Co-operative housing could be the answer to Britain's troubles

In the face of cuts and a decline in home ownership, co-ops could help people into the market.

Co-op Housing is described as “Britain’s best kept secret”. Between cuts to social housing and a decline in home ownership, could now be the time for Britain to look to co-operative housing?

In Sweden, co-op housing provides more than one fifth of housing. That’s more than the UK private rental market. Starting in 1945, the Swedish government began to subsidise co-operative housing at the same level as other housing types. The tenant movement, forged in struggles against rent rises in the 1920s and 1930s took full advantage of this development. HSB, one of the largest housing co-ops, was founded as part of the tenants movement in 1923. Other organisations, such as the housing co-op Riksbyggen, were founded after 1945. True to much of the Swedish model of public services, the co-ops were price controlled until 1973 and subsidised until 1990, gradually being built up before being exposed to market forces.

By contrast, the UK has a much smaller co-op sector. Often associated with radical and alternative politics, some of these schemes are truly inspirational but need scaling up. Giroscope, a worker co-operative started by radicals in Hull pooling their giro cheques, has an impressive record of providing housing and jobs. Starting from nothing, they bought derelict property, renovated it, and then rented it out. It provides housing to people who are excluded from private renting, and provides opportunities to the long-term unemployed and ex-offenders managing the co-op and renovating the stock. In turn, Canopy and Latch in Leeds have been founded along similar lines, and a website, Self-help housing, started up.

Different  and larger models of co-ops are also now being developed. In East London, a scheme which could house 1,000 people through a Community Land Trust was approved in February this year. It is through a combination of Community Land Trusts, Cohousing schemes, traditional co-ops that Britain could address its housing needs.

Nic Bliss, Chair of the Confederation of Co-operative Housing (CCH) says that interest in co-operative housing since the start of the recession has been “considerable”. Interest is coming from people who would have been first time buyers a few years ago, and from those seeking co-operative retirement housing.

The credit crunch and subsequent recession have put traditional home ownership out of reach for many people. In particular, young people are going to find it increasingly difficult to afford buying a house. The Halifax discovered just over a year ago that only 5 per cent of 22 – 45 year olds had the finances to save for buying a house, they termed this new class ‘Generation Rent’.  The previous 30 years of prioritising home ownership has been roundly criticised by the Chartered Institute of Housing who said "The Love Affair of owner-occupation is over", the National Housing Federation, whose CEO said: “We have used it [home ownership] as the policy determinant and that's absolutely wrong", and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation (JRF). The JRF’s research concluded that prioritising on home ownership had resulted in four housing bubbles in 40 years, skyrocketing prices, a rise in social exclusion caused by repossession and arrears, a poor safety net, and insecurity in housing.

What could co-op housing bring to the UK? The Bringing Democracy Home report concludes that the benefits are:

‘a) tenant satisfaction is far higher than any equivalent form of housing

(b) co-ops tend to perform as well as if not better than other housing providers in relation to business criteria

(c) there are considerable social and community benefits in co-operative housing

(d) there are individual benefits for the people involved in co-operative housing.’

Unlike Sweden, the UK is still far behind in providing the type of financial support to develop co-operative housing on a large scale. The Chartered Institute of Housing calculated that home ownership is subsidised by £6bn subsidy through Capital Gains Tax relief. Shared ownership is subsidised by £1.6bn, and housing benefit in private renting was estimated at £7bn. However, that could be about to change.

The Confederation of Co-operative Housing has been working on trying to find ways to generate the elusive finance needed by co-ops. They are currently working with the Homes and Communities Agency to try and raise finance of “between £100m to £250m” for community-led housing projects according to Nic Bliss.

At its best, co-op housing could offer a means to address the housing crisis, tackle unemployment, and balance out the housing market.

 

Housing. Photograph: Getty Images

Samir Jeraj was a Green Party Councillor from 2008-2012. He has an MA in Development Studies from the University of East Anglia and a BA in History with Economics from the University of York. His current focus is writing on issues in private rented housing.

Getty.
Show Hide image

Hannan Fodder: This week, Daniel Hannan gets his excuses in early

I didn't do it. 

Since Daniel Hannan, a formerly obscure MEP, has emerged as the anointed intellectual of the Brexit elite, The Staggers is charting his ascendancy...

When I started this column, there were some nay-sayers talking Britain down by doubting that I was seriously going to write about Daniel Hannan every week. Surely no one could be that obsessed with the activities of one obscure MEP? And surely no politician could say enough ludicrous things to be worthy of such an obsession?

They were wrong, on both counts. Daniel and I are as one on this: Leave and Remain, working hand in glove to deliver on our shared national mission. There’s a lesson there for my fellow Remoaners, I’m sure.

Anyway. It’s week three, and just as I was worrying what I might write this week, Dan has ridden to the rescue by writing not one but two columns making the same argument – using, indeed, many of the exact same phrases (“not a club, but a protection racket”). Like all the most effective political campaigns, Dan has a message of the week.

First up, on Monday, there was this headline, in the conservative American journal, the Washington Examiner:

“Why Brexit should work out for everyone”

And yesterday, there was his column on Conservative Home:

“We will get a good deal – because rational self-interest will overcome the Eurocrats’ fury”

The message of the two columns is straightforward: cooler heads will prevail. Britain wants an amicable separation. The EU needs Britain’s military strength and budget contributions, and both sides want to keep the single market intact.

The Con Home piece makes the further argument that it’s only the Eurocrats who want to be hardline about this. National governments – who have to answer to actual electorates – will be more willing to negotiate.

And so, for all the bluster now, Theresa May and Donald Tusk will be skipping through a meadow, arm in arm, before the year is out.

Before we go any further, I have a confession: I found myself nodding along with some of this. Yes, of course it’s in nobody’s interests to create unnecessary enmity between Britain and the continent. Of course no one will want to crash the economy. Of course.

I’ve been told by friends on the centre-right that Hannan has a compelling, faintly hypnotic quality when he speaks and, in retrospect, this brief moment of finding myself half-agreeing with him scares the living shit out of me. So from this point on, I’d like everyone to keep an eye on me in case I start going weird, and to give me a sharp whack round the back of the head if you ever catch me starting a tweet with the word, “Friends-”.

Anyway. Shortly after reading things, reality began to dawn for me in a way it apparently hasn’t for Daniel Hannan, and I began cataloguing the ways in which his argument is stupid.

Problem number one: Remarkably for a man who’s been in the European Parliament for nearly two decades, he’s misunderstood the EU. He notes that “deeper integration can be more like a religious dogma than a political creed”, but entirely misses the reason for this. For many Europeans, especially those from countries which didn’t have as much fun in the Second World War as Britain did, the EU, for all its myriad flaws, is something to which they feel an emotional attachment: not their country, but not something entirely separate from it either.

Consequently, it’s neither a club, nor a “protection racket”: it’s more akin to a family. A rational and sensible Brexit will be difficult for the exact same reasons that so few divorcing couples rationally agree not to bother wasting money on lawyers: because the very act of leaving feels like a betrayal.

Or, to put it more concisely, courtesy of Buzzfeed’s Marie Le Conte:

Problem number two: even if everyone was to negotiate purely in terms of rational interest, our interests are not the same. The over-riding goal of German policy for decades has been to hold the EU together, even if that creates other problems. (Exhibit A: Greece.) So there’s at least a chance that the German leadership will genuinely see deterring more departures as more important than mutual prosperity or a good relationship with Britain.

And France, whose presidential candidates are lining up to give Britain a kicking, is mysteriously not mentioned anywhere in either of Daniel’s columns, presumably because doing so would undermine his argument.

So – the list of priorities Hannan describes may look rational from a British perspective. Unfortunately, though, the people on the other side of the negotiating table won’t have a British perspective.

Problem number three is this line from the Con Home piece:

“Might it truly be more interested in deterring states from leaving than in promoting the welfare of its peoples? If so, there surely can be no further doubt that we were right to opt out.”

If there any rhetorical technique more skin-crawlingly horrible, than, “Your response to my behaviour justifies my behaviour”?

I could go on, about how there’s no reason to think that Daniel’s relatively gentle vision of Brexit is shared by Nigel Farage, UKIP, or a significant number of those who voted Leave. Or about the polls which show that, far from the EU’s response to the referendum pushing more European nations towards the door, support for the union has actually spiked since the referendum – that Britain has become not a beacon of hope but a cautionary tale.

But I’m running out of words, and there’ll be other chances to explore such things. So instead I’m going to end on this:

Hannan’s argument – that only an irrational Europe would not deliver a good Brexit – is remarkably, parodically self-serving. It allows him to believe that, if Brexit goes horribly wrong, well, it must all be the fault of those inflexible Eurocrats, mustn’t it? It can’t possibly be because Brexit was a bad idea in the first place, or because liberal Leavers used nasty, populist ones to achieve their goals.

Read today, there are elements of Hannan’s columns that are compelling, even persuasive. From the perspective of 2020, I fear, they might simply read like one long explanation of why nothing that has happened since will have been his fault.

Jonn Elledge is the editor of the New Statesman's sister site CityMetric. He is on Twitter, far too much, as @JonnElledge.