So why are we so weak?

At the recent annual general meeting of the Labour Housing Group, addressed by Shadow Housing Minister John Healey MP, there was a general air of disbelief that housing policy could have become so perverted that the most extraordinarily damaging legislation – the Housing and Planning Act – could be passed into law. We have arrived at a position that even the most alarmist commentator would not have predicted as being possible in 2010. We have regressed so far in this Parliament that it is even possible to begin to feel nostalgic about the reign of Grant Shapps as Housing Minister.

Several people in the meeting praised the sterling opposition put up to the Bill during its passage, in particular by Lord Kerslake and others in the House of Lords. Some amendments were achieved, but the Government pushed the Bill through the Commons without serious fear of defeat, helped by the fact that it was England-only legislation. There was little sign of rebellion on the Tory benches. Yet in recent times the Government has faced defeat on a wide range of other policy issues and has backed down humiliatingly on a significant number of them. Why not housing? The point I made was that, if we want to make the case powerfully for a decent housing policy, we have to start by challenging ourselves: ‘why is the housing sector so weak?’ and ‘why is the progressive housing case so lacking in influence?’

Since then I have been impressed by two brilliant housing blogs that addressed similar and overlapping themes. In a sweeping and comprehensive restatement of the case for genuinely affordable housing, called The Theory of Everything, Colin Wiles wrote: ‘I have a unifying theory that the housing crisis underpins almost every social, political and economic problem of our time.’ He argued that the core solution – investment in social rented housing – is ‘staring us in the face’. Colin concluded that making the case for housing as the fundamental bedrock of a decent society ‘is the challenge for our sector. We have to make the case for change and if we don’t do it, who else will?’

On Shelter’s excellent housing blog, in a very perceptive post Kate Webb asked ‘why was housing such an easy target?’ and pointed out that, despite almost universal condemnation and several rounds of Lords’ defeats, ultimately the Government ‘felt comfortable enough to stand firm with its vision for social housing’ despite U turns on everything from tax credits to forced academisation to the Human Rights Act. We are all influenced by anecdotal evidence and Kate recounts a radio phone discussion in which ‘starter homes’ were seen as a fantastic idea (despite the maths) and social housing was seen as for people on benefits. ‘Bluntly put’, she writes, ‘there was too little political pain attached to squeezing social housing when done in the name of promoting home ownership.’

So why is the case for social housing so weak? I suspect there are a number of inter-linked reasons but if I was forced to sum up my view in one sentence, I would say that we have been losing the battle to control the political narrative around housing for 40 years. The winning side – private housing good, socialised housing bad – has had it mostly its own way and trying to understand this might lead us down a better path.

First I would mention the media. Some people think I am obsessed by media bias, and it has been a hobby horse of mine since I worked at Shelter in the 1980s. Then, there were a similar number of people with mortgages and people who paid rent. Yet changes in mortgage rates were always top item on the news and changes in rents rarely if ever got a mention. Peoples’ views are partly dependent on the information they receive; if that wasn’t true, we wouldn’t have such a huge propaganda and advertising industry. Bias against ‘subsidised’ social housing and in favour of ‘stand on your own feet’ home ownership has been systematic and all-powerful. The confluence of interests between the bulk of the written media and the Conservatives has driven popular political discourse around housing. I am often told that I am ignoring the fact that people get most of their information from TV and radio and the internet these days, as if these were neutral, but as a big BBC fan it is obvious to me that their agenda is strongly driven by what appears in the predominantly right wing papers – and most influential people across the media identify mainly with home ownership, a little with private renting, and not at all with social renting.

Socialised housing pays for itself in the long run but building it needs capital subsidy up front. Social housing investment has been a major victim of the economic policies adopted by Governments since Healey and the IMF crisis in 1976 and the prevailing view that public spending is a drain on the economy. Behind the economics lies the politics: while direct public housing investment has been slashed, there have been waves of very expensive subsidies to homeownership in the form of tax reliefs, discounts on right to buy, and now direct subsidy for starter homes. Demand subsidies like these tend to reinforce prices. The truth is that private housing wealth accumulation makes a significant group of voters feel happier and more secure, even if it is ultimately at the expense of everyone else. Keeping house prices rising and offering more people the chance to jump on what seems to be a gravy train buys votes.

On the ‘progressive’ side we have undermined our own case for more social housing through self-inflicted wounds. It was probably just bad luck that the greatest period of investment in social housing, in the 1960s and 1970s, coincided with the worst period of design and construction, leaving a legacy that is not as bad as it is painted but is very challenging nonetheless – and easy to stereotype, even in the Guardian. Large parts of the sector have gone along with the wider attack on ‘welfare dependency’ and have failed to challenge the ‘scrounger’ narrative which the right has been so keen on. Social housing was frequently condemned as the enemy of aspiration. As a result, the door was opened for the monster Duncan Smith. It took a very long time to reform the paternalistic and bureaucratic mode of housing management (currently making a comeback sadly) and to appreciate that some of the things people liked most about home ownership – security, control, self-determination, mobility – could be replicated in social housing through progressive management models.

If the Conservatives have grabbed their opportunity for ideological purity with both hands, Labour’s approach has been unhelpfully ambivalent. Like trades unions, building council housing was not a ‘New Labour’ thing. Although vast improvements were carried out to the council housing stock under Blair and Brown, a genuinely great achievement, money was only available if you were willing to move away from the traditional council housing model. The role of building new affordable housing was given to housing associations, but on a much reduced scale despite their hubris. A hopelessly inadequate number of new affordable homes were built under Labour – until Brown’s Keynesian response to the financial collapse in 2008 – and in the event many of the biggest developing associations had lost sight of their mission to help the homeless and badly housed, becoming equally ambivalent about social renting and obsessed with home ownership and market-related solutions.

The housing lobby has also failed. It was once a progressive force, building a case based on an assessment of the housing needs of people on low and moderate incomes. There are still many brilliant people working in it, but in terms of raw influence it is a shadow of its former self. Some parts of it, especially the producer lobby the National Housing Federation, have been slowly migrating away from being one of us to becoming one of them. Their well-funded big effort before the 2015 election, Homes for Britain, couldn’t bring itself to make the case for social renting rather than vaguer notions of ‘affordability’. In its 50th year, and despite a lot of good work, Shelter’s impact now seems very modest. New campaign groups have emerged, often with a burst of publicity, like Generation Rent and a plethora of local groups, but at a national level few voices argue unambiguously for social rented housing. By and large the voices of consumers – by that I mean both existing social tenants and people in housing need who want to be social tenants – are totally unheard.

To get to the point where no Government would dare bring in an Act like this one we will have to climb several mountains. We will have to challenge prejudice and demonization, we will have to contradict the view that all public borrowing and spending is non-productive, we will have to contest the view that housing policy can be reduced to promoting a single tenure. We must stop being embarrassed by council housing and other social renting in the face of grotesque stereotyping. Even if we manage to build more homes in the future, we must shed the ambivalence: because we know that the needs of the homeless and badly housed will only be met by a return to the provision of social rented housing on a large scale.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to So why are we so weak?

  1. Tom Chance says:

    I’ve been thinking about this for a few days now, hoping some bright ideas will come to mind. But none have.

    In campaign strategies you typically analyse the forces – the people involved, the organisations, the institutions – and put each of them onto a two dimensional map according to their relative power and their closeness to your position. You then work out how to reduce the power of opponents and increase the power of supporters; and how to bring more people over to supporting you, especially the already-powerful.

    The big problem here is that there are lots of relatively powerful institutions that *should* be supportive, but for a long time haven’t been. I’d include much of the housing association sector, many council housing people, most of the Labour Party at a national level (and too often at a local level) and many informed media and academic commentators. People such as yourselves and John Healey have been trying to change the attitude and outward message of the Labour Party, which is really welcome.

    Another problem, partly a consequence of Labour’s failure to make the case, but mostly down to prejudice and ignorance in the mainstream media, is the poor understanding of the economics of social housing in the media. When we (the Green Party) launched our plan in 2015 for 100,000 social rented homes a year almost nobody except Evan Davies recognised the basic economic case. Natalie’s LBC interview didn’t help, of course. But it was treated like an expensive boondoggle rather than a wise investment that would reap long-term savings to the government.

    Then there are all the tenants and leaseholders who definitely are supportive, but who have relatively little power. I know a lot of councils in London that try to suppress, co-opt and channel TRAs for their own ends, effectively neutering them. Several are sidelining TRAs in order to drive through deeply regressive regeneration programmes. Public policy is made without reference to them; they are treated like a poorly informed rabble. Too often hearings in town and city halls, and in Westminster, invite Esteemed People from councils and housing associations with letters after their names, not tenants and leaseholders representatives.

    I think Glyn’s comment is particularly helpful here, because he points to one way in which providers and residents could come to share a common agenda, and perhaps then speak out with a common voice.

    If leaseholders are brought in, as they too suffer from regeneration and the under-funding of building stock, that brings in a lot of swing voters.

    Just imagine if every council and housing association had worked with every TRA to mobilise against the Housing & Planning Bill. A petition would easily have exceeded 100,000 signatures. MPs in marginal constituencies could have felt the heat from hundreds of tenants and leaseholders. It could be so different…

  2. Glyn Thomas says:

    I agree with what you said in your recent Red Brick blog about the failure in Westminster to block or delay the Housing and Planning Bill. I don’t really understand why the Lords backed down at the last minute. Had they refused to withdraw their amendments, the government would have had to invoke the Parliament Act 1911 and the Bill would have been delayed by a year. In the present political climate, a lot can happen in a year.

    On a general point of why the housing sector appears to have been so weak in opposing this reactionary legislation, my view is that has failed to muster all possible opposition. One important section has not been as involved as it might be; namely tenants, leaseholders and residents. The fight in Parliament was been between the political elites.

    The attitudes of council and housing association managers have a lot to do with this. With some honourable exceptions the general view of these people is to regard their clients as an incompetent helotry. The idea that the ‘man in the town hall knows best’ is still prevalent. This is even more the case with housing association board members. If they were elected and therefore directly answerable to their clients they might take a different attitude.

    Looking over the Border into Wales, we see that Welsh Labour Government has encouraged the setting up of Community Housing Mutuals where the entire housing assets of various local authorities including the land have been transferred to the residents. These organisations are not co-operatives because the residents only have a third of the seats on the Board. But they are a step in the right direction. In Merthyr Tydfil, the CHM has recently become a hybrid co-op i.e. tenants and staff form the membership. Similar arrangements have been set up in Salford and Rochdale.

    These are useful solutions. But the position of the sector in England would be considerable stronger if we enlisted the big battalions ie tenants leaseholders and residents. But that means delegating real power to these people; something that many housing professional practitioners would balk at. The residents have the genuine interest in their housing; it is after all their homes. We need their active support.

    Best Wishes

  3. alistair mcintosh says:

    I knew the senior police officer that protected Thatcher on her visits to Scotland – his dad suffered in ’26 and was out of work a very long time – he was continually amazed/disappointed at the low level of meaningful opposition to her from the housing schemes – the situation you write about, very well, is similar – there was no groundswell against this Act – despite its aim of bringing to an end cheap public rented housing in London – it is true that a number of Lords and MPs made fine speeches against the Act – but it is no surprise they cut no ice – in the end people like us supported them and no one else noticed what was going on – Cameron zoomed on down the open road totally unimpeded

  4. joehalewood says:

    Steve, it is WHY the housing lobbies have failed that is key for me.

    “Housing” only ever speaks to itself; it never does anything that is public facing and hasn’t done so since the original Thatcherite RTB and which “housing people” missed a hugely important point – that Thatcher’s RTB made ‘merely renting’ something perceived as a second or even third class cultural issue.

    If you chose to ‘merely rent’ you have no ambition, you are not aspiring and so on and for the last 35 years since RTB I can count on the fingers of a chopped off hand how many times that housing has actively promoted the social housing model to the general public.

    If the public and politicians (as well as media which I fully agree with you on) have not been informed of the huge number of social and economic benefits that the social housing model brings, then it is not the fault of politicians or the public for believing that social housing is the housing of last choice.

    The SHOUT report is a great economic tract yet incomprehensible and far too long for the general public. The Hills Report and other ‘good works’ in the past are also targeted at the incredibly narrow audience of the housing professional only – housing talks to housing and no one else!

    The absence of decades of housing failing to promote itself is the problem and when added to with the ‘Benefit Street’ stereotype that has been media policy and Conservative policy in ‘austerity’ and the Miliband Labour Party scared witless to say anything that could be construed as ‘pro’ welfare so they kept silent, it is no wonder that the social housing model is such an easy target.

    Instead of surprise and incredulity, this has had decades long inevitability written all over it and the chief culprits are those within social housing itself

  5. Brian Lund says:

    So why are we so weak? Its politics. The Tories have mastered the political game. See my article ‘The Electoral Politics of Housing’ Brian Lund

    The Political Quarterly
    Volume 86, Issue 4, pages 500–506, October–December 2015

    • alistair mcintosh says:

      I paid the $38 for access to your article – the very definition of good quality Champagne Socialism – but there are a few gems in your piece – all is not lost – 10% swing to Labour from private renters at the General Election – but only 51% of them voted – the PRS is God’s gift to the Labour Party, if enough private tenants sign up to vote

      • Brian Lund says:

        Frock-coated socialists are rare in Oldham. We use University libraries, where, for a modest annual fee, journal articles are accessible. I would not be too optimistic about private landlord politics. Jeremy Corbyn has expressed concern about the landlord vote:
        … you’re looking at several million people letting out one or two flats. And they can become a politically significant group. Particularly in marginal constituencies. So you will find all parties trimming towards them: landlords tend to be people who vote.
        (Corbyn, 2016, quoted in Walker and Jeraj, 2016 p 79).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s