A Matter of Perspective

Often when talking about ‘the housing crisis’ people actually gloss over the fact that there are probably about 3 interlocking crises.  Lack of joined up policy making, particularly where the welfare state, local authority budgets and the provision of social housing are concerned, has helped to make a bad situation significantly worse. Even more so when political dogma and vote winning have interfered with policy decisions.

1 – Every Single Measure of Homelessness is on the Increase

The 2000s saw a remarkable drop in households being accepted as homeless. However, this situation is reversing, rapidly. largely it must be said as a direct and indirect result of austerity measures and cuts to welfare assistance. Whether ‘official’ homelessness, the rough sleeper count or hidden homelessness, the trends are deeply worrying. The below graph, shamelessly nicked from the Homelessness Monitor Report from Crisis (Jan 2016), shows the recent up-trend, and broader context. We are in a much better position than previously, but we’re heading in the wrong direction.

Crisis - Homelessness Monitor

It is not just in homelessness where there is any issue. Those living in temporary accommodation are also on the increase, as councils struggle to meet legal requirements around homelessness thanks (again) to the reduction in social housing available, especially in the capital.

chart2 – The Middle Class Malaise

The broadening of Affordable Housing (coinciding with the death of the term social) to a point where a £450,000 home can be seen as affordable is frankly bollocks. But it fits if your focus is on the middle class voters that got (and will keep) you in power. Whilst a renewed interest in Shared Ownership (with the severe kinks in this product hopefully to be ironed out) is very welcome as it might actually help the lower income quartile; the overwhelming focus is straight home ownership.Why? Because even the middle class are feeling the pinch and their voices are better organised and more readily heard than those at the bottom of the pile. Aside from winning the next election. The below chart from Savills’ analysis of the ‘crisis of home ownership‘ highlights quite neatly the long term state of play in housing tenure and de facto why the Government is so keen to reverse declining trends of home ownership.

housing-tenure(3)

The volume (and cash set aside) of the schemes available to help is quite remarkable. Especially at a time when funding for social housing is being slashed and austerity is still the medicine of the day. The problem with the initiatives being put in place is that not one of them is a supply side measure. Great if you want to look busy doing something whilst actually achieving fuck all. Bad if you actually what to solve systemic issues with housing in this country. Sadly this is not new in housing policy  and the failure to tackle the UK’s housing market shortcomings is 3 decades in the making. And whether you are red, blue or yellow, none of the main political parties come up smelling of roses here.

3 – Loads of People Now Rely on the Private Rented Sector

The push towards private renting has a number of influences. Changes in lifestyles, the amount of money required for a deposit, house price to earning ratios, the overall cost of buying & then maintaining a mortgage and greater restrictions (post 2008) on accessibility of finance to purchase have all played their part. Let’s be clear, private renting isn’t bad in and of itself (they fecking love it on the continent), though long term there are some potential drawbacks. But the growth of buy to let landlords, of amateur hour landlords is an issue. As are increasing rents, and the horrific standards of some rented properties.

Whilst this Government has steadfast ignored Generation Rent (I’m sure this has nothing to do with how many MPs are landlords) there are serious concerns about how to regulate a sector that does not always work efficiently and effectively. FYI simply because something is private enterprise, doesn’t mean that it is a bastion of efficient working (just ask a train provider in this country). Throwing schemes at people to help them buy, particularly ones that aren’t affordable for a lot of private renters, doesn’t solve the problem, it merely gives political cover to ignore it. The silence on this issue in Parliament is deafening and real, fundamental change, is required to make the private sector meet the needs of those who use it.

Rounding it up

Like or lump it a thriving economy needs a stable housing market. You will only get that with a greater amount of regulation in private sector, a social housing sector big enough to meet the demand and needs of those on the margins. Because for a significant proportion of households simply keeping a stable roof over their head is day to day struggle.  And whilst intervention is welcome for those aspiring to buy, any approach to housing policy must look to assist those at all points of their housing journey. Not just those who can shout the loudest. We can start to do that by recognising the separate, but interlinked, elements of our housing crises.

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

 

Advertisements

A guide to recognising your saints

For those slightly out of the loop Right to Buy is basically the sector’s kryptonite (the green version, not the red one, no-one is going to go BS-mental on Metropolis just yet).  It raises passion, anger, worry and acts as a unifier to a sector so often at odds with itself.  Though funnily enough, like green kryptonite it does severely weaken us.

The reaction of the sector to the potential rolling out of Right to Buy has been fairly standard (i.e. we all went a bit cray cray, myself included).  But what has been surprising is that all these emotions appear to be coming from people outside of the sector as well.  Media that has usually at best been ambivalent, and often borderline hostile, have come out against the move (here’s looking at the Daily Telegraph).  Hell even the general public is a little bit unimpressed (hats off to YouGov for that poll), not even those who considered themselves pro-Tory.  Commentators, ‘experts’, housing insiders and a whole host of politicians have come out against it.  Embarrassingly for the Conservatives, so did they, well at least to members of the Coalition in 2013.  Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.

In terms of popular policies Right to Buy is up there with the best.  But a counter attack via the Daily ‘racist in public so you don’t have to’ Mail (fyi still one of Russell Howard’s best jokes) has highlighted how negatively the policy has been received this time round.  But as Colin Wiles notes even at the Daily Fail not everyone is on board.  Peter Hitchens providing some unflattering comments on the policy (that being said I still always prefered his late brother, Chris).  Either way you know things are getting nasty when pay gets involved.  I could make snide comments about Conservative MPs, duck ponds and public money.  But I’m above all that.  Actually I’m not, what an utterly moronic set of circumstances.

So what does this all mean?  Well the answer, is partly provided by Julia Unwin and the guys and gals over at the Joseph Rowntree Foundation.  Julia et al quite rightly point that the debate over housing has long been skewed to home ownership. And that arguably the most efficient way of helping to alleviate poverty and provide stability and security (social housing) is ignored.  Right to Buy, rent to buy, the promise of buckets more housing (to buy) are all geared around a political consensus that buying votes is preferable to renting.  Consequently each party is keen to show that they will provide the best opportunity people to purchase their own home.  Sadly for all the fluff and bluster little has been put forward as to how to increase supply as well as actually deal with an acute affordability issue.  Though the boys in blue fare particularly poorly and the public is definitely not convinced.  Especially those who rent, with the Tories polling badly around housing policies.  On a side note a majority of the public appears to back greater borrowing to build more affordable housing.

Elsewhere the BBC Panorama programme the Great Housing Benefit Scandal showed that for once a TV could tactfully highlight the plight of ordinary people on benefits.  Showing the suffering of folks like you and me (only they are poor, apparently that makes them different) at the hands of sub-quality housing as opposed to being some glitzy Jeremy Kyle look at the poor people hate-fest.  It also did a very good job at showing some of the sorry excuses of landlords out there.  Before the National Landlords Association gets its knickers in a twist I doubt any of those highlighted in the show were paid up members.  Good private sector landlords do exist.  But it is hardly surprising when a few rogue private landlords put profit before both the quality of the housing they provide and the unfortunate souls who reside in their dwellings.

So where does this all leave us?  Well frankly in exactly the same place we always have been.  A country with a housing market that is fundamentally failing to meet the needs of the suckers who live in it.  I will leave you with a quote from a mate of mine, it neatly sums up the situation for a lot of people.

“I just want a house, not a mansion or anything like that, just some stability for my little boy. I’m fed up of moving all the time.”

As always you can follow me on Twitter here or find me using the handle @ngoodrich87, you can view the rest of my blogs here.

A Public Service Announcement

Every now and then an article comes along that, a bit like Top Gun, takes your breath away (oh my, that volleyball scene…). Whilst I doubt Mike Iszatt will ever be my Goose, or even my Iceman, after reading his article I did feel the need, not for speed but to counter his piece.

The article’s opening salvo was to question whether our glorious country will become a nation of housing association tenants. Well actually what he meant was whether this would happen to the lovely, leafy Borough of Broxbourne in Hertfordshire (I didn’t know where it was either, used those adjectives to pad this out a bit). And by that he meant it appears that a number of new developments have quite steep proportions that must be set aside for affordable homes. So, to allay Mr Iszatt’s fears about the UK becoming one big social housing love-in I feel it is my public duty to highlight some facts and fun tit-bits.

1 – We are losing social housing, not gaining it

Between 1981 and 2010 the UK pretty much saw a net loss of social housing every year. Every year. A slight upturn in 2010 (go figure…) has hardly reversed the long term decline in those who rent from Housing Associations and Local Authorities in Great Britain. At the same time private ownership and private sector renting has blossomed. Don’t worry Mike I think we’re safe from becoming a nation of housing association tenants just yet. If you want the figures just nip over to the DCLG website and look at the live tables.

Dwellings by Sector

2 – Whilst all social housing is affordable housing not all affordable housing is social

Just like that fact that whilst all Catholics are Christians but not all Christians are Catholics the merry-go-round regarding social housing terminology keeps on spinning faster. It is a deliberate misuse of wording to conflate a large package of measures in order to hide the inexorable fact that we are haemorrhaging truly social housing in this country. Alas Mr Iszatt also appears to be suffering from this affliction. Quite often when he states Affordable, he means social. Again the DCLG have produced some figures which highlight why choosing your words carefully. @Churchiechat might also be able to enlighten you.

DCLG Live Tables 1009 Additional New Build and Acquired affordable homes (England)

Dwellings by Sector new

3 – Waiting lists are sign of a larger problem

As someone who works in performance, whose very job is to look at performance trends and delve into data your cavalier approach to waiting list figures is utterly shocking. Causality v correlation my friend, they are tricky thing. Waiting lists are generally an indicator of wider structural issues not just people being sneaky little so and so’s. If the private market is providing for the masses there won’t be too much demand for social housing. The problem for Broxbourne, and the UK in general is that it isn’t.

House prices are rising way above wages and for many home ownership is out of reach, even private renting is a struggle. Based on a quick look on Zoopla the average value of a property in Broxbourne is a whopping £391,867, for the rest of England it is £279,985. A £60,000 cap on an applicant’s yearly income seems pretty reasonable in this light. Particularly because if you were looking to buy £60,000 will only enable you to borrow in the region of £200,000 (provided you have a deposit of £10,000). I can see why people might want to be on that housing list. Yes some housing lists may need a bit of a spring clean (double counting of applicants isn’t unheard of) but still focus on the main issue. You know, the complete failure to build enough housing, of all tenures to meet the demand.

4 – Councils provide very little grant funding to housing associations

Yes some Councils do provide capital grant to housing associations in order to ensure the building of social housing within their localities. But on the whole capital finance comes from the DCLG via the Homes and Communities Agency or from the private sector. However Councils do provide a very large sum of money to us via housing benefit. Though this is ultimately paid for by central government coffers (in the end), Local Authorities merely act as the middle men. However, I fully agree with you that this should be reduced. Given that one of the largest growing group of claimants of housing benefit is those in work (see graph below) I guess I have your support for a living wage for all UK workers? What about a reversal in the 60% cut in capital funding for social housing builds since 2011? More houses means lower rents, means less housing benefit being paid. What you say Mike? We might even get those pesky housing waiting lists down.

Housing Benefit Claimants in Work

HB Claimants in Work

Source: Single Housing Benefit Extract (SHBE), Department for Work and Pensions

5 – What on earth does your last paragraph mean?

At one and the same time you seem to lament and support Right to Buy. Bemoaning council housing being sold off cheaply but then stating the private sector is doing a good job? I find this paragraph odd because A) your party, the Conservatives introduced the policy and is trying to extend it to housing associations. And B) it makes no fricking sense, literally what are you trying to say?

Anyway I hope I have cleared a couple of things up. If you ever need some help on things to do with housing just holla. Failing that, there are some lovely chaps and chapesses at the National Housing Federation or Chartered Institute of Housing who would be more than willing to help. Toodle pips.

If you feel so inclined (I wouldn’t advise it, you will be disappointed) you can follow me on Twitter here or find me using the handle @ngoodrich87, you can view the rest of my blogs here.

Das Capital

Right to Buy, the Russians acting like an empire (again), big hair, leggings and electro music being popular amongst the ‘yoof’, a Government pushing policies that continuously undermine those further down the food chain.  You’d be forgiven for thinking this is the 1980s with Thatcher in her prime.  Regrettably it is 2015 and it’s an election year.  Whilst Cameron and co may be stopped I can’t do a lot about the fashion choices and poor taste in music amongst the hell spawn younger than even I, sorry.

As if it needs spelling out Right to Buy is a bit like kryptonite to our beloved sector.  It is the perfect political weapon to decimate social housing.  In a country obsessed with home ownership and asset based capital it is a highly potent mix of aspiration and access to cold hard cash.  It’s better than Help to Buy, it’s better than Shared Ownership and pretty much every other initiative designed to assist those with lower incomes acquire a property.  Why?  Because you can buy the property you are currently living in, in the neighbourhood where you have built up substantial local networks.  More importantly you can do so for a fraction of the cost of even the best low cost home ownership products out there.  Though frankly as a sector we have been bumbling through the provision of those products for years.  Even better you can sell it on for large profit after a few years, especially if you are in the right part of London and the South East.  It’s the postcode lottery (the good kind, not the one where your local hospital is shit).

Unsurprisingly it is bloody popular.  The figures below show just how many people have bought their council/housing association property through Right to Buy (and it’s watered-down cousin Right to Acquire).  So it is no surprise that the announcement last week that Right to Buy may be extended to include Housing Association properties has caused nothing short of alarm.  Though nowhere near its heyday peak of the early 1980s allowing Housing Association tenants to purchase their home under Right to Buy will give the figures below a significant kick up the bottom.

On a side note for a beautifully biting critique of our reaction as a sector and attempts to nullify other policies of the Coalition I do suggest you read Rob Gershon’s piece in 24 Dash.  The chap has a wonderful way with words.

Depressing Chart 2 – Right to Buy Sales – England

Right to Buy SalesIn addition to decimating social housing stock (see depressing graph 2 below) Right to Buy provides piss poor value for money to the tax payer.  As a policy it has the dubious honour of being paid for by the taxpayer twice.  The first time to build the property then, after it has been sold, we pay again as the property is rented back by the Local Authority that sold them, at higher rents.  For a (slightly) oldie but goldie report on this utterly stupid situation please see Tom Copley’s report.  His report, a year old today (Mazel Tov my friend) highlights the cost of Right to Buy in London, but it is a situation likely to be repeated up and down the UK.  You know this, I know this but does the general public care?  Probably not.

Depressing Chart 2 – Dwelling stock by tenure, UK, 1980 to 2012
Dwellings by Sector

As Colin Wiles notes (I really do need to write my blogs quicker) Right to Buy is bollocks on a number of levels.  It is an ideological weapon to suit the needs of those who wield it, a means by which to rid the country of a housing sector that has no real place in the vision of the UK held by those in Government.  Interestingly, for me at least, Right to Buy’s second lease of life raise a number of questions in relation to the long term direction of our sector.  Is this another nudge towards going it ‘alone’?  How would it work if housing associations were allowed to buy their way out of historic debt/grants?  Will this serve to discourage future uptake of grant (no grant, no strings, no Right to Buy)?

So what do we do?  Fight the inevitable an uphill battle, because in essence we need to convince the general public that social housing is worth fighting for.  But more critically that they should sacrifice the opportunity to make a quick buck in order to maintain it.  Telling the Treasury to keep its dirty mitts off the Right to Buy sales receipts would also be worth doing.  Cheeky sods.

If you feel so inclined (I wouldn’t advise it, you will be disappointed) you can follow me on Twitter here or find me using the handle @ngoodrich87, you can view the rest of my blogs here.

New Year, Same Issues

A new year has arrived but the omens already look bleak.  It is time the housing sector made a few changes before we really are up the proverbial creek with no wooden implement.

It’s a new year but it is not a new dawn and I am definitely not feeling good. Though in fairness that might be the post Christmas come-down.  Those of you who keep an eye on such things will have noticed the pre-election bollocks is in full swing. As predicted by none other than yours truly (and pretty much every political commentator in existence) the rise of UKIP has seen Mr Cameron and co shift to the right.  Talk of a coalition with the ‘live off EU brigade’ has been left in the air, further budget cuts are looming large and there may even be a referendum on membership of the EU earlier than planned. Goodie, haven’t had a proper white elephant in politics for a while.

On the subject of white elephants, the notion of rent controls appears to have gathered momentum again.  I have blogged on this before and without wanting to sound too Milton Friedman-esk, as that guy is a monumental bell-end, this sort of state intervention is not the answer, at least not on its own.  I have sympathy with Civitas, the think tank whose report  promotes rent controls (as well as Generation Rent) and certainly there appears to be public support for such measures (see Mr Birch’s excellent article on the subject).  However as Civitas notes, ultimately it is more housing that is needed. On its own rent controls will merely act as a mild dampener on a housing market that is only working for those already in an advantageous position.

One of my new year’s resolutions was to be bit more helpful in my criticisms, so after slagging off housing policy for the umpteenth time here are a few of my suggestions for a glorious new world.  You can thank me later, or even better pay me.  Some of these are for the housing sector as a whole, others for the incumbents in power, enjoy.

  • Stop with the brooding introspective bollocks.  The social housing sector is not Ryan from the O.C #mancrush, whilst I have also been guilty of bemoaning the fact we aren’t the most popular kid in school it is time to stop looking moodily in the distance and go talk to somebody, anybody.
  • Find a friend.  Campaign under one unified banner (Homes for Britain is the closest to doing this) a splintered set of competing pressures groups is about useful as a chocolate teapot (at least I could eat the teapot…).  Though whoever thought of the Ho Ho Homes for Britain bit please don’t do that again, ever.
  • Grow a pair (of balls or boobs, I’m an equal opportunity muse so take your pick) and get over providing properties for private rent and sale.  I’ve lived in private accommodation, I’m about to go back into the sector.  The majority of the muppets currently pretending to be landlords know as much about renting as they do astrophysics.  Get into the sector, outperform the rest of the competition and reap the benefits for all your customers.
  • Scrap Right to Buy. Because this policy provides about as much value for money to the tax payer as throwing fifties off a tour bus in central London.
  • Scrap the bedroom tax and the benefit cap.  Neither would pass the so called ‘family test‘ supposedly being carried out against new Government Policy and because fundamentally they don’t do what they are meant to do.
  • Pay a living wage.  Whether you are a social landlord, investment bank, social enterprise or a high street store pay your staff a living wage.  Aside from the fact to not do so is a total d**k move.  The number of working households in receipt of housing benefit is sky-rocketing because the cost of pretty much everything is outstripping wages.  In addition cycles of low pay, no pay are key part of poverty and failure to act will mean further reliance on the state to make up the shortfall.  Make profit through good products and efficiency savings, not through underpaying your staff you cheap son of a rabid water vole.  Invest in the people who work for you and reap the benefits.
  • Scrap affordable housing (the type of rent not social housing in general!).  Or at the very least call it Intermediate Market Rent and let those properties out to people who don’t qualify for social housing.  Because it damn well isn’t affordable for the people who need it the most.  And for the love of Michael Flatley don’t complain that the housing benefit bill is going up when a policy as stupid as this is in place.
  • Invest in social housing, whether the economy is in good nick or going the way of Old Yeller there will always be a need for social housing.  Invest in it, it is a cost we can all share.

Positive rant over, I feel like a new me already…

As always if you want to follow me on Twitter, simply click here or find me using the handle @ngoodrich87, you can view the rest of my blogs here.

Generation Mildly Peeved

After the euphoria of Housing Day 2014 earlier this month those involved in promoting housing be it in the private, public or 3rd sector have been brought back down to Earth with a rather large bump.  For whilst we celebrated (and rightly so) all that we do as a sector, the acts of Messrs Philip Davies and Christopher Chope on Fri 28th November have again served to highlight how much more work is needed to be done.  Despite Shelter, Crisis, Generation Rent and Citizens Advice (to name but a few) in support, alongside cross-bench backing in Parliament, the Tenancy Reform Bill is dead as it stands.

That Davies and Chope managed to successfully filibuster the Tenancy Reform Bill (jargon for talking out your arse for a long time) is largely due to the nature of the Bill, a Private Members one. Such Bills are limited by procedures about when and how long they can be heard in Parliament. Meaning they are a target for blocking tactics such as filibustering. That this wasn’t part of the Coalition Government’s legislative programme in the first place again shows how far down the pecking order housing policy, of any kind, is for this Government. And whilst I applaud Sarah Teather for attempting to get it through, she shouldn’t have had to. This should have been part of the Government’s general programme of legislation, it should be on its way to being law.

I am 21 (plus 5years) old, I have lived in 5 different houses in the last 3 years.  Including my time at Uni I have lived in 9 places in the last 7 years.  In that time I have lived in University Halls, in the properties of several buy-to-let landlords, dealt with muppets who simply rented out the house of a dead relative and even an IMR property.  I have had to deal with amateurs who didn’t know their legal responsibilities in terms of property maintenance or deposits and those parasitic beings know as lettings agents aplenty.  As you can probably guess my experience of the private rented market is largely negative.  I have had one or two decent, honest landlords, the rest weren’t exactly bad, just incompetent, clumsy and slow to react to repairs issues.

By and large I am lucky, many others are not.  In their piece supporting the Tenancy Reform Bill, Shelter noted that over 200,000 renters were evicted or served no fault notices in 12 month period.  That is 200,000 renters who lost their tenancy simply because they reported a repair and/or general issue with their property.  1 in 12 renters have stated they have avoided reporting a repair because they fear retaliatory action.  I have had friends in the past ‘put up’ with crappy living conditions because it was all they could afford.  But this shouldn’t be the case.  A home is the keystone on which you balance the rest of life’s crap.  If the place where you rest your head is unstable the rest of your life will also be.  Health, mental and physical, is strongly linked to a decent, secure home.  Revenge evictions, and frankly poor landlords in general, put that at risk.

I don’t know what pisses me off more, the actions of Philip Davies and Christopher Chope, or their reasons behind it. In reality it doesn’t matter because it just means another curve ball for me and my peers to deal with. Only one of my friends owns the property they live in. Everyone else either lives in privately rented accommodation or with their parents. None are particularly in a position to buy or qualify for social housing and in my neck of the woods there is not a lot of IMR stock. So it is live with mum and dad or deal with the lottery of renting in the private sector.

Don’t get me wrong this Bill wouldn’t have been a world changer, the reality is that despite being an issue for a significant minoirty revenge evictions is a relatively contained, if growing, problem. But it would have meant there would be fall back if your landlord attempts to screw you over when you report a legitimate repair.   The Bill accounted for lousy tenants and good landlords would have had little (if anything) to fear.  It would not have become some bureaucratic nightmare.  It did not look to introduce full blooded regulation to the private sector, it did not seek to restrict the private sector.  But hey, Phil and Chris know better…

I will leave you with a point made by Hannah Williams in the Independent.  Other countries have had this sort of legislation for 50 years.  Even the USA, that bastion of small Government does.  My addition to this would be why the hell have not we?

As always if you want to follow me on Twitter simply click here or find me using the handle @ngoodrich87, you can view the rest of my blogs here.

It’s just a case of history repeating

In the week that was, Labour trumped up rent controls as the best thing since sliced bread and the Conservatives rolled out Right to Build.  Neither really solve the problem of an inadequate supply of housing but both make good sound bites.  However, as the well thought out and deliberately chosen title of this blog suggests, we do seem to be going round in circles when it comes to policy offerings on housing from our political parties.  Because after the inevitable political handbags have been put down and the dust settles it should be noted that far from being dynamic new policies both Right to Build and rent caps are very much throwbacks to decades past.

In the guise of Right to Build the Tories have stuck with a tried and tested method.  F@*K the other sectors, it’s home ownership that counts.  It harks back to the 1980s golden era for the Tories.  As with it’s (almost) namesake Right to Buy, Right to Build hopes to use Councils as a springboard for private ownership.  This time it is land rather than existing housing stock that is the key.  The basic principle is the same in the two policies.  Home ownership is God, deplete public sector assets to ensure private home ownership.  Unlike Right to Buy there is some hope that Right to Build may actually earn Councils some dollar rather than just removing much need social housing.  If managed carefully this could be mutually beneficial policy for all involved.  Land that is otherwise vacant is used for housing.  Councils make money by leasing the land, more housing is built for us unlucky sods who would give a small body part for a home to own.  Despite the potential positives I’m not holding my breathe, especially as it appears to be a slightly re-jigged version of the Right to Reclaim Land policy announced by Michael Green, sorry – Grant Shapps, back in 2011.

Labour aren’t doing a lot better, digging deep to revive a policy that is probably older than the poor researcher tasked with coming up with something to throw at the Tories.  The idea of rent controls went out in the late 1970s/80s when someone decided Keynesianism/social democracy/policies that don’t just serve the few was old news.  Von Hayek and Milton Friedman were the people to follow.  Well their ideas on the miracles of the free market at least.  This hasn’t changed in the last 30 years. Neo-liberalism has dominated all aspects the political landscape, housing included.  The throwback to a pre neo-liberal era is welcome, as is reform of the private rented sector.  As someone who has lived in it on and off for over half a decade it could use a tweak or two.  But it is hardly new stuff.  Anyone remember Rachmanism, the outrage and the response?

Shelter and KPMG’s offering ‘Building the homes we need – A programme for the 2015 government’ has at least brought some sensible, thought-out options to the table.  For excellent analysis of the report and thoughts on Housing Policy post 2015 visit Messrs. Alex Marsh and Colin Wiles.

With just under a year until the 2015 general election it is a little depressing that the big political parties have just rehashed old policies.  I’m sure further important policy announcements will be made as the main parties (and the Lib Dems) vie for the spotlight and for votes.  And with around 80 parliamentary seats potentially being decided by people being forced to rent as they cannot afford to buy housing should creep up the policy importance ladder.  If not the consciousness of the electorate.  But really this is a poor effort by both parties and shows their inability to understand what the hell is going on.  More frustratingly social housing is still conspicuous by its absence from the national debate.  It is the dirty little secret only shown daylight via hatchet jobs like Benefits Street and How to Get a Council House.  This needs to change.

Alas in the meantime we appear doomed to repeat our past failures.  With another housing bubble potentially set to burst it could be an expensive one for all concerned.  Almost makes you glad not to have a mortgage.