Why I care so much about housing associations: they will be critical to delivering Jeremy Corbyn’s housebuilding target

While Boris Johnson mutters inanely about mugwumps, Jeremy Corbyn has tried hard to raise the housing issue in the election over the last couple of days and has started to trail Labour’s manifesto commitment to build a million homes.

Despite the media fascination with Johnson’s clowning, I think Jeremy’s core point – Labour will build more homes and more social rented homes – has come across well.  It was good to see his real passion for the subject during his visit to Harlow today.

It seems any debate about housing during elections – the same happened in 2010 and 2015 – is dogged by deliberate obfuscation about what is being discussed. At PMQs on Wednesday, Corbyn’s question to Theresa May was met by the well-rehearsed stock answer that Cameron delivered so many times before – the Tories have built more council houses than Labour did when it was in office.

It happens to be true, but what does it tell us? It tells us that the Labour Government didn’t want councils to be major builders – it’s one of my main beefs with Labour during the Government years. Instead, the money was put into housing associations to provide social rented housing and shared ownership. Mrs May never addresses that. The only comparison that matters between the two governments is how many homes for social rent were provided by councils AND housing associations together. Here the Labour Government wins hands down and many times over.

Sadly, the same confusion dogged the interview at lunchtime between Andrew Neil and Jack Dromey on the Daily Politics. Neil is just about the only interviewer who asks intelligent questions about housing because he has bothered to look up the figures and learn the difference between starts and completions. But even Neil compared apples and bananas in his questions. Mr Corbyn, he said, has committed to 500,000 new council and housing association homes over a Parliament but the only evidence we have to go on is Labour’s record in office. And then, the switch – he quoted the figures for council homes only. And he repeated the point a few times – the Tories build more council houses than Labour, so why should we believe Corbyn’s commitment?  And that was followed by another confusion, as Sayeeda Warsi started quoting housebuilding figures for the UK while Neil was talking England (or was it England and Wales?).

The viewer sadly must be left completely bewildered, and I hope Andrew Neil will return to the issue again.

Fortunately, Jeremy Corbyn managed to be very clear in his speech in Harlow that the commitment is to build 500,000 new council and housing association homes over the next Parliament. I know it’s a mouthful, but truncating the commitment to ‘council houses’ removes the meaning. Most people involved with housebuilding know that it would be virtually impossible to reach a target of completing 100,000 council homes a year even by the end of the Parliament, and certainly impossible to do it each year starting this year. Even if the resources and borrowing powers were available, it would take several years to gear up, to assemble the land, design the schemes, procure the building contracts, and get started on site. It would be a very good thing to do, but it would not produce the homes fast enough.

So, meeting Labour’s target will be dependent on getting housing associations to provide the homes. They are in a much stronger position than councils to accelerate housebuilding and have a track record of being able to produce homes for social rent and for shared ownership. To meet the target, councils will need to be the planners and the strategists and housing associations will need to be the primary deliverers.

As readers will be aware, I have my criticisms of housing associations. But if a new Labour Government had a clear direction and policy, and made the resources and powers available, I believe housing associations would respond. Most will do so with great enthusiasm, but even those associations who (shall we say) aren’t keen ‘to do social rent’ anymore would follow the money.

John Healey has also been all across the media promoting Labour’s message and has published his new report on Housing Innovations being undertaken by Labour Councils. It’s a recommended read.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Why I care so much about housing associations: they will be critical to delivering Jeremy Corbyn’s housebuilding target

  1. joehalewood says:

    On reading, re-reading and then reading again the assertion that housing associations are CRITICAL in delivering 100,000 social housing properties per year is nonsense (Yes I have a much more Anglo-Saxon term in mind that leaves no ambiguity!)

    In a record year for HA developments that includes the NHF’s view of how the total should be arrived at not the official figures and one which excludes any demolitions or other ‘removals’ housing associations built 5,464 properties for social rent and 18,592 for affordable (sic) rent – a total in the best dressed figures of 24,056. That was the maximum and a record breaking year say the NHF.

    Quite how this can mean HA’s part in developing the 100,000 social housing rented units per year is CRITICAL defies belief.

    Councils can easily develop and build 100,000 units per year on their own and can scale up very very quickly as they have the land. All councils need is the political constraint of not being able to borrow for housing to be dropped – and they can borrow for almost any other purpose.

    HA’s – who account for 63% of all social landlords – would proportionally need to develop 63,000 of this 100,000 pa target yet their record year in their entire history of 2015/16 saw them develop at most the 24,056 figure above. They like to tell us they can upscale to this extent yet the likelihood is much more remote than councils who in the past have developed in excess of 200,000 social rented units per year and ten times the record amount that HA’s ever have.

    Critical role of HAs? I couldn’t disagree more and the above points touche on just some of the reasons why. One very key factor is when (not if) housing associations become fully fledged private organisations after ONS reclassification they will develop even more than they do now on the basis of housing PROFIT and not on housing NEED and private rent and private sale products are NOT part of Corbyn and McDonnell’s plan for 100,000 social housing units per year.

    Another factor is just 1 in 5 housing associations actually develop yet the overwhelming majority if not 100% of local councils are chomping at the bit to develop (so 5 times the number of players) for their local housing NEED and to save councils other budgets such as homelessness and social care which the current and overtly political impediment that stops them building housing realises.

    Critical role of HA’s – errant nonsense!

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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