The disastrous LBC interview changes nothing - we need to turn the heat back on the government that caused the housing crisis
Natalie Bennett should have been better prepared. That’s really all there is to take from her interview with LBC yesterday, in which she crumbled under scrutiny of her housing policies. It’s not that the whole Green Party is discredited, or that she is stupid, or that she has her sights set on ‘the economy being wrecked and much-loved traditions destroyed’.
We need a bit of perspective. The Greens have some bad policies and some good ones; as Zoe Williams writes in the Guardian today, Bennett’s main mistake was in trying to answer a question rather than describe her vision. Most politicians skirt around the questions they are asked in interviews, instead reiterating the part they are proudest of again and again. It is certainly not uncommon for interviewers to be unable to get hard figures out of their subjects.
The difference is that normally these evasions are delivered smoothly, and most speakers have been extensively polished by PR teams so that they know not to incriminate themselves with coughs and pauses. Natalie Bennett somehow missed this training and she’s paying the price in jeers from all sides.
But voters should not let the circus distract them from housing policies that desperately need changing.The Conservatives have many policies and plans for housing which ought to be bigger news than the Green leader forgetting her figures.
For example, the vacant building credit that the government introduced in December 2014, exempts any housing developer who turns an empty building into private housing from paying to build further affordable units. So even if the developer is making good profits, they do not have to contribute to affordable housing.
Super-rich investors will profit from the change; among the first to do so are the redevelopers of an apartment block in Mayfair that was bought in 2013 by Abu Dhabi’s investment fund.
And what about Iain Duncan Smith’s plans to ‘gift’ recent benefit claimants with council house as a reward for being in work for one year? There are around 1.7 million people on the social housing waiting list. These are all people badly in need of a home. IDS’s proposal not only lets these people down, but it assumes that unemployed people choose to be so, and that all they need is a financial incentive to get back to work – as if the promise of a steady income and not having to use food banks was not enough.
There is also David Cameron’s proposal to scrap housing benefit for school leavers in a misguided attempt to improve the work ethic of young people. Again, this proposal overlooks all the complex economic reasons people are out of work and assumes the unemployed just can’t be bothered. Anger about this policy came even from within the prime minister’s own party – Health Committee chair Sarah Wollaston told the BBC:
“I would not support personally taking housing benefit from the most vulnerable. I would not personally support taking away housing benefit from the very young.”
House building is also at its lowest level since 1924. Since the last election, an average of just 201 social and affordable homes have been built in each Conservative-held local authority, according to research obtained by Shadow Local Government secretary Hilary Benn, compared with 403 in Labour-held councils.
In London the problem is especially bad, despite the capital’s growing population. According to the last census, London needs at least 40,000 new homes every year just to keep up with this growth, yet in 2010/11 less than half of that number were built.
All over the country people are finding it harder than ever for people to pay their rents, and home ownership is a laughable dream for a whole generation. Worse, homelessness charity Shelter reports that the number of homeless children is at a three-year high. So let’s take the heat off the Green leader for a second and start holding the government who have actually caused these problems to account.
Natalie Bennett apologised for her interview which, to be fair, hasn’t actually hurt anybody. The same cannot be said of the Conservatives, or of the policies they have introduced.
Ruby Stockham is a staff writer at Left Foot Forward. Follow her on Twitter
Left Foot Forward doesn't have the backing of big business or billionaires. We rely on the kind and generous support of ordinary people like you.
You can support hard-hitting journalism that holds the right to account, provides a forum for debate among progressives, and covers the stories the rest of the media ignore. Donate today.
112 Responses to “Forget Natalie Bennett’s interview from hell, here’s the real problem with housing”
The Orbital Garden
I agree that densification is needed and can produce a much better society but you cannot get round the land cost issue.
The sites in and around cities will be priced according to their best usage with high residentail values. Therefore you either will need huge subsidies/grants/loans for the council or ha or private sector to build the needed housing; unlikely in the current financial situation. Or the build rates will be pitiful and never approach the number needed per year. This will result in wording of the crisis.
The underlying issues which cause relatively cheap buildings to be worth mullions can only be addressed by dealing with the land value issue.
Only by balancing supply and demand can you fix the housing market.
The Orbital Garden
The greenbelt is twice the size of London. The idea that we cannot find enough space is weak.
Agreed that their legal issues with using CPOs; Hopefully that will not be required as farmers/land owners may want to negotiate to set a price which is extremely good for farmland but also cheap for housing. This will only be known if the councils attempt to acquire the land.
Their is excessive demand and huge prices for existing homes within greenbelt; so no reason to expect a new village/town to be any different.
Guest
Oh, one you offhand recall. I see.
And sorry, fifth GLOBALLY and set to fall to sixth soon, behind Brazil. 13th globally in PPP.
Meanwhile, we’re 11th in the EU in GDP(PPP) per capita, and falling fast. 13th in the EU for GDP(PPP) per employee.
And see, you’re ignoring the fact that yes, you absolutely need a certain type of market for capitalism – and it’s vanishing – and are wanting it without paying for infrastructure either!
You then repeat the same old lies about the Ukraine, as you support Russia and their failing economy – which is bad in good part because of the sanctions, of course. You are demanding submission to Mr. Putin’s paranoia – the man who murders his political enemies as a matter of routine!
Guest
Ah, so a tiny amount of housing in a remote location. Buses are expensive, and take a long time to get places.
It’s perfect for the upper middle class, again.
Guest
Again – A massive council house building program. On brownfield and council land. Mid-rise, mostly, with a small proportion of high-rise for the the under 25’s on 3-year leases.
Rent caps.
Hefty taxation on empty houses. (And councils to use existing rights to put property into use)
Hefty taxation on empty private brownfield sites, ramping up with time left unusued. – with an option to surrender them to the council in lieu of tax at any time.
Etc.