Independent View: What now for housing policy?

As the coalition approaches the halfway point of the Parliament, Liberal Democrats are in search of policies that demonstrate their distinctive contribution to government – especially on the crucial issue of growth. Pre-conference briefing suggests that leading party figures see affordable house building as a leading option. They are right to do so. It would boost demand, create jobs, and meet a pressing social need. The Tories are focused on reforming the planning system, but evidence suggests this is a tough political sell. Efforts to finance house building through clever Treasury wheezes that try to circumvent borrowing constraints have so far underwhelmed. This suggests the need for a more fundamental rethinking of housing strategy, in particular the balance of public expenditure – especially given that further cuts to both Housing Benefit and housing capital are on the cards for the next spending review.

Housing policy has long been bedevilled by initiatives and short-termism because it has avoided a strategic problem built up over the last thirty years. Since the late 1970s there has been a steady but ultimately dramatic shift in public spending from building houses to subsidising rents. The drivers of this shift are complex but the result is simple: during the current spending review we will spend £95 billion on Housing Benefit and just £4.5 billion on capital grants to finance affordable house building. About 40 per cent of that benefit spend goes directly to private landlords, often at high prices, with no impact on housing supply. As housing output flatlines, fewer people are able to access homeownership (bringing them into scope for Housing Benefit) and more have to rely on the private rented sector (where rents, and benefit payments, are higher). This is seriously bad policy.

Part of the answer is to allow local councils with strong balance sheets to borrow against their housing assets to finance new affordable house building capable of generating a return. But we also need to drive a shift from current to capital spending over the medium term – reversing the shift from housing capital to housing benefit. In a recently published report, the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) has suggested a way this could be done, by also embracing a radial localism. The centre-piece would be a long term strategy to decentralise power and responsibility for housing expenditure to local areas – perhaps local government – with a remit for meeting local housing need, including by increasing housing supply. This would be a bold strategy for Nick Clegg, Vince Cable and Danny Alexander to consider: creating the institutional conditions for a better use of public spending and a major act of devolution consistent with the best of Liberal traditions.

* Graeme Cooke is Associate Director at the Institute for Public Policy Research

Read more by or more about or .
This entry was posted in News and The Independent View.
Advert

3 Comments

  • Isn’t “affordable housing” a euphemism for “subsidised housing”?

    I doubt many people want to risk having an instant slum built next to them.

  • Dave G Fawcett 22nd Sep '12 - 11:32am

    The ‘elephant in the room’ at this debate is the legislation around the sale of council houses to sitting tenants. Here in my own ward in Gateshead we have great swathes of former council housing stock that is now privately owned by its former tenants and their descendants. Very good for the local Lib Dems you might think – and it is fertile territory – but it has left the town with a serious rented housing shortage. Why should local authorities build houses to rent when there is a risk that they will be snapped up by sitting tenants at the first opportunity?

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

If you are a member of the party, you can have the Lib Dem Logo appear next to your comments to show this. You must be registered for our forum and can then login on this public site with the same username and password.

To have your photo next to your comment please signup your email address with Gravatar.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

*
*
Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?

Advert



Recent Comments

  • User AvatarTom Harney 5th Jul - 4:04am
    The objectives discussed are not objectives for the party. They might be objectives for the country. We urgently need objectives for the party. What format...
  • User AvatarJoseph Bourke 5th Jul - 2:06am
    Tony Blair has recently offered his thoughts on the future of progressive politics in the UK https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2019/12/tony-blair-s-speech-future-labour-and-progressive-politics-full-text “To win power, we need self-discipline not self-indulgence;...
  • User AvatarPeter Martin 5th Jul - 12:07am
    @ George, ".....you don’t remember any of my counter-arguments." You could be right. At least I thought so because I genuinely can't! But, you've written...
  • User AvatarPeter Kenny 4th Jul - 11:39pm
    The Windrush scandal followed directly from the 2014 Immigration Act, supported by almost all MPs - only 7 voted against, none of them Lib Dem’s....
  • User AvatarPeter Kenny 4th Jul - 11:33pm
    The current benefit sanctions regime was introduced in 2012. You were in power as part of the coalition at the time. Callous, terrible heartless Tories?...
  • User AvatarJohn O 4th Jul - 11:24pm
    'John O: What student politics?' 'Commandeering the UK private health sector' That's apart from all the baggage