Morning Call: pick of the papers

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

1. The US has little credibility left: Syria won't change that (Guardian)

Obama's argument for intervention is a hollow one: America's use of chemical weapons in Falluja makes that clear, writes Gary Younge.

2. Revamping Labour's union ties could help Ed Miliband (Independent)

Some activists see Blairite diehards trying to ‘break the link’ – but this is at best paranoid, says Rob Marchant. 

3. Milisecond (n): the time it takes Ed to do the unions’ bidding (Daily Telegraph)

The Falkirk debacle shows Labour is still in hock to Unite – and that’s bad for all of us, writes Boris Johnson.

4. Abbott and the BoreCons show how to win (Times)

The new Australian PM is no fire-breathing ideologue, writes Tim Montgomerie. Like Angela Merkel, he is not afraid to be dull.

5. People despise politicians – but whose fault is that? (Guardian)

I've played my own part in giving MPs a bad name, but ultimately it's Rupert Murdoch's media machine that corrodes public trust, says Chris Huhne.

6. Only a new wave of socialism can end the great squeeze on us all (Independent)

We must break with the free market consensus established by Thatcher, says Owen Jones.

7. A trap of the president’s making (Financial Times)

Obama’s characteristic caution has put him in a perilous position, says Edward Luce.

8. What will drive growth? This recovery could turn out to be a flash in the pan (Independent)

It is now 66 months since the start of the recession and GDP is still 2.9 per cent down, writes David Blanchflower. 

9. The Labour party must get ready for the next generation (Guardian)

To be relevant in the digital age, the Labour party must be more pluralist and retain its trade union links, says Tom Watson.

10. China will stay the course on growth (Financial Times)

Asian countries have enhanced their capabilities to fend off risks, writes Li Keqiang.

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.