I have a new piece over at Comment is free this morning in which I argue that, in the absence of any political appetite for the kind of structural reforms needed to get the economy back on track, instead of investing in an over-capacitied car industry, we shoud be investing in much needed social housing.
Only hours after I concluded here that Labour's plans to address the housing crisis are dead in the water, Margaret Beckett, one of the party's most experienced former ministers has been handed the housing portfolio. Well, it has been a day of surprises.
Beckett's
predecessor, Caroline Flint, never quite recovered after suggesting
that access to social housing should be conditional on tenants actively
seeking work. Her plans were derided by the Child Action Poverty Group
as "insulting and stigmatising to people facing major
barriers to employment". Shelter said the proposals would only "add to
the thousands already homeless." After that her eight month tenure
coincided with one of Gordon Brown's flagship policies falling off the
political radar.
The new minister continues a now established
tradition women being appointed to the housing portfolio. But compared
with her recent predecessors, Hilary Armstrong, Yvette Cooper and
Flint, she is by far the biggest political hitter to be handed the
brief. If this is a sign that a rapidly regenerating prime minister
has remembered what his priorities are, then all well and good.
Beckett
has proved herself an adept politician, performing rather better in a
series of challenging roles rather than many of her colleagues. She is
certainly a survivor, and on the basis of today's news must still have
an appetite for politics despite 34 years as an MP.
But will she
be able to succeed where so many have failed, and make a difference to
a housing crisis that has proved quite immune to a period of sustained
economic growth, and which now seems bound to worsen under the toughest
economic conditions in decades?
That depends on how much power
she is given and how much influence she can exert. I have never
understood, given the fundamental importance of housing to people's
well-being and to the wider economy, why it has been passed,
repeatedly, from one department to another. It's time the housing
minister was given full cabinet rank. That would be a sign that the
government really is serious about tackling homelessness.
Yesterday
the prime minister was rumoured to be putting together a standing
committee of close advisers to tackle the financial crisis. Equally
necessary is a cobra-style committee to tackle social injustice. If,
as head as of a beefed-up Department of Housing and Homelessness Beckett
were to chair such a committee, and it drew in education, employment,
drug abuse, pensions, care of the elderly and parenting as well as
having input into economic policy, then not only would Labour
demonstrate to the electorate that it was returning to its principled
roots in a meaningful way, it would also put pay to Tory efforts to
paint themselves as the party of social justice.
I have a new piece at Comment is Free this morning. This one looks at the ongoing housing crisis. Once again the Guardian's standfirst sums it up very neatly:
Millions live in sub-standard housing. Labour hasn't delivered, the Tories are bereft of ideas and even the voters don't care.
The most interesting, though hardly surprising, thing about the comments of new Housing Minister, Caroline Flint, on employment and social housing, is how much they remind one of the Conservative government under Margaret Thatcher's leadership twenty or so years ago.
When Labour was elected to power in 1997, the least many of us hoped for was an end to the Norman Tebbitt inspired 'get on your bike and look for work' approach to the problem of poverty and economic exclusion. But then new Labour has proved itself little different from Thatcher era conservatism in so many respects.
The arguments against making access to social housing dependent on employment have been well made before, and are so again today: By Adam Sampson of Shelter, here and (Wednesday morning update) by Lynsey Hanley, here.
Thankfully, presumably stunned by the negative press, Downing Street seems to be pulling back. Let's hope the dreadful Ms. Flint, who has only been in post two weeks, will be re-redeployed as quickly as possible. She has already proved herself quite unworthy of the responsibilities of Housing Minister in a Labour government.
This is a good little piece by Ros Coward, who points out something that's quite obvious but has gone largely uncommented on: the way television, both commercial and public service, has been used to promote the recent craze for investing in residential property.
It's fair to say that the decisions of commissioning editors in respect of the multitude of property programmes that have hit our screens in recent years have had a direct impact on house prices, particularly at the lower end of the market where first time buyers are struggling like never before.
As Coward says,
Its hard to imagine another business being given a free rein to promote its worldview on television like this. Especially one with such important consequences for individual lives.
Absolutely right, its another example of how every every corner of our culture is now subject to a relentless pressure to commercialise. And another example of the fallacy that everyone can become rich quick if they'd just take a few risks.
A home is a place to live: everyone should have the right to a home, and to home ownership if that's their choice. By treating home ownership principally as an investment opportunity, we have created conditions in which growing numbers are denied those rights.
