The long-term problem for "generation rent"

We need to stop relying on home-ownership as the only way to build wealth if we're to have an adequa

It's been a bad few weeks for social care. First the faltering of Southern Cross, then Panorama's revelations about abuse at residential homes. Now, the Equalities and Human Rights Commission reveals shocking levels of neglect among older people cared for at home.

Coming on top of a set of daunting demographic trends, it all means Andrew Dilnot's review of social care funding - due out in early July - could not be more timely. As things stand, Dilnot's proposals don't offer the sustainable solution they claim to. That's because they're based on an assumption of home ownership that's becoming obsolete for many ordinary families.

One of Dilnot's central recommendations is expected to be that individuals should pay for their own social care up to a lifetime cap of around £50,000. After that, the government will step in to insure people against catastrophic costs. Analysis by researchers at the University of Kent estimates average lifetime costs for residential and community-based social care at around £18,650 for men and £41,350 for women. In other words, in most cases, government won't be called on at all. As in the current social care system, under Dilnot, most people will pay for the care they need themselves.

Because few people have ready access to £50,000 in savings, Dilnot's recommendation is predicated on people releasing equity from their homes. On the upside, this means people can stay in their own home into old age while making use of their house as an asset and relieving the government of some expense. As today's asset-rich baby boomer generation nears retirement, that all seems sensible. The question is: how many of the old in future generations will have a home to draw on?

Far fewer than today. One million new households have become renters since 2005. That brings the total number of households in the private rented sector to nearly 3.5m. Although most older people on low-to-middle incomes still their own home, the percentage under 35 who are renting has tripled since 1998.

No-one can predict what will happen to house prices in the long term, but trends like these make it is possible that we are at the beginning of a major shift away from home ownership. In line with other European economies, long-term renting could become far more common. That poses a major problem for a care policy premised on equity-release from a home.

Housing is only one type of asset that people could use to pay for their social care. Other assets, from pensions to savings, could do the same job. Today, few ordinary families have much in the way of these non-physical assets. In 2008, just over a quarter of people on low-to-middle incomes reported having a pension. Less than half made regular monthly savings. For those who did, the average amount saved was less than £200 a month.

As a proud, property-owning democracy, we've come to rely on home-ownership as the way to build wealth. We've backed that up with a tax system that treats housing more favourably than other kinds of assets. But if current trends in the housing market continue, the gap between home owners and long-term renters will affect far more than the housing market. If something isn't done to boost other forms of asset-ownership, it could also bring down the social care financing system that we're about to put in place.

 

Vidhya Alakeson is Director of Research at the Resolution Foundation

Vidhya Alakeson is deputy chief executive of the Resolution Foundation

BBC screengrab
Show Hide image

Owen Smith is naïve if he thinks misogynist abuse in Labour started with Jeremy Corbyn

“We didn’t have this sort of abuse before Jeremy Corbyn became the leader.”

Owen Smith, the MP challenging Jeremy Corbyn in the Labour leadership contest, has told BBC News that the party’s nastier side is a result of its leader.

He said:

“I think Jeremy should take a little more responsibility for what’s going on in the Labour party. After all, we didn’t have this sort of abuse and intolerance, misogyny, antisemitism in the Labour party before Jeremy Corbyn became the leader.

“It’s now become something that is being talked about on television, on radio, and in newspapers. And Angela is right, it has been effectively licenced within the last nine months.

“We’re the Labour party. We’ve got to be about fairness, and tolerance, and equality. It’s in our DNA. So for us to be reduced to this infighting is awful. Now, I understand why people feel passionately about the future of our party – I feel passionately about that. I feel we’re in danger of splitting and being destroyed.

“But we can’t tolerate it. And it isn’t good enough for Jeremy simply to say he has threats too. Well, I’ve had death threats, I’ve had threats too, but I’m telling him, it’s got to be stamped out. We’ve got to have zero tolerance of this in the Labour party.”

While Smith’s conclusion is correct, his analysis is worryingly wrong.

Whether it is out of incompetence or an unwillingness to see the extent of the situation, Corbyn has done very little to stamp out abuse in his party, which has thus been allowed to escalate. It is fair enough of Smith to criticise him for his failure to stem the flow and punish the perpetrators.

It is also reasonable to condemn Corbyn's inability to stop allies like Chancellor John McDonnell and Unite leader Len McCluskey using violent language (“lynch mob”, “fucking useless”, etc) about their opponents, which feeds into the aggressive atmosphere. Though, as I’ve written before, Labour politicians on all sides have a duty to watch their words.

But it’s when we see how Smith came to the point of urging Corbyn to take more responsibility that we should worry. Smith confidently argues that there wasn’t “this sort of abuse and intolerance, misogyny, antisemitism” in the party before Corbyn was voted in. (I assume when he says “this sort”, he means online, death threats, letters, and abuse at protests. The sort that has been high-profile recently).

This is naïve. Anyone involved in Labour politics – or anything close to it – for longer than Corbyn’s leadership could tell Smith that misogyny and antisemitism have been around for a pretty long time. Perhaps because Smith isn’t the prime target, he hasn’t been paying close enough attention. Sexism wasn’t just invented nine months ago, and we shouldn’t let the belief set in that it did – then it simply becomes a useful tool for Corbyn’s detractors to bash him with, rather than a longstanding, structural problem to solve.

Smith's lament that “it’s now become something that is being talked about” is also jarring. Isnt it a good thing that such abuse is now being called out so publicly, and closely scrutinised by the media?

In my eyes, this is a bit like the argument that Corbyn has lost Labour’s heartlands. No, he hasn’t. They have been slowly slipping away for years – and we all noticed when Labour took a beating in the last general election (way before Corbyn had anything to do with the Labour leadership). As with the abuse, Corbyn hasn’t done much to address this, and his inaction has therefore exacerbated it. But if we tell ourselves that it started with him, then we’re grasping for a very, very simple solution (remove Corbyn = automatic win in the North, and immediate erasure of misogyny and antisemitism) to a problem we have catastrophically failed to analyse.

Anoosh Chakelian is deputy web editor at the New Statesman.