Social Housing

David Cameron has floated an idea that council house tenancies should no longer be for life. On the face of it this makes sense, but as Simon Hughes has pointed out, there is a lot more to this than a soundbite in the ear. Without exploring the complexities of the nature of public tenancy and its role in shaping communities, I would urge caution before tinkering. The last great reform was the sale of council houses to tenants and I was opposed to that for many reasons.

The first reason was that it would lead to a shortage of social housing, especially in more affluent areas. The second was that unpopular locations would become ghettos of decay and deprivation. The third was that a substantial rented sector in housing at all levels of affluence provides economic flexibility, easy moving, and mobility of labour. This seizes up if all homes are owned and when in fashionable areas become beyond the purse of the people in vital jobs, for whom such houses where originally designed. The fourth was that such an idea would create a culture in which owning a home was seen as a social necessity, leading to an over concentration on housing assets, which would inflate and eventually undermine the competitiveness and stability of the economy as a whole.

Smugly confident that I was right across the piece, I now urge caution before some well intentioned nostrum becomes a policy with a clear beginning, but an unforeseen end. Everyone in the land should be able to live in a home where the cost either owned or rented or provided is at a utility level to ensure reduced debt, improved quality of life, more saving and competitiveness of the British workforce in a global market. Anything which fits that bill is worth a try. I am not sure that the P.M.’s musing on this matter does.