Show Hide image

New Statesman appoints Stephen Bush as Staggers editor

The NS has hired Stephen Bush, of the Telegraph, to edit its online politics coverage.

 

The New Statesman has hired Stephen Bush as editor of The Staggers.

The move means that Stephen will be in charge of commissioning and editing the New Statesman's online politics coverage, and writing for the popular Staggers blog. He joins from the Telegraph, where he has written the Morning Briefing email since April. Before that, he wrote an online column for Progress, where he is a contributing editor.

The Staggers blog launched in 2009, and George Eaton became editor in March 2012. He left the position earlier this year when he was promoted to become NS political editor. Anoosh Chakelian, who was acting Staggers editor, has now been promoted to Deputy Web Editor.

Helen Lewis, editor of the New Statesman website, says: "Since joining the Telegraph, Stephen has quickly established himself as an intelligent, authoritative commentator on British politics. He writes like an angel and tweets like a demon - the perfect combination. With George, Anoosh and Stephen - plus Harry Lambert at May2015.com and contributing writer Tim Wigmore - the NS website heads into election year with a well-rounded, energetic and talented team. With web editor Caroline Crampton and CityMetric's Jonn Elledge and Barbara Speed also feeding into our politics coverage, we have an embarrassment of riches."

Jason Cowley, editor of the New Statesman, adds: "The New Statesman has a reputation for finding and showcasing fresh talent - just look at the careers of Mehdi Hasan, George Eaton, Rafael Behr, Helen Lewis and Laurie Penny. I'm convinced Stephen will develop into an exceptional talent."

Stephen Bush says: "I'm thrilled to be joining such a great team - if a little daunted at the size of the shoes I'm filling. I'm looking forward to entrenching and expanding the Staggers and the New Statesman's reputation for news, insight and quality."

Stephen will take up the position in the New Year, and his contact details will be announced in due course. You can follow him on Twitter: @stephenkb

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Grenfell survivors were promised no rent rises – so why have the authorities gone quiet?

The council now says it’s up to the government to match rent and services levels.

In the aftermath of the Grenfell disaster, the government made a pledge that survivors would be rehoused permanently on the same rent they were paying previously.

For families who were left with nothing after the fire, knowing that no one would be financially worse off after being rehoused would have provided a glimmer of hope for a stable future.

And this is a commitment that we’ve heard time and again. Just last week, the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) reaffirmed in a statement, that the former tenants “will pay no more in rent and service charges for their permanent social housing than they were paying before”.

But less than six weeks since the tragedy struck, Kensington and Chelsea Council has made it perfectly clear that responsibility for honouring this lies solely with DCLG.

When it recently published its proposed policy for allocating permanent housing to survivors, the council washed its hands of the promise, saying that it’s up to the government to match rent and services levels:

“These commitments fall within the remit of the Government rather than the Council... It is anticipated that the Department for Communities and Local Government will make a public statement about commitments that fall within its remit, and provide details of the period of time over which any such commitments will apply.”

And the final version of the policy waters down the promise even further by downplaying the government’s promise to match rents on a permanent basis, while still making clear it’s nothing to do with the council:

It is anticipated that DCLG will make a public statement about its commitment to meeting the rent and/or service charge liabilities of households rehoused under this policy, including details of the period of time over which any such commitment will apply. Therefore, such commitments fall outside the remit of this policy.”

It seems Kensington and Chelsea council intends to do nothing itself to alter the rents of long-term homes on which survivors will soon be able to bid.

But if the council won’t take responsibility, how much power does central government actually have to do this? Beyond a statement of intent, it has said very little on how it can or will intervene. This could leave Grenfell survivors without any reassurance that they won’t be worse off than they were before the fire.

As the survivors begin to bid for permanent homes, it is vital they are aware of any financial commitments they are making – or families could find themselves signing up to permanent tenancies without knowing if they will be able to afford them after the 12 months they get rent free.

Strangely, the council’s public Q&A to residents on rehousing is more optimistic. It says that the government has confirmed that rents and service charges will be no greater than residents were paying at Grenfell Walk – but is still silent on the ambiguity as to how this will be achieved.

Urgent clarification is needed from the government on how it plans to make good on its promise to protect the people of Grenfell Tower from financial hardship and further heartache down the line.

Kate Webb is head of policy at the housing charity Shelter. Follow her @KateBWebb.