Welcome to the New Statesman website. Please sign in or register to participate in the conversation.

The Staggers

The New Statesman’s rolling politics blog

Syndicate contentRSS

The UK housing crisis in numbers

Public spending cuts could put 1.25 million more people on waiting lists for affordable housing

As the two main political parties compete to say who can cut what fastest, the National Housing Federation (NHF) has joined the chorus of voices calling for their sector to be protected. It warned today that the government will fail to meet even half its target of building a million affordable homes by 2020 if the housing budget is not exempted from public spending cuts.

So just what is the story with the housing crisis?

Well, to start at the beginning, the UK has a severe housing shortage. Even during the boom, we were unable to build houses at the rate they were required. The population is swelling because of immigration and higher birth rates, while the number of households is rising even faster than population because more people are living alone and more people have second properties. The government has stated in the past that we would need 240,000 extra houses a year to meet demand. The current rate is just 125,000.

So, in 2007, Gordon Brown pledged to build three million houses by 2020. Of these, one million were to be "affordable" homes. The dearth of low-cost rental properties is the most contentious and worrying aspect of the housing situation. Back in 2007, Jon Cruddas warned that it was "feeding political extremism". Add to this the hardship caused by the recession, and there is a heightened risk of alienating those on lower incomes and pushing voters towards the populist posturing of the far right, which (inaccurately) racialises the housing shortage.

A substantial number of people are affected. There are now a record 4.5 million people on waiting lists for affordable housing. The NHF predicts that a further 1.25 million could find themselves in the same situation if spending cuts go ahead.

The NHF projection is based on cuts indicated in December's pre-Budget report. The Institute for Fiscal Studies estimated that unprotected government departments would face budget cuts of 17.98 per cent. Judging by this figure, the number of affordable homes actually built by 2020 will be 440,000 -- less than half the million planned.

A complicating factor is that the construction industry is always first to be hit in a recession. In fact, the picture looks even bleaker: the NHF estimates that, with these cuts, 278,000 jobs or apprenticeships will either be lost or not be created over the next ten years.

In response to the NHF warning, the housing minister John Healey said:

The Tories not only opposed us, they also proposed a £1bn cut in last year's housing budget that would have seen 9,000 fewer homes built and the loss of many jobs in the construction industry. Taking this as a clear indication of Tory priorities, the NHF would do well to consider the threat a Cameron government would pose to affordable housing.

Attacking the opposition is the default position for both parties in the run-up to the general election, but it is singularly unhelpful here. The tit-for-tat adding of notional numbers to the mix will do nothing to tackle the deepening crisis.

Follow the New Statesman team on Twitter.

Tags: UK Housing Market

2 comments

Jenny Jones's picture

It's not just government funds that look to be drying up.

Developer contributions to affordable housing in London fell from £30.6m in 2006/7 to £27.7m in 2007/8 and £21.3m in 2008/9 – a fall of a third over two years. The proportion of schemes which are funded solely from developer contributions has fallen from 27% to 4%.

As for providing cheaper public land in the city, only 2 hectares were provided for free in 2006/07, with none in 2007/08 and 2008/09. Discounted land dropped from £2.9m in 2006/7 to none in 2008/09.

I published a short report on the housing crisis in London two weeks ago. In it I show that, under a Labour government and Mayor, waiting lists have almost doubled and the cost of buying a home has risen twice as fast as incomes.

http://www.london.gov.uk/assembly/members/jonesj/docs/cominghometoroost.pdf

The story is similar across the country.

As you say, it's about time both Labour and the Conservatives started to talk honestly about the problem, and brought forward solutions more imaginative than pumping inadequate sums of public money into subsidised private housing.

Tom's picture

Another reason for demand is people living longer. Lets not forget the abject failure of the Labour Party in following Conservative policies.

1. Continuing to switch money from building council houses to paying housing benefit. Pumping money into the hands of buy-to-let landlords and later day feudal barons who do no work except collect the rent off the serfs.

2. Carried on with the right to buy, but contniues to refuse to invest the money from sales into new housing, result, there are fewer social houses available now than when Labour came to power. About one million fewer.

3. Reliance on develelopers contribution to avoid sate funding of council houses, although obviously happy to pay £20 billion a yera out in housing benefit to private landlords vs £1 billion in social housing. Before thatcher, 90% of funding went on social housing, 10% on housing benefit. Well done new Labour !

4. Took house price increases out of the prefered inflation figures, so Gordon Brown could witter on about a decade of low inflation, ignoring the obvious point that this was only because house prices weren't included.

5. A culture of greed, second homes, third homes, buy to lets, avoiding capital gains tax, and that's just the Labour MPs. no wonder so many other people followed suit - why invest in industry when the returns on property were so high.

6. Immigration - yes, imigrants weren't taking social housing, but they were competing for privately rented accomodation - driving the price up. Nor is it very effective against the BNP for Labour to say that immigrants haven't taken social housing, it's actually that Lbaour have built fewer units even than Thatcher, Major or any Government since WW1.

Post new comment

By submitting this form, you accept the Mollom privacy policy.

Latest tweets