Uniting the People; Homes for People, Not Profiteers!

Quote

Building Homes for People, not for Profiteers

In the depths of a housing crisis, people are divided.  History has taught us what happens when a society is divided. Those without blame each other. How convenient it is for the elite to watch ordinary people attacking each other. With the intention of whipping up hatred Cameron talks of strivers and scroungers, now we are invited to blame immigration. Anything but  admit the truth, that is that there are not enough affordable homes for people to live in.

The pensioner, mortgage finally paid off from long hours at work, has paid many times over.  He’ll tell you how he struggled with a mortgage at 15% interest rates, constantly  fearing  repossession. Maybe it was once  a people-owned-council-home, then mortgaged to a bank. Enduring poor pay and conditions the new mortgagee didn’t  dare strike, for fear he would be sacked and his family made homeless. All nice profits for the bank.

The young family find poor wages today, high childcare and extortionate rents mean that even working long hours, it is not enough to pay for a home, without Housing Benefit support. Now the awful Bedroom Tax, removes dignity from working families, and from the disabled. It adds to suffering, and  so cruelly divides people. Thatcher’s policies are to blame.

Osborne seems to want to fuel a new housing bubble which will just haemorrhage further wealth to bankers and corporations. These are policies which cannot be sustained and can only result in poorer and poorer living conditions and a free-fall to Victorian times.The housing stock sold off by Margaret Thatcher was deliberately not replenished. House prices have risen out of reach.

A third of ex-council houses are now owned by rich landlords. They can charge what they choose. The only alternative if you cannot afford to buy is to rent privately.  More nice profits for the landlord,  and the Buy-to-Let   Banks. George Osborne might be a trifle embarrassed at the £400K profit  from sale of  his constituency home. Or maybe not.

And what better to do with the profits than buy more to let, holiday homes, grander houses. Osborne will make it easier for wealthy multi property ownership with his Help to Buy Scheme.  As with Buy to Let schemes, all this will do will push up house prices further out of the reach of people who need a home.

Peopleless Homes

To Free- Market Capitalism (neoliberalism), we say, “Never Again”!

And, once Whitehall is rid of this destructive Coaltion government, and we look to build our communities again, we need to be aware of dangers and , banish those myths.

  • Myth 1.”Buying a home is an investment, as house prices increase – “. There is no guarantee that house prices will rise – in fact this approach is basically gambling, and who would gamble with their home?
  • Myth 2. “Rising house-prices is a good thing.” House price rises just mean other people are less likely to be able to obtain a home, leading to homelessness.
  • Myth 3. “People claim Housing Benefit so they don’t need to work.” Most claimants are at work, high rent prices effectively mean the only one to benefit is the landlord. Without benefits, working people could simply not survive.
  • Myth 3: “Buying a house saves money – renting costs more in the long run.” Buying a home costs much more than the cost to build, interest rates always benefit the banks and financiers. Rents are kept artificially high.
  • Myth 4: ” In a recession the government cannot afford to build homes”. The government can produce its own money for building, providing jobs, and boosting the economy, frankly the government can not afford not to build.
  • Myth 5: “Young people can stay at home with parents.” Many have no parents, their parents may have no homes, or no space. Undue pressure and overcrowding will have a detrimental effect on family relationships.
  • Myth 6: “People don’t deserve a subsidised home, I worked hard for mine.” Everyone deserves a decent home, and a job, enabling them to participate in society for mutual benefit.”

 

Today, construction workers find it difficult to find work, as ONS shows a further decline in the  Construction Industry  ( pdf January 2013)

While construction workers are  seeking work, people are homeless, and yet every day we see waste-land, already destined for homes, lying unworked because property prices have fallen since the plans were passed.  The houses are not being built, merely because there is not enough money to be made.  Profits these days come before people’s needs. There was a time when we built houses because people needed them. There was a time when a house was a home.

The political message  in 1945 was clear. Reeling from two world wars, and the defeat of fascism, ordinary British families, bereaved and broken, damaged yet determined set about rebuilding Britain.

This led  to a Socialist Labour government which promised full employment, a tax-funded universal National Health Service, a massive housing programme and the embracing of Keynesian economic policies.

Labour’s cradle-to-grave welfare state, presented with the campaign message ‘Let us face the future’ brought everyone together for common good.

Collectivism was implicit, everyone was valued for their contribution, mutual respect prevailed, society thrived and so did people. Working class people who grew up in the sixties and seventies benefited with opportunities their forefathers never knew.

All this was turned on its head in the eighties. The positive idea of collectivism, the interdependence of people, the power of solidarity, and of trade unionism was crushed. Margaret Thatcher’s ominous words, “There’s no such thing as society,” were destined to haunt many future generations.  That is where we began to lose touch with each other.

The Victorian working classes survived against the odds, given their appalling living conditions. Inner city housing for working class families was inferior to farm animals, and this was reflected in the very high mortality rates, and incidence of disease.. The sanitary conditions in Birmingham back-to-backs at the turn of the century are documented here.

Against this background, socialist and Labour groups campaigned for municipal housing. The homes would be owned by the people, were intended put an end to the slums.

Fred Knee secretary of the Workers National Housing Council in the 1890’s said “It is not the housing of the poor, but the housing of the people by the people themselves, that we must work for – not the herding into slums for the benefit of private enterprise, not the crowding into barracks in order to provide interest for municipal bondholders, but by a feasible honest system and plan “

Early struggles for Council Housing…and the opposition to it 1900 to 1945 (John Grayson) 

The core principle is that the houses would be decent homes, improving health and living standards for working people. The idea was unpopular with Tory Councils because some saw housing, not as people’s homes, but as a source of income. The idea of collective ownership in any form was seen as a threat.

John Grayson’s document of History of Housing from 1900 until 2007  (recommended) recounts the development of the municipal housing, and how Conservative policies deliberately targeted rents, making housing unaffordable leading to social and racial divisions.

Beveridge (Lib) had identified poor housing as one of five great evils, and it was at the forefront of Nye Bevan’s policy with over one million homes being built. However, by 1957 Conservatives had already started to withdraw subsidies, causing municipal rents to treble, and discrimination in private rental market led to racism and division.

In 1968 council housing 31% of tenants were from the poorest 30% of households nationally, 46% from the richest 50% of households. Those attracted to council house living were actually a good cross-section of working class and professional middle class families. Councils by building houses for rent were also able to attract what we now call ‘key workers’ to their areas, and provide ‘labour mobility’ .

Council housing in 1978 at its all time high, nearly a third of housing (32%), but Labour had also encouraged owner occupation (54%). 1978 was a year when there was serious housing choice. Campaigns forced Labour to pass the Homeless Persons Act 1977, and the Race Relations Act in 1976, which brought in many tenants who had been excluded. In 1979 councils were still housing in rented accommodation 20% of the richest tenth of the population.

Tipping the Balance of Society

Thirty years ago there was balanced, sustainable council housing alongside owner occupation. Because of the cross section of manual and professional workers, communities were balanced, and necessary skills widespread. Thus the Thatcherite housing policies destroyed the heart of society. They destroyed the cohesion of communities, leading to areas of great deprivation, and poverty.

Before 1979, Conservative policies allowed council tenants to take on their homes in exchange for maintaining them. Thatcher’s polices of Right-to Buy Council homes led many to buy their homes at a discounted price and with rents rising their hands were forced. Thatcher did not permit the housing stock to be replenished, leading to an acute housing shortage and glimpse back in time, to the days of unscrupulous landlords.

Unreasonably high and unaffordable rents need to be subsidised by Housing Benefit because that is the only way people can afford to live in them, despite many working long hours. Shamefully, Tony Blair’s New Labour governments did not address the housing crisis. Neoliberalism, out of control capitalism, hid behind the illusion of an ever-growing housing bubble.

People were led to believe that a society based on escalating property prices and neoliberalism could thrive. Meanwhile manufacturing industry closed down with the business emphasis on finance, mortgages and insurance. Blindly, many took on debts they could not afford. House prices rose uncontrollably and we witnessed the greed of buy-to-let mortgages which put the prospect of any home out of reach of young people. It is an impossibility for such a system to continue indefinitely, and a crash was inevitable.

Homes for the Future – The People’s Recovery

Instead of Cameron’s divisive Aspiration nation, Miliband’s One Nation should be aiming for full employment for everyone who can work, and allow all to participate as fully as is possible, to enjoy a decent home, and reasonable life-work balance, without debt, or impacting negatively on the future finances and environment of our grandchildren. Why, in a world where there is adequate resources for all, are people living without homes? Why are homes left empty? Where is the justice in a world where some have many homes, and others none at all?

James Murray  and the Think-Tank CLASS (Campaign for Labour and Social Studies ) have recently published “Time to Step-in”, and call for government intervention in Housing policy and and investment in publicly funded social housing initiatives. It is the responsibility of government to determine where homes are built, and the type of homes.

Murray’s emphasis of the need not to rely of the profit driven markets to deliver housing is exemplified in that the Coalition government are considering reviewing energy and disability regulations  in order to boost a building boom.

The Government plan to cut fire safety and wheelchair regulations in attempts to give the construction industry an economic boost.

Ministers have ordered an across the board review, to examine whether regulations, across energy, water, security, accessibility and whether builders should be given the option of self- regulation, should be introduced to cut costs for the industry.

This coincides with the governments relaxation on home building, David Cameron  has announced a ‘free for all’, allowing home owners to be able to extend their houses by up to 8 metres without planning permission from the local council.
Plans to give the construction industry a boost come from shocking figures that house building is at its lowest since the 1920’s, resulting in rent costs at an all time high, and potentially blocking a whole generation out of the property ladder.

It is unacceptable for housing initiatives to be merely driven by profit, and almost inconceivable that such risks to safety are contemplated.

Homes must be secure, safe and affordable, but also need to be built in areas where there is suitable employment, and where people want to live. Homes built in Ghost Estates in Ireland lie empty, never occupied. Simply pursuing policies of a profit-driven society, without consideration of employment, education and training needs, eventually lead to the social divisions we see today. This can result in a persistence of poverty in some urban areas, despite restructuring communities as revealed in the study, Why Neighbourhoods remain poor.

  • Economic restructuring, particularly the decline of the manufacturing sector in Birmingham, plays an important role in explaining this.
  • The loss of these jobs has disproportionately affected already deprived areas.
  • Birmingham is becoming a low-wage economy. Since 2001, wages have fallen in real terms and at a faster rate amongst the lower-paid.
  • Internal migration within the city has also tended to concentrate less advantaged people within already deprived areas largely due to the cost, tenure and availability of housing.
  • The availability of affordable housing – either social rented or cheap private housing – in particular areas mean that those with least choice tend to move to those places. Looking forward we must be ready for the Conservatives who will attempt to block every initiative for common ownership, and policies aimed at redistribution of wealth. We all need homes, decent ones, as we need food water, and energy, and this is why a Housing Policy must always put need before profit.

Boosting the Construction Industry 

The government’s policy of deep cuts during a recessions is more disaster politics. A massive building initiative of public building, providing jobs worked in 1945 and will work again.

We must be mindful of corruption and  insist on transparency about construction companies and ensure that they publicise any self interest and detail their finances and tax contributions. Never again should we allow public assets to be stripped away for personal profit. Here, Sir John Banham is advocating the use of pensions funds for Local Authority workers to fund housing.

 The Telegraph reports on a year-long study by the Future Homes Commission, which is chaired by City grandee Sir John Banham, proposes that money from local authorities’ pension funds should be used to create a £10 billion Local Housing Development Fund, which would build mixed-tenure housing in communities suffering from a shortage.

With the courage reminiscent of the socialist Labour Party of almost 70 years ago, with innovative design, planning and, and a commitment to improve living standards and people’s well-being, we can finally turn our back on the damage inflicted by Margaret Thatcher.

Homes for the Future

The document Homes for the Future, more affordable sustainable  2007, foreword by Yvette Cooper outlines detailed plans for communities and plans for building expansion not seen for forty years. A future Labour government must be prepared to make funds available for the investment our communities need, this time not for the benefit of private enterprise, but for people, because it is they who matter, and it is they who are the source of wealth and mutual benefit regardless of contradictions of Conservative propaganda.

Land left, unused yet fit for building should be made available for building, not left waiting to turn a profit. Investment should be made to modernise old housing stock, by retrofitting modern insulation, and fitting renewable energy micro-generation, for example solar panels.

We should invest in new-builds; well-designed homes, effectively insulated by modern building materials, truly sustainable homes powered by renewable energy and if these are to be collectively owned it would provide a win-win situation. Planning should encompass existing communities, equipped with the facilities residents need, and of a sustainable design. Such communities will be infinitely more suitable than building dense housing devoid of any infrastructure in order to maximise profits.

Rather than “investment” in homes, and a mortgage which feeds hidden bank accounts in tax havens around the world, this would be a real investment in the future and for which our grandchildren will thank us. The result would be a better, happier life for everyone.

References and Further Reading   

  1. The Guardian: The Bedroom Tax is an intrusion into the most private family space. 
  2. Daily Mirror:  A third of ex-council houses are now owned by rich landlords
  3. Metro:  Buy-to Let “Tax Avoiders” Shackle first time buyers
  4. George Osborne’s 400K profit on constituency home. (Telegraph)
  5. George Osborne pins hopes on Housing Boom (Telegraph)
  6.  ONS Figures for Construction Industry Jan 2013  (pdf)
  7. 1945 General Election – 
  8.  From warfare to welfare:
  9.  Living Back-to Back, by Chris Upton, published Phllimore
  10.  Grayson History-Housing: pdf document John Grayson
  11. CLASS: Think Tank:  Piece Time to step in 
  12. Government reviews energy and disability regulation in order to boost building boom
  13. Why Neighbourhoods Remain Poor 
  14.  Use pension funds to boost housing report, Telegraph 
  15. Communities and Local Government : Homes for the Future, more affordable more sustainable
  16. Poor Brum, Think Left
  17. Time to consider brick bonds , Think Left
  18. This isn’t Dickens, It’s Today: Winter’s Cold, Homeless and Hungry, Think Left
  19. Shelter: The causes of Homelessness
  20. Homelessness kills – Executive Summary An analysis of the mortality of homeless people
  21. No Green Coalition Efficien-City -Interactive Link , Greenpeace, Think Left
  22. The New Housing Plan is Flawed, Think Left
  23. Richard Murphy: The Courageous State

This Ghastly Bedroom Tax spreads Fear… #bedroomtax

Quote

The Ghastly Bedroom Tax spreads Fear

By Jim Grundy

This is a transcript of a speech I gave at Ashfield District Council last night when I moved a motion calling upon the Government to scrap the appalling Bedroom Tax.

I, for one, wish that the whole ghastly Bedroom Tax was the product of some bizarre administrative error. But the fact is that from 1st April 660,000 households, two thirds of whom include someone with a disability, and nearly 1,000 within this District alone, will face having to find hundreds of pounds or even more each year just to stay in their own homes. And that is why this motion calls upon the Secretary of State, Iain Duncan Smith, who benefits from living in one home rent free courtesy of his wife’s rich family and another subsidised by the Tax Payer, to scrap the Tax.

So, what are the stated aims of the ‘Under-Occupation Charge’ or ‘Spare Room Subsidy’ as the Coalition insists on referring to the Bedroom Tax?

Ministers claim that it will cut the cost of Housing Benefit and increase the supply of larger family homes to help meet the demands imposed by growing housing waiting lists.

Noble aims that no-one would argue with. But is the introduction of the Bedroom Tax the right remedy for the problems it claims to address?

The simple answer is ‘no’.

Bedroom t95_n

The Bedroom Tax will achieve neither goal but it is already spreading fear amongst people bewildered at what is happening and already facing other cuts, particularly those with caring responsibilities. So why is the Housing Benefit bill going up? It is really quite easy to understand.

Average household incomes are falling; fewer people are able to buy their own homes; and more are obliged to pay the high rents charged within the private rented sector. As many people now rent their home from a private landlord as they do from their local authority. But the Government doesn’t seem to have noticed any of that.

It much prefers to end the development of genuinely affordable housing, hold down pay and to cap or cut benefits whilst leaving private landlords free to charge rents at levels that are anything but affordable. Therefore, having disposed of the bogus Housing Benefit-related justification for the Bedroom Tax, let us now consider the issue of under-occupation.

Is social housing under-occupied to such an extent that inefficient allocation policies have contributed to a shortage of affordable housing?

The Government’s own ‘English Housing Survey’ shows council and housing association properties are already the most efficiently allocated of all. It shows that, whilst 10% of social housing includes properties with a ‘spare’ room that figure rises to 16% in the private rented sector and 49% for owner-occupiers.

Members will be well aware that there is a huge debate about what is and is not a ‘spare’ room. Many disabled people, their carers, disabled children too, need a room of their own on clear medical grounds, grounds that the Government completely ignores with its own definition of how many bedrooms any household requires.

But despite the relative efficiency with which social housing is allocated, who is being targeted by this Government? Yes, once more the poorest, the most vulnerable.

Indeed, one of the crueller ironies is that one of the leading Ministers dealing with the Bedroom Tax, Lord Freud, has 11 spare bedrooms of his own – eight in his own country mansion (but we’d better not mention a Mansion Tax tonight) and three in what is euphemistically called his ‘town house’ in central London..

The other central issue is whether there are enough smaller homes to move people into to help them avoid the Tax and free-up a larger home?

Again, the answer is simply ‘no’.

Ashfield Homes estimates that it could, at best, move 40-50 households each year into smaller properties. But there are nearly 1,000 households affected by the Bedroom Tax in Ashfield, so even if we could somehow ensure that no-one’s circumstances changed from now on it would still take us around 20 years to help place people in what the Government says is the right type of property.

If we cannot move people within our own stock, can’t we just move them into smaller, privately rented homes? With rents so much higher in the private rented sector, even for small properties, such a move would actually increase costs.

All that pain, uprooting people from their homes, from their families and friend support networks and for it all to actually cost the country more. What a perverse outcome that would be. But we are dealing with a perverse Government that punishes the least well-off at every opportunity whilst rewarding the most fortunate.

What else can we conclude when at the same time as the Bedroom Tax is introduced, which threatens to make thousands homeless, millionaires get £100,000+ Income Tax cuts and existing home owners are offered funding to buy another home.

Taxing the spare bedrooms of the poorest. Subsidising spare homes of the richest. Is there any more blatant demonstration of this Government’s priorities?

Groucho Marx once said that, “Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it, misdiagnosing it, and then misapplying the wrong remedies.”

For the benefit of any members of the Coalition, that is satire not the way to run a country.

Please support the motion.

Please also see: The Bedroom Tax: The unkindest tax of all. (Jim Grundy)

Bedroom Tax Song: You Cannae Have A Spare Room in a Pokey Cooncil Flat

Quote

Bedroom Tax Song: You Cannae Have A Spare Room in a Pokey Cooncil Flat

Published on Mar 27, 2013

LYRICS AND INFO
A song about the Bedroom Tax, written for the demos all over the UK on Saturday 30th March, 2013, the Glasgow one in particular. Set to the tune of 1960’s folk song “The Jeely Piece Song”, by Scottish singer-songwriter Adam McNaugton.

LYRICS

I’m a welfare state wean, we live on the bottom flair
But we’re no allowed to even live there any mair.
They say we’ve got too many rooms, in our social rented flat
We’ve an eight by ten foot boxroom where you cannae swing a cat

Chorus:
Oh ye canna have a spare room in a pokey cooncil flat
Ian Duncan Smith and Co have put an end tae that
They say “live in a smaller house”, they say that is their plan
When the odds against you finding one are ninety-nine to one

Noo ma auntie’s in a wheelchair, but these Tories dinna care
They say they have a deficit, she got to pay her share
£60 a month they’ll take, then leave her tae her fate
Whilst gieing millionaires a tax cut, cause they say they’re due a break

Noo that Buckingham Palace looks a pretty roomy gaff
And the ludger there gets benefits at rates that make me laugh
A civil list, plus tax perks, near ninety million pounds
With her other dozen mansions lying empty a’ year round

Noo those MPs doon in Westminster must think that we’re ‘a dense
Wi their second home apartments, where the public pays their rent
They’re even get a food allowance, two hundred quid a week
But they’re claiming we’re the scroungers, is their arse up in their cheeks?

So we’ve formed a Federation and we’re gonna have our say
The Bedroom Tax it has to go, and we ain’t gonna pay
We’re gonna march on London tae demand our civil rights
Like nae mair Tories and their Liberal shite

A Mother’s Work

Quote

A Mother’s Work

First posted on March 24, 2013

This is naturally worded towards the female gender, by virtue of tradition. However, if you are a man with whom any of this resonates, I hope you will consider yourself automatically included where relevant.

A great irony has occurred over the last few decades. Time was that the working mother was frowned upon and her ‘latch-key’ children pitied. Today, societal expectations and governmental policies have instilled a sense of guilt in the woman if she doesn’t want to work while her children are actually children. She is found wanting, accused of not pulling her weight; not showing a good work ethic to her offspring; not contributing to the justification of her monetary worth. Why? Because she makes her children her primary purpose: her occupation – her career? This development is just as insidious and detrimental to the well-being of children, mothers and Community as the spiteful, reverse demonisation of those who worked in the Seventies and Eighties. But for the working mother and particularly the lone parent, her guilt is in the eternal catch-22: that of either spreading herself too thinly, thus feeling inadequate in both spheres of life, or, just as likely, pretty much neglecting one sphere in favour of the pressure from the other.

The accelerating pressures of our lives can have done little to assuage this guilt and yet it has been pushed to one side by the theorists, the Media and consecutive governments who have fallen over themselves to endorse the mythical status of the perfectly accomplished woman: the woman who can do everything and be everything, brilliantly. Really? Isn’t that just crazy talk? I mean: yes, of course women “can have it all” – but surely not all at once? Not successfully?

I’d rather we didn’t insist on mothers being stay-at-home types or force them out to work. One size doesn’t fit all and why would we want it to? That just leads to unhappy, less effective people. And yet this is exactly what our government is achieving. And yet again, it’s the poorest and the least powerful who find themselves without a choice. Yet again the Conservatives, the so-called party of family and strong moral compass, are destroying the very fabric upon which such values are built.

The next generation are the future, the continuum of the human race and your children are your personal legacy. Could there really be any task more worthy or vital? Now, I don’t think it’s wrong to work just because you have children: this isn’t about denigrating working mothers; but neither is it inaccurate to see your parenting as highly valuable work. Wanting to be the default carer and guide for your own children is most certainly notsomething to be ashamed of. After all, they’re not called dependants for nothing. If it doesn’t matter who raises them; if it isn’t healthier to have diversity; if the mother doesn’t know her child best, we might as well just grow them in anonymous incubators, stamp them with a code and send them off to processing plants.

As I’ve written, previously:

Where is the sense in a society that forces single parents out to work for such low wages that they still require top-up benefits so that someone else, who may not be your idea of a suitable surrogate parent and who may not even like the job, can also be paid a pittance to look after your children? The same society which frets about family breakdown, quality time, modern pressures, neglected kids…

[‘Welfare Reform Scapegoats’ http://julijuxtaposed.wordpress.com/2013/02/02/welfare-reform-needs-scapegoats/ ]

I wonder… Wouldn’t that pittance of a wage be better offered directly to the primary care-giver as a modest stipend for not needing all this bitty but generic and expensive childcare? It would give lone parents and low-waged couples, a viable option. It would say that we value not just the child, but the parent too. And the childcare business that survived would probably be of a better, more personal quality. It’s short-sighted to view this as something for nothing. It is not. Society complains constantly about its breakdown; about the poverty that initiates and exacerbates its ills, only to resist the most obvious solution and go for yet another false economy. It’s hang-wringing followed by pettiness, followed by some complicated new policy which is ineffective and always costs more than its budget, followed by more hand-wringing. Well, perhaps some things are worth throwing money at because, at the very least, the alternatives are unthinkable. If it could just be accepted that the Hearth Stone is as essential to Humanity as good planetary stewardship is to Earth’s ecosystem – that would at least be a good start.