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 think we need both brownfield and greenfield. This is not a one or the other argument we need to use all sensible options to get the build numbers up.
The current system is far too much focus on protecting the greenbelt instead of the needs of the residents.
If you taxed to hold planning permission the land owner will hold it empty or in low usage until they are ready to sell. Instead of bring it forward earlier to be planned properly and correct infrastructure built to support it.
I wish there were simple answers which would deliver what is needed. Unfortunately their are not, so real solutions always will have negative consequences. Most of the suggestions by all parties are simply politics and may sound good but either has no long term impact or have negitives consequences a little further down the road.
I have tried to answer the question which I replied to; so has jumped around depending on the statement I am responding to. Sometimes it is less clear the order of responses on the discussion chain (sorry for that).
I am also not arguing against some of the policies suggested, just questioning their long term impact which happens a long time after the politician has claimed victories; even though the original problem has not been resolved.
Leon Wolfeson
You can’t not allow the mansions, I get it. There are not enough builders, but you’ll split them anyway!
You keep talking about the need for more mansions, and no, it means that companies are going to lobby for allowing zero objections, since it’ll be expensive for them – and they’ll always rush through steps like consultation.
There are tried and tested policies from other countries. None of them resemble your suggestion.
Kevin Stall
You said you wanted to put the poor in a new slum. Medium density housing. Of course on methodical council land. I’m sure every council has acres of council land in their inventory ready to build on. Or are they going to buy it and make some property own even richer.
Kevin Stall
Strange , in other countries people are willing to do it. New York and Washington D.C. people commute from up to 2 states away. Mexico City also have people who travel hours, as do most cities around the world. Concentrating a high population in a small area is a guarantee recipe for disaster. It is preferred to commute and have a better life outside the concentration of people.
Kevin Stall
Yes social housing is for the poor. The rich do not need social housing. Middle-class usually also do not get social housing. Don’t understand the concept of social housing, do you?