Author: Tony Clements

In advance of the Mayoral Election next year, the London Labour Housing Group has put together a panel of speakers available to visit CLP and Labour Party meetings to speak on housing in London and the ways to campaign on the issue.
Housing will be a major part of the Mayoral Election, with the desperate need for more affordable and social housing becoming ever more acute, deteriorating conditions in a stretched rented sector and house prices that bar all but the very wealthiest from owning their own home.
The mayoralty is gaining more power and more direct access to investment at the same time as we have an incumbent notoriously unwilling to use the levers of his office and organisation to deliver real change for London.
The last general election showed that campaigning on housing can have a decisive effect on keeping London Labour. In Westminster North, Hammersmith and Eltham (to name but three) marginal Labour seats were held on the basis of vigorous campaigning on housing issues.
If your members want to understand the issues better, convince more people on the doorstep and learn some of the most effective ways of winning people over and getting out the vote, then email us on [email protected].
In this Mayoral Election every vote counts – and votes for us even in the most Tory of areas can contribute to a Labour win.
 
Just to let you know:

• We’ll do our best to attend every request, but can’t promise we can provide someone every time.
• All speakers on the panel are available in a personal capacity and do not represent Ken Livingstone’s campaign or the London Labour Housing Group.

A new guest poster for Red Brick, Dee St. Holmes, argues below that by tackling the housing crisis, we tackle many more social and economic ills beside. Hearty agreement with that here. She argues that the coalition for fundamental change in our housing system is growing, as housing problems spread – affecting more, richer and more influential parts of society.
Our society is becoming one of ‘haves and have not’s’ at a worryingly fast pace. Public services that were fought for and implemented after the Second World War as a way to ensure everyone’s basic human needs were met, are being ripped up, none more so that housing.
After the war, when this country was on the brink of bankruptcy, the Government committed to a public house-building programme that dwarfed anything before or since. Political will, based on the threat of riots (or indeed a revolution after all, the ‘masses’ had returned from war and knew how to get hold of and use arms) ensured money was committed and used for the common good. People were proud to live in the new houses and a Conservative Government-commissioned report in the 1970s proved that council house tenants had the fastest growing ‘social mobility’ rates out of any other group of people.
Fast forward to today and we have a radically different picture. Social housing (as it’s now commonly known largely due to the large-scale transfer of stock from councils to housing associations) has been residualised to a shadow of its former self. The language of Government when referring to social housing tenants is one of feckless, criminal, anti-social, undeserving, people who should count themselves lucky to be in a tax-payer provided benefit. The recent riots illustrate this to a shameful degree. Housing as a human right seems to be a concept becoming relegated to history. Are we witnessing the final days of any form of publicly subsidised housing? The tide against it seems unrelenting.
However, I’m forever the optimist and one thought has crept into my mind. Everybody needs housing. No two ways about it. When people on £40K, £50K, £60K cannot afford a home in our capital city, the problem of housing starts affecting people who have higher voting levels and hence people who have political power. The housing problem moves beyond the realms of the poor and the homeless, where it stays on the margins, and into the realms of the very middles classes. Now it most certainly should not take this to make housing a national priority, but I think is happening.
Housing is receiving significant media attention and the Housing Minister is increasingly looking shallow and nervous as his headlines are exposed as just that with no substance behind them (house-boats being the latest example). However, make no mistake, the consistently stagnant economy will turn the Government’s eyes to house building as a way to stimulate growth and there will then be of plenty of spin for them to reverse their narrative on housing.
Labour should therefore get on-board now and shape the debate. Housing is an issue that has been relegated to the private realm for decades but it is pushing its way back into the public realm – and Labour should be the party associated with championing people’s housing concerns. Waiting until ‘an election year’ is no good – people need a political party that starts fighting the issues at local and national levels now. Labour can be people’s voice on housing; from the grassroots to the ‘squeezed middle’ it seems slightly fixated on. It is a uniting issue and one that has the power to win or lose the next national election. Labour has a lot to be proud of on housing, but it could have done a great deal more when it was last in power. Now is the time to make-up for that – millions of people are looking for answers and the coalition Government has none, yet, so why waste time? Make housing the priority it needs to be and the public policy that can restore the equal foundations of our society.

Steve posted a few weeks ago on Land Value Tax – saying it’s ground we shouldn’t let the Lib Dems capture.
It’s now ground that we shouldn’t let the Tories capture.
In addition to Lib Dem support for greater property/land tax, Tim Montgomerie of Conservative Home as well as Tory MP, Mark Reckless have come out in favour of such a tax, arguing for a move to tax wealth rather than income.
Admittedly, Secretary of State Eric Pickles has come out very firmly against, as a standard bearer of the Tory right would.
Then again, the Tory right also hate the 50p tax rate and if this is the lever to get the Lib Dems to back its abolition, they may just put up with the introduction of a new tax. Indeed, Tim Montgomerie is not known for being on the left of the Tory party and this is clearly the calculation he is making.
There are some things Tories can do easier than the Labour Party: can you imagine the onslaught Labour would face, in government or in opposition, if we proposed the introduction of a new tax? But since it’s the Tories who’ve let this particular genie out of the bottle, we should seize it.
There is a perfectly good social democratic argument for a Land Value Tax – in taxation and housing terms. Check out Toby Lloyd’s evergreen ‘Don’t Bet the House on It’ for some of the housing reasons.
The taxation case is simpler – It raises money by taxing the unproductive and in many cases unearned wealth of the rich, rather than doing so from the income earned from everyone’s productive activities. That’s hard to argue with.
And we can outflank coalition in a way that will chime better with the mood of the nation and support people far more deserving than those paying the 50p tax rate: the revenues could be used to support first-time buyers, invest in more genuinely affordable social housing or maintain a comprehensive housing benefit safety net.
Or since I’d like to see Labour trusted on taxation and not face an onslaught if we were to propose tax reform: tax cuts for lower and middle earners whose standards of living are being squeezed ever tighter.

 I do a bit of moonlighting on the blogging page of the MJ, with more of a local government focus. Here’s my latest post for them:
Is it a council’s job to promote homeownership?
A report by the National Housing Federation yesterday argued that the rate of homeownership is likely to fall to the levels last seen in the mid-eighties.
The lack of homes, high prices and difficulty of getting a mortgage (even if you’re on a good salary) is not exactly fresh news to many thousands of first-time buyers. Homeownership has already been falling for a number of years now after its peak in 2003 of 70%.
Should councils care about this? At first glance, no. They have statutory duties to the homeless and those in housing need and have a planning system to administer. They have more than enough on their plates providing sufficient affordable homes, finding temporary accommodation for those who need it and trying to keep tabs on the less scrupulous private landlords in their area.
But in the past councils have underpinned Britain’s high levels of homeownership. Right-to-buy (for better or worse) vastly increased the number of those who owned their own home and spread ownership far further down the income scale. Councils used to provide mortgages to their residents – the hurdle which is tripping up most of today’s first-time buyers. Many also used their council housing to help people buy. They sound dated now, but ‘young married couples schemes’ gave time-limited tenancies and social rents to young couples to help them save for a deposit.
The rising homeownership of the past was enabled by high and sustained levels of house building. It’s no accident that the highest levels of private house building went side-by-side with the highest levels of council house building. Prior to the recession, we got used to the idea that affordable housing was a ‘by-product’ of successful and high value private development, through Section 106 agreements and the like. Through the sixties and seventies large council house building programmes supported large-scale development by private enterprise – providing the industry with a certain stream of work and increasing capacity in the building industry.
If it becomes a goal of public policy again to increase the levels of homeownership in society, the government will need to remember that it was local councils that had a key role in making 70% levels possible.
Tony also blogs at Red Brick.
 

There has been a ground breaking housing policy development that Red Brick readers may just have missed. It’s the government’s Houseboat Strategy.
In genuinely out of the box, beyond the blue-sky thinking, the government plans to help more people live on boats.
In a new bout of press release-based policy making Grant Shapps has said that:
“new moorings could be eligible for the New Homes Bonus, which sees the government match council tax from new-build homes.”
Erm, so maybe not quite helping people live on boats, but saying that the government is considering something that’s just about interesting enough to be covered in the news.
British Waterways cut to the real heart of the issue and were “pleased to note the reassurance from Mr Shapps’ department that people can qualify for housing benefit for help with mooring fees.”
 
You’ve got to give it to Mr Shapps as a tactical politician: no band-wagon goes by unleapt on and every eye-catching line gets a policy thrown together behind it.
But surely someone in DCLG, No10, Cabinet Office, CCHQ must be concerned that at some stage the total lack of interest in any type of strategy, plan or vision may cause them a problem?

I’ve suffered from conflicting responses to the riots. After seeing rioting round the corner from me and the TV pictures from across London, I find myself with some sympathy with the toughest penalties. Then I find myself in disbelief at the harshness of a 4 year sentences for a Facebook message about criminal disorder which didn’t even take place. (As a regular twitterer, blogger and Facebooker, I hope the precedent of tough measures against those who say stupid things online does not spread.)
Tony Blair wrote in the Observer yesterday:
“some of the disorder was caused by rioters and looters who were otherwise ordinary young people who got caught in a life-changing mistake from which they will have to rebuild.”
It’s hard to see how custodial sentences for such mistakes will make rebuilding possible.
But enough of my flaky opinions. There’s some real research out now about what people think about the riots broken down by ‘social grade’. It shows that people at the lower end of the scale back tougher penalties that those who are better off.
36% of ‘C2DEs’ think the sentences being carried out are ‘too soft’ and 9% too harsh, the rest ‘about right’.
That’s pretty striking.
It means those most likely to be living in social housing (they are most likely to be C2DE) are among those who want to see custodial sentences for riot-related Facebook messages. Passing the now peaceful Pembury Estate yesterday, it can hardly be surprising that those who suffered most from the looting, violence and criminality want to see the perpetrators put away – and have less sympathy for explanations relating to poverty and disadvantage.
In ‘defending social tenants’ and those in poorer neighbourhoods by arguing against evictions, cuts to benefits, draconian sentences, we need to remember that a large number of the same people  will want to be ‘defended’ by the implementation of such measures.
Doesn’t mean they’re necessarily right, but we can’t just discount the views of those in the bottom half of society. The liberal argument needs to be one that appeals to the whole social spectrum. Its advocates need to recognise they begin on the wrong side of the argument for millions of people whose interests they would otherwise champion.

We’ve heard a lot about families in the aftermath of the riots – issues about parenting, family breakdown, single parents and children who don’t know right from wrong. Breakdown of traditional families, moral decay and social disorder all go together for the right and some on the left too (such as Frank Field).
Life is undoubtedly a lot tougher for children who do not grow up in a stable and loving family. A strong family life is the way that many people manage to deal with and overcome social disadvantage and poverty.
Over 13 years, Labour supported families through maternity and paternity leave, expanded childcare, Sure Start children’s centres and parenting classes – along with some harder measures to make parents more responsible for their children’s actions.
The Tories prefer promoting marriage and the maintenance of ‘traditional’ nuclear families. They had their plan of tax incentives for marriage, until the coalition agreement forced them to drop it.
Government’s can also do things that undermine family life. This government’s benefit policies are providing a compelling ‘incentive’ for families to split up.
The impact of the Universal Credit and household benefit cap may make it very hard for families to stick together. The limit on the total level of benefits a family can claim in a year is £26,000 per year, regardless of the size of the family. It applies to two parents, two children, as much as a single parent and single child or a multi-generational family.
This cap, once combined with housing costs, will force many families into considerable hardship, especially larger families. Many people will move to other areas. Many others will look for ways to get by the area where they live. 
If larger families live separately they are far more able to do this.
A family of two parents and two children can claim a maximum of £26,000 in benefit. Should they separate into two household, both parents perhaps finding smaller, cheaper places in the area, the same people are eligible for up to £52,000 of benefits.
It’s difficult to know how people react to poverty and hardship. People are ingenious and look for the gaps in any system to get along. That’s human nature, not cheating – the rich do the same in employing expensive accountants to help them minimise what they pay through the tax system. And, in my view the bonds of family or the pressures of broken relationships, are far more important than any ‘incentives’ right-wing government’s might offer for marriage and keeping families together.
But, I wonder if that great champion of the family, Iain Duncan Smith, has considered how his system provides a considerable pressure and incentive for poor families in expensive areas to split up.

A significant number of councils, all of which Labour, have announced they may evict tenants who are found guilty of the rioting and looting over recent days. I’ve picked up Greenwich, Barking and Dagenham, Manchester and Salford coming out with this announcement.
This is undoubtedly a very tough line.
I think tough actions should be taken against those who caused incredible damage to communities, mostly their own communities, across London in recent days. People, even if they face poverty and disadvantage, have choices and responsibilities. The first of those responsibilities is to obey the law. 
As Red Brick has constantly argued those who are worse off in society, many of whom live in social housing, are not ‘passive’, ‘impotent’, ‘dependent’, ‘trapped’ but people who shape the world around them, try to better their lot and contribute to their community, most often in positive ways that belie their circumstances.
Occasionally, a tiny minority choose to act in destructive ways and in the past few days, we’ve seen that on an incredible and entirely unpredicted scale.
Poverty, alienation and pessimism about the future are undoubtedly a major part of what has gone on in recent days – and as Steve says condemnation can only be one part of our response. But, for the sake of the many people who share those challenges, but choose not to riot and loot, we must ensure those who have sought to wreck their neighbourhoods face the law’s toughest penalties.
As for eviction, I can see both sides:
Why should those who have committed such grievous crimes against the public realm get the benefit of such a valuable public good, which is in such short supply? There are plenty of others in need and law-abiding who might make better use of those tenancies. And why should people in social housing be subject to neighbours who’ve acted in such destructive ways in the estates and street where they live?
But shouldn’t those who are guilty of crimes face criminal penalties – prison, fines, and community orders? We wouldn’t withdraw public services like health or education and it reinforces the idea that a good stable home is not something that people should have by right, and is of a second order importance compared to healthcare or education. Is it fair that rioting social tenants may face eviction, but those who own their home or rent privately are unaffected?
On balance, evictions are probably counter-productive – the process being long and drawn out and the fact that the rioters will have to move elsewhere in circumstances that may make such behaviour worse and more likely.
Perhaps in this case community orders might have a particular role – so sentences can be carried out in the communities where crimes took place and local residents can see that justice is being done.

After a dearth of posts on my part and leaving it up to Steve to keep the flag flying, you now get two in one day.
Here’s a piece that just went up on the excellent Southern Front, looking at the impact of respossessions in marginal parts of the south and east:
 
Repossessions are beginning to hit the headlines again and in the south, Britain’s repossession hotspots read like a list of key marginals Labour has to win back. Research by Shelter shows that among the worst places for repossessions are Thurrock, Harlow, the Medway Towns, Swale, Milton Keynes, and further north, Corby and Northampton.
Those facing repossession are typically families on middle and low incomes. They are often younger families who stretched themselves to buy during the mid-2000s and do not have much of a cushion to absorb a loss in income or an increase in their mortgage rate. Whether you want to call them the squeezed middle, C1s and C2s, or ‘Squeezed Strugglers’, they are some of the people Labour needs to win back to regain the seats we need in the south. Many are facing great insecurity and seriously strained finances.
The repossession rates are just the tip of the iceberg. Up to 12% of mortgages are in ‘forbearance’ – that is, banks choosing not to repossess even though homeowners are behind in their payments. Below that are millions of homeowners with incomes at breaking-point – just about covering their mortgages on flat or shrinking wages with other costs going up.
One of the lasting experiences from the previous Tory government for many families was facing the risk of repossession, as a result of recession and soaring interest rates. Government action then was insufficient, and saw 75,000 people losing their homes in a year.
During the financial crisis Labour pulled out all the stops to keep repossession rates low (less than 40,000) through a raft of measures, including extensive and free financial and legal advice, new rules in the courts to make repossession the very last resort, pressure on the banks not to repossess and mortgage rescue schemes.
This government has cut back on even the cheapest ways to support people who find themselves in trouble by reducing the financial and legal advice available. On top of this, the level of support homeowners can claim to help with mortgage costs has been halved and Labour mortgage rescue scheme has been shrunk.
Labour is fighting hard for the right of social tenants to have security in their home (with some success). As the Tories step back from supporting struggling homeowners, we must show that we will fight for the security of those who worked to buy their own homes as well.
And as interest rates can only rise, many more in southern England will find that security sorely lacking.

The Housing Minister has challenged Alison Seabeck to say if a future Labour government would retain the affordable rent regime.
That’s a bit of a cheek. No one can retain the affordable rent regime after this programme ends in 2015. The system that Grant Shapps has created is one with a very limited shelf-life and is a destructive programme for the future of affordable housing after 2015.
The whole regime rests on Housing Associations taking on huge amounts of borrowing. Many are reporting that their capacity to borrow money will be exhausted by 2015. Some housing associations have said that they will have to borrow almost as much to finance this coming programme than they have borrowed over decades. As a result banks are eyeing housing associations warily and their ability to borrow cheaply is likely to come to an end – further reducing their ability to continue building new homes.
Any government will find a position in 2015 where our major providers of affordable homes will be lumbered with so much debt that they will struggle to borrow the money they need to carry on building, however high rents go. And frankly, they can’t go much higher.
Don’t be drawn on this question Alison – it’s one Grant Shapps must answer.
And, since this is a programme Mr Shapps created, surely he has a long-term strategy for what would happen after 2015? I look forward to hearing his answer.