Ain’t No Rest For The Wicked

Talk is cheap, building housing isn’t. The warm and conciliatory tone struck by Sajid Javid needs to be backed up by cold hard cash. Otherwise it is meaningless.

An honest mistake

I must say that I have been taken somewhat by surprise by the first day of the NHF conference in Birmingham. Not by Sajid Javid announcing another Green Paper on Housing. We’ve had so many pieces of legislation on housing another one isn’t going to hurt. But a Conservative Secretary of State for the DCLG talking about housing beyond pure numbers and bricks and mortar was not on the cards. 

I do not share his ‘pride’ on the Conservative Party’s record on council/social housing. It is abysmal, particularly in recent years. To call it anything else would be a dishonesty of the highest order. Nor do I easily swallow the fact that his speech ignored the complicit role the Tories have played in pushing policies that have marginalised, stigmatised and residualised social housing and the people who live in it. But the fact that he’s talking about such issues is a step change in and of itself.

It is one of the genuinely positive impacts of the Brexit vote that Messrs Cameron and Osborne are out of the picture. Because, for all their talk of being in the Centre ground, they were Neo-Liberal ideologues through and through on housing. Ownership was king, social housing bred Labour supporters. It was the role of the state to get out of the way and let the market provide. Policies and funding streams were designed accordingly. Consequently, we’re currently spending 79% of the total housing budget on higher cost homes for sale, and we’ve stopped funding social rent builds. At a time when rough sleeping is up 134%, when housing homeless people in temporary accommodation is costing £845 million a year and it costs 23% more in housing benefit payments to house someone in the PRS than if they were in a social housing. That is insane.

Ain’t no rest for the wicked, money don’t grow on trees

Whilst the prospect of yet another Green Paper on housing hasn’t exactly warmed the cockles of my heart, it is an opportunity to push the case for properly funding social rent. It could also provide a break from some of the barmy policy decisions highlighted above. But just as the Housing White Paper studiously avoided an open debate about the Private Sector, its standards and greater regulation. The ‘broad’ and ‘wide ranging’ remit of the Green Paper will just focus on one element of the rented housing in this country. That is a deliberate omission, and a big mistake.

Just as policy focus  purely on building for home ownership was wrong. There is no point zeroing in on one element of policy interventions in rented housing. It is utter folly to ignore the broader policy context and market idiosyncrasies that impact on the need for more social housing. We need to provide more, better, secure housing. Regardless of whether it’s rented private housing, rented social housing or home ownership.

History Repeating

In his speech Mr Javid mentions learning from the past. I truly hope that he heeds his own words, otherwise we’ll be exactly where we started. Which is in a pretty darn big mess.

Photo Credit – Matt Biddulph – Council Estate (2008)

As ever, you can find more of my stuff here and follow me on Twitter here.

Advertisements

Diary of A Wimpy Kid

Following what can only be described as a remarkable General Election the UKHousing sector must take stock and build on the solid work over the last year.

The Winner Takes it All (or not)

To say this General Election has put a spanner in the works would be putting it mildly. Shout out to YouGov for having the balls to stick by that poll. I don’t think many people would have predicted a Tory minority Government, especially one being propped up by the DUP. For the social housing sector this has already had some serious consequences. In Gavin Barwell we had a housing minister who at least gave some support and hope to the sector. It is a sorry state of affairs when we’re happy with a minister who wasn’t total shit. But at least Barwell (mostly) fought our corner and, Affordable Rents aside, I agreed with a lot of the work he did.

The Long and Winding Road

Many challenges still face both the social housing sector and the UKhousing market more broadly. Barwell’s admission that the ‘new generation of council housing’ was going to be at (non) Affordable Rent levels is deeply worrying. As is the LHA Cap, particularly given that the stay of execution is only temporary, the minimal amount of Capital Funding available, as well as the slow and painful roll out of Universal Credit. Without a significant increase in genuinely social housing in this country Housing Associations will more and more focus on those who can afford to pay their rent without Housing Benefit. This is simply because the accumulative cuts to welfare support and the alterations to those who can access it are making it increasingly risky to rent to the unrentables.

As grant is (even further) replaced by private sector loans and cross-subsidising, so is exposure to risk increased. Risk that, again, is best served by renting to those off Housing Benefit and in secure work. It is a pretty horrific catch 22. For one to build more social housing, greater levels of private finance are needed, but to fund that higher levels of rent/proof of financial stability is required. Those at the bottom will ultimately miss out as dollar signs push organisational priorities.

We’re not at a Crossroads, but times are a-changing

Many have used the term ‘crossroads’ to describe where the sector is at. I hate that phrase for a number of reasons:

  1. Because it reminds of this God-awful pop group from the early 2000s
  2. Because it doesn’t reflect the gradual change in focus for the sector, or the pressures currently facing it
  3. Because we’ve been using private funding and cross-subsidising builds as a sector for decades

However, what we are seeing is a parallel split in the sector, largely across a couple of issues. Firstly in terms of the primary focus of building – home ownership and affordable rent over social rent – secondly in terms of who we’ll let to.

I bet you think this song is about you

Many in the sector are giving significant consideration to excluding the very people we should be renting our homes to. The logic to be more selective in who we rent to is perfectly sound, and as organisations we have a legitimate need to ensure financial stability and security. But that doesn’t make these thought processes anymore horrific. Smaller, more community focused organisations will (probably) continue to rent to the unrentables. However for the bigger boys and girls this, in the long run, may prove to be too problematic. Some may claim this is not the case, but looking at the tenure split of the Affordable Homes Building Programme figures and such an assertion has merit.

I am not one for melodrama, but just as the country is entering uncharted, and hazardous waters over Brexit. So too is the sector. Hopefully over the coming months we’ll get a better idea of how May (or her replacement) will deal with the bloody nose the electorate has given the Conservative Party. That we haven’t yet had a Housing Minister announced when most of the posts have been re-filled by the incumbent is not a great sign. But let’s face it, we’ve always been on the periphery. Whoever it is will need to make the best of this clusterfuck and to take housing seriously. For our part we’ll need to deliver the housing this country, and not just our profit margins, needs.

As ever, you can find more of my stuff here and follow me on Twitter here.

Photo Credit – Matt BiddulphCouncil Estate (2008)

 

I am the Walrus

One of the more amusing anecdotes I’ve come across recently involves The Beatles, more specifically John Lennon. Apparently, after receiving a bit of fan mail which noted that an English teacher was getting his students to study and analyse Beatles songs, Mr Lennon decided to deliberately obfuscate future attempts. The result was I am the Walrus. If this video is anything to go by, it’s safe to say he succeeded.

Sadly it is not just long dead musicians who can baffle and befuddle those looking beyond the face value meaning of things. At play right now are a couple of pieces of policy, and legislation, that are not quite as comprehensible as they could be when the broader picture is brought into view.

The Good

There is much to be commended regarding the Homeless Reduction Bill (HRB). It has, by and large, been brought forward for the right reasons. Homelessness is increasing in pretty much every measure. Aside from the personal tragedies and traumas that play out on an individual level (the impact of which is not to be underplayed), the cost to Government (and by default you and I) is considerable. Thus both morally and financially speaking it makes sense to try to reduce homelessness by prevention as much as ‘cure’.

By extending the threshold of those threatened with homelessness from 28, to 56 days and making greater provisions to help single homeless individuals the HRB will help to plug significant gaps in LA requirements to help those at risk of homelessness. These are good, welcome measures that can hopefully be of significant benefit.

The Bad

The problem I have with the Homeless Reduction Bill is that unless significant changes to policy elsewhere are made, it is going to struggle to have any real, sustained impact. Aside from shifting blame from Central to Local Government. Dawn Foster has done a good job of noting a number of the qualms regarding the HRB here, as ever, so has Shelter. Between them they’ve highlighted that:

  • More responsibilities for LAs without long-term secure funding it not a good idea
  • Homelessness needs to be taken more serious as an issue in its own right
  • Operating in isolation the HRB will not be effective, more cross departmental working is needed

But there are further concerns that need attention here. The single largest reason for councils accepting an individual (or household) as unintentionally homeless is the ending of an assured tenancy. A part of that picture is evictions after complaints/repairs have been logged by tenants. Whilst a welcome step, as highlighted by the BBC last week there are still many issues with the Revenge Eviction legislation* and its enforcement that need ironing out.

Elsewhere, a fit for habitation clause was conspicuous by its absence in the Housing White Paper (HWP). And despite renting, and in particular Private Renting, getting a larger mention in the HWP, very little in terms of greater security or protection for those in the PRS was forthcoming.

At the same time measures set in motion under Cameron et al. will start to have an impact, notably:

All of these measures will directly and indirectly impact on the ability of individuals, charities and the state (both local and central) to counter the rising levels of homelessness. And run counter the very aims of the HRB, which seeks to reduce those without a secure home.

The Ugly

Without labouring the point it appears that a significant part of this Government’s rhetoric on helping those just about managing is just that, rhetoric. The link between housing, the welfare state, security of tenure and homelessness are not being explicitly acknowledged or acted upon. This Government seems to think it can continue to erode support via the welfare state, yet by making moderate tweaks in legislation it will solve a whole host of ills. That, quite simply, is utter bollocks.

Whilst more money has been made available for additional ‘affordable’ housing, and changes to expectations on Starter Homes put in place. The level of ambivalence to outright social housing (despite a thawing in relations between the sector and new housing minister) means a significant weapon in reducing homelessness is being left in the armoury. Don’t believe me, ask Finland.

Fundamentally homelessness, housing provision and support go hand in hand. You either pay upfront via capital grant for more housing and preventative support services for greater levels of assistance; or you pay time and time again via acute/emergency housing relief for an increasing number of people. It is that simple. Failure to recognise that fact means for all its good intentions the Homeless Reduction Bill is on dodgy foundations before it even starts. Something that, given wider issues with our housing system, we can ill afford.

As ever, you can find more of my stuff here and follow me on Twitter here.

Photo Credit – Nico Hogg (2008) Innis House, East Street

*Last year the Government, heels dragging, eventually did support a Revenge Eviction Bill. No thanks to Philip Davies and Christopher Chope. Muppets.

 

Generation Snowflake

So the joke goes, this generation never had it so good. Millennials have Xbox’s, PlayStations, PacMan video games and iPads. Their predecessors simply had the ability to buy their first home before they were 30. These days it seems, those looking to get on the mythical ladder to The Faraway Tree home ownership have everything but a home to call their own. The picture is often more complex than that, below is my thoughts on the current situation. Warning, whinging millennial mode engaged.

Trust me it’s not the negative press or a lack of rolling up one’s sleeves that’s stopping me from buying a house, it’s the money involved.

Nice One Grandma, Cheers Dad

The recently released Resolution Foundation report has caught the attention of the press. The piece notes that Millennials (i.e. me and my mates) will potentially be the first ever generation to record lower lifetime earning than their predecessors. That our inability to buy a home will have implications on lifetime standards and that redistribution of taxes via the welfare state are tilted in the favour of the Baby Boomers and their elders, and how this impacts on inter-generational ties. Yea, it’s a real chirpy read*.

Decreasing numbers of younger homeowners

home-ownership

ONS Digital (2015) Housing and Home Ownership in the UK

In his blog that preceded the Resolution Foundation’s report (via an article in The Times) David Willetts argued that whilst a proportion of the population is reaping the benefits of being the baby boomers. It needs to do more to help the younger generations†. It’s an interesting, well thought out article with a helpful analogy (or is it a metaphor, always shit at these) of big birth cohorts like baby boomers being akin to a pig that’s been swallowed by a Python. Something that creates enormous strains, but also opportunities (well, not for the pig, he’s fucked).

However, as I’ve blogged before recently policies have either largely ignored those struggling to sort their housing situation or have been distorted by ideology, with interventions such as help to buy having the very opposite of their intended effect. And whilst I concur with Mr Willetts deliberations, there is concern his view, and that of the Resolution Foundation might not be heard.

It’s all so simple

If you believe parts of the press (step forward Daily Telegraph) we’re all a bunch of whinging areses who’ve never had it so good. Because despite trebled tuition fees, greater levels of insecure working, greater levels of household debt, Brexit and spiralling housing costs as rents and house prices outstrip wage increases, we need to pull our fingers out. Why? Because it turns out that despite masses of evidence to the contrary, we can buy a house. This is apparently the case due to affordability factors getting  back to their long-term average and deposits no longer being an issue due to the fact we can simply get a 100pc mortgage with a parental guarantee. Trust me it’s not the negative press or  me being a whinge-bag and not rolling up my sleeves that’s stopping me from buying a house. 100pc mortgage or not, it’s the money involved that’s the problem, period.

Declining Number of First Time Buyers (Number of mortgage loans for first time buyers, UK, 1980 to 2013)

first-time-buyers-mortgages

ONS Digital (2015) Housing and Home Ownership in the UK

Moving Forward

There has been a number of suggested solutions ranging from the genuinely innovative to the downright odd. Including, but not limited to, live in converted shipping containers, rely on your rich relatives to die/give you money, live in houses that don’t meet space standards to make them cheaper, fuck off to Europe, increase shared ownership. Some of the above may help, others not so much. But they need to be pulled together into a coherent strategy, where the state, the private sector and social housing sector play complementary roles.

Teresa May is increasingly putting forward a case for the state to be involved in improving the lives of those struggling in society. That our society is not a just a big one, but a shared one. And whilst John Rentoul is right to note she is very good at saying a lot without actually saying anything, the rhetoric is welcome. Hopefully it will be backed with policy and cash. Otherwise the inter-generational gap will only widen and with it the life chances of future generations will undoubtedly decrease.

As ever, you can find more of my stuff here and follow me on Twitter here.

Photo Credit: herefordcat (2008): Georgian Terrace

+Updated 11/01/2017 to include graphs

*For a legitimately amusing aside, check out these millennial v baby bloomer tweets.
†An argument that is slightly undermined by the fact that Mr Willetts was the Minister of State for Universities and Science who trebled tuition fees, thus negatively impacting on the life chances of younger generations via increasing their debt burden. Cheers Dave.

 

 

Down The Rabbit Hole

One of the things you notice about the social housing sector is that familiar themes tend to rear their heads. Mergers, the digital question and innovation are probably the three most circular and lamented examples one can find. And on all three it is time the sector moved away from its Group Think.

The last couple of weeks have a seen a number of announcements on significant mergers within the sector. L&Q and East Thames, Affinity Sutton and Circle have come to the end of working out who is going to metaphorically sod off to retirement in France, and who is going to be sticking around to move the organisation forward. Cue the predictable mutterings of discontent.

Variety might be the spice of life but Rationalisation Needs to Take Place

One of the most telling points on the sector is that no-one is quite sure how many organisations there are. With figures usually around the 1,200 mark – but it varies depending on how/who you count. Size is also just as varied, orgs having a handful of properties to the likes of Places for People or Sanctuary, who quite frankly are Goliaths.

For Housing Associations, culture even more so than size, is the most crucial element in a merger being successful.

Let’s be clear, a merger is not necessarily a bad thing. But neither will it automatically be the land of milk and honey. For Housing Associations, culture even more so than size, is the most crucial element in a merger being successful. Well, that and someone doing some proper due diligence on the finances. 

The much vaunted efficiencies & VFM typically too readily associated with mergers actually come from smarter ways of working. These stem from a desire to improve, innovate and change up internal processes. Simply adding on a gazebo to your organisation via a merger won’t obtain that on its own. Nor will it occur by just handing a bigger paycheck to the Chief Exec. for getting more stock. It needs to be driven by the vision of the new organisation. And through hard bloody work. 

Are you comfortable helping a finite number of people, or do you want to help as many as physically and practically possible?

On the other hand, whilst it is possible to grow without mergers, too often I get the feeling that resistance to mergers is about keeping fiefdoms, negating change, staying the course. It is an eerily similar pattern that is seen with digital change and innovation in UK Housing. People tend to talk shop but deliver very little. The problem with this approach is that such stagnation is regression. If you are not going to grow you still need to develop and evolve. If not in your core business, you will need to do so in your processes and infrastructure. If you’re not doing either then you have a problem and need to rethink your life choices.

Don’t worry, the big boys & gals can be just as culpable here. Big does not mean innovative, it just means big. Indeed, if the sheer number of ‘thought disrupting’ consultants out there hawking for work is anything to go by it could well be the opposite. But is there really a need for as many providers as we currently have? Probably not. Does this means going down the route of train franchises for example? I.e. localised monopolies delivering a shit service. Again, probably not. But there are too many cooks in this particular kitchen, and some are a bit shit. Time to clear the decks a bit.

Keep Your Knickers On

I’ve worked for an organisation on the smaller side of the scale (2,500) units. And I currently work for one with a stock size around the 40,000 mark. I get the merits of both. The best bit about working for the smaller organisation was the freedom you had to try and fail. Because money wasn’t any issue (there wasn’t any) you had to be very inventive on new ideas. That’s great to a point, but it means you’re always having to punch above your weight, are heavily reliant on a couple of staff driving forward ideas and eventually you run out of steam. Largely due to other competing pressures or staff leaving. 

In a larger organisations there are a different set of challenges. Dealing with the local politics and bureaucracy can be a pain. But the payback is that you have the resources and support you need to make meaningful change on a bigger scale. You also get more clout in the broader policy environment. 

I guess for me it comes down to what you see the role of the housing sector as. Additionally, where it fits within the broader policy environment and what part of that do you want to be. Thus, to a large extent, it has always been a numbers game. To borrow John Stuart Mill’s philosophical musings, it is about Utility Maximisation, i.e ensuring the greatest good for the largest number of people. For a lot of people this doesn’t seem to a problem if the body doing the work is a Local Authority. But have a housing organisation akin to the size of a District Council and people seem to lose their shit.

Stop Pissing in from the Sidelines

But all the above means nothing if you aren’t willing to engange and influence, to drive home what you do. Too often organisations have been content with being non-political beasts. Not wanting to rock the boat. As a result they have been passed by in the process. Stop pissing from the sidelines and connect with your local politician. If you don’t engage in the process someone else will. Often with an agenda at odds with yours.

I don’t care what your politcal views are, you are going to have to work with what is in front of you. The recent policy wins (negated by continuing losses elsewhere) at the Autumn Statement came from direct lobbying. With a Government now at least appearing to be listening it is important to make your case. Whether you have 100 or 100,000 units, it doesn’t matter. Get off your ass, develop, progress and influence. 

As ever, you can find more of my stuff here and follow me on Twitter here.

Photo Credit:

VMAX137  (2012): View of South Lake Union and Queen Anne Hill

 https://www.flickr.com/photos/vmax137/

System Failure

For all the pain, the anguish and upset so visible in No Place to Call a Home the end result is crushingly predictable. Not just because we haven’t been building enough of the right type of housing in the right areas for years, but because it highlights how much central Government has pulled back the safety net that is meant to help those who need it.

I feel like writing to every paper and saying do something!

The Twitter outrage will die out shortly, Mrs May’s Government may ride some tough questioning in the short-term. But for someone who has studied and worked in social policy and social housing for the best part of 10 years the stories being told in No Place to Call a Home are all too familiar. They are a reminder that ordinary people are having to ever more rely on friends and family as the state is unable, and at national level, unwilling to help. That for many simply having a job is not enough to keep a roof over one’s head, and that being at crisis point isn’t enough to get the help you need.

What I found most striking was the thoughts of those covered by No Place to Call a Home. The shock at their predicament, the re-assessing of how they view others in the same place.  They’re probably mirroring the thoughts of most of us watching. And as someone who has been through in work poverty (albeit only temporary) it is a reminder that in another life that could have been me. It still can be.

I used to judge people…but now I’m in that situation I’m more understanding…it’s probably going to get harder.

These are Fucking People, Not just Figures

Another thing successfully highlighted by the show is the detrimental impact of having no secure shelter. That regardless of whether you are young, old, black or white, you can have your sense of safeness yanked away at any time. You don’t need to be unemployed, you don’t need to be a drug addict, you don’t need to be a delinquent.

We’ve become so good at dehumanising the effects of policy and/or policy failure that you forget the people behind the numbers. We’ve been so quick to blame individual pathology, to blame the other, to blame immigrants, to blame anyone and anything but the monumental failure of housing and welfare policy in this country. That we’re failing to do what any civilised country should. Help those in need. It’s as if we have cultivated this collective blind-spot. Because nearly all of us are a couple of missed pay-cheques from being homeless, it’s about time we remembered that.

We’re Almost Back Where we Started

50 years ago the release of Cathy Come Home caused such an uproar that two major charities (Crisis and Shelter) were formed, Government policy altered significantly and many of the Housing Associations in operation today were formed. However, thanks to 30 years of hostile policy, of bad policy and of neglect we are almost back where we started. Right to Buy has stripped back social housing stock, as has more recent under-funding of new construction of social stock. Years of hostile press has seen the reputation of social housing and those unfortunate enough to need state help is in tatters.

We don’t need to keep failing, we choose to.

In 21st Century Britain it is a fucking travesty that we still have issues of homelessness and housing insecurity. I’m writing this on a laptop that has more processing power in its little finger than the Apollo Space shuttles had. Mobile phones are now so juiced up you can practically run a whole business from them. We have Hoovers that don’t need you to control them to clean your house (mind = blown). We can fund a massive white elephant in Hinckley, we can fund nuclear weapons. Yet we still can’t ensure everyone has a roof over their head and that we have a properly funded capital investment programme to build social housing for those in dire need. That’s not unfortunate, it’s utter incompetence.

Opportunity Knocks

For the first time in what seems like an eternity (OK, 6 years or so) we have a pragmatic (on paper at least) Chancellor willing to invest instead of simply prioritising deficit reduction and bullshit dogma. We also have a housing minister, who whilst unable to mention the s-word (social) rent, has indicated more of a willingness to fund sub-market rent. I wholeheartedly agree with a number of chaps and chapesses in the sector who have been calling to work with the current incumbents in power. It is time to make the most of the hand that has been dealt, because the status quo is not an option.

Leaving on a Positive Note

One of my all time favourite quotes is from Mr Kennedy (not him, the other one, who could more often than not keep his dick in his trousers). It’s a reminder that each of us can change history, that together we can be greater than the sum of our parts. After spending most of this blog bitching it’s probably best to have some positive messages. Enjoy.

Few will have the greatness to bend history itself, but each of us can work to change a small portion of events. It is from numberless diverse acts of courage and belief that human history is shaped. Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope, and crossing each other from a million different centers of energy and daring those ripples build a current which can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance

Fetch me a shovel. Let’s do this.

You can find more of my stuff here and follow me on Twitter here.

Moses I amn’t

I agree Gavin Barwell, relying on a rich, dead, relative should not be the way to buy a home. The housing market should be able to facilitate affordable home ownership without someone being 6 Feet under or living in a hamster cage. So let’s build more social housing.

It is seldom that I write directly about home ownership, this blog is typically a mish-mash of things related to social housing, internal processes thereof or me being annoyed at Central Government that negatively affects social housing. But, as is now, I occasionally will stray. In this particularly instance it is some recent comments from our new Housing Minister that have piqued my interest.

Fetch the shovel

The first comment of note is Mr Barwell’s quite honest (and accurate) response to a question around home ownership and how first time buyers can get on that mythical housing ladder. By stating that Grandparents should by-pass their children for the sake of their Grandchildren’s ability to buy a home he has presented a quite reasonable approach tackling diminishing home ownership. This is fairly appropriate and reasonable, the issue is two-fold.

1) The most obvious – It’s bollocks. I, as a qualified, reasonably well paid, worker should not have to rely on a rich relative dropping dead to buy a bloody house. The fact that people are having to do so in order to afford the deposit for a mortgage is a sure-fire sign that years of crap housing policy (from all political parties) is coming home to roost. I agree with Mr Barwell that this shouldn’t be the case.  The problem is his party have been making the situation a lot worse for the past 6 years. Going, yeah it’s a bit shit, right now isn’t helpful. Though it is a start.

2) Housing supply is the key concern in terms of driving up the cost of housing, not necessarily the ability to buy (in many instances credit has never been cheaper to access). Social mobility will stagnate until housing supply increases because it is this (and not scrapping right to buy in social housing) that is causing stock blocking and wealth inequality to sky-rocket. Renewed Government interest in funding housing projects might help, but much more is needed. Especially in terms of more social housing. Which pays for itself and even works post Brexit. Just saying.

I am not a Hamster

Sadly Mr Barwell’s other interjection has actually annoyed me (the other is a bit of a misquote). Call me picky, but I don’t want to live in a house that doesn’t meet current building regulations, because they’re actually pretty shit. Britain already has the smallest sized houses in Europe (the continent, not the EU, shut up Brexiters). Making them smaller isn’t going to help. Whilst it’s happened to a number of day-to-day products like Cadbury Chocolate bars. Yes you cheeky sods, I’ve noticed they’re smaller, and you’ve put your prices up. Bastards. Doing the same for properties just builds up issues down the line.

Whilst some might think that my age cohort splash out cash on overly pricey crap and skiing holidays, we’re mostly just getting by. You’ve had your cake, and eaten it, kindly don’t lecture me. I don’t want to live in a tiny house. I don’t want to live in a converted shipping container. What I want is for my reasonable pay to be able to afford a reasonably sized house, preferably within a 1 hour commute from my job. That is not an outlandish wish, but as prices (both rental and ownership) continue to outstrip wage growth, it might as well be.

Wrapping it up

I am willing to give Mr Barwell some leeway. His predecessors have said/done much dumber things. As Housing Minister Grant Shapps championed a policy that increased social rents (i.e. Affordable Rents) to those likely to receive housing benefit (i.e. those living in housing provided by Social Landlords) whilst the Government he worked for was trying to reduce that very same bill. Barwell’s statement on inheritance is quite sensible, but for many it is simply not an option. And at least with his idea for smaller homes he’s trying to think outside the box. But with a Government that is at least wanting to sound like it will make Britain work for all (as long as you’re British…) something other than ‘hope you have rich relatives’ is needed.

You can find more of my stuff here and follow me on Twitter here.

*Updated to emphasise misquote of Barwell in the Independent.