Here’s a quintet of things I’ve read this week to entertain you and make you think this weekend:
Gender Budgeting in active travel
Engender’s Feminist Five pointed me in the direction of this article by Tiffany Lam, the Strategy Lead for Equality, Diversity and Inclusion at Sustrans, the custodians of the National Cycle Network.
She writes about the need for gender budgeting to consider the needs of women if we are going to increase the numbers of women cycling. Currently, twice as many men as women cycle. Is that because men are less likely to be doing the weekly shop and looking after children? What other factors are at play and how can we make cycling more accessible for women? She explains how gender budgeting has helped them make 9 recommendations to improve women’s participation. Are they asking the right questions?
Do we just need fewer landlords to solve the housing crisis?
Last year, Lib Dem Conference defied the leadership to call for a national housing target to build the houses we need. This included 150,000 homes for social rent annually which was already in the motion and is supported by the party.
Over on Liberal England, Jonathan Calder suggests that the problem may be the proliferation of private landlords pushing up housing costs for Generation Rent, citing this article in the Guardian by Nick Bano. While I definitely think that we need more houses for social rent and that leaving housing to the market to sort out is a disaster for many tenants, there are not enough suitable houses for everyone who needs them and we need much more sensible planning to provide, for example, more lower cost housing for older people and younger families. Anyway, some of the commenters want to see that argument played out here. What do you think?
A musical about the miners’ strike
It’s hard to believe that it is 40 years since the Miners’ strike. I remember the daily scenes of angry confrontation and worse on the picket lines. As a 16 year old, my instinctive reaction is that there had to be a better way of resolving these conflicts. Scargill’s NUM and the Government just seemed to have an agenda of destroying each other with no regard for the people and communities caught up in it. .
My husband worked in the coal industry at the time. He was a safety engineer at Polkemmet Colliery not far away from where we live now and he has stories to tell about that period. When we first met he told me about how there was a funeral of an old man in the area which nobody attended because he had worked in the General Strike of 1926.
I enjoyed this review in the Guardian of a musical comedy about that time and I would love to see the show:
Churchgoing Olive (Victoria Brazier) and livewire Mary (Stacey Sampson) are both miners’ wives; 18-year-old Isabel (Claire O’Connor) is dating a police cadet. Their stories are an amalgamation of fiction and of people’s memories, shared with Red Ladder theatre company. Early on in the strike, Olive sits alone beside a brazier (represented by an upturned lampshade, repurposed from the opening scene, a deft, agitprop metaphor). “What are you doing?” asks Mary. “Minding the picket line,” replies Olive. “Where are the men?” “Off holding a meeting to discuss whether to allow women on the picket!”
First nation development in Vancouver sparks controversy
Credit for this one has to go to my friend Richard Gadsden. Over beer in the Mason’s Arms in York he told us about a row in Vancouver over a development in lands owned by the Squamish First Nation. I have to say I can’t understand what people are complaining about and it all seems like an attempt to explain to the Squamish nation what its culture and history is. This article tells us more.
Critics have included local planners, politicians and, especially, residents of Kitsilano Point, a rarified beachfront neighbourhood bordering the reserve. And there’s been an extra edge to their critiques that’s gone beyond standard-issue NIMBYism about too-tall buildings and preserving neighbourhood character. There’s also been a persistent sense of disbelief that Indigenous people could be responsible for this futuristic version of urban living. In 2022, Gordon Price, a prominent Vancouver urban planner and a former city councillor, told Gitxsan reporter Angela Sterritt, “When you’re building 30, 40-storey high rises out of concrete, there’s a big gap between that and an Indigenous way of building.”
But
To Indigenous people themselves, though, these developments mark a decisive moment in the evolution of our sovereignty in this country. The fact is, Canadians aren’t used to seeing Indigenous people occupy places that are socially, economically or geographically valuable, like Sen̓áḵw. After decades of marginalization, our absence seems natural, our presence somehow unnatural. Something like Sen̓áḵw is remarkable not just in terms of its scale and economic value (expected to generate billions in revenue for the Squamish Nation). It’s remarkable because it’s a restoration of our authority and presence in the heart of a Canadian city.
Why we need to fix the child maintenance system
As it was Single Parents’ Day this week, I was having a wander round One Parent Families Scotland ‘s website and found this blog that resonates with so many experiences I’ve heard about. A high earning parent, usually a man, getting away with paying minimal child maintenance with low earning parents, usually women, struggling to get what they are owed.
My children are 7 and 9. I separated from their dad over 5 years ago due to domestic abuse, and I started using the Child Maintenance Service (CMS) in 2019 as the resident parent. The CMS should be an effective way of preventing economic abuse being another factor to contend with but sadly it often enhances these issues instead.
In my case, my children’s dad runs a successful Ltd company with two offices, many members of staff, company cars and a long history of high income. Yet for the first two years he managed to get away with paying based upon minimum wage only…
…During the last four years of dealing with the CMS, I have had horrendous communication issues: letters unanswered, phone calls not answered or answered then hung up, being promised to be called back and then no response, incorrect information provided (e.g., being told I couldn’t go to tribunal when this would in fact have been the best option), new calculations made with no explanation as to why changes have been made.
There are far too many loopholes and a lack of interest from CMS staff. The only way to resolve this is to go through endless paperwork to do a variation, then mandatory reconsideration then go to tribunal. There is no easy resolution via the CMS but as this is the official way of resolving financial issues, it cannot be mentioned in family court.
What have you been reading this week?
* Caron Lindsay is Editor of Liberal Democrat Voice and blogs at Caron's Musings
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Full slate of Lib Dems in council by-elections
Getting things done - West Port #dundeewestend
Payback time
The Joy of Six 1274
Gasping Local Government.
The Chagos Islands, Mauritius and the ICJ
Honouring the Real Thing and launching Black History Month in Liverpool
Russell
Peter Martin
Peter Davies
Dave Tate
14 Comments
Living in that London I find it hard to believe the accepted story about lack of housing, I am surrounded by building sites squeezing yet more high-rise blocks onto every possible sliver of land.
I found the Guardian article very plausible – the reason nearly 1 in every 20 people are Landlords is that “We” have made it a very easy way to make money in return for No work. We could reintroduce rules making it hard to evict Tenants, we could bring back strict Rent Controls & restrict Rent Rises to inflation. Landlords would start losing money, they would sell, prices would fall – Joy all round !
Nick Bano points out that the number of home per person in the UK is 468 homes per 1000 people in 2019, which is a slight increase over the last 25 years. He assumes this is sufficient. I disagree for over 25 years household sizes have been decreasing which means more homes are need per 1000 people. Therefore I support our housing policy to build 380,000 homes a year, including 150,000 social homes. I would support the government providing funds for councils to buy homes which are currently in the private rented sector when the landlord wishes to give up being a landlord and to buy holiday homes when they come on to the market.
There are many great songs from the miners. I listen to them now and I am amazed that in my lifetime how this great industry has simply closed down. I know we need net zero, so fair enough, but just think about what was lost.
The miners lullaby; “coorie doone” by the wonderful Matt McGinn (who often performed with Billy Connolly) is particulary haunting https://youtu.be/2WPI8CF04A0?si=RZdu2fTXNN4hbbCf
“……. for over 25 years household sizes have been decreasing which means more homes are need per 1000 people.
Alternatively, we could look at ways of reversing the trend and try to use our existing housing stock more efficiently.
Totally agree with Michael that we need more houses. Also relevant is more people buying second homes, plus we are less willing to cram multiple people into one bedroom than people in – say – the 1940s were!
Nick Bano’s article seems strange. His assumption that lots of properties to rent will cause rents to rise makes no economic sense. He claims that 5% of us are landlords (so that’s 3 million landlords) but also implies that the rental market is monopolistic. Sorry Nick, but a monopoly is one single supplier, not 3 million independent suppliers! And the blasé way that he calls for price controls suggests to me no understanding of how markets work. The sources he cites don’t really back up his argument either. He quotes Anthony Breach’s Conservative Home article (https://conservativehome.com/2023/06/01/anthony-breach-population-growth-isnt-causing-the-housing-shortage-the-planning-system-is/) as evidence that we have enough homes, but he seems to have missed that a few paragraphs further on that same article states, By comparing the change in the number of homes per person in the UK to other Western European countries from 1955 to 2015, Centre for Cities research has shown that, after controlling for differences in population growth, we are today missing 4.3 million homes that other European countries managed to build.
There is a valid point buried here that you don’t want landlords buying up houses to let to people who actually wanted to buy those houses themselves to live in, but that shouldn’t detract from the desperate need to build more houses.
Will comment on the landlord abolition one – I don’t find Bano’s argument particularly convincing, the basis of his argument is a slight increase in *homes per household* means there’s no supply crisis whatsoever, and there’s no merit to YIMBYs. That statistic is not sufficient to explain that there’s no shortage – it isn’t looking at trends of new household formation, at what age, or the size of such, all downstream from the lack of supply and land use. There are plenty in the party that are both YIMBYs and Georgists (or at least sympathetic to tenets of it, without identifying as such), recognising the price increases represent a scarcity. I don’t think abolishing landlords (or what he really means is private landlords) resolves this much, and in fact prioritising this might just reveal the extent Owner-Occupiers can and do pose a large barrier to housing need, and then we come to the arguments on scarcity again. Even our plans might not be sufficient to meet housing need/backlog when compared to the historic rates of building by our European neighbours, I just don’t think Bano’s piece is useful or grounded, we should work for tenants rights and better regulation of PRS, but not towards abolition and ignoring supply.
@Peter Martin says “Alternatively, we could look at ways of reversing the trend and try to use our existing housing stock more efficiently.” Ironically, that was part of the purpose of the bedroom tax. Perhaps we should be aiming to improve the implementation of the bedroom tax to make it fairer rather than abandoning the principle?
There are certainly things we could do in the short term to use our existing housing stock better. Abolishing stamp duty would remove a significant barrier to people downsizing. The Government could also pay moving costs for people on benefits who are able and would like to move to smaller properties, thus freeing up larger homes. More support/publicity drives to encourage homeowners with spare rooms to take in lodgers could also help – the Ukraine scheme showed that there is clearly considerable capacity there. Ideally you also need some way to prevent people from buying second homes in places where local residents desperately need first homes, but I have no idea how that can be done in a way that’s consistent with a liberal society.
The permanent solution remains simply to build enough houses, but that will take decades, so realistically we do need to find ways to use housing more efficiently in the meantime. I think Peter is correct to that extent.
@Simon.. Restricting a free market as regards the purchase of second properties would be an impossibility+ an exercise in futility…Most 2nd homes purchased are already out of the price range of local people on basic incomes ..As for the bedroom tax it’s a spiteful piece of legislation that wants scrapping – Nicks defence of it on LBC radio to a very ill lady who already had racked up a load of debt because of it – was the lowest point of the coalition years ..The bedroom tax needs scrapping….As for house building – only state intervention not seen since the fifties can make a dent in the qnty needed …
Phineas Harper has an excellent article in today’s Guardian.https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/mar/26/councils-sell-off-more-houses-right-to-buy-failure
Briefly he explains that councils are dissuaded from building social housing because if they do the “right to buy” e means that they may be forced to sell them off within three years.
From google I learn that the RTB discount can be anything from 35% to 70%, and there’s nothing to stop the tenant flogging the house to a “buy to let” landlord.
Labour promised to abolish RTB in its last manifesto but appears to have dropped the commitment (like so much else.) What is our policy?
I believe that we need to slim down the way housing associations are run. Many are often top heavy. Many homes in the housing stock are tatty and past the sell by date.
On one hand build brand new homes for some and the others are not so lucky. There are storage heaters in some properties unless you have solar power unaffordable.
Homes need decent heating and insulation or uou get mould and condensation. Perhaps the reason for the problems we have now.
This government has been allowed to treat many voters with total ignorance.
@Helen Dudden
“There are storage heaters in some properties unless you have solar power unaffordable.”
I’m not clear as to whether or not you approve of storage heaters.
A 3 kW storage heater is a three bar electric fire. Very unaffordable and costly to run. The German model, is a better option but again costly.
In social housing its not a wise choice. High utilities is creating more damp conditions as walls need to warm and dry.
@Caron – Thankyou for the link to Tiffany Lams work on cycling infrastructure. Being active in getting more young people and girls into cycling, and currently negotiating new infrastructure locally to myself, it is helpful in providing some more pointers as to what needs to be done.
@Helen Dudden
The point about storage heaters is that they don’t need to be supplied with electricity all the time.
They can be used with a timer and a tariff which has a cheap rate (usually overnight) e.g. an Economy 7 type tariff but that’s just an example.
The objective is to store energy when it’s cheaper and release the heat gradually during the day when you need it.
If you don’t want to heat all the rooms at the same time (as we were being encouraged when energy prices were particularly high) just turn off the ones you don’t want to use. Very simple.
One also needs to add in the cost of maintenance – low for such an electric heating system but systems such as gas are going to need regular boiler maintenance.
And failure to maintain a gas central heating system is a bad idea – but it appears some users find it unaffordable.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/jul/03/risk-of-deadly-gas-blasts-rising-as-cash-strapped-uk-homeowners-skip-checks
Gas explosions seem to be occurring with monotonous regularity. And all too often it isn’t only the property containing the faulty system which is utterly wrecked – neighbouring problems are often wrecked as well. And sometimes peple get killed.