It's Rental Freedom Day for Londoners. Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Happy Rental Freedom Day! A red letter day for proposing reform

On the day London tenants have earned enough to pay off their annual rental payments, it's time to talk about tenancy reform and building more homes.

Happy Rental Freedom Day! If you're a Londoner on an average income paying the average rent, today's the day you've earned enough to pay off your annual rental payments.

The date falls over a month after the equivalent day for homeowners. London also has the dubious distinction of reaching Rental Freedom Day almost two months later than the rest of the country, with the average UK renter celebrating it on the 12th May.

The median monthly rent in London is now £1,300 according to the Valuation Office Agency, with double digit annual rent inflation not uncommon. Many private renters are paying eye-watering sums for the privilege of living in poor quality properties with bad landlords. Thirty per cent of privately rented homes in London fail the Decent Homes Standard, and complaints against landlords are up 47 per cent since 2008.

London's private rented sector has almost doubled in size since 1991. The proportion of private renters with children increased from 19 per cent to 29 per cent between 2001 and 2011. Yet the laws governing how the sector is run have barely changed since rent controls were abolished in 1989.

Ed Miliband has put forward sensible proposals which will create longer, three year tenancies as standard, with a ceiling on annual rent increases within those contracts. This does not, as some have suggested, represent a return to the kind of rent controls that existed in Britain pre-1989. Anyone who suggests that is either ignorant or being wilfully dishonest. What his proposals represent are a shift to the kind of second generation rent regulation seen in most of our European neighbours.

But high rent is not the only cost facing those living in the private rented sector. Lettings agency fees hit tenants with big upfront costs before they even sign a tenancy agreement. Foxtons charge new tenants £420 as an "administration fee". Felicity J Lord charge £165 per property for a "tenancy agreement", £65 per person "for reference checks", a £60 "admin fee" and a £120 "check-in fee". A constituent that contacted me from the London Borough of Camden was asked by a letting agent to pay £300 just to be added to a tenancy agreement. He was told that this sum would not be refunded even if his references didn't come through.

Labour has proposed banning letting agents from charging upfront fees to tenants. This is the situation in Scotland, where lettings agents can only charge fees to landlords. When I challenged Boris Johnson to support this at Mayor's Question Time on Wednesday he refused to do so, despite agreeing that the kind of fees charged by Foxtons are unacceptable. Once again, the Mayor has chosen to put his faith blindly in the free market rather than support sensible regulation to protect tenants.

Tenancy reform would help to create a more stable private rented sector for tenants, and make the rental market more affordable. But ultimately the real solution to high rents is to build more homes. Despite the Mayor's boasts about his record on housing, London is only building a third of the 62,000 homes we need annually in order to solve our housing crisis. Meanwhile, leaked documents from DCLG show civil servants warning ministers that housebuilding nationally will drop 4 per cent this year despite already being at the lowest peacetime level since the 1920s.

Without reform of the private rented sector, and without a major housebuilding programme, Londoners will be celebrating Rental Freedom Day even later in the coming years.

Tom Copley AM is a Labour London Assembly member

Tom Copley is a Labour member of the London Assembly

Getty
Show Hide image

David Osland: “Corbyn is actually Labour’s only chance”

The veteran Labour activist on the release of his new pamphlet, How to Select or Reselect Your MP, which lays out the current Labour party rules for reselecting an MP.

Veteran left-wing Labour activist David Osland, a member of the national committee of the Labour Representation Committee and a former news editor of left magazine Tribune, has written a pamphlet intended for Labour members, explaining how the process of selecting Labour MPs works.

Published by Spokesman Books next week (advance copies are available at Nottingham’s Five Leaves bookshop), the short guide, entitled “How to Select or Reselect Your MP”, is entertaining and well-written, and its introduction, which goes into reasoning for selecting a new MP and some strategy, as well as its historical appendix, make it interesting reading even for those who are not members of the Labour party. Although I am a constituency Labour party secretary (writing here in an expressly personal capacity), I am still learning the Party’s complex rulebook; I passed this new guide to a local rules-boffin member, who is an avowed Owen Smith supporter, to evaluate whether its description of procedures is accurate. “It’s actually quite a useful pamphlet,” he said, although he had a few minor quibbles.

Osland, who calls himself a “strong, but not uncritical” Corbyn supporter, carefully admonishes readers not to embark on a campaign of mass deselections, but to get involved and active in their local branches, and to think carefully about Labour’s election fortunes; safe seats might be better candidates for a reselection campaign than Labour marginals. After a weak performance by Owen Smith in last night’s Glasgow debate and a call for Jeremy Corbyn to toughen up against opponents by ex Norwich MP Ian Gibson, an old ally, this pamphlet – named after a 1981 work by ex-Tribune editor Chris Mullin, who would later go on to be a junior minister under Blai – seems incredibly timely.

I spoke to Osland on the telephone yesterday.

Why did you decide to put this pamphlet together now?

I think it’s certainly an idea that’s circulating in the Labour left, after the experience with Corbyn as leader, and the reaction of the right. It’s a debate that people have hinted at; people like Rhea Wolfson have said that we need to be having a conversation about it, and I’d like to kickstart that conversation here.

For me personally it’s been a lifelong fascination – I was politically formed in the early Eighties, when mandatory reselection was Bennite orthodoxy and I’ve never personally altered my belief in that. I accept that the situation has changed, so what the Labour left is calling for at the moment, so I see this as a sensible contribution to the debate.

I wonder why selection and reselection are such an important focus? One could ask, isn’t it better to meet with sitting MPs and see if one can persuade them?

I’m not calling for the “deselect this person, deselect that person” rhetoric that you sometimes see on Twitter; you shouldn’t deselect an MP purely because they disagree with Corbyn, in a fair-minded way, but it’s fair to ask what are guys who are found to be be beating their wives or crossing picket lines doing sitting as our MPs? Where Labour MPs publicly have threatened to leave the party, as some have been doing, perhaps they don’t value their Labour involvement.

So to you it’s very much not a broad tool, but a tool to be used a specific way, such as when an MP has engaged in misconduct?

I think you do have to take it case by case. It would be silly to deselect the lot, as some people argue.

In terms of bringing the party to the left, or reforming party democracy, what role do you think reselection plays?

It’s a basic matter of accountability, isn’t it? People are standing as Labour candidates – they should have the confidence and backing of their constituency parties.

Do you think what it means to be a Labour member has changed since Corbyn?

Of course the Labour party has changed in the past year, as anyone who was around in the Blair, Brown, Miliband era will tell you. It’s a completely transformed party.

Will there be a strong reaction to the release of this pamphlet from Corbyn’s opponents?

Because the main aim is to set out the rules as they stand, I don’t see how there can be – if you want to use the rules, this is how to go about it. I explicitly spelled out that it’s a level playing field – if your Corbyn supporting MP doesn’t meet the expectations of the constituency party, then she or he is just as subject to a challenge.

What do you think of the new spate of suspensions and exclusions of some people who have just joined the party, and of other people, including Ronnie Draper, the General Secretary of the Bakers’ Union, who have been around for many years?

It’s clear that the Labour party machinery is playing hardball in this election, right from the start, with the freeze date and in the way they set up the registered supporters scheme, with the £25 buy in – they’re doing everything they can to influence this election unfairly. Whether they will succeed is an open question – they will if they can get away with it.

I’ve been seeing comments on social media from people who seem quite disheartened on the Corbyn side, who feel that there’s a chance that Smith might win through a war of attrition.

Looks like a Corbyn win to me, but the gerrymandering is so extensive that a Smith win isn’t ruled out.

You’ve been in the party for quite a few years, do you think there are echoes of past events, like the push for Bennite candidates and the takeover from Foot by Kinnock?

I was around last time – it was dirty and nasty at times. Despite the narrative being put out by the Labour right that it was all about Militant bully boys and intimidation by the left, my experience as a young Bennite in Tower Hamlets Labour Party, a very old traditional right wing Labour party, the intimidation was going the other way. It was an ugly time – physical threats, people shaping up to each other at meetings. It was nasty. Its nasty in a different way now, in a social media way. Can you compare the two? Some foul things happened in that time – perhaps worse in terms of physical intimidation – but you didn’t have the social media.

There are people who say the Labour Party is poised for a split – here in Plymouth (where we don’t have a Labour MP), I’m seeing comments from both sides that emphasise that after this leadership election we need to unite to fight the Tories. What do you think will happen?

I really hope a split can be avoided, but we’re a long way down the road towards a split. The sheer extent of the bad blood – the fact that the right have been openly talking about it – a number of newspaper articles about them lining up backing from wealthy donors, operating separately as a parliamentary group, then they pretend that butter wouldn’t melt in their mouths, and that they’re not talking about a split. Of course they are. Can we stop the kamikazes from doing what they’re plotting to do? I don’t know, I hope so.

How would we stop them?

We can’t, can we? If they have the financial backing, if they lose this leadership contest, there’s no doubt that some will try. I’m old enough to remember the launch of the SDP, let’s not rule it out happening again.

We’ve talked mostly about the membership. But is Corbynism a strategy to win elections?

With the new electoral registration rules already introduced, the coming boundary changes, and the loss of Scotland thanks to decades of New Labour neglect, it will be uphill struggle for Labour to win in 2020 or whenever the next election is, under any leadership.

I still think Corbyn is Labour’s best chance. Any form of continuity leadership from the past would see the Midlands and north fall to Ukip in the same way Scotland fell to the SNP. Corbyn is actually Labour’s only chance.

Margaret Corvid is a writer, activist and professional dominatrix living in the south west.