserving errant perception being to the fore.

Back to practical matters and very important ones for the Liverpool City Region Housing First proposal which I now find that the LCR Mayor Steve Rotheram has been all over the local TV media today advocating.  Across England 28% of all social housing properties are 1 bedroom according to the English Housing Survey yet in Merseyside this is only 15% (16.4% in Liverpool to just 12.4% in St Helens) so quite how 1 bed properties will be available for any form of Housing First idea beggars belief.

A classic example of when cultural shift becomes Cloud Cuckoo like thinking!

A classic example of politicians of wanting to appear to be doing something yet what they are doing is wholly counter-productive if not dangerous.

A classic example of the fur coat and no knickers approach that is always taken towards solving homelessness

The LCR Housing First research report can be accessed here which in typical journalistic hyperbole is called is the radical Housing First plan a way to deal with Liverpool’s increasing homelessness problem – increasing because Liverpool has the current sexy homeless panacea of No Second Night Out – and to which the answer has to be no no no given the issues I have barely touched upon above.  It reads:

A radical new plan is being put forward to deal with the growing issue of homelessness across the region. Metro Mayor Steve Rotheram and homeless charity Crisis are calling for the introduction of a new ‘Housing First’ initiative, which focuses on getting the most vulnerable people and long-term rough sleepers into homes as quickly as possible and providing them with personalised visiting support. A new report by Crisis suggests that the plan should be piloted in the Liverpool city region first – but could eventually change the way rough sleepers are dealt with across the country.

It also reveals just how blind that Crisis are to the variables of the Liverpool City Region – the key variables such as it has around 50% of the 1 bed properties of the English average so quite how Liverpool should be a pilot area with that critical constraint shows how incompetently Crisis is viewing the issue.

It also reveals how naive and incompetent and easily swayed Steve Rotheram is in this area with the usual appearing to do something far more critical than actually doing so!  The Mayor of Liverpool Joe Anderson has called Steve Rotheram (the Liverpool City Region Mayor) naive over homelessness, then again Joe Anderson loves the failing No Second Night Out which has seen dramatic increases in rough sleeping in Liverpool that I reported on here.

Yes that’s right reader, political squabbles take far greater priority than actually attempting to solve the many crises in homelessness … plus ca change!

One final point that really does need to be hammered home is the incredulous naivety of Crisis, the national single homeless charity.  Housing First can work and can work very well IF it is done properly and considers all the many complex variables as I know all too well.  So for Crisis to be pushing like crazy for Liverpool to be a pilot area for Housing First when Liverpool and the Liverpool City Region has twice the difficulty in finding the 1 bed properties needed for Housing First to work in any shape or form is incredulous.

If LCR goes ahead as the main pilot area for Housing First, then Housing First will undoubtedly and inevitably fail and that would be a great shame






Average UK household gets £147 per week in ‘welfare’

The average UK household gets £146.79 per week in welfare (social security benefits and tax credits) or £7,633 per year.  That average is for every household, all 28.5 million of them and so includes billionaires and millionaires and not just the stereotypical poverty porn TV household.

The average UK household gets two lots of the single persons dole of £73.10 per week!  As the average UK household is in paid employment …

Did you think the benefit scrounger was just those out of work, the indolent stereotypes that adorn our television screens in low-cost poverty porn TV!

Here’s some official government data on the subject that reveals this

The majority of ‘welfare’ goes to the pensioner as you can see and the average UK household even one that includes no pensioners gets £3000 per year in state pension, as well as £22 per year in over 75’s TV licences and around £6.30 per year in Discretionary Housing Payments.  The average UK home gets £155 per year in dole (JSA) yet gets £864 per year in Housing Benefit and despite 60% of UK households being home owners too.

The percentage of GDP that the UK spends on ‘welfare’ is also surprising when looked at by various prime ministers.

Thatchers welfare spend averaged 9.3% of GDP

Majors welfare spend averaged 10.03% of GDP

Blair and Brown averaged 10.3%

The Cameron coalition averaged 11.9% from 2010 to 2015

The May welfare spend is 11.05% of GDP

Those Cameron and May figures belie the superficiality of the Tories in we have more people in work than ever before claims which, while correct, also reveal that the welfare spend is now so much higher than in was under Labour and reveals that the UK is a low pay economy in which the state subsidises low wages like never before.

One example is that in 2010 the Cameron government inherited (ah remember that term!) £2.8 billion in Housing Benefit to those in work.  That figure is now £5.8 billion and shows precisely how the state subsidises low paying UK employers!

If work will always pay more as IDS frequently stated – and subsequent DWP ministers recite as mantra – it is because the state bails out low paying UK employers by giving their employees more in welfare.

The Cameron government paid out almost 16% more in welfare than the previous Brown government and the May government is still spending 7% more in welfare than the Blair / Brown years in GDP terms.  So much for the Tory jobs miracle that is another of the superficial mantras were are force fed eh?

Facts are pesky as I always say and numbers are always facts.

If you think the above is bad note well it makes no comment on the fact that Universal Credit will cost around £33 billion more per year to the welfare spend as it guarantees 100% take-up of entitlement (see here for the official government figures) which increases the welfare spend by a further 15%.

So much for the Tories welfare reforms eh!


The Grenfell Inquiry liar – Theresa May

On the 22 June Theresa May made a statement in the House of Commons over the Grenfell Tower fire.  This is what she said as Hansard records:

As the scale of the tragedy became clear we quickly decided there had to be an independent public inquiry. As I said to the House yesterday, it will be chaired by a judge to get to the truth about what happened and who was responsible, and to provide justice for the victims and their families who suffered so terribly … All those with an interest—including survivors and victims’ families—will be consulted about the terms of reference, and we will pay for legal representation for those affected. …

For too long residents have been overlooked and ignored. We will ensure that they are involved in every step of this process. No stone will be left unturned in this inquiry, and there will be nowhere for any guilty parties to hide. 

Now we see the independent judge criticise the narrow scope of the Inquiry and the media saying that Theresa May herself has set the narrow terms of reference and of course she has not consulted the survivors and victims families over the scope of the Inquiry at all.

Instead we have the media focusing on the judge appointed and not on the fact that Theresa May is breaching every one of her promises she made in the House of Commons.  This example from the BBC website is typical:

Sir Martin’s appointment last week has been widely criticised but a source has told the BBC that he is prepared to be “open-minded” and “very broad” in his inquiry.

Although the remit will be decided by the prime minister, it is understood the inquiry will consider in detail whether the nature of the building regulations contributed to the fire.

Notice how the BBC slip in that the remit of the Inquiry will be decided by the prime minister as an afterthought to the criticism of the judge.

This is the same Theresa May who said to parliament and the TV cameras that the remit will see the survivors and victims families consulted over that remit and they will be involved every step of the way and no stone unturned will be left unturned!

Why is the mainstream media focusing on the judge or what the local Labour MP says about the judge when the real issue is that Theresa May lied to parliament about what the Inquiry would be about.

How can Theresa May say For too long residents have been overlooked and ignored and then overlook and ignore them some more after giving them false hope in the first place that they would be fully involved!!


Housing post-Grenfell and why it wouldn’t have happened in Scotland!

19 days ago the Grenfell Tower fire happened and this disaster has been leading the mainstream news ever since.  It represents a seismic change in the provision of what still is wrongly called social housing in the UK.

The day after the fire I tweeted that there are so many actors to blame for it such as landlords, councils, central government, builders, fire safety and many others and this is now being stated as systemic failures by many if not all of these, which is true.

Here I first choose to look at landlords, the claimed social landlords, and what Grenfell means for them and two obvious changes are apparent.

Firstly, these social (sic) landlords have traded for decades on the strategy that only wicked private landlords ignore tenant safety while benevolent social landlords have social purpose coursing through their veins blah, blah blah.

That strategy in rented housing terms of public good, private bad no longer holds and whatever trust tenants had in social landlords is gone with the old adage of decades to build a good reputation and five minutes to lose being much at play.

Secondly, English housing associations who make up around 63% of all social (sic) landlords have been lobbying the recent Conservative governments for MORE freedoms and LESS regulation that now cannot happen after Grenfell.

No government could possibly decide to allow less scrutiny and less regulation of any landlord after the watershed that is Grenfell.

I have read dozens of articles over Grenfell and one of the best is by the housing consultant Colin Wiles here which is very considered and informative in its own right but especially for this comment underneath from Derick Tulloch  (also in housing) which demonstrates just how PREVENTABLE the Grenfell fire was as it would not have happened in Scotland!!

It also explains why no tower block in Scotland is at risk and why ALL 180+ tower blocks tested so far in England have failed the fire safety test.

Not only is the law on fire safety so much stronger and written in plain and unambiguous language it is a MANDATORY standard issue and “ … fail to meet it and you go to jail!

English social tenants have less fire safety than a Scottish social tenant and is there a legal issue here over culpability and corporate manslaughter charges being brought against the landlord?  It is not my area of expertise yet there is a hell of a strong lay case given the Scottish regulations and their lack in England.

As combustible cladding is outlawed above 18 metre height in Scotland and has been since 2005 how can it be even arguable that it is permitted in England?

Questions need to be asked of English housing chief executives as to how they have ignored English social tenants fire safety since at least 2005 and allowed English tenants to be put at risk of fire death by still allowing combustible cladding and still specifying it because it is cheaper!

As usual the (English) social tenant has been getting the mushroom syndrome and if it wasn’t bad enough that they have been living in fire death traps because it is cheaper for their social (sic, sic, sic) landlords to clad combustibly, they were also promised “no stone unturned” by Theresa May and now found the Grenfell Inquiry has extremely limited terms of reference that will leave boulders unturned never mind stones!!


Grenfell survivors now sh*t on by Tory Government

Imagine you and your family survived the horrific Grenfell Tower fire and the last thing you’d expect is to be shit on by the Government which is exactly what has happened.

We know factually, Grenfell Tower survivors were mostly social housing tenants paying around £600 per calendar month in rent yet it had some private tenants paying £2300 per calendar month we are informed and for identical properties.

Today the Government says all surviving tenants will be housed LOCALLY and nobody is saying what that means in reality.  We see Laura Kuennsberg of the BBC tweeting this and a link to the government website where the new Housing Minister Alok Sharma specifically states this.  We see what are being termed “protestors” who are likely to be activists on TV media reading out a list of demands to say the tenants HAVE to be rehoused LOCALLY  … yet that terms means nothing and even they do not realise that!

To explain imagine you were a Grenfell social tenant paying £600 in rent per calendar month yet the only accommodation the council can rehouse you in LOCALLY is private rented accommodation at £2300 or more per calendar month.

That is likely to mean you have to give up your job as you cannot afford the rent.

That then means you have given up employment and therefore do not qualify for social security benefits and/or you are sanctioned too.

Central government cannot dictate to local government that someone must be rehoused locally anyway and if they do by some means then central government must ensure that surviving Grenfell tenants are at least no worse off.

So what about the £1700+ pcm rent differential and who pays that for the added cost of interim accommodation that the London Borough Council of Kensington and Chelsea have now put out calls for?

Then even if that rent differential problem is somehow solved and the government find a way to pay the additional £1700 per month and over £20,000 more per year in extra rent what then happens if the local council wish to offer a private sector rental to the surviving former Grenfell social tenant in order to bring their homeless duty to an end?

Will the ex SRS Grenfell tenant have their interim homeless accommodation taken away from them and the local council have no housing duty at all towards if that former social tenant household refuse such a move?

These are just some of the realities that makes the government announcement that all surviving tenants will be rehoused LOCALLY a meaningless vacuous statement that is bollocks.

Sky News this afternoon interviewed Kate Webb of Shelter and I found myself screaming at the television over her non mentioning any of the above.  Instead she focused on the local council exported 75% of their homeless cases anyway so questioned how they even could rehouse locally even in the private rented sector.

In short her focus was on the council and not the surviving tenant which says a lot about Shelter and how they perceive homelessness not from the person’s perspective but from the providers housing perspective which of in all cases this Grenfell situation demands the person be first, second and third priority!

The paucity and superficiality of thought an response to this tragedy beggars belief and imagine you are that former social tenant told you must have to take a private rental out else you will lose your interim temporary homeless accommodation!!

You haven’t just lost your home and suffered imaginable trauma you are then being fucked over for your new and far less secure home costing four times as much so you do not have a hope in hell’s chance of working again!


The vacuous statement from government today is here

Housing Minister Alok Sharma also confirmed today that working with Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, the Government will guarantee that every single family from Grenfell Tower will be rehoused in the local area.


Grenfell – Social tenant life is worth £50 at most

The Times front page for Friday 16 June 2017 has been tweeted as below:

Tom Peck is a respected journalist at The Independent and the figure of £5k more that has cost by many accounts 100 lives means that the landlord Kensington & Chelsea TMO took a decision that a tenant’s life is worth £50.

K&CTMO must be put under special measures immediately that can happen to social landlords in some circumstances by the Government’s housing quango and the current board must be sacked forthwith.  I care not  jot if this circumstance does not meet the Housing regulators criteria, it simply MUST be done.

I am not going into a lengthy tirade about bad social landlords or say that all social landlords or even all TMOs are or can be bad.  I don’t need to as Grenfell Tower long after it stops being on the media 24 hours a day is seismic for ALL social landlords, even the really good ones, even the best of the best.

Social landlords trade on the fact they are not the unscrupulous dangerous landlords which they daily portray the nasty private landlord to be.  There is much merit in that yet Grenfell Tower sees social landlords and social housing lose that perception and reputation for good.  It is the old adage that it takes 20 years to build a good reputation and 5 minutes to lose it.

The general public see ALL high rise tower blocks as unsafe yet they also see all social landlords in a wholly different light.  The prefix ‘social’ has been increasingly waning for some time and Grenfell goes much much further and the one bad apple syndrome is applied to their perception that even social landlords can’t be trusted.

It is not just other TMOs that will suffer this irreversible reputational loss it is the entire spectrum of social landlords and it matters not a jot that some social landlords are bloody good and don’t deserve – and of course there are some bad social landlords as much as the sector wants to deny it and not just the smaller TMOs but the largest housing associations.  Yet I cant state often enough that facts matter not a jot, only perception counts.

Today I saw a very responsible, sensible and good practice news release from Trafford Housing Trust (THT) which said that our tower blocks are not of the same (flammable / dodgy / bad) construction as at Grenfell.  It was a recognition and attempt to allay fears and negative perceptions that their tenants could have and likely have.

Yet, despite this being laudable practice by THT, many of their tenants and other tenants will be that old adage of there is No S____Without F___

I’ve initialled that for obvious reasons and because it reads as sick and offensive in this context yet there is no better adage to describe the point.

To change tack there are many actors to blame other than the individual landlord and none more so than central government and, all politics aside, the Tory government.

Eight years ago on 3 July 2009 there was a horrendous fire in Camberwell at Lakanal House a 14-storey tower block in which 6 tenants lost their lives.  The then Labour government ordered an Inquiry which took an offensive 4 years to hand down its report in 2013 with recommendations as all do.

The Tory government have sat on that Inquiry’s finding’s ever since a further FOUR YEARS and to make that even worse the newly appointed Conservative Housing Minister has said today (Thursday) that the government are almost ready to start consultation on the issues!!

That is as offensive as it gets.  Why the need for consultation rather than action and actually f*cking doing something in the first place after sitting on this for four f*cking years, yet they aren’t even ready for a f*cking consultation!  Prevarication upon prevarication upon not giving a flying f*ck about human life is the current Conservative government position!

How many tenants does it take to die before the government acts!  Or perhaps the Conservative government also believe a social tenants life is only worth £50 at most too?!