It seems that the big winner of the party conference season was housing. Among the big stories were Kemi Badenoch’s announcement that the Conservatives will remove stamp duty of primary residences, the Green’s vote to “Abolish Landlords,” not mention Steve Reed’s distribution of ‘Build. Baby, build’ caps.
I want to focus on the Green Plans. There has been a knee jerk response on both sides to this proposal with little meaningful analysis. Firstly, it is important to note the difference between the headline and the policy (reflecting the dissonance we see between some newspaper stories and the headlines). As the ex-leader and Bristol Central MP Carla Denyer noted, the policy does not ‘abolish landlords.’ The main thrust of the policy is to expand council housing through new build, buy back and the abolition of the right to buy and to bring in a raft of measures which removes the financial incentive to be a landlord by introducing rent controls, adding national insurance to rental income, bringing in a land tax, changing tenancies so they can only be ended by tenants and ending buy to let mortgages.
The Green Party believes that these measures combined will reduce waiting lists as councils build more homes and squeeze private landlords and landlordism out of the housing market. The objective is clear but is it practical?
I think it is useful to look at the most affordable capital city in Europe with the largest council housing stock on the continent, namely Vienna. In Vienna, the council owns over 200,000 homes (and growing) and social housing is the tenure of choice for the vast majority of residents. However, council housing on its own does not create an effective housing system even here. There are also around 200,000 homes owned by housing association equivalents (which are completely ignored in the Green motion and in the Party Policy set out on their website) and a thriving private rented sector. While someone who has lived in Vienna for two years can apply for social housing, the place they wait (owner occupation is less than 20% of the stock) or if they are living there for a short period, is the private rented sector. There are rent controls on private rentals built before the war but not on newer properties, this ensures that there is still an incentive for the equivalent of the build to rent sector to provide new homes in the city. Vienna’s housing system would not work without a private sector element.
The Green Party website correctly notes that there are over a million households on council waiting lists and the party is committed to building 150,000 social homes in a year (again it is silent on housing associations, although the resolution only commits to finance for councils). The general churn in social housing tenancies is falling behind of demand but let us assume for this argument that it neutral, i.e. that the number of people joining the waiting list matches the numbers rehoused in social housing relets. To clear the current waiting list would be 7 years. Where will people live for those seven years if there is no private rented system, assuming, I think completely reasonably that they cannot afford to buy.
Where will people who do not qualify or will not be a priority for council housing and who cannot afford to buy live? This includes students, mobile workers, single men, childless couples etc.
While I understand the motivation for the policy, I honestly have no understanding of how this produces a workable practical housing system. If the road to hell is pathed with good intentions, this is that road. In the short to medium term this policy would result in massive levels of homelessness, much worse than now. And as a postscript I would love to know what the Green Party policy position on housing associations is, the current one seems to assume a false dichotomy of council housing (with maybe some cooperative and community led housing thrown in) and private landlords. It is just not that simple.