Morning Call: pick of the papers

The ten must-read comment pieces from this morning's papers.

1. What would the Age of Ed mean for Britain? Even he doesn’t know (Daily Telegraph)

Events are propelling Miliband towards No 10, but neither he nor his party are ready, argues Fraser Nelson.

2. The John Lewis motto should be 'never knowingly underpay' (Guardian)

Why celebrate the store's business model when its famed generosity doesn't extend to its outsourced and low-paid cleaners, writes Polly Toynbee.

3. The Lib Dems need to be more liberal (Financial Times)

Left libertarianism seems the right way to go for the junior coalition party, says Samuel Brittan.

4. Ignore the slogans. It’s all about leadership (Times) (£)

Three parties, three themes, but only one real question – can the man in charge make his followers back him, writes Philip Collins.

5. Hillsborough shows it's time for elected police commissioners (Guardian)

If the public head of Sheffield police had been accountable to voters we may have avoided the 23 years of cover-ups, argues Simon Jenkins.

6. Looking the American giants in the eye (Daily Telegraph)

A merger between BAE and its European rival EADS could create a defence superpower, writes Michael Clarke.

7. There's a moral case for striking instead of doing nothing (Independent)

For the first time in a generation the radical left has both reason and momentum on its side - we all must act to reject this failing austerity project, says Laurie Penny.

8. Ben Bernanke: flakcatcher-in-chief (Guardian)

Barack Obama's administration are likely to greet the Federal Reserve chief's latest move with a sigh of relief, says a Guardian editorial.

9. The US is becoming a selective superpower (Financial Times)

The country’s global reach will be reduced in a gradual reshaping of the postwar order, writes Philip Stephens.

10. Yes, he may have killed the princes in the Tower, but now we should give our last English king a decent burial (Daily Mail)

There is much that we know of the good he did in a turbulent age, he deserves, with due ceremony, a decent burial, says Simon Heffer.

Photo: Getty Images
Show Hide image

How can Britain become a nation of homeowners?

David Cameron must unlock the spirit of his postwar predecessors to get the housing market back on track. 

In the 1955 election, Anthony Eden described turning Britain into a “property-owning democracy” as his – and by extension, the Conservative Party’s – overarching mission.

60 years later, what’s changed? Then, as now, an Old Etonian sits in Downing Street. Then, as now, Labour are badly riven between left and right, with their last stay in government widely believed – by their activists at least – to have been a disappointment. Then as now, few commentators seriously believe the Tories will be out of power any time soon.

But as for a property-owning democracy? That’s going less well.

When Eden won in 1955, around a third of people owned their own homes. By the time the Conservative government gave way to Harold Wilson in 1964, 42 per cent of households were owner-occupiers.

That kicked off a long period – from the mid-50s right until the fall of the Berlin Wall – in which home ownership increased, before staying roughly flat at 70 per cent of the population from 1991 to 2001.

But over the course of the next decade, for the first time in over a hundred years, the proportion of owner-occupiers went to into reverse. Just 64 percent of households were owner-occupier in 2011. No-one seriously believes that number will have gone anywhere other than down by the time of the next census in 2021. Most troublingly, in London – which, for the most part, gives us a fairly accurate idea of what the demographics of Britain as a whole will be in 30 years’ time – more than half of households are now renters.

What’s gone wrong?

In short, property prices have shot out of reach of increasing numbers of people. The British housing market increasingly gets a failing grade at “Social Contract 101”: could someone, without a backstop of parental or family capital, entering the workforce today, working full-time, seriously hope to retire in 50 years in their own home with their mortgage paid off?

It’s useful to compare and contrast the policy levers of those two Old Etonians, Eden and Cameron. Cameron, so far, has favoured demand-side solutions: Help to Buy and the new Help to Buy ISA.

To take the second, newer of those two policy innovations first: the Help to Buy ISA. Does it work?

Well, if you are a pre-existing saver – you can’t use the Help to Buy ISA for another tax year. And you have to stop putting money into any existing ISAs. So anyone putting a little aside at the moment – not going to feel the benefit of a Help to Buy ISA.

And anyone solely reliant on a Help to Buy ISA – the most you can benefit from, if you are single, it is an extra three grand from the government. This is not going to shift any houses any time soon.

What it is is a bung for the only working-age demographic to have done well out of the Coalition: dual-earner couples with no children earning above average income.

What about Help to Buy itself? At the margins, Help to Buy is helping some people achieve completions – while driving up the big disincentive to home ownership in the shape of prices – and creating sub-prime style risks for the taxpayer in future.

Eden, in contrast, preferred supply-side policies: his government, like every peacetime government from Baldwin until Thatcher’s it was a housebuilding government.

Why are house prices so high? Because there aren’t enough of them. The sector is over-regulated, underprovided, there isn’t enough housing either for social lets or for buyers. And until today’s Conservatives rediscover the spirit of Eden, that is unlikely to change.

I was at a Conservative party fringe (I was on the far left, both in terms of seating and politics).This is what I said, minus the ums, the ahs, and the moment my screensaver kicked in.

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