Unite leader Tony Woodley gets straight to the point when he argues that the rise of the BNP is "a direct consequence of Labour's failure to represent the interests of our core voters." We are reaching the bottom of the pit dug by the new Labour practitioners of the dark art of triangulation: the attempt to be more "pro-business" than the Tories and "tougher" on immigration than the Daily Mail. The results have been disastrous. In a race to the right, entire communities have been abandoned as the mainstream parties narrow their contest to a handful of marginal seats. If you are unfortunate enough to live in a "safe" seat, your vote is taken for granted. There is little incentive for policy makers to focus on delivering affordable homes or secure jobs, when what counts is polling data from swing voters. A deep and damaging recession has strained political loyalties to a breaking point. White, working-class communities - solid Labour voters for decades - are angry. They have a right to be. Birmingham provides a glimpse of how far Labour has moved from its roots. Since the Labour government was elected in 1997, no council homes have been built in the city.Before Labour lost control of the council in 2004, council housing was in systematic decline. The council seemed to treat it as an embarrassment that it wanted rid of. It ran out of ideas when its plans to dispose of council housing were scuppered by a decisive vote by tenants against a transfer.
It is indicative of Labour's crisis that even Birmingham's Conservative-led council has been more swift in turning its back on failed market approaches. It is now committed to a council house-building programme, taking the ground that should have been Labour's forte. As local councillors, we now deal with the social fallout from a waiting list that runs to 35,000 people. Neither housing associations nor the private market have been able to do more than scratch the surface of this problem. And the collapse in the housing market has brought us to a virtual standstill. It is no surprise that such a severe shortage of one of the essentials of life gnaws away at community cohesion. Frustration runs high as families languish in overcrowded conditions for years while they anxiously watch for any sign of progress up the housing waiting lists. Myths and outright lies circulate and gain credence. Even in my own county it is not uncommon to hear people from Pakistani families echo the myths that recently arrived Somalis are "taking all the homes." Throughout the country, the housing crisis is acute. Labour MP Glenda Jackson is right to call for a "social housing revolution" and right to argue that undermining inequality - whether social, political or racial - cuts to the heart of the BNP extremist appeal. But an emphasis on social inequality in itself is not enough to undercut the appeal of the BNP. Anger at economic injustice is one thing. Directing that anger at scapegoated ethnic minorities is another thing entirely. There is nothing legitimate about that.
The appeal of the BNP cannot be reduced to protest vote alone. Its appeal is based on racism and everyone knows it. As one pithy letter writer to the Guardian put it: "There are a lot of racists around." A significant factor in this growing acceptability of racism is the ideological assault that has accompanied the "war on terror." It is not accidental that the BNP has focused its attacks on the Muslim community. This is fertile ground for the fascists and much of the spadework has already been done on their behalf. Attacks on the Muslim community from mainstream politicians and newspapers have left a bitter taste. Anything and everything Islamic is viewed with increasing suspicion as a potential threat to national cohesion and identity. Polite commentators wring their hands about a lack of "integration." The less polite BNP put it in terms calculated to stir up hatred and resentment. Labour's mantra on the need to make others more "British," rather than making ourselves less racist, has helped undermine concepts of national identity that celebrate pluralism and diversity. Yes, the appeal of the BNP must be undermined by giving back some hope to communities who are threatened by the dark clouds of recession, and years of deepening inequality. But, without an assault on the myths and lies of the racists, this will not be enough. The housing crisis is not caused by asylum-seekers. Unemployment is not rising because a Polish worker gets a job in Britain. If we give an inch to these lies, they will take a mile.
Showing posts with label housing. Show all posts
Showing posts with label housing. Show all posts
Monday, 12 April 2010
Saturday, 3 April 2010
Immigration blame game is dangerous territory
Building Britain's Future is the government's draft legislative programme for 2009-2010. It claims "Britishness" throughout. The front cover has a union jack logo, while Gordon Brown's foreword speaks of "the best of British values." It sends shivers down the spine of those of us who regard values as universal. A small part of the programme, hyped up by Downing Street spin-doctors, is the proposal to change the allocation rules for council housing. The document doesn't say "British homes for British workers" but certainly implies it. Stating that "there is a perception that allocations policies for social housing are unfair, inflexible and act as a barrier to people being able to move when they need to," the government proposes to enable "local authorities to give more priority to local people and those who have spent a long time on a waiting list." Code for "too many foreigners are being given council houses." There may be that perception, but is it based on reality? The law governing the allocation of council and housing association properties forbids an allocation to most people "subject to immigration control" and other "persons from abroad." That means most immigrants are not entitled to social housing at all. Contrary to the "perception" that the government relies on, asylum-seekers cannot obtain social housing. No-one who is here unlawfully - because they came in under the radar or overstayed after their visas expired - is entitled. European Union nationals who don't - or can't - work aren't allowed to apply. Those on conditional visas - students, work permits, family members etc - can't apply although they pay taxes and national insurance. Only a small proportion of immigrants are even entitled to apply for social housing.
If you're not a British or European Union citizen, you need refugee status or unconditional indefinite leave to remain. British citizens returning to Britain after having lived abroad must pass a "habitual residence" test to show that they intend to remain here permanently. European Union workers may apply for social housing, but only if they remain here as workers or have been here working for at least five years. Anything less would be a breach of European Union obligations. Migrants who are entitled to apply for social housing have a harder job trying to apply than British citizens. The eligibility rules are extremely complex and so migrants who are entitled can be told (wrongly) that they are not. Those groups of recent arrivals who are entitled to apply are not in any privileged position. If they are entitled to apply, their need for social housing will be assessed just like everyone else's. Recent arrivals who don't have children and are able-bodied are as unlikely as any equivalent British citizen ever to be given a council or housing association property. Those who are assessed as eligible for social housing take their place in the queue. Research by the Equality and Human Rights Commission has found that most recent migrants tend to live in private rented accommodation, not in social housing. Their accommodation is more likely to be sub-standard than that occupied by British citizens. The second part of the promise "give more priority to ... those who have spent a long time on a waiting list" is already established law. By law, local authorities must recognise and give a "reasonable preference," otherwise known as a "reasonable headstart," to certain groups of people who have the greatest need for social housing - homeless people, those living in overcrowded or otherwise unsatisfactory housing, people who need to move for medical or welfare reasons.
Each local authority's policy must ensure that there is some recognition of those needs. In other words, someone who falls within one of those categories is given a certain number of points. But this emphasis on "need" doesn't mean that someone in one of those categories will always trump a person who has less need, but has been waiting longer. Last year an important legal case decided by the House of Lords confirmed that, provided local authorities ensured that there was some recognition of those groups specified by statute as entitled to a "reasonable preference," how local authorities then organised their allocation schemes and worked out the number of points that were given for various forms of need or for waiting time, was entirely up to each local authority. So local authorities have actually been giving points for waiting time. If the government is considering changing the law, it would have to junk the concept that those who have a greater need for social housing should have that need recognised. That would be a major policy change. Even the Tories, who legislated to implement Peter Lilley's "little list" of people such as single mothers who didn't deserve council homes, couldn't quite bring themselves to abolish preference for "need" altogether. Of course, the main point is that council and housing association homes are in desperately short supply - so people who have been waiting for years for a home find scapegoats. The recession has forced the government to acknowledge the shortage of social housing. Local authorities are finally going to be allowed to keep the receipts from council house sales, and put that capital money into building more houses. The government says that 3,000 additional council homes and 12,500 housing association homes will be built over the next two years.
That's a start. But what with five million households waiting for council or housing association properties, and the numbers set to increase as repossessions of owner-occupied homes increase, it is probably a drop in the ocean. The responsibility for scapegoating, however, lies with the government. As a local councillor in a hard-pressed local authority during the 1990s, I'm well aware that anyone waiting years for a new home looks at their neighbour and questions why he or she appears to have queue-jumped. But it's the job of politicians and the media to refute those myths, not propagate them. The slogan "local homes for local people" originates from the BNP, was taken up by Margaret Hodge and effectively now by the government. As I've demonstrated, it's simply not true that migrants unfairly queue-jump. It's wholly irresponsible of the government to legitimate that false perception. Rather than taking on the BNP, it's playing into their hands.
If you're not a British or European Union citizen, you need refugee status or unconditional indefinite leave to remain. British citizens returning to Britain after having lived abroad must pass a "habitual residence" test to show that they intend to remain here permanently. European Union workers may apply for social housing, but only if they remain here as workers or have been here working for at least five years. Anything less would be a breach of European Union obligations. Migrants who are entitled to apply for social housing have a harder job trying to apply than British citizens. The eligibility rules are extremely complex and so migrants who are entitled can be told (wrongly) that they are not. Those groups of recent arrivals who are entitled to apply are not in any privileged position. If they are entitled to apply, their need for social housing will be assessed just like everyone else's. Recent arrivals who don't have children and are able-bodied are as unlikely as any equivalent British citizen ever to be given a council or housing association property. Those who are assessed as eligible for social housing take their place in the queue. Research by the Equality and Human Rights Commission has found that most recent migrants tend to live in private rented accommodation, not in social housing. Their accommodation is more likely to be sub-standard than that occupied by British citizens. The second part of the promise "give more priority to ... those who have spent a long time on a waiting list" is already established law. By law, local authorities must recognise and give a "reasonable preference," otherwise known as a "reasonable headstart," to certain groups of people who have the greatest need for social housing - homeless people, those living in overcrowded or otherwise unsatisfactory housing, people who need to move for medical or welfare reasons.
Each local authority's policy must ensure that there is some recognition of those needs. In other words, someone who falls within one of those categories is given a certain number of points. But this emphasis on "need" doesn't mean that someone in one of those categories will always trump a person who has less need, but has been waiting longer. Last year an important legal case decided by the House of Lords confirmed that, provided local authorities ensured that there was some recognition of those groups specified by statute as entitled to a "reasonable preference," how local authorities then organised their allocation schemes and worked out the number of points that were given for various forms of need or for waiting time, was entirely up to each local authority. So local authorities have actually been giving points for waiting time. If the government is considering changing the law, it would have to junk the concept that those who have a greater need for social housing should have that need recognised. That would be a major policy change. Even the Tories, who legislated to implement Peter Lilley's "little list" of people such as single mothers who didn't deserve council homes, couldn't quite bring themselves to abolish preference for "need" altogether. Of course, the main point is that council and housing association homes are in desperately short supply - so people who have been waiting for years for a home find scapegoats. The recession has forced the government to acknowledge the shortage of social housing. Local authorities are finally going to be allowed to keep the receipts from council house sales, and put that capital money into building more houses. The government says that 3,000 additional council homes and 12,500 housing association homes will be built over the next two years.
That's a start. But what with five million households waiting for council or housing association properties, and the numbers set to increase as repossessions of owner-occupied homes increase, it is probably a drop in the ocean. The responsibility for scapegoating, however, lies with the government. As a local councillor in a hard-pressed local authority during the 1990s, I'm well aware that anyone waiting years for a new home looks at their neighbour and questions why he or she appears to have queue-jumped. But it's the job of politicians and the media to refute those myths, not propagate them. The slogan "local homes for local people" originates from the BNP, was taken up by Margaret Hodge and effectively now by the government. As I've demonstrated, it's simply not true that migrants unfairly queue-jump. It's wholly irresponsible of the government to legitimate that false perception. Rather than taking on the BNP, it's playing into their hands.
Sunday, 27 December 2009
The crisis in Britain's housing
The lack of affordable housing has become a political crisis for the main parties. For over a quarter of a century, the policies of British government have been geared towards a single goal – encouraging private home ownership. The decade long surge in house prices is undermining the ideology of a “property owning democracy” - and now that ideology has been cracked, how will the working classes cope? Ever since Margaret Thatcher introduced the “right to buy” for council tenants in 1980, both Tory and Labour governments have promoted the idea of a “property owning democracy” where housing is decided by the market rather than the state. Sounds like a nifty idea doesn't it? That is until you realise the fallacies and plotholes of the system. Today this policy is in crisis. The past decade has seen house prices spiral upwards, while real wages have been held down. The result is that increasing numbers of people simply cannot afford to buy a house, and have little prospect of ever getting onto the “housing ladder”. Combine this with the chronic shortage of council housing and you can see why millions of people – especially young working class families – despair of ever having access to a secure and settled place that they can call home.
The average household now spends some 36 percent of their earnings on housing costs. The last time this figure was that high was 1990, just before a housing crash which saw tens of thousands of homes repossessed. Even right wing newspapers now acknowledge that there is a serious problem. “The future of house prices: ten times pay” ran a front page headline in the Times in March. It noted that in 1995 the average price of a house was around three times average yearly earnings; today it is six to seven times average earnings – and if current trends continue, this ratio is set to rise to ten by 2026. The fact that it is becoming increasingly difficult for people to afford to buy a home is reflected in other figures. In 1993 some 55 percent of people buying a house were “first time buyers”. Ten years later this had dropped to 29 percent. Today some 4 million people in England believe they will never own their own home, and 74 percent believe that sky-high house prices in their local area are a “problem”.
These figures prompted the government earlier this year to launch an “advice unit”. But its proposed solutions involve little more than tweaking regulations in order to make the market “work” properly – rather than taking on corporate interests or offering an alternative to private home ownership. In particular, the government insists that ever-rising house prices are fundamentally caused by a “lack of supply” of new private homes for sale and by “obstacles” to the development of an even larger and more complex mortgage market. The solutions it offers are, on the one hand, to water down existing planning regulations in order to encourage the building of more private homes, and on the other, further deregulation of mortgages to encourage financial institutions to lend larger sums of money to people. But realistically these market oriented solutions are unlikely to have any serious effect. Private house building in Britain is dominated by a group of five or six companies, who are unwilling to dilute their revenues by building more houses. Many of these companies already own land with planning permission to build on – they choose not to, since they stand to make more money in an environment of ever rising prices.
Moreover, there are already hundreds and thousands of privately owned properties up and down the country that are currently lying empty – some 291,000 private homes in England have been empty for more than six months, on top of over 75,000 in Scotland. If you include second homes in the figures, then there are at least 680,000 empty properties in England alone. It is the irrationality of the housing market that is responsible for this state of affairs. The long running boom in housing prices has encouraged property speculators to buy up houses and then just sit on them, in the hope of making a killing by selling them off at a higher price at some point in the future. If “lack of supply” was the problem and “free markets” the solution, these empty properties would come onto the market – but they don’t. So what has caused house prices in Britain to spiral upwards to historically unprecedented levels? Ever since the Second World War, the ratio of house prices to annual earnings has hovered between three and five – it is only since the mid-1990s that they have climbed up to current record levels. The crucial reason for this relates to the relationship between housing and other aspects of the economy.
One of New Labour’s first acts on getting elected in 1997 was to hand control of interest rates to the City and to deregulate financial services. This further fuelled the explosion of cheap consumer credit, which in turn has kept the economy afloat for the past decade. The fact that interest rates on loans have been relatively low has encouraged people to borrow larger and larger sums, which in turn encourages those selling houses to put prices up - but this is a dangerous game to play. If interest rates were to rise by just a few percentage points, many people would find themselves unable to make ends meet. This could trigger a crash in the housing market – leading to homes being repossessed – which would in turn burst the consumer credit bubble that the economy relies upon. The ideology of home ownership also has a part to play in encouraging an unsustainable housing boom. Typically, papers like the Daily Mail and Daily Telegraph present rising prices as a good thing, since it means their presumed readership of “middle class” home owners are getting richer – on paper at any rate.
The other factor driving house prices upwards is the buy-to-let craze. Just as the number of people who can afford to buy their first home has been dropping, the numbers of people who already own a home but now want to buy a second or third to rent out has been increasing. In 1999, financial institutions signed some 59,000 buy-to-let mortgages totalling £3.6 billion. Last year they signed 850,000 such deals totalling £94.8 billion. The number of people remortgaging their houses in order to get into the buy-to-let market, or to gain access to the value of their houses, has also shot up. The overall picture, then, is of a housing bubble fuelled by cheap credit and rising numbers of private landlords – and this is all happening in a context of widening inequality and a freeze on people’s real wages. New Labour’s dogmatic insistence on “market solutions” will do nothing to halt this vicious circle, since it is the market that is responsible for the mess in the first place. Instead of producing ever more complex schemes to encourage people into the private housing game, the government should be taking on the vested interests in the City and the property industry that have allowed this chaos to fester.
These measures could include punitive taxes on second homes to discourage buy-to-let speculators and racketeers. The government could also crack down on the tax loopholes and breaks that encourage the rich to snap up private properties and leave them empty. But ultimately we have to recognise that the whole notion of a “property owning democracy” is a mirage. It perfectly understandable why people want to own their own homes – we are relentlessly told that we should aspire to this status, and that it is the only means of gaining the security and personal space denied to us elsewhere in our lives. Nevertheless, the private housing market has never been able to provide affordable housing for the bulk of people in this country. The pro-market dogma currently embraced by all mainstream parties has been tried in the past – and it failed, leading to nothing but homelessness and exploitative private rents. That is why subsidised and council-owned housing was introduced in the first place. Subsidised housing is the only serious means of housing people fairly and rationally, and council housing – which is democratically controlled by tenants – is the best means of doing that. Until the government recognises that fact, the misery and insanity caused by a boom-and-bust market will only intensify.
The average household now spends some 36 percent of their earnings on housing costs. The last time this figure was that high was 1990, just before a housing crash which saw tens of thousands of homes repossessed. Even right wing newspapers now acknowledge that there is a serious problem. “The future of house prices: ten times pay” ran a front page headline in the Times in March. It noted that in 1995 the average price of a house was around three times average yearly earnings; today it is six to seven times average earnings – and if current trends continue, this ratio is set to rise to ten by 2026. The fact that it is becoming increasingly difficult for people to afford to buy a home is reflected in other figures. In 1993 some 55 percent of people buying a house were “first time buyers”. Ten years later this had dropped to 29 percent. Today some 4 million people in England believe they will never own their own home, and 74 percent believe that sky-high house prices in their local area are a “problem”.
These figures prompted the government earlier this year to launch an “advice unit”. But its proposed solutions involve little more than tweaking regulations in order to make the market “work” properly – rather than taking on corporate interests or offering an alternative to private home ownership. In particular, the government insists that ever-rising house prices are fundamentally caused by a “lack of supply” of new private homes for sale and by “obstacles” to the development of an even larger and more complex mortgage market. The solutions it offers are, on the one hand, to water down existing planning regulations in order to encourage the building of more private homes, and on the other, further deregulation of mortgages to encourage financial institutions to lend larger sums of money to people. But realistically these market oriented solutions are unlikely to have any serious effect. Private house building in Britain is dominated by a group of five or six companies, who are unwilling to dilute their revenues by building more houses. Many of these companies already own land with planning permission to build on – they choose not to, since they stand to make more money in an environment of ever rising prices.
Moreover, there are already hundreds and thousands of privately owned properties up and down the country that are currently lying empty – some 291,000 private homes in England have been empty for more than six months, on top of over 75,000 in Scotland. If you include second homes in the figures, then there are at least 680,000 empty properties in England alone. It is the irrationality of the housing market that is responsible for this state of affairs. The long running boom in housing prices has encouraged property speculators to buy up houses and then just sit on them, in the hope of making a killing by selling them off at a higher price at some point in the future. If “lack of supply” was the problem and “free markets” the solution, these empty properties would come onto the market – but they don’t. So what has caused house prices in Britain to spiral upwards to historically unprecedented levels? Ever since the Second World War, the ratio of house prices to annual earnings has hovered between three and five – it is only since the mid-1990s that they have climbed up to current record levels. The crucial reason for this relates to the relationship between housing and other aspects of the economy.
One of New Labour’s first acts on getting elected in 1997 was to hand control of interest rates to the City and to deregulate financial services. This further fuelled the explosion of cheap consumer credit, which in turn has kept the economy afloat for the past decade. The fact that interest rates on loans have been relatively low has encouraged people to borrow larger and larger sums, which in turn encourages those selling houses to put prices up - but this is a dangerous game to play. If interest rates were to rise by just a few percentage points, many people would find themselves unable to make ends meet. This could trigger a crash in the housing market – leading to homes being repossessed – which would in turn burst the consumer credit bubble that the economy relies upon. The ideology of home ownership also has a part to play in encouraging an unsustainable housing boom. Typically, papers like the Daily Mail and Daily Telegraph present rising prices as a good thing, since it means their presumed readership of “middle class” home owners are getting richer – on paper at any rate.
The other factor driving house prices upwards is the buy-to-let craze. Just as the number of people who can afford to buy their first home has been dropping, the numbers of people who already own a home but now want to buy a second or third to rent out has been increasing. In 1999, financial institutions signed some 59,000 buy-to-let mortgages totalling £3.6 billion. Last year they signed 850,000 such deals totalling £94.8 billion. The number of people remortgaging their houses in order to get into the buy-to-let market, or to gain access to the value of their houses, has also shot up. The overall picture, then, is of a housing bubble fuelled by cheap credit and rising numbers of private landlords – and this is all happening in a context of widening inequality and a freeze on people’s real wages. New Labour’s dogmatic insistence on “market solutions” will do nothing to halt this vicious circle, since it is the market that is responsible for the mess in the first place. Instead of producing ever more complex schemes to encourage people into the private housing game, the government should be taking on the vested interests in the City and the property industry that have allowed this chaos to fester.
These measures could include punitive taxes on second homes to discourage buy-to-let speculators and racketeers. The government could also crack down on the tax loopholes and breaks that encourage the rich to snap up private properties and leave them empty. But ultimately we have to recognise that the whole notion of a “property owning democracy” is a mirage. It perfectly understandable why people want to own their own homes – we are relentlessly told that we should aspire to this status, and that it is the only means of gaining the security and personal space denied to us elsewhere in our lives. Nevertheless, the private housing market has never been able to provide affordable housing for the bulk of people in this country. The pro-market dogma currently embraced by all mainstream parties has been tried in the past – and it failed, leading to nothing but homelessness and exploitative private rents. That is why subsidised and council-owned housing was introduced in the first place. Subsidised housing is the only serious means of housing people fairly and rationally, and council housing – which is democratically controlled by tenants – is the best means of doing that. Until the government recognises that fact, the misery and insanity caused by a boom-and-bust market will only intensify.
Wednesday, 9 December 2009
Home wreckers: New Labour's housing policy
There is a crisis in affordable housing across Britain. In one area you can expect to be on a housing waiting list for 90 years. The crisis in housing has reached an epic scale. A property is repossessed every 10 minutes. Some five million people are on housing waiting lists. And millions more spend each night in damp, insecure or overcrowded accommodation. They are all victims of a housing crisis created by free market dogma and the decimation of council housing – first under the Tories and then Labour. Housing charity Shelter has found that a quarter of all households – whether owned or rented – say that worry over housing costs is causing them stress or depression. Shelter figures show that a quarter of households are dealing with soaring housing costs by cutting back on food.
Three million households have had to sell possessions to pay for housing. One in 10 have taken on an extra job or overtime to try to meet the costs. Housing is a political crisis for the main political parties. For over a quarter of a century, British governments have been geared towards a single goal – encouraging private home ownership. Ever since Tory leader Margaret Thatcher introduced the “right to buy” for council tenants in 1980, both Tory and Labour governments have promoted the idea of a “property owning democracy” where housing is determined by the market rather than the state. Combined with the chronic shortage of council housing, it’s easy to see why millions of people despair of ever having a secure and settled place to call home.
Disgracefully, at the same time as people struggle to find a decent place to live, hundreds of thousands of privately owned properties in Britain lie empty; some 300,000 private homes in England have been empty for more than six months on top of 75,000 in Scotland. If you include second homes in the figures, then there are about 700,000 empty properties in England. The speculative buy-to-let boom has resulted in even more empty flats that no one can afford to buy. In Leeds alone, 70 percent of city centre apartments are unoccupied. In Liverpool 35 percent of city centre flats are left empty by owners waiting for prices to rise. New Labour’s dogmatic insistence on “market solutions” will do nothing to solve the crisis – the market is responsible for the mess in the first place.
Housing in rural areas is no better. People applying for an affordable home in the ten rural districts with the longest waiting lists face a wait of up to 90 years, on average, before enough new homes will be built to clear the backlog. In the East Riding of Yorkshire, the worst affected area, it would take 280 years at the current rate of building for all the homes that are needed to be built. The market has failed. It has led to nothing but homelessness and exploitative private rents. This is the reason why subsidised and council-owned housing was introduced in the first place. Shelter has calculated that the number of council and housing association houses available for rent is at the lowest level for 50 years. The housing charity warns of a “growing chasm between the number of homes required and the number available”. The number of households in temporary accommodation rose by 135 percent between 2001 and 2008. Many people no longer bother to put their names on council lists because they see no hope of ever getting a council home.
Between 1980 and 2005, almost 450,000 council homes for rent have been sold at large discounts. The result is that last year there were only 599,000 council properties available to rent from UK local authorities. In comparison, in the year prior to Thatcher’s election in 1979, some 100,000 council properties were built, while the private sector built approximately 150,000 new homes for sale. Almost half the population lived in council homes in England in 1979. The proportion was even higher in cities like Sheffield, where council rentals approached two thirds of all rented housing. Today, local authorities house just 12 percent of the British population. Another 6 percent of live in properties managed by housing associations. The government’s solution has been “regeneration schemes” and yet more use of the private sector. The “regeneration” of Grahame Park in Barnet, North London, sums up what these policies mean. Some 1,771 council flats will metamorphose into 1,220 “affordable” homes and 2,220 private homes under the scheme. It’s unlikely that many of the original tenants will have the “right of return”.
The growth of housing associations has taken place alongside a decline in the number of people in decent rented accommodation. What’s more, the government’s reliance on them is in crisis as the debts of housing associations get out of control. Even the government’s help for those in trouble with their mortgage is falling apart. The government’s mortgage rescue scheme launched this January has helped only six families, not the 6,000 it targeted. Subsidised housing is the only serious way to house people fairly and rationally and council housing – which is democratically controlled by tenants – is the best way to do that. Until the government recognises that fact, the misery and insanity caused by the market will continue.
Three million households have had to sell possessions to pay for housing. One in 10 have taken on an extra job or overtime to try to meet the costs. Housing is a political crisis for the main political parties. For over a quarter of a century, British governments have been geared towards a single goal – encouraging private home ownership. Ever since Tory leader Margaret Thatcher introduced the “right to buy” for council tenants in 1980, both Tory and Labour governments have promoted the idea of a “property owning democracy” where housing is determined by the market rather than the state. Combined with the chronic shortage of council housing, it’s easy to see why millions of people despair of ever having a secure and settled place to call home.
Disgracefully, at the same time as people struggle to find a decent place to live, hundreds of thousands of privately owned properties in Britain lie empty; some 300,000 private homes in England have been empty for more than six months on top of 75,000 in Scotland. If you include second homes in the figures, then there are about 700,000 empty properties in England. The speculative buy-to-let boom has resulted in even more empty flats that no one can afford to buy. In Leeds alone, 70 percent of city centre apartments are unoccupied. In Liverpool 35 percent of city centre flats are left empty by owners waiting for prices to rise. New Labour’s dogmatic insistence on “market solutions” will do nothing to solve the crisis – the market is responsible for the mess in the first place.
Housing in rural areas is no better. People applying for an affordable home in the ten rural districts with the longest waiting lists face a wait of up to 90 years, on average, before enough new homes will be built to clear the backlog. In the East Riding of Yorkshire, the worst affected area, it would take 280 years at the current rate of building for all the homes that are needed to be built. The market has failed. It has led to nothing but homelessness and exploitative private rents. This is the reason why subsidised and council-owned housing was introduced in the first place. Shelter has calculated that the number of council and housing association houses available for rent is at the lowest level for 50 years. The housing charity warns of a “growing chasm between the number of homes required and the number available”. The number of households in temporary accommodation rose by 135 percent between 2001 and 2008. Many people no longer bother to put their names on council lists because they see no hope of ever getting a council home.
Between 1980 and 2005, almost 450,000 council homes for rent have been sold at large discounts. The result is that last year there were only 599,000 council properties available to rent from UK local authorities. In comparison, in the year prior to Thatcher’s election in 1979, some 100,000 council properties were built, while the private sector built approximately 150,000 new homes for sale. Almost half the population lived in council homes in England in 1979. The proportion was even higher in cities like Sheffield, where council rentals approached two thirds of all rented housing. Today, local authorities house just 12 percent of the British population. Another 6 percent of live in properties managed by housing associations. The government’s solution has been “regeneration schemes” and yet more use of the private sector. The “regeneration” of Grahame Park in Barnet, North London, sums up what these policies mean. Some 1,771 council flats will metamorphose into 1,220 “affordable” homes and 2,220 private homes under the scheme. It’s unlikely that many of the original tenants will have the “right of return”.
The growth of housing associations has taken place alongside a decline in the number of people in decent rented accommodation. What’s more, the government’s reliance on them is in crisis as the debts of housing associations get out of control. Even the government’s help for those in trouble with their mortgage is falling apart. The government’s mortgage rescue scheme launched this January has helped only six families, not the 6,000 it targeted. Subsidised housing is the only serious way to house people fairly and rationally and council housing – which is democratically controlled by tenants – is the best way to do that. Until the government recognises that fact, the misery and insanity caused by the market will continue.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
