Selling expensive council houses can't accommodate the future

"What might be an appropriate tactical response in some cases could not be considered to be a comprehensive strategic solution."

According to the latest government figures, the number of households in England is expected to grow by 232,000 per year over the next twenty years. Last year, we completed just 109,000 homes, with rates falling again in the first quarter of 2012. How can we bridge this gap and what combination of tenures would best meet the needs of the population? With the economy in double-dip recession and access to mortgages constrained, most of these homes need to be for rent, although an element of housing for sale, possibly using a rent now, buy later model, would help to ensure more balanced communities.

A recent Policy Exchange report proposes that the volume of affordable housing could be increased by at least 80,000 homes per year by selling off social housing properties in high-value areas and replacing them with new homes in low-value areas. This might be an appropriate tactical response in some cases but could not be considered to be a comprehensive strategic solution to providing sufficient affordable homes.

There are a few difficulties with the Policy Exchange approach.

Firstly, it is a reactive approach that can only come into play once a home becomes vacant, so it is difficult to plan a new development when the timing of the cashflow to fund it is so uncertain. Inevitably, there would be a delay with fewer affordable homes available, before the new homes could be constructed.

Secondly, over the long term, we risk denuding high-value areas of all affordable housing, pushing families on lower incomes away from their places of work, reducing their disposable income and putting additional pressure on the transport system. It would also create greater pressure on public services in low-value areas. Having said that, many social landlords are making judgements about the appropriateness of their existing stock as they become empty, so this approach is already in place in some areas. Alternatively the homes may be retained by the landlord but let at 80 per cent of the market rent, which would generate a better income stream for the landlord while retaining the housing mix in the area.

The efforts of the coalition government to encourage house building, by streamlining the planning system and giving some support to stalled schemes, have failed because they are largely relying on the private developers to deliver the increase and they will only build where they can make a profit, difficult when first-time buyers find it so difficult to access mortgage finance. There are few private companies undertaking development for rent so this is a gap in the market that social landlords could exploit, at the same time as making a significant contribution towards bridging the gap between the number of new homes and new households.

Housing associations have access to relatively cheap finance, they have established development teams who know their areas and have good relationships with local councils, and they have the scale and housing management expertise to manage a large portfolio of rented stock efficiently. Under the current Affordable Homes Programme, most new affordable housing is being let at 80 per cent of market rent, well above social housing rent levels in most areas. This model requires relatively little capital subsidy (in many cases, none) but the higher rent levels are increasing the housing benefit bill for households on low incomes. Indeed the properties in high-value areas could be relet at market or sub-market rates and the cashflows from these used to support borrowing to build more homes.

Using their scale, financial strength and community knowledge, housing associations should be able to increase the volume of new rented housing without subsidy, while still being able to let at rents a little below the market rent level. These should be secure homes in which families could remain long-term without the fear of being pushed out at the end of a fixed-term tenancy introduced under the current regime. There would also be no requirement to means test the tenant population to identify the high earners who would be paying higher rents under the proposed “pay to stay” policy.

The government has begun to recognise that increasing the rate of house-building would also have a significantly positive effect on the economy, reducing unemployment and largely sourcing materials from within the country. An announcement is expected soon that the government will guarantee housing association loans, enabling them to further reduce the cost of capital and thus their costs of development. This is an opportunity to scale up the delivery of new homes for rent well above the level envisaged in the Policy Exchange report.

A man walks in late afternoon sunshine on the Heygate housing estate near Elephant and Castle on February 11, 2010 in London, England. Photograph: Getty Images

Chris Mansfield is a managing consultant at Hargreaves Risk and Strategy, a consultancy working in the housing association sector.

Photo: Getty Images/AFP
Show Hide image

Is Yvette Cooper surging?

The bookmakers and Westminster are in a flurry. Is Yvette Cooper going to win after all? I'm not convinced. 

Is Yvette Cooper surging? The bookmakers have cut her odds, making her the second favourite after Jeremy Corbyn, and Westminster – and Labour more generally – is abuzz with chatter that it will be her, not Corbyn, who becomes leader on September 12. Are they right? A couple of thoughts:

I wouldn’t trust the bookmakers’ odds as far as I could throw them

When Jeremy Corbyn first entered the race his odds were at 100 to 1. When he secured the endorsement of Unite, Britain’s trade union, his odds were tied with Liz Kendall, who nobody – not even her closest allies – now believes will win the Labour leadership. When I first tipped the Islington North MP for the top job, his odds were still at 3 to 1.

Remember bookmakers aren’t trying to predict the future, they’re trying to turn a profit. (As are experienced betters – when Cooper’s odds were long, it was good sense to chuck some money on there, just to secure a win-win scenario. I wouldn’t be surprised if Burnham’s odds improve a bit as some people hedge for a surprise win for the shadow health secretary, too.)

I still don’t think that there is a plausible path to victory for Yvette Cooper

There is a lively debate playing out – much of it in on The Staggers – about which one of Cooper or Burnham is best-placed to stop Corbyn. Team Cooper say that their data shows that their candidate is the one to stop Corbyn. Team Burnham, unsurprisingly, say the reverse. But Team Kendall, the mayoral campaigns, and the Corbyn team also believe that it is Burnham, not Cooper, who can stop Corbyn.

They think that the shadow health secretary is a “bad bank”: full of second preferences for Corbyn. One senior Blairite, who loathes Burnham with a passion, told me that “only Andy can stop Corbyn, it’s as simple as that”.

I haven’t seen a complete breakdown of every CLP nomination – but I have seen around 40, and they support that argument. Luke Akehurst, a cheerleader for Cooper, published figures that support the “bad bank” theory as well.   Both YouGov polls show a larger pool of Corbyn second preferences among Burnham’s votes than Cooper’s.

But it doesn’t matter, because Andy Burnham can’t make the final round anyway

The “bad bank” row, while souring relations between Burnhamettes and Cooperinos even further, is interesting but academic.  Either Jeremy Corbyn will win outright or he will face Cooper in the final round. If Liz Kendall is eliminated, her second preferences will go to Cooper by an overwhelming margin.

Yes, large numbers of Kendall-supporting MPs are throwing their weight behind Burnham. But Kendall’s supporters are overwhelmingly giving their second preferences to Cooper regardless. My estimate, from both looking at CLP nominations and speaking to party members, is that around 80 to 90 per cent of Kendall’s second preferences will go to Cooper. Burnham’s gaffes – his “when it’s time” remark about Labour having a woman leader, that he appears to have a clapometer instead of a moral compass – have discredited him in him the eyes of many. While Burnham has shrunk, Cooper has grown. And for others, who can’t distinguish between Burnham and Cooper, they’d prefer to have “a crap woman rather than another crap man” in the words of one.

This holds even for Kendall backers who believe that Burnham is a bad bank. A repeated refrain from her supporters is that they simply couldn’t bring themselves to give Burnham their 2nd preference over Cooper. One senior insider, who has been telling his friends that they have to opt for Burnham over Cooper, told me that “faced with my own paper, I can’t vote for that man”.

Interventions from past leaders fall on deaf ears

A lot has happened to change the Labour party in recent years, but one often neglected aspect is this: the Labour right has lost two elections on the bounce. Yes, Ed Miliband may have rejected most of New Labour’s legacy and approach, but he was still a protégé of Gordon Brown and included figures like Rachel Reeves, Ed Balls and Jim Murphy in his shadow cabinet.  Yvette Cooper and Andy Burnham were senior figures during both defeats. And the same MPs who are now warning that Corbyn will doom the Labour Party to defeat were, just months ago, saying that Miliband was destined for Downing Street and only five years ago were saying that Gordon Brown was going to stay there.

Labour members don’t trust the press

A sizeable number of Labour party activists believe that the media is against them and will always have it in for them. They are not listening to articles about Jeremy Corbyn’s past associations or reading analyses of why Labour lost. Those big, gamechanging moments in the last month? Didn’t change anything.

100,000 people didn’t join the Labour party on deadline day to vote against Jeremy Corbyn

On the last day of registration, so many people tried to register to vote in the Labour leadership election that they broke the website. They weren’t doing so on the off-chance that the day after, Yvette Cooper would deliver the speech of her life. Yes, some of those sign-ups were duplicates, and 3,000 of them have been “purged”.  That still leaves an overwhelmingly large number of sign-ups who are going to go for Corbyn.

It doesn’t look as if anyone is turning off Corbyn

Yes, Sky News’ self-selecting poll is not representative of anything other than enthusiasm. But, equally, if Yvette Cooper is really going to beat Jeremy Corbyn, surely, surely, she wouldn’t be in third place behind Liz Kendall according to Sky’s post-debate poll. Surely she wouldn’t have been the winner according to just 6.1 per cent of viewers against Corbyn’s 80.7 per cent. 

Stephen Bush is editor of the Staggers, the New Statesman’s political blog.