At the Lib Dem conference yesterday an emergency motion was passed responding the riots.
It included the following clause:
The proposal that social housing eviction be extended, beyond a sanction for causing a nuisance to other tenants and the immediate local community, to one for criminal behaviour generally; and that this would not only be unfair to innocent family members but would also discriminate against social housing tenants compared with private housing tenants or owner occupiers.
But long term security and heavily subsidised rent that being allocated a Council house or flat is a privilege. It is one that plenty of those on the waiting list who don't riot or loot would like to have.
A YouGov poll found that 62% agreed with: "Evicting Council house tenants who were involved in rioting or looting." 24% disagreed. Among Lib Dem supporters 57% agreed, 27% disagreed.
The tenancy agreements (such as the one used by more Council) makes clear that the tenant who signs "is responsible for anyone" who lives or visits the premises those who "threaten or use violence against anyone in the local area" are among the activities prohibited. Does the Lib Dem conference motion mean that Lib Dem councils with similar wording ar condemned? Or is it regarded as OK to have such wording provided it is ignored?
What about South Lakeland for instance? This is the Lib Dem council with the local Lib Dem MP Tim Farron, the garnd standing left wing Party President who I expect voting for the motion.
The tenancy agreement which the Council insists must be signed by those it houses says:
You are responsible for the behaviour of every person (including children) living in or visiting your home.
It goes on
If you (or anyone living with you or visiting your home) carry out acts of anti-social behaviour, then where appropriate the action we take could result in you losing your security of tenure, your home..
I would have thought rioting and looting constitute anti social behaviour. Does Mr Farron demand his council and other Lib Dem councils should soften this wording to reflect party policy?