Morning Call: pick of the papers

The ten must-read comment pieces from this morning's papers.

1. Obama's second inaugural address: don't believe the conciliatory language (Guardian)

Inaugural speeches are always mushy, but make no mistake: the economy, gun control and immigration are going to be divisive, writes Michael Cohen.

2. British politics urgently needs a new force - a movement on the left to counter capitalism's crisis (Independent)

If a new, networked movement of the left could agree on some key principles, and avoid creating another battleground for ultra-left sects, it could give a voice to millions, writes Owen Jones.

3. What ties David Cameron's EU policy to his stirring words on Algeria? Impatience (Guardian)

Pick a fight in Brussels, send in a taskforce, shake it all up – on foreign policy Cameron's like a bull in a china shop, says Gaby Hinsliff.

4. We need the world’s policeman back on duty (Times) (£)

Devastation in Syria, Islamist terror in North Africa — there is a bloody cost to when the US fails to intervene, says Tim Montgomerie.

5. Why is David Cameron so in thrall to this blunderer? (Daily Mail)

MPs' criticism that Jeremy Heywood was not rigorous enough over the Anderew Mitchell affair is all too familiar, writes Andrew Pierce.

6. Given the state of Britain's economy, Capable (Mark) Carney needs to work miracles (Independent)

There are huge expectations of the new Bank of England Governor, and he won't be able to live up to them. But he could start by learning from the Federal Reserve, says David Blanchflower.

7. The union at Europe’s heart is frayed (Financial Times)

François Heisbourg says he is deeply struck by the loss of Franco-German intimacy.

8. Mokhtar Belmokhtar: the world’s most wanted (Daily Telegraph)

The Algerian crisis has turned Belmokhtar from a minor warlord into the West’s number one target, says Richard Spencer.

9. Obama must atone for his carbon omissions (Financial Times)

His promise of energy security no substitute for action on global warming, writes Edward Luce.

10. It’s snowing, and it really feels like the start of a mini ice age (Daily Telegraph)

Something appears to be up with our winter weather, and to call it "warming" is obviously to strain the language, writes Boris Johnson.

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.