Categories
Blog Post Uncategorized

New foundations built on sand

That dodgy building company Cameron and Clegg (est 2010) today tried to sell us a bogus new housing strategy called ‘Laying the Foundations’.
Deals for first time buyers!  Council homes nearly free!  Free infrastructure on us!  Front door keys for all!  But just like that shiny new tarmac front drive built by a scammer, very soon the cracks will emerge and we will realise no hard core has been laid.

Sick joke of the day – we are all in this together

“You always remember that moment, if you’ve done it, when you get that key and you walk into your first flat, it’s a magic moment. It’s a moment I want everyone in this country to have, not just better-off people.”

David Cameron

I was bowled over to hear Grant Shapps on BBC Breakfast this morning sounding like a late convert to Keynesian economics – arguing that housing investment was a good way to stimulate the economy (I agree!).  But the new sums announced today are tiny (and we need to check that the money really is new) and a drop in the ocean compared to the 60% cut already made to the housing programme.
It may be Plan Aplus but it’s not yet Plan B.  As Ed Miliband commented: ‘These measures are too little, too late from the man who was responsible for choking off growth in the British economy when he came to power. Putting back just 10% of the £4 billion he cut from housing investment last year will convince no-one he is serious about getting growth back into the economy.’
Reading the strategy document is a bit like watching rolling 24 hour news, as the same few points are repeated endlessly.  The occasional piece of wisdom – “we have not built enough homes for more than a generation” – is lost in a sea of false claims, like trying to take credit for an increase in housing starts in 2010/11 which could have had nothing whatever to do with the coalition.
There are a few worthy things and some ideas for further consideration – for example, indemnities for first time buyers, a new fund for infrastructure, development finance for smaller building companies, ‘build now pay later’ for land purchases, a loan fund for self-builders, more support for locally planned major development, build to let.  But every plus has several minuses, and the bulk of the document is a restatement of previous announcements.  Flexible tenancies, more evictions for criminal action away from the home, means-testing all social tenants, changing allocations priorities, reducing homeless rights, etc, are rehearsed again.
So what are some of the missing big things?  Here are four for starters:

  • There is no overall assessment of housing need – the requirement to build new market and sub-market homes and the level of private and public investment needed to maintain the housing stock and improve its energy efficiency.
  • There is no assessment of housing affordability – it describes how the affordability of home ownership has worsened, but sets no expectation or objective for the future.  It expresses no concern at all about the affordability of so-called ‘affordable rent’ homes, nor about the plan to increase social rents at a rate faster than the growth in incomes.
  • There are lots of warm words about home ownership, but no analysis of the dramatic changes in tenure taking place right now and whether the rapid rise in private renting is sustainable.
  • There is virtually nothing that ties together housing policy, taxation and benefits.  And in particular no acknowledgement that higher rents means higher benefits – or greater poverty.

Despite the fact that further work on the right to buy was the reason given for the delay in publishing the strategy, the plan to ‘double’ RTB discounts on average remains mysterious and there are no real figures.  The same can be said about the use of receipts.  The strategy says that the first call on receipts will be ‘to meet debt on additional properties sold’, and the second call will be to meet assumptions already made about the contribution receipts will make to the government’s deficit reduction plan.  But it still boasts that ‘the expected receipts will provide a sufficient contribution to the cost of replacement homes’.  Exactly how they will deliver the commitment to replace each home sold with an affordable home (nb not a social rented home) will not be answered until there is a further round of consultation.
The chapter on the private rented sector is perhaps the most disappointing of all.  Having dismissed Labour’s proposed reforms as ‘red tape’ there has been growing pressure to bring in some form of regulation of private renting and even to find a way of mitigating runaway rent increases.  It appears the Government has been sitting on its hands, saying ‘we are also looking at measures to deal with rogue landlords and encouraging local authorities to make full use of the robust powers they already have to tackle dangerous and poorly maintained homes.’  ‘Looking at’ is not good enough: it means the Government has nothing at all to say to private tenants.  As it is the only tenure that is growing in numbers, it demonstrates that this is not much of a strategy.
This document proves once again that writing down lots of little policies in one place is different from writing a strategy.  A strategy should have a vision for where you want to be, a detailed analysis of all the trends and information, clear objectives and an ordered set of priorities.  This document has none of these.
In a strategy that uses the word ‘radical’ so often, I give the final word to Campbell Robb of Shelter, so right but very understated when he says ‘Unfortunately these aren’t the bold and radical solutions we need to solve a housing crisis that’s been decades in the making.’

Categories
Blog Post Uncategorized

The questions a genuine national housing strategy must answer

The Government has been trailing the fact that they will finally publish their delayed national housing strategy next week.  It is likely to be launched by David Cameron, which at least shows that the issue is rising up the political agenda.
The spin so far is that the strategy will be announced with a little bit of new money for housebuilding.  Any boost will be welcome, but given that the coalition started with a 60% cut in the housing programme, it will just be a small offset.  There will also be some details about how the revised right to buy will work and whether, and how, the capital receipts might be used.  There has also been some interesting spin that there might be proposals for a bit of ‘light touch’ regulation to the private rented sector.
New money, reinvesting receipts, and PRS regulation would all be significant U turns from the Government.  But if it is to be a genuine housing strategy, there are bigger issues at stake.  A strategy should be needs-led, with a thorough-going analysis of the housing requirements of the country leading to detailed policies which will impact on those needs over time.  I suspect this strategy will be policy-led, by which I mean that they will justify the policies they have already adopted and gloss over the needs that they are not interested in meeting.
Here are 10 questions for the Government, questions that I think the strategy must address if it is to be of any value at all.

  1. Will there be a full assessment of how many homes are needed in England over the next 20 years and how and where they will be provided, with a proper emphasis on the differences between regions?
  2. What approach will they take to long term property and land values, the underlying but fundamental issue in the housing market?
  3. Will there be a strategy for reforming taxation and subsidy across tenures in housing both to encourage investment in all sectors and the greening of all our homes and to discourage wasteful over-consumption?
  4. What will they do to provide homes to people on the lowest incomes, whether in or out of work, who cannot afford ‘affordable rents’, private rents, or home ownership?
  5. Will they be frank about their policy of virtually ending new build for social rent and will they phase out security of tenure and ‘target rents’ for existing social rented housing?
  6. How will they ensure that the private rented sector is modernised and joins the rest of the economy in the 21st century with a clear set of rights and responsibilities for landlords and tenants based on consumer protection principles?
  7. Given that they set a target for reducing the housing benefit bill, what will they do next to achieve the cuts given that many of their policies are leading to increases in HB costs not reductions?
  8. How will they respond strategically to the rapid rise in homelessness that has taken place over the last year?
  9. Will there be a real policy to tackle overcrowding or just more of the same in punishing underoccupiers in the rented sectors?
  10. How will they help first-time buyers and in particular will they boost the supply of mortgages and support new deposit protection schemes?

I fear we will have many pages of Pickles prejudices and Shapps spin, But it will be interesting to judge whether there is a strategic attempt to address needs – or more of the same.

Categories
Blog Post Uncategorized

'Rents will fall and no-one will be made homeless'. So what happened, IDS?

Government Ministers have consistently argued that the changes in local housing allowance would lead to reduced rents in the private rented sector and would not lead to more homelessness.
Labour MP Karen Buck spoke at the launch of the NHF’s Home Truths report this morning, and writes exclusively for Red Brick below.
Guest post by Karen Buck MP, Labour MP for Westminster North
A year ago, Iain Duncan Smith said in the House of Commons debate on Housing Benefit:
“The purpose of these (HB) changes is to give a real impetus to getting the rents down to make affordable housing more available in some areas…… Through the emergency Budget and spending review, we proposed a set of housing benefit reforms designed to bring back under control a system that has been out of control. I accept that the responsibility of Government is always to get the balance right as we protect, incentivise, and ensure fairness in the system. Critically, for housing, that means getting the rents down….. There should be no need, with the discretionary allowance, for people to be made homeless. That is just the nonsense with which Labour Members want to scare everybody.”
One year on, we now know that the mean rent increase in London was around 12%.
We are facing an unprecedented crisis of supply and affordability. This has not all occurred since May 2010 – and some of the present problems have roots in the decision to
switch subsidy from ‘bricks and mortar’ to personal subsidy three decades ago. Still, recent developments have intensified the problem acutely.
Over the last year, homelessness has risen sharply, reversing a fairly steady medium term decline. The recent pattern by which homelessness/temporary accommodation has been diverted via the prevention and relief of homelessness strategy is faltering, because families are reluctant to abandon future security as the PRS becomes increasingly unaffordable. (Meanwhile, there are over 100,000 households to whom local council accepted homelessness duties but then diverted them into the private sector who will be
at risk of re-presenting as rents rise and benefits fall).
The central issue remains one of the supply of affordable homes, especially for rent, but whilst we are seeing the final wave of new supply coming through as a result of the Labour government’s investment, the future looks less hopeful because of the Orwellian ‘affordable rent’ model and housing benefit cuts.
‘Affordable rents’ as the means of filling the grant gap mean not just places like Westminster become unaffordable – an ‘affordable rent’ set at 65% of market rents would require a household income of £65k to cover the cost without benefit – but so do poorer
places like Haringey and Newham. In Haringey, a rent set at 80% of local market rents would require a household income of £31k for a 1 bed flat, and in Newham a 2 bed flat would require a household income of £27k. This at a time when the median income for social housing tenants is £12k.
The Household Benefit Cap and Housing Benefit cuts, meanwhile, are estimated in a recent report by London Councils to leave 133,000 households unable to pay their current rents.
Even if this proves to be an over-estimate, staggering numbers of households face a dramatic shortfall in their income and are at risk of upheaval and homelessness as private rents continue to soar. Boroughs with lower housing costs can anticipate a sharp increase in numbers of incomers, many with high service and support needs.
It is worth noting that unemployment, the freeze in real wages and rising housing costs have already contributed to a rise in the number of private sector Housing Benefit
claimants, especially in the suburbs- the London Borough of Redbridge, which includes part of the constituency of the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, saw a 65% increase in Local Housing Allowance claims in a little over a year, the largest increase in the country. Some of the areas facing the biggest cost pressures are not the Knightsbridge’s and Mayfair’s of popular myth, but places like Hillingdon and Croydon, whilst Newham will be amongst the places worst hit by the overall Benefit Cap.
Supply may be the solution over the medium and longer term, but in the very short term we need DCLG and DWP to sort out their differences and develop an integrated approach
to housing need and homelessness before they escalate.

Categories
Uncategorized

"Homes for Heroes"

It was a good headline for the housing minister in the Daily Mail the day before Remembrance Sunday. It’s just a shame there wasn’t a bit more action to go with the press release.
Ex-service men and women frequently face housing problems when leaving the forces. Salaries for the majority aren’t high enough to save for a mortgage and social housing is in short supply. In the past that’s seen very high numbers of ex-service personnel sleeping rough. In the mid-90s the Royal British Legion estimated that 20% of London’s single homeless populations were former service men and women. They estimate that there are still 1,100 on the streets now.
The government’s measures won’t help them and won’t help those leaving the services that much either.
The minister proposes to ‘issue guidance’ to councils to prioritise former service men and women in their social housing allocations. Unfortunately, it’s not a problem that’s going to be solved by Grant Shapps producing a piece of paper.
Councils can already prioritise ex-service personnel for social housing. Labour run Manchester for example does. Who knows whether more will on the basis of the minister’s missive?
The government also propose to put ex-service personnel at the top of the ‘First-Buy’ queue – the government’s low-cost homeownership scheme. Given that the starting pay of a soldier is a bit over £17,000 and even a sergeant gets around £33,000, there are going to be many that can’t get a mortgage even for shared ownership. It also depends what their job prospects will be like – will the 11,000 the government is making redundant find jobs to pay a mortgage in a flat-lining economy?
Our former soldiers and sailors are likely to find themselves in the same position as many others in need – benefits that don’t meet the costs of rent, an unregulated and expensive private rented sector, long housing waiting lists and no long-term security when they do get a social home.

Categories
Blog Post Uncategorized

Housing Voice launches National Affordable Homes Inquiry

The affordable homes alliance Housing Voice has launched its National Inquiry into the affordable homes crisis and will hold its first regional hearing at Exeter University on 9 December.
The aim of the Inquiry is to gather the views of civil society through oral
hearings, submitted evidence and an online survey.  It aims to publish its report
around May next year.
Housing Voice is supported by Citizens Advice, CDS Co-operatives, Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG), National Housing Federation, National Union of Students (NUS), Sitra – the charity for supported people, TUC and UNISON.
Chaired by Lord Whitty, Housing Voice aims to champion the need for more affordable homes to buy or rent. With the shortfall in housing projected to be 750,000 by 2025, the average house price more than 8 times the average salary, more than one 1.6 million households on waiting lists, the average age of a first time buyer being 37 and rents in the private rented sector continuing to grow faster than incomes in many parts of the country, Housing Voice believes NOW is the time to tackle the affordable housing crisis.
For information about supporting organisations, how to submit evidence and the regional
evidence sessions, go to the website at http://www.housingvoice.co.uk  There is also an online survey.

Categories
Blog Post Uncategorized

Roxy Come Home

Albert Square is the only place in London where the housing market appears to be stable and there is a plentiful supply of homes for anyone separating from a partner or being kicked out of their last place. Phil Mitchell and Ian Beale appear able to buy homes in the Square at will, normally with the relevant amount of cash.
The show normally prides itself on its ‘gritty realism’ and its research into controversial topics, trying to get the facts right, and frequently advertises help lines when distressing stories are being broadcast – for example, around the cot death of Ronnie Mitchell’s son James or Whitney Dean being forced into prostitution.
However they never seem to concern themselves with housing. Last week no help lines were advertised when Janine illegally evicted Roxy with no sign of a legal procedure, just walking in and removing her stuff. In previous weeks, the landlady attempted forcible entry and clearly harassed poor Roxy and her small child. Parents might also be perturbed at the rather cavalier way a children’s officer took Roxy’s daughter off her and gave her into the care of Jack Branning under what was said to be a Temporary Residence Order.  Shades of Cathy Come Home.
When we talk about rogue landlords we would do well to keep Janine Butcher in our mind. Not that Roxy deserves much sympathy, having done similar things to previous tenants of her own before she squandered her inheritance from her Dad, the beautifully evil Archie Mitchell. (It’s also a mystery as to why Janine refers to Roxy as a Chav when her Dad was a successful rich criminal who lived in a very large house on the south coast before moving in with Peggy, but I’ve gone off at a tangent).
Another recent storyline, involving young squatters, seemed well out of touch with reality as the property seemed to be transformed magically into a care home of some sort, by an amazing stroke of luck the squatters got to live there (I admit I may have missed an episode and misunderstood something here, or I may have happened upon the E20 spin-off, but the same principles apply).
Unfortunately, Walford Council is never much help.  They do not appear to have a housing advice or tenancy relations service, and it looks like the CAB has never made it to Walford either. The council only ever appears in a bad light, run either by corrupt or otherwise unhelpful and stupidly bureaucratic officials with the single policy of doing whatever annoys the residents of the square. I do have a distant memory of one storyline when (I think) Michelle Fowler went off to work in the housing allocations department of the council, where there were strange goings-on. It didn’t end well.
So, here’s a plea to EastEnders producers and the BBC. When there is an illegal eviction, please remember that this is an experience many people in this country have every day. And just as you do for other difficult storylines, putting Helpline information on the screen at the end of the show is the minimum you could do.
It would be even better if a charming Housing Officer come along to prevent the eviction, accompanied by a Police Officer willing to make an arrest.

Categories
Blog Post Uncategorized

The build up to HRA reform

Monimbo
With self-financing for council housing just 139 days away we can expect a plethora of reports and advice to councils on what they can do to maximise the benefits.  The latest has been produced by Navigant for London Councils, which adds to an earlier one by PwC for the Smith Institute.  CIH has been producing bulletins for members and has teamed up with CIPFA to create an online resource on self-financing.  What are they all saying?
As everyone knows, the big prize from self-financing is that councils get to control their rental incomes for the first time (or, at least, for the first time in recent memory).  PwC emphasises the magnitude of this by assessing the total income as being more than £300bn over the next thirty years, though of course the real figure could be very different from this.
However, as everyone also knows, the big snag is the cap that will be imposed on each council’s borrowing, which will vary in its effects: some councils will have very little ‘headroom’ above the cap for extra borrowing on top of the new level of debt they have to service, others will have quite a lot.
For the first time, there are real political decisions to be made about setting rents and using the revenue they generate.  Not surprisingly, this is also causing real tensions. First, do you put rents up to maximise income and borrowing, or do you keep them down to reflect tenants’ difficult financial circumstances, particularly those who pay rents from their own incomes?  There is no formula that can give an answer to that conundrum and each council will have to decide for itself, hopefully in full consultation with tenants.
The second tension is how to spend the spare cash.  There are multiple choices here too:
completing decent homes programmes where there is still a shortfall, doing works to improve the security of and amenities in estates, starting to make the stock energy-efficient through retrofit programmes and – of course – new build.
A common feature of all the advice being published is that the key to maximising resources is creative asset management.  Until now, council haven’t had the same incentives to manage their assets constructively as housing associations have had, and there are still limitations on what they can do, but for example it might make sense to demolish some stock that is no longer in the highest demand and is costly to improve.  It is also going to be vital to reconfigure planned maintenance programmes so that they take account of the need to radically improve energy efficiency, factoring in outside resources such as the Green Deal.
These are demanding tasks, and the key question is whether or not the resources expected to be available from April onwards will be enough to satisfactorily manage and maintain existing assets, before even contemplating new build.
The London Councils report suggests that some boroughs (the public document doesn’t say which) will struggle to balance their business plans, ie. both meet the new debt costs and effectively invest in and maintain their assets.  Most, though, will have some headroom, limited of course by the cap.
What is clear though from the various reports is that no one has yet come up with an idea for adding to councils’ resources beyond the basic options that have always applied, which are:

  • fully use the funding you will have in the self-financed HRA – including potentially build new homes with grant from the HCA if you are willing to go for ‘affordable’ rents
  • lever more funds into the existing stock through PFI
  • transfer the stock
  • use land and other assets to bring in affordable housing through other routes, mainly via housing associations.

Even the new options for ALMOs, which I blogged about in June, involve transfer, albeit to a community-led body and maintaining a close link to the local authority.  The London Councils report suggests transfer as an option, too, but focuses on the merits of using it for parts of the stock – either good stock that will bring in some money, or poor stock that will remove a liability.  But will partial transfer be attractive either to councils or to tenants?
My conclusion from reviewing this material is that the choices largely remain as they were when the current self-financing deal was put on the table.  Given that the government (like
the previous one) insists on sticking to the current borrowing rules, the options for bringing in resources that are ‘off balance sheet’ are essentially the same ones, with their respective pros and cons.
Councils without ALMOs are well-advised to concentrate on making the most of what they have already got, and be as well prepared as possible to finalise and start to implement their business plans when the final debt levels are known in the New Year.  For councils
with ALMOs the advice is the same, but those who are planning to close their ALMO down should be aware that – whatever the other arguments – they are foregoing options that just might be attractive once self-financing gets underway.

Categories
Blog Post Uncategorized

Terry Edis MBE – a tribute

Richard Crossley writes
Tenants and many others are mourning the death last week of Terry Edis following a period of illness.
I first met Terry several years ago in his role as chair of the National Federation of Tenant Management Organisations (NFTMO). I was struck not only by his by his knowledge of tenant management, his passion for tenant control and his eloquence, but also by the warmth of his personality and his sense of humour.
It was in the late 1980s when Terry, a life-long social housing tenant, attended a residents’ association meeting to complain about the poor heating in his tower block. His concern about the decline of the neighbourhood and the poor housing conditions he and his neighbours had to endure, led him to get more involved in taking action to get things done.
He helped found the Burrowes Street Tenant Management Organisation and was elected
its first chairperson. Through hard work and organisation the tenants of that estate, led by Terry, turned it round to be a well-run well-managed estate with a range of community activities. Terry went on to become chair of WATMOS Community Homes – the innovative tenant-led housing association that took ownership of the properties managed by 8 TMOs including Burrowes Street.
And not content with that, Terry also became chair of the NFTMO. Under his stewardship
the NFTMO has grown into a respected representative body serving its TMO members well and giving a strong national profile to tenant management.
Terry never tired of wanting to help tenants throughout the country tackle the difficulties in their neighbourhoods. Along with other national tenants’ organisations Terry helped the last government set up the National Tenant Voice, on whose Council Terry served before its abolition by the Coalition Government.
Yet despite his high profile on the national stage, Terry always remained true to his roots in Burrowes Street where he continued to be active even, in recent weeks, from his hospital bed. I shared many a conference platform with Terry, and never tired of hearing him talk about the inspiring tenant-led transformation of that estate, and the community spirit that continues to grow there.
His wife Joan, his family and his friends have suffered a great loss. And the tenant movement has lost a great leader who inspired others with his knowledge, commitment, eloquence, good nature, common sense and, above all, genuine humanity.
 
Steve Hilditch adds: I only knew Terry for the couple of years we worked together to set up the National Tenant Voice.  But he was the inspiration for my belief that it was possible to set up a national organisation that could talk to Government whilst remaining firmly rooted in communities. He never gave up the local job to do the national job.  So what he said always carried conviction and was rooted in the daily experiences of tenants on the ground. He was always courteous, invariably insightful, and often very funny. He was the model community activist, showing the world the potential that ordinary people have to achieve great things when given the opportunity.  He will be missed by all who knew him.
The funeral service will be held on Thursday 17th November 10am at St Patrick’s Church,  Blue Lane East, Walsall, WS2 8HN.
Other tributes to Terry can be found as follows:
NFTMO
The Guardian
24 Dash
Inside Housing

Categories
Blog Post Uncategorized

Affordable housing and the Ministry of Truth

Even 18 months in, this Government’s most commonly-used phrase is ‘the mess we were
left by the last administration’.  It’s beginning to wear thin, especially as the imminent new recession is clearly the result of events and actions that have taken place since Cameron entered No 10.
It is no surprise that any good news is not credited to the last Government.  And one area where there has been a bit of good news is in annual housing completions.  What is absolutely clear is that these are the legacy of Labour and have little if anything to do with Messrs Pickles and Shapps, whatever they say.
The number of social rented homes added to the stock in 2010/11 (therefore started under
Labour) was 39,170 (of which 30,780 were funded through the Homes and Communities Agency), continuing an upward trend that started in 2004.  In addition there were 21,460 additional ‘intermediate homes’ including intermediate rent and low cost home ownership.  Total additional ‘affordable’ homes topped 60,000 and the mix between social rent and intermediate homes of roughly two-thirds to one-third seems about right when judged against needs.
Of course even this scale of output is not enough, but the trend was in the right direction despite the recession.  The Labour Government had realised that the most effective way to get growth in the economy and meet needs in the community at the same time was to boost housing construction.  60% cuts in the programme showed that the Coalition did not share this analysis.
The legacy of this Government in 2015/16 will look very different.  They will bust a gut (and housing association finances while they’re at it) to try to keep the total affordable figure as high as possible, but the sub-headings will look very different.  The new, mis-named, ‘Affordable Rent’ programme will be there, at rents of up to 80% of market rent and possibly averaging about 65-70% depending on the outcome of the negotiations between associations and the HCA after the intervention of many councils trying to keep rents down.
The figure for ‘social rent’, let within the current ‘target rents’ policy, will inevitably plummet.  From the patchy information available, there appear to be virtually no social rented homes in the ‘affordable housing’ contracts awarded by the HCA so far, so new social rent homes will only become available from planning gain schemes, councils building directly, and the few councils who have refused to have anything to do with ‘Affordable Rent’.
The picture on the ground – social rented lettings coming through to homeless people and
people on the waiting list – will be even worse than the new build programme implies.  A proportion of social rent lettings (no-one knows how many yet) will be stolen from the social rent pool and put into the ‘Affordable Rent’ pool to help pay for the programme.
The Government will continue to mask the real implications of their policy with bluster.  They will use the figures for ‘affordable housing’ and ignore the importance of social rent to people on low incomes and to the policy of encouraging people into work.  They will continue to claim that the same people will benefit from ‘Affordable Rent’ as benefit from ‘social rent’ despite the fact that people on the ground know that this just isn’t true in most parts of the country where market rents are high and rising rapidly.  To add to the confusion, they will continue to say that ‘Affordable Rent’ is ‘social housing’.  Orwell’s Ministry of Truth would be pleased by these efforts.
The debate needs to shift from numbers alone, important though they are, to the genuine affordability of the homes coming out of the programme.  The idea being worked on by the London Labour Housing Group, defining a London Living Rent as a benchmark by which to assess whether rents are affordable or not, is attracting a lot of interest.  Like the London Living Wage when it started, it would not be a technique for directly controlling rents but a campaigning tool which will have influence over rent-setting policies in the longer term.
The Government, the HCA and the housing associations who have signed up to HCA
contracts remain extremely coy about the rents they will charge for ‘Affordable Rent’ homes – one housing association board member I know says their officers even refuse to tell the board because of HCA confidentiality rules.
But the information will eventually come out and the ‘affordable’ in ‘Affordable Rent’
will be seen to be a complete con.  And it will fall to the next Labour Government to deal with ‘the mess we were left by the last administration.’

Categories
Blog Post Uncategorized

Ken's book: wickedly droll with some good stuff about housing

With most reviews focusing on his relationships and children, I got the wrong impression
of what Ken Livingstone’s autobiography might be like.
The book’s title, ‘You can’t say that’, seemed particularly apt this week when some rather
humourless Tories in Hammersmith got upset when he said they should all be put in prison for their housing policies, adding ‘And if there’s any justice you will burn in hell and your flesh will be flayed for demons for all eternity’. Not noted for Paisley-like fire and brimstone views, and having himself been called every name under the sun by
Tories over the years, you would think even they would be able to spot a little rhetorical flourish.  Ken is, after all, ‘wickedly droll and gossipy’ according to publishers.  And it wasn’t him that compared the Government’s housing benefit policies to ‘Kosovo-style cleansing’.
The book tells the story of four decades of politics in London and Ken’s dominant part in it.  Probably best identified by his maverick role in the Labour Party, his elevation of transport policies to the top of political agendas, his key role in the winning of the Olympics and the memorable way he spoke on behalf of all Londoners after the 7/7 bombings, Ken’s 40 year record in promoting better housing is less well-known.
But it is hugely impressive nonetheless.  In Lambeth, in Camden, at the GLC and as Mayor, Ken has consistently supported – and more important, delivered – the building of more genuinely affordable homes, more family homes, and more mixed communities.  He has campaigned vigorously against bad landlords and fought to make public housing more responsive to tenants – long before it became the vogue.  He believed in proper housing strategies based on evidence and he fought for the resources necessary to implement them.
He became full time Chair of Housing in Camden in the 1970s and says he found it ‘exhilarating to be running something again’.  He gives credit to council leaders Frank Dobson and Roy Shaw for finding the resources to support council housebuilding, pointing out that ‘we were building 2,000 new homes a year, at which rate families on the waiting list would all have been rehoused within a decade.’  And his other policy priorities were all about people and not just about courting political popularity: ‘I humanised the way we treated homeless families, cut the number of those in bed and breakfast to under 20 and passed empty homes to a short life housing association.’
Fast forward to his Election as London Mayor in 2000.  The most common statement made about housing at the time was that the Mayor had few if any housing powers.  But
a combination of the imaginative use of planning powers through the London Plan and genuine leadership brought housing towards the centre of his mayoralty’s achievements.  His policies in favour of affordable homes made a huge difference to what was happening on the ground in London, changed the mind set of developers and social housing providers alike, and his ambition for the east end opened up huge opportunities for new homes in new communities in what was virtually a new city – given huge impetus by the winning of the Olympics.
Towards the end of his administration, before the forces of darkness took control of London, he tells the story of being summoned to meet Gordon Brown – with whom he had a few rows over the years – shortly after Brown succeeded Tony Blair.  The story reflects the ambition of both to invest in new homes, to create jobs and to get growth through construction.  He says: ‘Brown planned to build 3m new homes by ending Blair’s ban on building council houses.  Giving me £5bn to build 50,000 homes and the power to draw up London’s Housing Strategy and decide where to build meant that this would be London’s biggest housing programme since the 1970s.  Now I could stop boroughs agreeing housing schemes which had no affordable housing in them and insist on an increase in three- four- and five bedroom homes to 40 per cent of the total.’
Ambitious yet practical.  Principled yet pragmatic.  Housing policies that worked for the poorest but also worked for ordinary Londoners in all tenures.  Understanding London’s needs and making London’s case at every available opportunity.  And the occasional colourful phrase (rather like his opponent).  Ken deserves to run London again and to end the complacency about housing that symbolises the Johnson years.  And for people wanting a better idea about what makes Ken tick, the book’s not a bad read.
Ken Livingstone, ‘You can’t say that’, published by Faber and Faber