Everyone in social housing should welcome the long overdue pledge in the Labour Party’s manifesto to invest in genuine social housing again.
A promise to build 150,000 social homes a year within five years is music to my ears as it appears to reflect the figures that appeared in the first and second reports from Social Housing Under Threat (SHOUT).
This is not surprising as John Healey, now shadow housing secretary, was instrumental in the setting up of SHOUT when he criticised the housing sector for its lack of challenge to the coalition government in 2013/2014. He has also been a strong supporter of our work.
Some will wonder why it is proposed that 100,000 social homes per year will be delivered by councils and the rest by housing associations. The answer probably lies in Labour’s philosophy of public ownership and in the lack of trust in some housing associations.
This lack of trust and accountability has been identified in a number of recent sector reports.
I also believe that some Labour politicians feel that the sector had a too cosy a relationship with the Conservative government, especially over the so-called Voluntary Right to Buy and its initial impact on local authorities.
If Labour does come to power, there is some bridge building to be done here to regain confidence and trust.
There are many hurdles to overcome before this pledge becomes a reality.
The first is that Labour needs to be in government on 13 December. This is crucial because at the moment the offers from the Liberal Democrats and Conservatives fall well short of what the sector is asking for and more importantly what is needed to overcome the housing crisis.
The second is to rebuild the capacity to deliver such an ambitious programme.
It will not be easy but it has been done before in the post-war period.
“The question should not be ‘can we afford it?’ but ‘can we afford not to do it?’ The social and financial cost of doing nothing will become catastrophic to the fabric of our society”
Some will ask how we will pay the estimated £75bn required to fund the programme? The answer is the investment will pay for itself as the reports from SHOUT, as well as more recent ones from Shelter and others, have shown.
The question should not be ‘can we afford it?’ but ‘can we afford not to do it?’ The social and financial cost of doing nothing will become catastrophic to the fabric of our society. It is simple: building homes people can genuinely afford saves money and lives.
There are other issues relating to quality, standards and the availability of land and labour. What will happen to the Right to Buy in all of its forms? How will truly affordable rents be set? Will power be shared with employees and tenants as proposed in other sectors? And will excessive executive salaries be controlled as part of the package?
Yes, the proposals raise many challenges, but everyone who believes in the true value of social housing, whoever owns, builds or manages it, should welcome the possibility of a new dawn for housing.
Source: InsideHousing
