As one of those people who blame Conservatives for creating the current crisis in social housing, and Labour for being too useless to remedy the situation in thirteen years in power, David Cameron's comments on term-limited social housing are another sign that we need to step up our game in seeking to restrain those in the Conservative Party with an urge to attack those segments of society who don't fit in with their vision of society.
Interestingly, I never had a problem with the notion of 'Right to Buy'. It was the reality of the programme which was so destructive. Discounted sales produced a transfer of wealth from the community, in the form of local government, to aspirational individuals, an idea which was very nice for those who benefited, but which punished those whose rates and community charge payments had paid for the properties in the first place. By then preventing local councils from building new stock with the proceeds, they reduced availability of social housing, creating the ghettos of deprivation that now blight the lives of those condemned to them and those who live with the consequences - crime, anti-social behaviour and the like. And, of course, by encouraging people that home ownership was a must, they prepared the ground for the boom in house prices - remember supply and demand, my Tory friends?
Labour could have done so much better. If they had encouraged local councils to build as part of a balanced housebuilding programme, we might have had a better balanced housing market, as well as avoiding the price bubble that drove first-time buyers out of the market in 2005/07.
There is much in the Coalition's proposals that is good. Improving the scope for mobility will enable those in council housing to move to where the jobs are, should they be able to. Encouraging people to reassess their needs as their circumstances change will hopefully free up larger properties so badly needed at present. But indicating that you might introduce limited-term tenancies, thus creating uncertainty in the minds of tenants, is not a particularly useful contribution.
Firstly, just as long-term rail franchises are meant to provide an incentive to train operators to invest in improvements, the possibility of settling in a home, albeit one provided by the State, is an inducement to build, and contribute towards, stable communities in areas with high levels of social housing, to establish more socially diverse estates. In short, the 'Big Society' that David Cameron himself witters on about at such length. Dave, a big society includes everyone...
So, no more destabilising talk, let's be a bit more radical. Why not give local councils more power to borrow money to build new social housing. It would provide housing for our young, our vulnerable and our poor, boost the construction industry, and rebalance the housing market. Freedom means allowing everyone to take part on equal terms...
No comments:
Post a Comment