Forum - Political parties are not the same when it comes to social housing

Main Image : 

Published: 8 April, 2010

The focus now must be on funding –  to the tune of £7.5billion  over 2010 to 2011 – the biggest council house programme for 20 years, argues Glenda Jackson (Above)

• HOUSING, or rather the lack of it, has been an issue in my advice surgeries and postbag since I was first elected.
Then, abject homelessness, AND people with nowhere to sleep other than streets and shop doorways was obvious and shameful and its cause was, undoubtedly, a political policy.
That home-grown recession also produced massive repossessions, leaving families with little other than bed and breakfast accommodation and again, was the result of a political policy.
And there was the seemingly immovable failure to maintain social housing.
Failure to repair, redecorate, meet the needs of growing families, and  keep estates safe.
Again, the result of a political policy.
Fortunately the party responsible for those disastrous policies
left office in 1997.
Since that time the number of homeless has dramatically fallen, repossessions in this global recession have been minor and the Decent Homes strategy has made a real impact on an £8billion repair bill. All part of a different political policy. Parties are not all the same, and it is very clear when it comes to social housing.
The major issue that faced the incoming Labour government was the enormous backlog of repairs left to us by the Conservatives.
The cost of bringing the nation’s housing stock up to a decent standard was a staggering £8billion.
So the policy of repair, refurb, new kitchens and bathrooms was the priority, leaving new-builds by councils and housing associations for a later date.
That later date arrived, and the focus now is to deal with what is a crisis, no mistake about it, by building.
By funding to the tune of £7.5billion over 2010-2011 we have the biggest council house programme for 20 years.
But houses aren’t mushrooms; they don’t spring up overnight, and existing policies, particularly local authority choices, are causing real concern.
Apparently, the Conservative party’s model for social housing is to integrate its rents and tenancies into line with the private sector. They want all tenancies to be “assured shorthold”, in effect reducing tenants’ rights, while raising rents.
The average rents in London are £76 for local authorities; £81 for registered social landlords ; and £207 in the private sector . Such a change, if it came about, would surely be the death knell for what I still call council housing and the end of genuinely mixed communities.
And we must build not only communities but a real mix of homes.
Not just one- and two-bedroom properties but family homes, because family not infrequently means both ends of the age scale, children and grandparents.
We will benefit from the £3.6million grant and from changes to the capital receipts from right to buy and the changes giving local authorities more funds to meet local housing need.
If we fail to provide decent affordable housing for rent the social damage will be enormous.
So there is a clear difference.
All parties are not the same, and we know them by their policies.
The Conservatives have never believed in social housing.
We remember well the gerrymandering carried out by Westminster, decanting social tenants to bring in Tory voters. And refusing local authorities the capital receipts from right to buy, always in the belief that the private sector knows best.
What we do know is that without a decent home at an affordable rent, all the other investments that make for a thriving, prosperous society are put at risk.
Money for education, if a child has nowhere to do their homework in peace.
Money for the NHS when bad housing creates ill-health, both mental and physical.
An incoming Labour government won’t rehouse all who need a decent home overnight.
But the alternative could well be no home, ever.
• Glenda Jackson is Labour’s Parliamentary candidate for Hampstead & Kilburn