Showing posts with label David Cameron. Show all posts
Showing posts with label David Cameron. Show all posts

Sunday, November 16, 2025

HOMES FOR HEROES

Intersting to note that potentially thousands of military homes across the UK are to be modernised, refurbished or rebuilt over the next decade under a £9 billion Westminster government plan to improve defence housing. The Ministry of Defence's new housing strategy should see improvements made to almost all of its 47,700 homes for military families in what Defence Secretary John Healey said will be the "biggest renewal of Armed Forces housing in more than 50 years".


The new plan is in response to consistent complaints from serving personnel about the state of their accommodation. Back in 2022, dozens of members and their families who told the BBC they were having to live in damp, mould-infested housing without heating. A House of Commons defence committee found back in 2022 that two-thirds of homes for service families needed "extensive refurbishment or rebuilding" to meet modern standards.


Under the new strategy, service family accommodation (SFA) will be refurbished with new kitchens, bathrooms and heating systems. About 14,000 will receive either "substantial refurbishment" or be completely replaced. The plans are part of the government's wider defence housing strategy, to be published on Monday (3rd November 2025). A total of £4 billion in funding to tackle the housing problem had already been announced. 


The Westminster government says it has also identified surplus MoD land which could be used to build 100,000 new homes for civilian and military families. Healey said: "This is a new chapter - a decisive break from decades of underinvestment, with a building programme to back Britain's military families and drive economic growth across the country."


Almost three years ago, the BBC was contacted by families in military accommodation in Sandhurst who had been living without heating for days. "We're at breaking point and something has to change. The system is broken," they said at the time.


In response to the story, the MoD said it was working with its contractors to improve the service. But a report released in December last year found those problems "still exist". 

"It is shocking that until a policy change in 2022, it was considered acceptable to house families in properties known to have damp and mould," the report said.


The MoD year (in 2021) announced it would acquire 36,347 military houses from property company Annington Homes for nearly £6 billion, reversing a privatisation deal struck in 1996 under the Conservative government. The deal would save millions in rent and maintenance costs, the MoD said, money that would be put towards fixing military accommodation.


Now none of this is particularly new, the Friday edition of the Financial Tines ( Friday 29th January 2022 ) carried a front page story about the attempts of the then Westminster Conservative government to reverse the privatisation of military housing ( under John Major ) back in 1996.  The MoD explored the possibility of using the “statutory leasehold enfranchisement rights” to buy out the private interest -  held by Terra Firma - Annington Homes ( owned by Guy Hands, the property billionaire ).

The former MoD housing, is on a 200 year lease, with the MoD paying some £183 million a year plus paying upkeep on the 38,000 remaining homes. The National Audit Office ( reported in 2018 ) that the original deal had lost the tax payer something like £4.2 billion pounds when the massive difference in the value of property was factored in. 


The original deal was concluded when Michael Portilo, was Minister of Defence. The MoD understandably has a great desire to avoid getting stung with costs on the remaining 172 years of the lease, and are using the property laws, with a test case, to see if it is possible to take back ownership of the property portfolio. 


Back in March 2010, I noted that it was worth noting that 57,600 homes ( in 1996 ) from the Ministry of Defence (MoD) were sold to City Financiers and they then rented them back to troops for a profit. The terms of the deal, made in 1996 meant that the MoD remained responsible for the properties' upkeep and claimed that the extra cash from the deal would provide badly needed funds to help refurbish them. However, it has since emerged that the Westminster Government diverted most of the money elsewhere.


The original deal resulted in the payment of a tidy £1.67 billion to the Treasury for the homes, a profit share of £156m on the sale of surplus properties, yet many properties were dilapidated and unfit to live in. Back in March 2010  it was revealed that the MoD had spent as little as £4.4m a year on maintenance and refurbishment. The Sunday Times revealed details of just how little the government spent on the properties reporting that General Sir David Richards, the head of the army, was concerned that many troops felt undervalued because of cuts to housing and shortages in other areas.


By the mid-1990s, military housing around the country was in dire need of tens of millions of pounds worth of repairs. John Major's Conservative administration agreed to sell off the Military housing stock to the highest bidder, partly to raise funds for a refurbishment programme. The original deal was put together in November 1996 with the government being paid for the homes, which would then be rented to troops and their families at below market rates. 


Surplus properties would be sold off with a percentage of the profits going to the Treasury. The consortium that acquired the military housing stock made more than £479 million in profits from its investment vehicle (Annington Homes) and became one of the UK's largest owners of private residential property.


Now this was all fine in theory, as the soldiers and their families should have benefited from the deal with hundreds of millions of pounds pouring into the Treasury. However, the Sunday Times revealed that New Labour ministers ensured that only a fraction of that sums raised be spent on the housing stock that had generated the windfall. 


Annual expenditure revealed in a parliamentary answer) on maintenance and upgrade was revealed to have ranged from £4.4 million to £13.9 million between 2003 and 2008. New Labour Ministers insisted that they would produce extra funds to help improve the quality of the homes and have pointed out that more than £27 million was spent in the last financial year (2099) but oddly enough that never happened under New Labour, the Conservative - Liberal Democrat coalition government or successive wholly Conservative  governments.


As a result of decisions made by the previous Conservative Government and by successive New Labour Governments is army families living in substandard military accommodation some of whose loved ones are serving overseas - so much for the military covenant. The poor maintenance record predated privatisation of the military housing stock well prior to 1996. 


The then Conservative Government at the time washed its hands of a long standing problem, by selling off the military housing stock to the highest bidder in what can best be described a questionable deal which shifted responsibility onto someone else so that ministers who could not be held accountable and subsequent New Labour Governments failed miserably, to ensure that repair and maintenance was being carried out.


Fast forward to 2022 and it briefly looked like, if the test cases were successful that an independent tribunal would determine the cost of taking the properties back into public ownership, using market values. The current property owner, who have been raking it in, has understandably kicked off big time as a serious little earner could vanish if the former military housing stock end up being brought back under rate control, of the state from the private sector.


A bad situation was made worse as successive New Labour government's failed to carry out basic repair and maintenance, they slashed the defence budget from which money for the maintenance of MOD property is provided. One wonders on what the £1.67 billion received was spent on and whether the then Chancellor Gordon Brown was ever aware of what was going on or even cared? 


Successive Westminster Governments have treated our servicemen and their families with contempt, so its no wonder some people began to think that it no longer matters which of the big two party's are in government, as our servicemen and their families are treated with contempt, forced to buy their own kit and treated to a total lack of interest and yet time and time again it is our servicemen who have been called on to step in to pull the fat from the fire whether it is dealing with the consequences of strikes, disasters, the saving lives at sea, foot and mouth and almost everything else in between, as an when necessary. 


Lets hope that this time Westminster sorts out the issue of military housing...

Monday, October 31, 2022

PERHAPS NOT BUSINESS AS USUAL

There has been an interesting report from the International Energy Agency (IEA) that suggests that Russia's invasion of Ukraine will have long-lasting effects on energy supply and markets, a new report suggests. The IEA states the world faces its first "truly global energy crisis" as a result.


The report also noted that unaffordable energy bills remain a huge problem, driven up as the exports of oil and gas have been restricted.  The IEA suggests that energy crisis should also be seen as a turning point, speeding up the world's transition to green energy. 


"With unrelenting geopolitical and economic concerns, energy markets remain extremely vulnerable, and the crisis is a reminder of the fragility and unsustainability of the current global energy system. The heaviest burden is falling on poorer households where a larger share of income is spent on energy", the report warned.


The Paris-based agency calculated the value of government spending to protect customers from price rises currently stands at $550 billion  (£473 billion) worldwide, and is set to rise further, particularly in the UK and Germany. The IEA said the most effective policies to protect customers from the impact of soaring costs, and changing energy infrastructure, had been introduced by the likes of the US, Japan and Korea.


The IEA also cited the REPowerEU scheme, which aims to make European Union (EU) countries independent of Russian energy by 2030. The IEA predicts that Russia's share of global energy trade will fall from 20% currently to 13% by 2030. The report also said that for the first time ever, its forecasts - based on current prices and government policies - showed that global demand for every fossil fuel will either be peaking or reaching a plateau.


"[We predict] coal use falls back within the next few years, natural gas demand reaches a plateau by the end of the decade, and rising sales of electric vehicles (EVs) mean that oil demand levels off in the mid-2030s before ebbing slightly to mid-century", it concluded.


Although the UK and Europe's sanctions on Russian oil imports did little to dent demand from India and China this year, it found that the conflict in Ukraine had sped up investment in greener energy sources. The UK, for example, accelerated its spending on Direct Air Capture (DAC) technologies - a method of removing harmful carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.


Countries which have agreed to reach net zero, where they are not adding to the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, by 2050 include the UK, Japan, Korea, Canada and the EU. The report also cautioned, however, that in order to reach net zero emissions by 2050, clean energy investment would need to be above $4 trillion by 2030. At current levels, it is predicted to reach only half of that figure.


While the IEA isn't pulling its punches here: this is a global crisis, of unprecedented breadth and complexity, and despite the impact of Covid, it's essentially Russia's fault.


The report points out that while the pain is spread around the world - stoking the rising cost of living and creating inflationary pressures - it's the poor who will suffer the most because they spend more of their income on energy (and food, which is also made more expensive by high energy costs). Many will lose access to electricity altogether.


The IEA also believes the crisis is an opportunity, but, It does not accept at all to the idea that investment in "clean" energy such as renewables might be partially responsible for high prices. This IEA report sounds a call to arms: more investment is needed in clean tech, not less - and stronger policies will be required to secure the necessary investment.


The IEA claims will make energy more secure and more affordable and also suggests that fossil fuel use, which has climbed alongside economic growth since the industrial revolution, may soon peak - before settling into a decline.  


The problem is that the IEA's projection of demand for oil and gas is effectively a death sentence for the planet, with oil use to rise and then plateau in the mid 2030s, gas to rise before levelling off by the end of the decade. The IPCC are telling us that fossil fuels need to reduce by 45% to have any chance of remaining within 1.5°c of warming.


The Conservative Party (and recent Conservative government’s when not dismembering themselves over BREXIT) have always struggled with the concept of green sustainable energy ( in its various forms ) and choosing to put common sense before profit, let along struggling with the possibility of community beneficial energy production and ownership. 


Even with their periodic attempts at green washing, started by David Cameron petting a husky in the artic pre 2010, the whole idea has not sat well with the libertarian free marketeers. It’s is important to remember that it was the Lib Dem - Conservative coalition government who extended the UK’s reckless commitment to Nuclear energy ( with some very iffy commercial partners ) while making life much more difficult for the growth of sustainable green energy. 


Now we all know that Big energy has deep pockets and close links with fat divided profits at the City of London - which in turn has close links to some of the inhabitants of the Palace of Westminster. Boundaries are conveniently blurred - EDF ( a French State owned energy company ) won the contact to build a lucrative Nuclear energy plant - post the 2015 Westminster general election ( judgment day for the Lib Dems ) a former Lib Dem energy minister found a well salaried job with EDF…


The current Conservative Westminster government given half a chance will probably quite happily drop all the successive Westminster governmental commitments to renewables as quickly as a snowball would melt in hell. The previous but one PM was effectively stitched up by the fact the COP 26 was in Glasgow and difficult to ignore. 


The dropping of the COP26 post from the Cabinet, and the new PM’s decision not to go and the effective blocking of the King from going to the COP26 Conference in Egypt certainly sends a clear message that saving the planet ( and us ) and growing green energy is just not that important. Although the current PM is struggling to give himself some wiggle room to avoid a new PR disaster… which could result from non attendance… so much for business as usual… 

Sunday, January 30, 2022

WHAT GOES AROUND COMES AROUND

Interesting to see that the Friday edition of the Financial Tines carried a front page story about the attempts of the current Westminster Conservative government to reverse the privatisation of military housing ( under John Major ) back in 1996.  The MoD is exploring the possibility of using the “statutory leasehold enfranchisement rights” to by out the private interest - currently held by Terra Firma - Annington Homes ( which is owned by Guy Hands, the property billionaire ).

The former MoD housing, is on a 200 year lease, with the MoD paying some £183 million a year plus paying upkeep on the 38,000 remaining homes. The National Audit Office ( reported in 2018 ) that the original deal had lost the tax payer something like £4.2 billion pounds when the massive difference in the value of property was factored in. 


The original deal was concluded when Michael Portilo, was Minister of Defence. The MoD understandably has a great desire to avoid getting stung with costs on the remaining 174 years of the lease, and are using the property laws, with a test case, to see if it is possible to take back ownership of the property portfolio. 


Back in March 2010, I noted that it was worth noting that 57,600 homes ( in 1996 ) from the Ministry of Defence (MoD) were sold to City Financiers and they then rented them back to troops for a profit. The terms of the deal, made in 1996 meant that the MoD remained responsible for the properties' upkeep and claimed that the extra cash from the deal would provide badly needed funds to help refurbish them. However, it has since emerged that the Westminster Government diverted most of the money elsewhere.


The deal resulted in the payment of a tidy £1.67 billion to the Treasury for the homes, a profit share of £156m on the sale of surplus properties, yet many are dilapidated and unfit to live in. Back in March 2010  it was revealed that the MoD had spent as little as £4.4m a year on maintenance and refurbishment. The Sunday Times revealed details of just how little the government spent on the properties reporting that General Sir David Richards, the head of the army, was concerned that many troops felt undervalued because of cuts to housing and shortages in other areas.


By the mid-1990s, military housing around the country was in dire need of tens of millions of pounds worth of repairs. John Major's Conservative administration agreed to sell off the Military housing stock to the highest bidder, partly to raise funds for a refurbishment programme. 


The original deal was put together in November 1996 with the government being paid for the homes, which would then be rented to troops and their families at below market rates. Surplus properties would be sold off with a percentage of the profits going to the Treasury. The consortium that acquired the military housing stock made more than £479 million in profits from its investment vehicle (Annington Homes) and became one of the UK's largest owners of private residential property.


Now this was all fine in theory, as the soldiers and their families should have benefited from the deal with hundreds of millions of pounds pouring into the Treasury. However, the Sunday Times revealed that New Labour ministers ensured that only a fraction of that sums raised be spent on the housing stock that had generated the windfall. 


Annual expenditure revealed in a parliamentary answer) on maintenance and upgrade was revealed to have ranged from £4.4 million to £13.9 million between 2003 and 2008. New Labour Ministers insisted that they would produce extra funds to help improve the quality of the homes and have pointed out that more than £27 million was spent in the last financial year (2099) but oddly enough that never happened under New Labour, the Conservative - Liberal Democrat coalition government or successive wholly Conservative  governments.


So what we have now as a result of decisions made by the previous Conservative Government and by successive New Labour Governments is army families living in substandard military accommodation some of whose loved ones are serving overseas - so much for the military covenant. The poor maintenance record predated privatisation of the military housing stock well prior to 1996. 


The Conservative Government at the time washed its hands of a long standing problem, by selling off the military housing stock to the highest bidder in what can best be described a questionable deal which shifted responsibility onto someone else so that ministers who could not be held accountable and subsequent New Labour Governments failed miserably, to ensure that repair and maintenance was being carried out.


A bad situation was then made worse as successive New Labour government's failed to carry out basic repair and maintenance, they slashed the defence budget from which money for the maintenance of MOD property is provided. One wonders on what the £1.67 billion received was spent on and whether the then Chancellor Gordon Brown was ever aware of what was going on or even cared? 


Successive Conservative and New labour Governments treated our servicemen and their families with contempt, no wonder some people believe that it no longer matters which of the two larger party's is in government, as our servicemen will be treated with contempt, forced to buy their own kit and treated to a total lack of interest and yet time and time again it is our servicemen that will be called on to step in to pull the fat from the fire whether it is dealing with the consequences of strikes, disasters, the saving lives at sea, foot and mouth and almost everything else as an when necessary.


Fast forward to 2022 and it looks like if the test cases are successfully that an independent tribunal will determine the cost of taking the properties back into public ownership, using market values. The current property owner, who have been raking it in, has understandably kicked off big time as a serious little earner could vanish if the former military housing stock end up being brought back under rate control, of the state from the private sector.