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
112 Responses to “Forget Natalie Bennett’s interview from hell, here’s the real problem with housing”
The Orbital Garden
I think that the council should buy the farm land at low rates and sell to developer (or commission developers) so most the profit goes to the council. This profit can be used however the council chooses.
Planning law would still apply; size of homes and community can be control in the normal way.
Speculation inside London and other areas relies in upward prices. If you build more homes you can serve the demand (at the higher values) this demand disappears. Most people only live in one house. The prices fall to what the remaining demand can afford.
The falling demand in London will go hand in hand with falling prices. The developers will be keen to build and sell their land banks before prices (and profits) fall. It takes time to build so will be keen not to caught with large land banks with falling values; so will build far in advance of any realistic delivery of the new villages.
The rents inside London fall as population density decreases, due to people moving out to new commuter villages/town. This will help millions of young people and reduce pressure to “redeveloped” existing council estates.
There is obviously already significant demand in areas of farmland with the commuterbelt; or else the prices would be signifanctly cheaper. And the monday morning train into London would be empty.
Any answer to the housing crisis is going to
unpopular with some. It will require either cheap land or huge costs.
The current system completely fails the poorest; it states exactly where the next areas for development are likely encourages speculation on this land to take all profit and community good into the hands of property speculation.
Alex McLeish
Putting a stop to the endless waves of immigrants that are flooding here from the Turd-World will do for starters, and so will getting rid of all the illegals who are already here. If we have a strict policy of English land for English folk we might just avoid any more housing crises whilst also protecting our green and pleasant land.
madasafish
Planning and local democracy are part of the solution, not the problem
Hmm
A naive view.
The next door county – Cheshire – has almost every local authority opposed to ANY development. Period..
It’s only the ability of building and development companies to appeal against local planning approvals that gets housing built.
Our local authority opposed all development on a brownfield site for a decade allegedly due to land contamination and then when that was overcome – due to access..
NIMBYism at work.
And needless to say, delays like that add significantly to costs…
Bill Eborn
Naive? I don’t think so actually but let me qualify that. I assume you’re not suggesting we get rid of planning controls completely, so what we arrive at is not an abolition of planning but an amended system. Laissez faire development’s in nobody’s interest. Shouldn’t the voices of those people who need housing also be included and be heard, as well as the self interested NIMBYS? In the case of social housing development, since most local authorities in high demand areas require a local connection anyway, those people will already be local people, whilst most potential owner occupiers will be too. The problem you’ve highlighted is one where people with resources are able to subvert the system, surely we can devise systems which can counter that.
Guest
Block the borders! Smash trade! See the economy plummet so housing isn’t built!
Keep calling the Other a Turd, as you call for mass pogroms and explusions. If you had a policy of getting rid of the Jews and other undesirables, as you cooked the book to defend your blood-red, totalitarian land of make-believe…